Free Siegelman

Mark Kleiman seems to me to have the goods on this one:

If you had any doubt that the fuss about Libby's sentence is largely a matter of Washington insiders, political and journalistic, rallying to the defense of one of their own, consider the contrasting silence about the Siegelman case. A highly popular Democratic Governor of Alabama was indicted by a highly political U.S. Attorney's office, which is now seeking a thirty-year sentence. He was convicted of appointing someone to a state board that the same man had been appointed to by three previous governors, in return for a contribution in support of a referendum campaign.

As Mark notes, rewarding campaign contributors with ambassadorships -- to say nothing of policy concessions -- is common. And the case seems at least a little fishy ("the fact that Siegelman was convicted of corruption in the course of fighting against Jack Abramoff, Abramoff's his Indian-gaming clients, and Abramoff's buddy, now the Governor of Alabama, may be merely ironic") on a few grounds. But even if there's nothing fishy about it, 30 years is a sentence for a vicious murderer, "And not a peep of protest from the Washington Post, which instead is running a non-stop campaign of whining about Scooter Libby's thirty months."

As a sidebar, it's not even clear to me how Libby came to be a member of The Establishment in such good standing. I have it on good authority that he was in arrears on his dues to Temple Rodef Shalom before any of his legal troubles even started going down.

Comments

Power = Establishment

Chief of staff to Presidents are always establishment.

I imagine it is the same thing for Chief of Staffs to the most powerful Vice President ever, one who may have been the de facto President in many respects.

Posted by Tim | June 28, 2007 11:50 AM

The key difference, of course, being that Seigelman *hasn't actually been sentenced* yet. Don't you think that at least bears mentioning?

Posted by Anonymous | June 28, 2007 11:58 AM

No. The defense of Libby began before he was sentenced.

Posted by JP | June 28, 2007 12:00 PM

The key difference, of course, being that Seigelman *hasn't actually been sentenced* yet. Don't you think that at least bears mentioning?

What the hell for? It's clearly explained that Siegelman was indicted and that the US Attorney's office is seeking thrity years. It's perfectly clear that he hasn't been sentenced yet.

Posted by strannix | June 28, 2007 12:03 PM

This seems incredibly excessive.

While the corruption charge seems to be endemic to Alabama politics.

"Political corruption cases are nothing new in Alabama. Siegelman's three gubernatorial predecessors — two Republicans and a Democrat — faced criminal inquiries. Two were indicted and convicted."

30 years let alone any jail time seems outrageous considering:

"But Siegelman's case differs from the usual pattern in some ways. For example, former Gov. Guy Hunt, a Republican, was found guilty in state court of personally pocketing $200,000. And state prosecutors sought probation, not jail time, in the Hunt case."

Posted by Dave | June 28, 2007 12:11 PM

"As a sidebar, it's not even clear to me how Libby came to be a member of The Establishment in such good standing. I have it on good authority that he was in arrears on his dues to Temple Rodef Shalom before any of his legal troubles even started going down."

And you claim not to be an investigative reporter!

Posted by peep | June 28, 2007 12:21 PM

Re "he was in arrears on his dues to Temple Rodef Shalom"
----------
Wait! You mean you have to PAY to belong to the international Zionist conspiracy?

I'll be dammed. I thought you got something like a dividend check or something.

I mean, I heard about the circumscission part but I assumed that was just to deter the idly curious.

Posted by Don Williams | June 28, 2007 1:27 PM

Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years. Jeff Skilling was sentenced to 24 years. The 80-year old John Rigas was sentenced to 15 years, while his son received 20 (prosecutors had asked for more than 200 years for each, and noted with satisfaction that the 15 year sentence for an 80-yr old means the man will likely die in prison). David Wittig was sentenced to 18 years (prosecutors had asked for a life sentence; his conviction was reversed, but the government is trying again).

This kind of sentence request is entirely typical in white collar crime these days. And the sentence received is much less than the sentence received in the cases I list above.

Posted by Thomas | June 28, 2007 2:49 PM

Thomas, everyone you named looted a company for personal gain. Siegelman isn't alleged to have profited personally from his crimes. Other convicted government officials, such as Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and George Ryan, don't seem to receive similar sentences.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 28, 2007 3:50 PM

Thomas, what are you talking about? As if all 'white collar' crimes are exactly the same. By this logic, Libby should be looking at 30 years as well.

Posted by mpowell | June 28, 2007 3:56 PM

My favorite part of the story is about how this case, and the sentence, couldn't possibly be politically motivated because the prosecutor in question is a careerist. Yeah, but he hasn't been flushed out of the system yet b/c he knows to take his marching orders from Karl Rove's office. That's what makes him a legitimate careerist! At this point, virtually any case initiated by the USDA's office should be assumed to be politically motivated. That fact alone should be enough to impeach the whole lot of them.

Posted by mpowell | June 28, 2007 4:01 PM

What am I talking about? This bit: "30 years is a sentence for a vicious murderer." Uhm, no. 30 years is a not unusual white collar sentence.

The prosecutor in this case is a career prosecutor, and, if one cares, a black government worker in Alabama. I am guessing that he's not a Republican.

Matt, Siegelman is alleged to have profited personally from his crimes. In particular, he's alleged to have received money for a motorcycle from a lobbyist, and he was convicted of covering that up.

Posted by Thomas | June 28, 2007 5:02 PM

Libby got 30 months, which is apparently quite unreasonable -- it's about 300 months too short.

Posted by Barbar | June 28, 2007 6:16 PM

Thomas, true about the motorcycle (though I believe he was convicted for obstruction of justice on this charge rather than for bribery; of course, the judge plans to take into account the counts for which he was acquitted in sentencing). Still, Siegelman is alleged to have taken bribes of considerably smaller dollar amounts than Cunningham, and several orders of magnitude smaller than the money stolen by the others you cite. So it's still worth wondering why the prosecution asks for a sentence much harsher than Cunningham's, and about as harsh as those who embezzled eight figures. The sentence is above average for a murderer.

Louis Franklin did work with Noel Hillman of the DoJ public integrity section on this case, didn't he?

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 28, 2007 7:09 PM

Just a few notes from an Alabamian... Siegelman was not wildly popular, and was no longer governor when these charges were filed, having lost his re-election campaign in 2002. A previous corruption charge, in which he was found innocent, had started while he was in office.

The biggest concern I have with the "Rove did it" theory isn't that Rove wouldn't, but that it didn't make a lot of sense. The presumptive Democratic nominee in 2006 was Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, and she seemed a much stronger candidate at the time. Siegelman ran against her in the primary and was crushed. A strong Siegelman, according to the usual theory, would have helped the Republicans by at least forcing Baxley to work for the nomination, at most winning the nomination and then going up against the man who beat him in 2006.

Posted by Mac | June 28, 2007 7:15 PM

Oh, and to follow-up, Siegelman was (in my opinion) almost certainly guilty of the original charges (of which he was acquitted) while these charges were basically for politics-as-usual. And also caught up in these second charges was Richard Scrushy, purveyor of massive fraud while chairman of HealthSouth, who also got away with that. The problem was that Alice Martin, the Birmingham USA, and her office are horribly incompetent and this second set was essentially an attempt by the Montgomery office to clean up her mess. Martin is one of Bush's hack USAs.

Posted by Mac | June 28, 2007 7:21 PM

I have it on good authority that he was in arrears on his dues to Temple Rodef Shalom before any of his legal troubles even started going down.

What a surprising and petty comment - says far more about you, Matt, than it does him.

Posted by RW Rogers | June 28, 2007 7:57 PM

Mac, are the previous charges the ones that the judge dismissed with prejudice, or was there another set that started while he was in office? Any word as to why they were dismissed?

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 28, 2007 8:38 PM

Matt, I confess that I hadn't heard of the "I took only small bribes" defense until now. I hadn't thought that the violation of the public trust varied depending on the selling price.

As it happens, Siegelman has been sentenced, to 7 years. The prosecutors didn't get what they asked for, just as they didn't get what they asked for when they asked a judge to sentence Rigas (an 80 year old man) to more than 200 years. As I noted, prosecutors asked for a life sentence for David Wittig, and his conviction was thrown out because what he did wasn't even criminal. Prosecutors tend to ask for a lot, especially in high profile cases. Recall that Patrick Fitzgerald, a very good prosecutor, asked the Judge in the Libby case to take into account offenses for which Libby hadn't been indicted, much less convicted.

Posted by Thomas | June 28, 2007 9:06 PM

MY, please delete that last paragraph. If word gets out that Libby is a landsman, he'll have the Pollardites pleading for him on top of everything else.

Posted by kishnevi | June 28, 2007 10:29 PM

As I noted

Ah, that's what "And the sentence received is much less than the sentence received in the cases I list above" meant.

the "I took only small bribes" defense

You don't think the magnitude of the offense can reasonably be taken into account when determining the sentence? Obviously it's not a defense, in the sense of meriting an acquital, more a question of making the punishment fit the crime. Which is why it's slightly misleading to list some of the worst corporate criminals of our day (except for Wittig, who I suppose is the Georgia Thompson of the bunch) and say that these are typical white-collar sentences.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 28, 2007 10:29 PM

Of course, the more reasonable sentence doesn't address the many questions hanging over the prosecution and trial, nor the hypocrisy of the "Free Libby" crowd.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 28, 2007 10:37 PM

Matt, I don't think the amount of the bribe goes to the magnitude of the offense. To suggest it does reveals a lack of understanding of what the wrong is in a case of public corruption.

Richard Scrushy would, on most accounts, be included in the list of "worst corporate criminals" of our day, btw.

I don't have any problem with criticisms of the "Free Libby" crowd. But don't pretend that there aren't hypocrites on the other side--perhaps even some here. It isn't enough to make baseless accusations and then say there are "questions hanging over the prosecution and trial." There aren't any more questions about Siegelman than there are about Libby.

As for the "ah" moment: the sentence was announced earlier today. The reference to the "sentence received" in my comment was a reference to the sentence received.

Posted by Thomas | June 28, 2007 11:59 PM

Richard Scrushy would, on most accounts, be included in the list of "worst corporate criminals" of our day, btw.

Absolutely, but he was inexplicably acquitted on those charges.

There aren't any more questions about Siegelman than there are about Libby.

There's the Dana Jill Simpson affidavit and the alleged e-mails to the jury. And the evidence of massive wrongdoing and political pressure throughout the Gonzales DoJ.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 29, 2007 12:26 AM

I confess I'm not sure what you think the Dana Jill Simpson affidavit shows, even assuming it is accurate. Let me explain: it is clear that the sole reason that Sen. Peter Fitzgerald chose Patrick Fitzgerald as US Attorney in Chicago is that he was looking for someone with the fortitude to take down George Ryan. Senator Fitzgerald came out of the conservative wing of the Illinois Republican party, and there was a lot of bad blood between Sen. Fitzgerald and Ryan's camp. Now, imagine someone comes out and says, I talked to Sen. Fitzgerald in 2001, and he told me, don't worry about Ryan, the new prosecutor in town is going to take care of him, don't you worry. Would that suggest some wrongdoing on the part of either Fitzgerald? In my view, the answer is no. So, even if one were to take the affidavit seriously, it isn't clear that there's anything serious to it.

Which isn't to say one should take it seriously. Scrushy is willing to do a lot of things to stay out of jail. If he thought being a black baptist preacher would help, he'd spend a lot of money trying to convince people he's a black baptist preacher.

There isn't evidence of "massive wrongdoing and political pressure" through the Gonzales DoJ.

Posted by Thomas | June 29, 2007 1:11 AM

There isn't evidence of "massive wrongdoing and political pressure" through the Gonzales DoJ.

Don't be silly.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 29, 2007 8:34 AM

Yes, those were the charges dismissed with prejudice. At the time, it was the only thing that the judge could do. My recollection (I don't want to look up everything I wrote about it at the time) is that Alice Martin spent the time leading up to the trial attacking the judge for being a Siegelman sympathizer and had thoroughly screwed up the process before it began.

Posted by Mac | June 29, 2007 9:04 AM