« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Time: In Alabama, Prosecutors Chased Dem Ex-Gov, Ignored Allegations against GOPers
Substantive new evidence makes it look even more likely that politics played a role in the decision to prosecute Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) on corruption charges.
Siegelman supporters have long claimed that Siegelman was targeted for being a successful Democrat in a largely Republican state.
According to documents obtained by Time, in 2002 a lobbyist and trash dump developer named Lanny Young told investigators, including representatives from the local US attorney's office, the Justice Department's public integrity unit and the Republican attorney general's office, that he'd given illegal gifts and contributions to Siegelman and a number of other powerful Alabama politicians. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Session's successor as attorney general and now federal judge William Pryor (R) were named.
One of Young's contracts with the state triggered the Siegelman investigation. Siegelman was acquitted on 25 of 32 counts, with about half of the charges stemming from Young's testimony.
Notably, none of the Republicans named by Young were ever investigated, reports Time's Adam Zagorin, let alone prosecuted. Zagorin also points out that "several of the lawyers involved in the Siegelman investigation were from Pryor's office and had worked for Sessions as well when he held the post." But instead of raising any issue of a possible conflict of interest, the investigators "chose not to recuse themselves but to simply ignore the allegations."
The documents obtained by Time are a sensitive portion of materials requested by the House Judiciary Committee -- but which have been so far withheld by the Department of Justice.
According to Time, Young described a specific scheme involving Sessions that was never pursued:
Early in the investigation, in November 2001, Young announced that five years earlier, he "personally provided Sessions with cash campaign contributions," according to an FBI memo of the interview. Prosecutors didn't follow up that surprising statement with questions, but Young volunteered more. The memo adds that "on one occasion he [Young] provided Session [sic] with $5,000 to $7,000 using two intermediaries," one of whom held a senior position with Sessions' campaign. On another occasion, the FBI records show, Young talked about providing "$10,000 to $15,000 to Session [sic]. Young had his secretaries and friends write checks to the Sessions campaign and Young reimbursed the secretaries and friends for their contributions."If true, Young's statements describe political money laundering that would be a clear violation of federal law.
Young also claimed he donated some $12,000 to $15,000 to Pryor's attorney general campaign.
According to Young, a top official on Pryor's campaign "would call and say, 'I need money for this, this or this,'" and Young would take care of the request.
And what was Pryor's (now a federal judge) response to the accusation?
"I do not have a recollection of the amounts that you describe as having been contributed by Lanny Young or his associates to my campaign," Pryor wrote in an e-mail to TIME.
Comments (23)
Leta wrote on October 4, 2007 11:38 AM:Let me guess...a strong letter from Leahy? Jesus H. Christ
Ellen wrote on October 4, 2007 11:39 AM:""I do not have a recollection of the amounts that you describe as having been contributed by Lanny Young or his associates to my campaign," Pryor wrote in an e-mail to TIME."
Classic non-denial. He remembers the amounts not as $20, but as $19.99.
Unfortunately, I suspect that regardless of how bad these goons have been, Reid and Pelosi will just say, "Bygones."
numi wrote on October 4, 2007 11:46 AM:Ain't Republicanism grand? Corruption for me, but not for thee.
chisholm wrote on October 4, 2007 11:53 AM:I'm not clear on this---did Time get hold of the documents that the DoJ refuses to give to Congress?
billjpa wrote on October 4, 2007 11:53 AM:So much to check- so little time!
chisholm wrote on October 4, 2007 11:56 AM:Maybe the creation of an office just to attempt to examine all of the gop corruption!
It appears to be endless.
Oh, and yes Leta, I agree: this will go absolutely nowhere.
Clavis wrote on October 4, 2007 12:08 PM:What do you expect from Republicanites?
Anybody who's ever read creationist literature or heard a creationist debate knows that zealots like these people will lie to your face and tell proven falsehoods and use flawed logic *if* they think it will help them win over the audience or reframe the debate.
That's the same thing the Republicans have been doing since at least Newt and Luntz wrote the "Contract on America". They're using tactics that are utterly shameless and evil, but which work in an environment and a culture that votes based on emotion rather than reason.
Our traditional methods of fighting this evil have not worked. The media is part of the problem. We need to cut the Gordian Knot. I just don't know what kind of knife we need to use.
Juble wrote on October 4, 2007 12:22 PM:Hey Sen Leahy! still busy condeming MoveOn's ad to look at real at the corruption in our judiciary ?
Doofus wrote on October 4, 2007 12:22 PM:The Dems will probe and dig and dig and probe until they get to the bottom of this, and then they'll swiftly and ruthlessly mete out justice. Or not.
ineedalife wrote on October 4, 2007 1:01 PM:So when does the Statute of Limitations run out on these alleged crimes? If a Dem wins the WH can Sessions and Pryor be prosecuted then? I bet Mr. Young's memory will become bit cloudy by then, if he is still breathing.
moondancer wrote on October 4, 2007 1:20 PM:Too bad. This is the story that could have put Rove in jail. I had such hopes.
letigre wrote on October 4, 2007 1:24 PM:Look out!!!!!!!! You might get into trouble!!! OH WAIT, THATS RIGHT THE DEMS ARE IN CHARGE!!! YOU LUCKY DOGS!!!
Kalkaino wrote on October 4, 2007 1:33 PM:CONGRATS!!!!!!
The time article errs by accepting a key lie by the US Attorney Leura Canary -- that is that she recused herself from the case. She certainly represented that she had done so to the court, but did not officially, or in fact, recuse. She merely made the people who reported to her, whose checks she signed and evaluations she did, the front-people on the matter.
The full story is available in Scott Horton's excellent series:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001209
dkm wrote on October 4, 2007 2:13 PM:Concerning Mr. Pryor's memory and his methods of collecting campaign funds is Jon Stewart's recent interview with Chris Matthews about the moral uprightness of Mr. Matthews' self-help book in which he advocates the same principles as an Italian gentleman (Niccolo Machiavelli) did in his book (The Prince) almost 500 years ago. It says a lot about how much progress we have made in our ability to relate to each other in the last 5 centuries.
Duckman GR wrote on October 4, 2007 2:14 PM:So what were the charges against Siegelman? You keep saying that the probe was politically motivated and you talk about how they dropped or failed to go after Snakey Sessions and that execrable Pryor, but you never talk about what Siegelman did or did not do, or what was alleged to have been done to him.
If we’re going to challenge this case as being politically motivated we need to know if there is any substance to the charges. Or were they just made up entirely?
I need some specifics before walking the plank for a Dem who may be corrupt in a nest of corrupt pols. Just because he was the only one prosecuted because of his party doesn’t mean that he isn’t just as guilty. Then the solution is to add Sessions and Pryor to the prosecution, or if Siegelman was falsely charged, then to prosecute Sessions and Pryor and exonerate Siegelman.
But we need some supporting facts from his end of the prosecution.
anon wrote on October 4, 2007 3:23 PM:Has _anyone_ taken a look at Eddie Curran, the Mobile Register reporter who wrote a zillion articles about Siegelman and was cited by the USAs office as the spark for the Siegelman prosecutions.
Scott Horton and the guy who runs Legal Schnauzer, the somewhat confused blog mostly about DoJ corruption in AL (http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/, oh, and check out Curran's psycho comments on that blog) have mentioned him but has anyone taken a hard look? His house, apparently, was renovated/enlarged in the middle of the Siegelman prosecution and it certainly looks like he was the main newspaper laundry man for the DoJ in AL. He reported all kinds of things that could have only come from the grand jury and/or the prosecutor's office. And, like the DoJ, he's ignored in-your-face GOP corruption. (Yes, he's reported on some GOP corruption during his career but viewed from any distance, most of that work looks like CYA stuff, at best.) Oh, and Curran infamously got drunk with various AL GOP honchos and ended up in a shouting match with Dems. It was a strange episode and seemed to show that Curran was totally in bed with the GOP. The Register ran an "investigation" of the incident and concluded, of course, that nothing was amiss.
Anyway, I'm sure the Muckrakers are very busy with Iraq contractor corruption but, IMO, the Siegelman story really deserves to be untangled and Curran's part of the story.
Anonymous wrote on October 4, 2007 8:42 PM:The Dems should pass a law waiving the statute of limitations and then have an outside US Attorney go after Sessions and Pryor or else appoint a special prosecutor a la Patrick Fitzgerald.
The whole Alabama US Attorney's office needs to be cleaned out. ASAP, yesterday, not even post-Mukasey appointment.
Please follow up TPMm! What else can the Dems do to remedy this apparently pretty f'ing massive miscarriage of justice? It cannot continue to go uninvestigated!
The Conservative Deflator wrote on October 4, 2007 10:46 PM:I don't think he had a wide enough stance!
shpilk wrote on October 5, 2007 12:13 AM:Mr Young needs a food taster and someone needs to check the brakes on his pickup.
"Jus' sayin'."
Anonymous wrote on October 5, 2007 8:21 PM:Sessions, another one of those red neck radical right winger, is he resigning yet?
Bill wrote on October 7, 2007 12:41 PM:Isn't Pryor one of those Bush Judicial nominees that couldn't get to the Up Down vote on his nomination? I recall that the GOP was furious about not getting an Up or Down vote on him. If he's the one, now I know why.
JW wrote on October 9, 2007 2:51 AM:Remember when 60 Minutes would have investigated this story 3 months ago?
JW wrote on October 9, 2007 2:53 AM:Remember the days when 60 Minutes would have investigated this story 3 months ago?