Free Siegelman

Via Mark Kleiman, The New York Times editorializes on Don Siegelman:

It is extremely disturbing that Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was hauled off to jail this week. There is reason to believe his prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated. The appeals court that hears his case should demand answers, as should Congress. [...]

The most arresting evidence that Mr. Siegelman may have been railroaded is a sworn statement by a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson. Ms. Simpson said she was on a conference call in which Bill Canary, the husband of the United States attorney whose office handled the case, insisted that “his girls” would “take care of” Mr. Siegelman. According to Ms. Simpson, he identified his “girls” as his wife, Leura Canary, and another top Alabama prosecutor. Mr. Canary, who has longstanding ties to Karl Rove, also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that he had worked it out with “Karl.”

As the NYT notes, normally one wouldn't necessarily give a ton of credence to these complaints, but we're not talking about a normal justice department. We know for a fact that the Bush DOJ engages in selective prosecutions in order to advance partisan ends, and we know for a fact that the Bush DOJ is willing to operate with a reckless disregard for the law. Under the circumstances, where there's smoke there's a decent chance of fire.

Comments

I can hear the wingnuts crying now: "Oh, it's perfectly fine to throw Libby in jail and we have to swallow hard and accept it as justice deserved. A Democrat also duly convicted by a jury of his peers and you want him let off the hook!" It's coming, if I haven't already missed it.

Posted by steve duncan | July 2, 2007 3:12 PM

I don't see the Simpson affidavit as particularly compelling on its own. Enough to pique one's curiosity, sure.

If there's a reasonable argument that the guy is factually innocent of whatever he was convicted of, I'd assume people would be making it all over the place, but I haven't heard it yet.

Posted by Steve | July 2, 2007 3:15 PM

Since you brought it up, Steve Duncan, perhaps you would like to expand on why Libby should not collect $200 and go straight to jail, but this Dem shouldn't.

Posted by Fred | July 2, 2007 3:18 PM

FWIW, I don't care where Libby or Siegelman go. They could be held under house arrest at the Yglesias family compound in Maine, for all I care.

Posted by Fred | July 2, 2007 3:19 PM

I don't know enough about the case to offer much comment on it, but surely if the evidence weren't there he would have not been convicted?

Posted by ihateemo | July 2, 2007 3:21 PM

I have little sympathy here, given that Richard Scrushy has long deserved a takedown. The wider issue is the amount of influence that he had over the state.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 2, 2007 3:47 PM

surely if the evidence weren't there he would have not been convicted?

There were 32 counts, and Siegelman was convicted on a handful of the lesser ones, and there's the argument that when you have that many things thrown at the jury, it feels increasingly obliged to convict on something.

The parallel with the Libby case is that prosecutors used unindicted and acquitted charges as 'relevant conduct' in their sentence calculation. Now, it's logical to link underlying accusations in sentencing an obstruction conviction -- to deter obstruction -- but here the line is less clear.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 2, 2007 4:00 PM

The problem is that it's possible that Siegelman was "singled out" by the Justice Department because he's a Democrat and is guilty of the underlying offenses. If it turns out the guy really was guilty of corruption, the story loses a lot of its resonance.

A two-pronged analysis is really required: (1) whether he was targeted because he's a Dem and (2) whether he is not guilty on the merits. I haven't heard any compelling evidence that he is not guilty so far.

(Even if he is guilty on the merits, the extremely long sentence it looks like he may serve seems excessive. But that is an issue with the judge and/or appeals court, not the prosecution.)

Posted by owenz | July 2, 2007 4:07 PM

surely if the evidence weren't there he would have not been convicted?

Not necessarily; check Georgia Thompson.

owenz, another possibility is that he is guilty on other charges (like Scrushy). Mac Thomason thinks that the original prosecutions were screwed up by the assistant USA but that these seem thin.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to stake my account of the corruption of the Justice Department on this case. All we have now is something worth looking into, and Siegelman could well be guilty and singled out. There's a lot of other obvious malfeasance by the DoJ.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 2, 2007 5:10 PM

I do think it probably should be investigated; Artur Davis, the Alabama congressman, is apparently under pressure to call for hearings. But it shouldn't be the center of the case, especially since Siegelman probably is guilty and (since he had little or no chance at the nomination in 2006) they had no real political effect.

As I told Matt, it really looks like a makeup for the original charges that were thrown out of court due to Alice Martin's judge-baiting. Similarly, Scrushy got off on his initial charges due to a terrible trial strategy of boring the jurors to death with every single detail of his numerous crimes, so the Montgomery office decided to get him too.

Posted by Mac | July 2, 2007 5:29 PM

I slandered the assistant USA (I think); Alice Martin is the U.S. attorney for Birmingham or whatever and she's the one who (according to Mac) screwed it up. Anyway, the whole discussion is based on the idea of the rule of law which is looking pretty quaint.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 2, 2007 6:33 PM

I would also like to hear more about the facts of the case. I still have basically heard nothing. There have been implications here and there that the underlying "crime" is that Siegelman appointed Scrushy to a state board after Scrushy gave a hefty contribution to a cause that Siegelman supported. If this is all that underlies the charges, then calling it a crime is a stretch.

This kind of thing happens all the time--big contributors get big appointments--and the idea that Scrushy needed to make some kind of payoff in order to get appointed to a hospital board when he was a major force in Alabama healthcare at the time is highly dubious.

To me the real reversible error is that the judge in the case is a long time political enemy of Siegelman's and refused to recuse himself. A biased judge can certainly throw his weight one way or the other and end up swaying the jury.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 2, 2007 7:23 PM

People around here sure do have a lot of faith in our criminal justice system.

Posted by mq | July 2, 2007 7:36 PM