It's deja vu all over again.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) says that if Karl Rove won't agree to testify before his committee about his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), then he'll be forced to consider issuing a subpoena. You can read his letter to Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin below.

In response to Conyers' initial request for Rove to testify, Luskin offered to have Rove speak to the committee behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath -- the same offer administration lawyers made to Congress in the U.S. attorney firings investigation. And you know where that went: the House is currently suing to enforce those subpoenas after finding former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.

Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of that investigation and refused to show up to testify. That committee subsequently voted to find him in contempt, but the full Senate never voted on the citation.

Read more »

Oh, man, the House Judiciary Committee must be feeling pretty stupid right now.

Yesterday, the committee followed up on a comment that Karl Rove's lawyer had made to MSNBC, that Rove would welcome the chance to testify to Congress about his role (or lack of one, he says) in siccing Justice Department prosecutors on Don Siegelman.

But it turns out, not so much (sub. req.):

[I]n an interview with Roll Call, [Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin] said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.

"Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide," but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.

That ongoing negotiation, you might remember, is not going so well, since the House has gone to court in an attempt to enforce subpoenas issued last year as part of the U.S. attorney firings probe.

Note: For readers objecting to our spelling of sike, I refer you to the discussion in the comments section to an earlier post.

Sure, Karl Rove would looooove to testify to Congress about his role in the Don Siegelman prosecution, his lawyer told MSNBC. So the House Judiciary Committee is following up. From the AP:

The House Judiciary Committee is taking Karl Rove up on an offer to testify about claims that he influenced a federal corruption case against former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama.

The committee on Thursday asked former White House adviser Rove to appear under oath soon. The panel also wants the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate allegations that political motivations drove the Siegelman case and several other federal prosecutions during the Bush administration.

Rove has denied any involvement in the Siegelman prosecution. His attorney told MSNBC earlier this month that Rove would testify on the matter.

After spending almost a year in prison, ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), released while his appeal to his conviction progresses, appeared on 60 Minutes last night to give his account of the key facts of his case and issue a challenge to Karl Rove. He also admitted, when asked if the prosecution had managed to destroy his political ambitions, "oh, they've accomplished that, I think."

In February, 60 Minutes reported on what has become known as the textbook example of a political prosecution by the Bush administration's Justice Department.

Nick Bailey, the prosecution's star witness in the case, 60 Minutes reported, had been coached to the point where he had to write his carefully recollected testimony over and over again to make sure he got it right. Bailey, a former Siegelman aide, testified at trial that Siegelman had told him that businessman Richard Scrushy had given him a $250,000 contribution to his state lottery campaign, and that all he wanted for it was an appointment on a state health board.

Last night, Siegelman gave his side -- that Scrushy, who had supported Siegelman's opponent, had given the money at Siegelman's request, that there had been no strings attached, and that Scrushy had not even wanted the spot on the board.

Seigelman also challenged Rove to testify to Congress. Rove has given blanket denials to playing any role in the Siegelman case and lately has taken to bashing 60 Minutes for reporting allegations by Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican Alabama lawyer who's testified to being involved in conversations where Rove's role in the prosecution was discussed. In his latest interview with GQ, Rove called CBS "a shoddy operation."

And there was also this memorable quote from the interview, where Siegelman describes watching February's broadcast of the 60 Minutes segment with his fellow inmates:

"Well immediately people were standing up, sayin', 'You got screwed.' And I'd say, 'Well, you know, I think there were a lot of ya'll that got screwed.' And then, one guy stood up and said, 'No, I was guilty. You got screwed.'"

Siegelman will also be appearing on Dan Abrams' show tonight on MSNBC.

Don Siegelman's first interview out of prison:

Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, released from prison today on bond in a bribery case, said he was as convinced as ever that politics played a leading role in his prosecution.

In a telephone interview shortly after he walked out of a federal prison in Oakdale, La., Mr. Siegelman said there had been “abuse of power” in his case, and repeatedly cited the influence of Karl Rove, the former White House political director.

“His fingerprints are smeared all over the case,” Mr. Siegelman said, a day after a federal appeals court ordered him released on bond and said there were legitimate questions about his case.

Update: Here's video of Siegelman's very brief statement just after leaving prison.

In the wake of yesterday's ruling, Siegelman's out and about. From the AP:

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman was released on bond from a federal prison Friday, saying he remains upbeat despite serving nine months for corruption.

Leaving the prison in a black sport utility vehicle, he stopped on a road outside the lockup to comment. He wore a ragged shirt that appeared to be prison clothing.

"I may have lost my freedom for awhile, but I never lost faith," Siegelman, 62, told reporters.

From The Birmingham News:

Former Gov. Don Siegelman will be released from prison, after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted him an appeal bond, the lead prosecutor in the case said.

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin said he received a courtesy call from the court today. "He's going to be released," Franklin said.

He said he was disappointed but said, "The 11th Circuit has the discretion to do that and I respect that."

Update: I just got off the phone with Hiram Eastland, one of Siegelman's lawyers, who said that today the appeals court had issued a "straightforward" four-page order simply finding that there were, indeed, "substantial questions" raised by Siegelman's appeal. The ruling overruled the controversial finding by the district judge in the case, which had sent Siegelman immediately to prison after his conviction. Eastland said that Siegelman could be released as early as tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest. "We're obviously very gratified that the court gave it that thoughtful consideration," he said. "The governor is coming home!"

Siegelman's release means, obviously, that the House Judiciary Committee won't have to go through the trouble of getting Siegelman released for him to testify.

The House Judiciary Committee will seek to hold a hearing where ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), currently in a federal prison after conviction on bribery charges, will testify before the committee. A spokesperson for the committee told me that the panel has notified the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons of their intent, and that the official request to the Department would be forthcoming. The spokesperson said that the committee was hoping to hold the hearing sometime this spring.

The committee has already held one hearing on Siegelman's case, a hearing that featured one of Siegelman's former defense lawyers, Doug Jones. Jones testified that prosecutors had told him in 2004 after the collapse of one prosecution against Siegelman, that Justice Department officials had ordered them to "take another look at everything." An effort which ultimately resulted in the successful second prosecution -- a prosecution full of holes as 60 Minutes showed in its report last month.

Did CBS Alabama affiliate WHNT just have really rotten luck with its equipment during 60 Minutes' segment on ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D), or did the station actually try to censor the story on Republicans' alleged attempts to use the Justice Department to take out a political opponent?

Michael Copps, a Dem appointee on the Federal Communications Commission, has already begun pushing for an investigation. Chairman Kevin Martin has been noncommittal.

But Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who sits on the Senate Commerce Committee, wants Martin to know that he'll be keeping an eye on things. In a letter to Martin today, he asks that Martin share whatever findings emerge from an investigation, and adds "I will be monitoring this situation closely."

The full letter is below.

Read more »

You remember the awful luck of WHNT, that CBS affiliate in North Alabama; on the night of the broadcast of 60 Minutes' story on Don Siegelman, just during the Siegelman segment, the station's feed went black. After initially blaming CBS for the error, WHNT revised its story and said that it had in fact been a technological problem at the station.

As questions mounted, the station ran the segment again that night (during the Oscars) and then again at 6 o'clock the following day as penance. But for some reason, a number of people seem disinclined to take them at their word. From Reuters:

A U.S. Federal Communications Commission official is seeking an inquiry into the blacking out of a politically charged segment of the CBS News magazine "60 Minutes" by a local television station in Alabama.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he had asked the chairman of the FCC to open an inquiry into the Feb. 24 incident at WHNT, a CBS affiliate in Huntsville, Alabama, in which civil rights footage from the 1960s was blacked out.

"The FCC now needs to find out if something analogous is going on here," Copps said at a luncheon with media watchdog groups. "Was this an attempt to suppress information on the public airwaves, or was it really just a technical problem?"

Copps is one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member FCC. The chairman of the agency, Kevin Martin, is a Republican.

Martin responded by saying he would look into the matter but has not indicated yet whether he would issue a letter of inquiry to the station, a source close to the commission said.

Yesterday we brought you Karl Rove's expansive denial of Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson's testimony to Congress and comments to 60 Minutes.

Simpson responded last night on MSNBC's Dan Abrams show: "Since Karl Rove has said that and he feels so good saying that, what I want him to do is go and swear before the United States Congress and swear what he's saying is true."

Simpson also responded to accusations from the Alabama Republican Party that Simpson had never worked for the party and no one had ever heard of her. She said that phone records would show conversations with party officials in Alabama and Washington, D.C. in 2002 and 2006.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Don Siegelman case in October, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) produced phone records showing that Simpson had spoken with William Canary, a Republican operative, on the day in 2002 that she said Canary had told her on a conference call that his wife and another U.S. attorney would "take care" of Siegelman.

Karl Rove, now a frequent talking head on Fox News, for the first time publicly addressed the Don Siegelman case today. You can watch his appearance here:

It amounted to a complete denial that he ever knew Dana Jill Simpson (he might have met her at a fundraiser, he said, but didn't "believe" that he ever had) and that she ever worked on any campaign with which he was involved. "I never asked her to do a darn thing," he said. "It's a lie what she said."

Simpson, a Republican lawyer, told 60 Minutes and congressional investigators (under oath) that Rove had asked her to take a picture of Siegelman cheating on his wife -- and that this was just one of many requests that he'd made of her. Simpson also has testified that she was on a conference call where Rove's friend William Canary recalled talking to his buddy Karl about sicking the Justice Department on Siegelman, adding that “my girls would take care of him,” referring to U.S. attorney Leura Canary (his wife) and another U.S. attorney in the state.

Rove also took the opportunity to scold 60 Minutes for not interviewing him again after first conducting an off the record interview with him "five months ago." He did not say whether he would have agreed to do an on-camera interview if he'd known precisely what 60 Minutes was going to report. But "60 Minutes is now the National Enquirer of network news," in his estimation.

Simpson will be on MSNBC tonight on the Dan Abrams show.

In the wake of last night's 60 Minutes report, attorneys for Don Siegelman will be requesting a special counsel to investigate the politicization of the prosecution.

Vince Kilborn, one of the attorneys handling Siegelman's appeal, said that the request, which will be addressed to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, will focus on 60 Minutes' revelation that prosecutors had such problems with Nick Bailey, the government's star witness, that he had to write out his testimony over and over again to get it straight. Such notes would have been required to be turned over to Siegelman's counsel before trial. Prosecutors turned over no such material, 60 Minutes reported.

Kilborn said that the request will focus on the obvious conflict of interest for the local U.S. attorney's office and the Justice Department to initiate an investigation. The request will be placed in the context of the U.S. attorneys firings scandal, which demonstrated the politicization of the Department. "There needs to be a hard look at this case by someone independent."

Mukasey has said that issues with Siegelman's case should first be heard on appeal. But Kilborn said that would mean that Siegelman would spend another "year or so, maybe two" before he had a hope of being vindicated. "That's just not acceptable."

Kilborn said he expected to send his letter tomorrow.

Got your popcorn? If it's too early for that, a cup of coffee will do. Last night 60 Minutes finally aired its segment on the Don Siegelman case, and here it is, in all its 9-minute glory:

Ever since June of last year, the Siegelman case has, more than any other, been the prime example of selective prosecution in the Bush Justice Department, culminating in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last October. Siegelman, a popular Dem governor when prosecutors set their sights on him, is currently serving out his sentence for bribery charges.

60 Minutes' piece is an excellent distillation of the case. There's Republican lawyer Jill Simpson's recollection of a conference call where Karl Rove's friend William Canary recalled talking to his buddy Karl about sicking the Justice Department on Siegelman, saying that his “girls would take care of him,” referring to U.S. attorney Leura Canary (his wife) and another U.S. attorney in the state. And there's the Justice Department's renewal of vigor after the first prosecution against Siegelman fell flat on its face.

But there was more, the most significant revelation being that prosecutors had coached their star witness to the point where he had to write his carefully recollected testimony over and over again to make sure he got it right. Such notes, 60 Minutes reports, should have been turned over to Siegelman's defense attorneys. They were not.

And there seems to be a fitting capstone to the piece's broadcast. At least one CBS affiliate in Alabama, Scott Horton and Larisa Alexandrovna report, went dark during the broadcast. Just went dark. The station claimed that there was a technical difficulty which lasted only for the segment on Siegelman ("NewsChannel 19 lost our program feed from CBS"). Boy, is that bad luck. But not to worry -- they got the problem worked out and rebroadcast the segment that night at 10. During the Oscars.

Here's video from yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecutions, where ex-Gov. Don Siegelman's (D-AL) was the marquee case:

As we reported yesterday, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) made a hard run at Jill Simpson, the Republican lawyer who's testified that Alabama Republicans often chattered about how the Justice Department and local U.S. attorneys would take Siegelman down. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) rose to her defense, and Doug Jones, a former U.S. attorney himself and lawyer for Siegelman, testified that the case took on a new life in 2005 after officials in Washington got involved.

You can see video of former attorney general Dick Thornburgh's testimony here.

Update: This post originally mistakenly identified Davis as a Republican.

A former lawyer for Don Siegelman (D-AL) told the House Judiciary Committee today that his client's case took a "180 degree" turn in 2004, after Justice Department officials in Washington told local prosecutors to take another look at the case -- from top to bottom.

According to former US attorney for Alabama Doug Jones, in the summer of 2004 prosecutors told him the case was going nowhere. By October 2004 the case against Siegelman had been dismissed. But one month later, in a surprising turn of events, Washington officials told local prosecutors to give it another shot, Jones testified today. By early 2005 it was as if the case was starting from scratch, Jones said, calling it "completely stunning" and a "complete reversal" from what the defense had been told just months before.

Jones is certain, he said, that Washington DOJ officials played an "integral" part in the renewed investigation. Jones represented Siegelman at the time, though he did not represent him at trial.

Read more »

Many Democratic members deferred their time to Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) during today's Judiciary Committee hearing on allegations of political prosecutions so that he could dig into the case of ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL).

Davis, who is convinced that the system worked against Siegelman for political reasons, took a stand for Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson this afternoon, responding to Rep. Randy Forbes' (R-VA) assertion that the Department of Justice should investigate her. Davis argued that there is no evidence directly disproving testimony Simpson gave House investigators.

In fact, Davis points out, Simpson offered evidence that undermines the three affidavits Forbes produced this morning. In her original affidavit and in testimony to House investigators, Simpson claimed that she was on a call in 2002 where a local Republican operative, Bill Canary, said Rove had been in touch with the Justice Department about a Siegelman investigation. The three sworn statements from men who Simpson says were also on that call, the son of Gov. Bob Riley (R-AL), Riley's 2002 campaign lawyer and an Alabama Republican, Terry Butts, all claim that the call never happened. But Davis pointed to the phone record (available here) Simspon gave House investigators showing she had made an 11-minute call to Riley's law offices on the day she claims.

Six months ago, Davis said towards the end of the hearing, he had faith in the justice system. But following the revelations of the U.S. attorney scandal and those from the Siegelman case, he said he's no longer so sure politics didn't come to play an important role in prosecutorial decisions under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"I cannot sit here today and say to to you that I have confidence that the system worked in a fair and just manner in this case," Davis said.

This morning the House Judiciary Committee is taking a look at allegations of political prosecutions at the Department of Justice, including the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), who has long claimed his party affiliation triggered the charges against him.

Noticeably absent today is the key witness, Dana Jill Simpson, who offered traction to Siegelman's claims that politics were behind his case. Simpson claimed in an affidavit that during a 2002 Gov. Bob Riley (R-AL) campaign phone call, she heard that Karl Rove had a hand in a Siegelman investigation. A few weeks ago, Simpson met with House investigators and offered more expansive testimony about her knowledge of the case.

Alabama Republicans, including Riley's son, Rob Riley, have attacked Simpson's character, particularly for saying more to investigators than she did in her affidavit. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) voiced the same complaint this morning during the judiciary hearing, accusing Simpson of "contradicting" herself during the interview with investigators. He went even further, saying that she'd "shredded" her credibility "beyond repair," called her allegations "fabrications" and said that the Justice Department should investigate her.

Update: An excerpt from Forbes' opening statement is below.

Read more »

Tomorrow morning the House Judiciary Committee will hold a heading on whether politics spurred a series of prosecutions, focusing on the cases of Cyril Wecht and former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL).

Unfortunately, Dana Jill Simpson, the Republican lawyer who has given sworn statements that implicate Karl Rove in the decision to prosecute Siegelman is not on the witness list.

Siegelman's legal team has long-maintained that the decision to prosecute the former Democratic governor was an assault from Republicans in the state with connections at the Department of Justice. One of Siegleman's former lawyers and former US attorney for Alabama, Doug Jones, is set to testify tomorrow. Jones already told House investigators that in 2004 lawyers in Montgomery mentioned that when the case against Siegelman stalled, they were told by Justice Department officials in Washington to "take another look at everything." Jones gave the same story to The New York Times last month.

Read more »

Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) been paying attention to the Don Siegelman case, and today he asked Michael Mukasey to take a look at whether Karl Rove had been instrumental in kick-starting the prosecution.

Mukasey replied that those sorts of issues should be heard first on Siegelman's appeal, which is ongoing. So Schumer took the consolation prize of asking Mukasey to look into it after the appeal. Mukasey agreed.

Mukasey also agreed to look at a study by two university professors (first reported here, by the way) that found an overwhelming tendency for Bush's Justice Department to pursue Democrats over Republicans. (More on that here.) In early May, Democrats asked the Department's inspector general to investigate the study's findings; but there's been no indication such an analysis ever took place.

A House Judiciary panel plans to hold a hearing next Tuesday looking at allegations of politically-motivated prosecutions, including the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) and likely the suspicious cases against a Wisconsin bureaucrat that an appeals court called "beyond thin," and against a Democratic coroner in Pennsylvania.

Siegelman's lawyers have long contended that the case stemmed from a political vendetta against the Democratic governor in a Republican-dominated state. Documents recently obtained by Time give traction to this claim, showing that investigators ignored allegations from a state lobbyist of wrongdoing by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and former state Attorney General William Pryor, but still initiated an investigation into Siegelman.

The Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, who first triggered the national coverage of the Siegelman case with her affidavit implicating Karl Rove in the prosecution, spoke with judiciary committee investigators earlier this month. According to the transcript, Simpson described a second instance that fingers Rove in the Siegelman prosecution. There is no word yet if she will testify at next week's hearing.

Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson's affidavit implicating Karl Rove in the decision to prosecute Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) has taken center stage so far in the ongoing story. But now it looks like it might get some competition.

Son of Gov. Bob Riley (R-AL), Rob Riley, told the Times Daily he plans to sign his own sworn affidavit, countering Simpson's claims.

According to Simpson's sworn statement, Rob Riley participated in a 2002 campaign call where a local Republican operative, Bill Canary, said Rove had been in touch with the Justice Department about a Siegelman investigation. Simpson recently told House investigators that three years later Riley told her Rove had gone directly to DOJ's Public Integrity Section, presumably in 2004, in an effort to stymie Siegelman's 2005 campaign.

Dana Jill Simpson wasn't just worried about Rove's involvement in Gov. Don Siegelman's (D-AL) case. She also testified that she heard about a behind-the-scenes arrangement to ensure which judge would get the case -- a judge sure to "hang" Siegelman.

Simpson said that Gov. Bob Riley's (R) son, Rob Riley, told her in a 2005 conversation -- one where Riley also said that Rove was pushing to have the Justice Department investigate Siegelman -- that Judge Mark Fuller would get the case because Fuller, an active Republican, had a beef with Siegelman over an audit.

We've posted the portion of the interview where Simpson discusses Fuller here.

Q And did he talk to you about Mark Fuller's politics or political work?

[Simpson] He did.

Read more »