Siegelman Plot Going Mainstream
The story that Siegelman may have been the target of a Republican plot is beginning to get wider play. Today the Los Angeles Times had a story.
I had a longer post on this earlier today that got lost in one of those computer headaches, so for now it will suffice simply to point you toward the article, perhaps lifting out a couple of points. You can imagine for yourself the brilliance of the lost post.
One of the interesting points that I have not previously seen elsewhere: “at least one influential Republican” is “questioning whether politics may have played a role in the case.”
“Congressional committees ought to investigate what in the world went on in this case,” said Grant Woods, a Republican former attorney general of Arizona. Woods, who still tries high-profile cases as a special prosecutor, has reviewed the charges against Siegelman as a former colleague and friend.
“From start to finish, this case has been riddled with irregularities. It does not pass the smell test,” Woods said.
I have mentioned a point before (and so has Flashpoint in the last paragraph of this post) that the article also makes.
The controversy in part reflects the loss of credibility suffered by the Bush Justice Department in the wake of evidence that Rove and members of his staff played a role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. In several of those cases, U.S. attorneys targeted for removal had been criticized by Bush officials for not being sufficiently attentive to GOP political priorities.
The sentencing hearing for Siegelman and Richard Scrushy began today.
The old Gray Lady came out with a story of her own this evening.
To support their call for the lengthy prison term for Siegelman, federal prosecutors gave Fuller a list of additional alleged illegal activities, including material from the counts on which the former governor had been acquitted by the jury.
Adding such “relevant conduct” to sentencing memos is sometimes done in federal cases.
“The government is asking that he be penalized for every single thing he was charged with, whether he was acquitted or not,” said Susan James, a Siegelman lawyer. “The government drastically lost the case,” she said. “We strongly object to the court considering acquitted conduct.”
Related Articles:
Surprised none of the major papers had a comment about a jury packed with goobers yet or the spontaneous demonstration put on for Scrushy’s benefit.
Did like Artur Davis’s take on this (see last Thursday’s B’ham News for more details) mentioned in the LA Times article.
Comment by walt moffett — June 27, 2007 @ 7:23 am
I’m not surprised it’s getting wider play from credentialed journalists; they’ll cover anything to avoid Arrowhead Ripper.
Comment by Reactionary — June 27, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Oh Lord. The L.A. and New York papers are writing articles. They
must be true….yeah right. The Don and Richard are getting their
days in the sun. Good!
Comment by Osamaben — June 27, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Other than the nut at the “Locust Fort” rag, has anyone ever tried to
verify anything that “Jill Simpson” has said? Has Jill Simpson ever
offered any PROOF to her claims other than submitting a sworn statement
in Georgia (why GA?)?? Has Jill Simpson or her one big fan (aka the
“nut” at the Locust Fort blog been asked to show phone records? Has she
said when these alleged calls took place? What a joke.
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I’ve read several places today that federal judges can take into account other charges of which the defendant has been acquitted when determining sentence. That doesn’t sound kosher when applied to any defendant. If prosecutors can’t prove their case well enough to get a conviction on all charges, why are they allowed a second bite at the apple (to borrow a “Law & Order” term) to demand punishment without conviction?
Comment by Kathy — June 27, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Good points, REALGOPGIRL. There’s been lots of talk of the statement, but nothing I’ve seen to verify it. She said she has “phone records” but has anyone asked her to produce them? And if not, why not?
Comment by the Real Tim — June 27, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Actually, Simpson’s affidavit has never been submitted to ANY court.
Comment by Susan — June 27, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
If she filed it in court and she is proven to be lying, then she could lose her bar license. Again,
we have a woman who is clearly mentally unstable and then her one big cheerleader - a crazy guy with
a blog from Locust Fort. From all of that you have some lib paper/journalists in NY, LA and DC who
need little to run with a right wing/karl rove conspiracy story. Again, DJ Simpson and Glyn Wilson
substantiate NOTHING. It all started with a conference call - PROVE IT!!
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 27, 2007 @ 9:18 pm