On Siegelman, DoJ, and a Lesson from Dad
When I was much younger, someone that our family loved and trusted made up a story about illness in our family so that he could get off work for an extended trip. While the blatant lie did not affect our family directly, when it was exposed, we were dismayed and hurt that this trusted loved one was capable of a deliberate falsehood. Integrity was a prized value in our family, and I remember Dad saying, “The problem with telling a story like that,” (were lies called “stories” in your family too?), “is that it casts doubts on other things they say. You just don’t know what you can believe from that person.”
So, we have one of our vaunted institutions, the U.S. Department of Justice, in the news for reportedly politicizing their investigations by targeting Democrats, or as The Decatur Daily characterized it, a “looming scandal involving Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove over the sacking of eight U.S. attorneys who refused to do political investigations.”
And now, people are asking if investigations by U.S. Attorneys in other places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and here in Alabama were motivated by partisan politics. For example, a Wisconsin case was overturned by Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who “seemed shocked by the injustice of the conviction” and
…took the extraordinary step of releasing [the defendant] Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. “It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin,” Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from [U.S. Attorney] Mr. Biskupic’s office.
And there’s the rub. Once you have demonstrated that your integrity is in question, people wonder what they can trust. And then you have an editorial writer saying, “all Alabamians should care if the process that may put [former Gov. Don Siegelman] in a federal prison was fair and free of politics.” And “the case smells of politics.”
For context, remember that earlier, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin brought bid-rigging charges against Siegelman that were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that they could not be brought up again. From the very beginning, Siegelman called those charges “nothing more than an attempt at character assassination before the governor’s race rolls around again.”
If folks in the DoJ had a dad like mine, they know that once your integrity is in doubt, people begin to wonder what is trustworthy.
Related Articles:
On the other hand, Rep. William Jefferson (D - LA) still hasn’t been prosecuted.
Comment by Reactionary — May 2, 2007 @ 10:58 am
1. I thought the case against Siegelmas in bid-rigging charges was stronger than many of the charges in the Montgomery trial. Let’s not forget that the judge who dismissed that case had strong political ties to Siegelman. There are many of us who feel that he sould not have been the one to hear that case and that he was never going to give the DOJ a fair shot at making their case.
2. On the trial in Montgomery. These were legitimate charges. A jury listened to the evidence and found evidence and reason to pronounce Siegelman and Schrushy guilty on several of the charges. I’m scratching my head that Hamrick, who took cash and cars, was aquitted.
3. I can’t believe you are falling for Siegelman’s pathetic attempt to pretend that he was railroaded. There are no sililarities between Siegelman’s case here and the Thompson case is Wisconsin. Go read about that case–it was a very different set of circumstances.
Comment by Susan — May 2, 2007 @ 11:19 am
I intended for the post to be more about the Department of Justice and the way it has politicized prosecutions. I do not mean here to champion Siegelman’s case, but am raising the point that once the DoJ casts doubt on it own integrity, then it throws a shadow over much of what they do. They have made their own jobs harder, as people will wonder if there is a political angle to what they are doing in the future.
For example, The Decatur Daily would not be writing an editorial saying that the Siegelman case “smells of politics” if the DoJ had not demonstrated that sometimes it is about politics.
I didn’t say that there were similarities between Thompson’s case in Wisconsin and Siegelman’s case - except that some are asking if they are motivated by partisan politics on DoJ’s part. There’s the New Mexico situation where U.S. Attorney Iglesias was called at home and asked by his former mentor, Republican U.S. Senator Domenici, if an indictment would be forthcoming on a Democrat before the November election. Told no, Domenici hung up, and Iglesias became one of the eight dismissed. Not similar to Thompson or Siegelman, except once DoJ’s integrity is doubted, then people reasonably hold it up in the light to consider that maybe it also is part of a pattern.
That doesn’t mean it is, but the DoJ has made it harder on itself by giving people reason to ask.
Comment by Danny — May 2, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
What about the TWELVE Democrats in Tennessee who were CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE excepting bribes in ‘05 from undercover FBI agents. Bush’s Justice Dept initiated that sting…was it wrong for them to do that? What about the Democrat State House Speaker Jim Black over in North Carolina who plead guilty last month to bribing a GOP State Rep in ‘03 in a bathroom at a IHOP restaurant? Was it wrong for Bush’s Justice Dept to indict him?
Comment by jason — May 2, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Yeah, Dems are dropping lies flies in NC and TN and it’s just a matter of time before the indictments start flying in the two–year college case here in Alabama. Most, if not all, will be against Democrats. Notice today’s B-ham news story about how Culverhouse lied to the SBOE about the tipline contract? These folks are scared. So much so that they are making stupid mistakes now.
Comment by Susan — May 2, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Karl rove has not only made the usa’a political he has also made the Judges appointment political. Mark E Fuller The Judge in this case owned 31% in privately held corporations that had over 258 million dollars worth of government contracts. This is a corporation with a small number of partners and according to the President of this corporation his share was 31.% Take a look at the web site Doss aviation. com and look for the little book icon on the employment section of the web site and click it and you will see how many contracts this company has got. Also look at judicial watch. I wonder why Fuller didn’t list Aureus on his judicial disclosure. How would ya’ll like to have a Judge who got 258 million fron the united states government if it was the government trying to put you in jail and how many of you would like to have a judge who owned a 31% interest in a company doing business with the fbi and Know that the fbi was trying to put you in jail. Look people that’s what Siegelman and Scrushy are looking at. Fuller should remember Judge not less you be judged.
Comment by merrybellelake — May 2, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
What was the crime here? Accepting money from a sleeze bag to fight for an educational lottery that was being opposed by even sleazier bags. If Siegelman doesn’t get this reversed on appeal, then every politically appointed ambassador assigned to plush capitals all over the world are grounds for charges. Even Riley exchanged a campaign donation for major state support of the biotech center in Huntsville. Money buys a lot in our country.
Comment by Willie — May 3, 2007 @ 5:05 am
Wait, a judge is supposed to remember “judge not, lest you be judged”? Doesn’t that kinda cut down on what he can do in his job?
Comment by Hyperbole — May 3, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Danny has demonstrated to have problems with credibility. One particular “democrat” in Jefferson County that he overly pushed in last year’s election proves this.
Comment by Barbara — May 3, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Don’t be coy Barb: Tell us what you mean.
Comment by Hyperbole — May 3, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Hyperbole,
See my comments under “Party Hopping with a Party of Ten” under the local politics section.
Comment by Barbara — May 4, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Willie — you need to check your facts. If you do, you’ll find out that incentives for that biotech operation in Huntsville were approved by the committee that oversees the Capital Improvement Trust
Fund, not just the Governor.
Comment by Anonymous — May 4, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Ok anonymous, I might be going out on a limb here, but maybe, just maybe the ACITF was wired too. I cannot find who are on the board and the appropriations committee, but my guess is the governor appoints them.
Comment by Willie — May 6, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Danny has demonstrated to have problems with credibility.
Barbara, what have I said that is not credible? Please elaborate specifically. I always aim to be truthful, and I am always happy to be corrected when I am in error.
One particular “democrat” in Jefferson County that he overly pushed in last year’s election proves this.
That’s just funny.
Sunny D. Smallwood (GOP candidate for JeffCo Probate Judge, Place 2) ran a campaign that many people just found plain offensive. This blog focuses more on state politics, so a local issue would have to be pretty noteworthy to get notice here, and Smallwood’s campaign was pretty noteworthy for its outright fabrications. (You can read more about her campaign here and here, for example.)
I received more email from people upset about Smallwood’s campaign than I have received on any other subject, and the voters spoke loudly as Smallwood’s opponent, Sherri Friday, received more votes than any candidate in any race in Jefferson County.
That said, you think I “overly pushed” Friday in last year’s election? All the blog posts are still here. Find me any comment, any post, where I pushed for Sherri Friday in that race. Sure, Smallwood was brazenly claiming in ads to be “Voted Most Qualified” so I pointed out that she wasn’t even voted more qualified than her opponent Friday. Is that me “overly pushing” for Friday?
Let me know the posts or statements you find here from me where I say anything that pushes for Friday or that is not truthful about Smallwood.
Thank you.
Comment by Danny — May 7, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Well, I have seen the things you are referring to about the campaign that you have printed on this website and you happen to use a picture of S.D. Smallwood that only you and the Friday campaign used in a vicious mailing she sent out in and around the Mountain Brook community. Also, you went so far as to print a deposition that had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. And you say you didn’t push her? Another thing, the bar poll voting has more to do with politics than anything else.
Comment by Barbara — May 8, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
That’s right. I did not push for Friday. I merely presented the truth about the Smallwood campaign. If I had had anything nearly so interesting about the Friday campaign, I would have gladly presented it as well.
If the truth is biased against the Smallwood campaign, well… I think you have pinpointed Smallwood’s problem.
Nonetheless, I will try to address the three points (about the picture, the deposition, and the bar poll) I see that you made.
1) Yes, I used a picture. I like to use pictures, and I get them where I can find them. I scan them (e.g., from mailers), I get them off the internet, I take them myself… I fail to see how this has anything to do with your point.
2) I used the deposition to demonstrate with her words that she did not have 25 years of experience as a judge or in the legal world as she claimed in her campaign.
3) Smallwood’s campaign falsely said Smallwood was voted “most qualified.” I used the only poll which addressed this issue, the Birmingham Bar Association judicial poll, to demonstrate this was simply not true. I did not bring up the voting about “most qualified.” Smallwood did.
The odd thing here is that you seem interested in defending Smallwood, but mainly you seem to be reminding people of how offensive the Smallwood campaign was.
If I had had anything nearly so interesting about the Friday campaign, I would have been glad to print it. People were emailing me about the falsehoods of the Smallwood campaign, and I was able to verify what I heard.
Comment by Danny — May 9, 2007 @ 10:12 pm