Comments (19)

coltergeist wrote on August 30, 2007 11:08 AM:

This is fascism.

Totally preposterous. Obstruction of justice is preventing justice from being furthered. Justice has already been “done.” What is there to obstruct? By this standard, no convicted criminal can appeal his verdict or complain out loud about it without “obstructing justice.”

Not only can you not cross the reThuglicans, you cannot even harbor ill thoughts about them. Behold the thought police are here.

coltergeist wrote on August 30, 2007 11:09 AM:

This is fascism.

Totally preposterous. Obstruction of justice is preventing justice from being furthered. Justice has already been “done.” What is there to obstruct? By this standard, no convicted criminal can appeal his verdict or complain out loud about it without “obstructing justice.”

Not only can you not cross the reThuglicans, you cannot even harbor ill thoughts about them. Behold the thought police are here.

Slim Pickins wrote on August 30, 2007 11:12 AM:

I've never ever heard of a prosecutor making this type of accusation. Is he worried about his case? Does he not have the evidence? Why would he give a damn what Seigelman is doing if the charges are solid and backed by evidence that corroborates them?

I'm no fan of Seigelman, but his defense clearly an example of "why one should not politicize the DOJ" not "obstruction of Justice" - that prosecutor is either a moron, or there's something fishy here.

Jane wrote on August 30, 2007 11:18 AM:

Just what is it that Feaga finds embarassing?

OneCrankyDem wrote on August 30, 2007 11:20 AM:

Only under the Bush admin. could putting on a Defense be considered Obstructing Justice. Every time I think nothing Bush could do would surprise me, they top it it again.

With a hearing be called for in Congress hopefully the Justice we see is Gonzo and crew all caught up in this and the time for this crime added to the pile.

bob wrote on August 30, 2007 11:28 AM:

Not even remotely illegal, unless there are some other serious allegations different in kind from what we've heard so far. If not, the AUSA should be seriously embarrassed.

He basically referenced the public record by saying that it should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Well, complaining loudly and trying to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings is hardly obstruction of justice.

Patrick wrote on August 30, 2007 11:33 AM:

This is not new ... how quickly the collective amnesia enshrouds TPM'ers. This is the same argument federal prosecutors used against Martha Stewart when she attempted to proclaim her innocence. As an attorney I've always tried to stress to my friends and family that you never want to get caught up in the U.S. criminal justice (oxymoron) system. Every time a prosecutor loses a case his ex-prosecutor buddies in the state and federal legislatures change the rules of evidence to make it easier to make preposterous arguments like this one.

Whew, glad I got that off my chest.

luvcarol90 wrote on August 30, 2007 11:59 AM:

You bet there's shenanigans goin' on, and it has implications with regards to the ongoing Abramoff debacle

luvcarol90 wrote on August 30, 2007 12:02 PM:

You bet there are shenanigans going on--a smoke screen to divert attention from more Abramoff stink.

flotron9 wrote on August 30, 2007 12:16 PM:

It's take back the media, local governments, and the Pentagon.

The local media has to report the news to the people.

We can't trust "the powerful" to administer society or justice.

Mellors wrote on August 30, 2007 12:19 PM:

Horton at Harper's has been doing an amazing thorough job in covering this in depth. That is the place to read about this.

Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 1:01 PM:

"Steve Feaga said Siegelman and Scrushy had been doing things from behind bars to "manipulate events" - acts that could be considered a crime. "

Ouch. The language: "doing things from behind bars", "manipulate events". "acts that could be considered a crime" - only in Alice's Wonderland.

sc: canvas. Paint your nemesis by numbers.

unclesmedley wrote on August 30, 2007 1:12 PM:

It sounds as though the prosecutor was having a rather easy go of things and expected the matter to neatly resolve itself as arranged. This thinking--a strained expansion of Learned Hand's "ham sandwich" axiom--is the fundamental flaw in the whole Rovian strategy.

So long as the USA's were carefully managed, and their actions were carefully choreographed from behind the scenes (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!), the outcomes were reasonably assured.

However, as the manipulators (I.e., Rove, Meyers, Gonzales, Libby, et al.) have either abandoned ship or been thrown overboard, many of the underqualified automatons at DOJ, who once thought of themselves as gifted legal minds, have become abandoned accomplices--bereft, beset, befuddled and beleagured.

The argument against Seigelman's unexpectedly strenuous efforts to extricate himself is essentially "Hey! No Fair! This was not part of the plan!"

Xenos wrote on August 30, 2007 1:12 PM:

Accusing the prosecutor of having Nifonged you is hardly obstruction. As per Thom Hartman, this is the investigation that is driving Gonzales and Rove out of the administration. If so we should not be surprised that Feaga is freaking out. Feaga could be looking at criminal charges himself, if this is true.

moondancer wrote on August 30, 2007 1:46 PM:

Good point, Xenos. I've been looking for the real reason for rove/fredo timing and this increasingly looks like it.
Feagas' behavior seems a little self-destructive. While there is a lot yet to come out, this seems to have legs.

parrot wrote on August 30, 2007 1:59 PM:

Hmm. I wonder who it is who is obstructing justice and perhaps bringing selective prosecutions in violation of their Constitutional oaths of office? Yes, we are very curious as to who is violating their oaths to uphold justice...

JNagarya wrote on August 30, 2007 4:12 PM:

This is not new ... how quickly the collective amnesia enshrouds TPM'ers. This is the same argument federal prosecutors used against Martha Stewart when she attempted to proclaim her innocence. As an attorney I've always tried to stress to my friends and family that you never want to get caught up in the U.S. criminal justice (oxymoron) system. Every time a prosecutor loses a case his ex-prosecutor buddies in the state and federal legislatures change the rules of evidence to make it easier to make preposterous arguments like this one.

Whew, glad I got that off my chest.

Posted by: Patrick
Date: August 30, 2007 11:33 AM

Appears to me there is movement afoot to obtain a gag order against Siegelman for having the gall -- should I mention the right? -- to exercise his inalienable First Amendment rights.

TEL wrote on August 30, 2007 4:56 PM:

Is this the same prosecutor who tried to get Siegelman sentenced on a charge for which he was aquitted?

dhs wrote on August 30, 2007 10:46 PM:

"Siegelman, of course, has been arguing that the Republican U.S. attorney, at the prodding of Karl Rove, went to extraordinary lengths to secure a conviction against him, a popular Democratic former governor."

This claim may well have legs. Amy Goodman, on Democracy Now, interviewed Scott Holden, Law professor at Columbia University, in depth on 8/24/07. Holden has been following this case, as well as the USAG firings in detail for some time. His comments on the show go directly to Karl Rove's involvment very early on. This could be big. The House Judiciary Committee is already investigating the case.

TPM followed the Siegelman case in some detail awhile back. Given their success in pursuing the US Attorney firings, it would be welcome if they would pick up this story again.

Incidentally, it seems to me that it was somewhat misleading to focus on whether the US Attorney firings were politically motivated. There is substantial evidence to suggest that they in some cases amounted to obstruction of justice, especially in the firing of Carol Lam.