Siegelman Sentence Sends Riley to DC
Former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was sentenced to more than seven years today. Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy was sentenced to more than six after their bribery convictions.
Unexpected business will keep Gov. Bob Riley from attending the Cullman County Republican Party dinner tonight as planned.
…
[Treasurer Brenda] Horn received a telephone call Wednesday morning from the governor’s office.
The scheduler told Horn the governor was called to Washington for a high-level meeting. She said he was disappointed.
Riley told disappointed organizers of the Cullman function that he will meet with Bush Administration officials to discuss damage control relating to the Siegelman case. “The sentence will come down today, and they’re very concerned about all the questions about the role Karl Rove played in this prosecution,” the [Cullman County GOP] source said.
Damage control? For Rove’s role? (Undoubtedly, Rove knows nothing about any role he may have played though what he means to say is that he has no comment.)
I would like to know more about what they are so anxious about.
Other bits:
- The prosecution believed Siegelman deserved a tougher sentence because he was tough on crime. From AP: “But chief prosecutor Louis Franklin said Siegelman deserves a harsh sentence partly because of his tough stance against crime.”
I suppose the flip side of that is that if Siegelman had been lax on crime as Attorney General, the prosecution would have asked for a lighter sentence?
- Birmingham News:
Fuller decided that charges on which Siegelman was acquitted at trial could be used in considering his sentence. Prosecutors had argued that, even though a jury did not find him guilty, there still was evidence of some wrongdoing.
I know I recognized in an earlier post that this is sometimes done in federal cases, but I do not understand it. If a defendant is found innocent of charges, why should those charges be used in considering the sentence? If you are not guilty of a charge, how can you get prison time for it?
If I am a prosecutor with a vendetta against someone who is going to federal court, why not seek to bring a lot of extra charges that may not stick for the purpose of trying to lengthen the sentence?
If someone was innocent of all charges brought, wouldn’t it make as much sense for that defendant to get some prison time because a judge decided that charges on which the defendant was acquitted could be used in considering a sentence? Just saying…
- In addition to the prison sentences…
Siegelman was fined $50,000 due immediately, plus $181,325 to a state agency where prosecutors said kickbacks were made. He is to perform 500 hours of community service when his sentence of seven years, four months is completed.
Scrushy was fined $150,000 due immediately, plus ordered to pay restitution of $267,000 to United way of Central Alabama. He also was ordered to perform 500 hours of community service when released after serving six years and 10 months.
Both men were taken into custody immediately, and both are expected to appeal.
Related Articles:
This will all be very interesting. No one can convincingly argue that he remained squeaky clean in his decades of service to Alabama, but it still shocks me that, in a state where corruption is such a huge part of the political process, one of the most progressive governors in modern Alabama history would go down on such dubious charges. The simple fact that Don Siegelman will end up serving more time in jail that Richard Scrushy ought to be a wake up call to every single person in this state to what a crock the United States legal system has become under Rove and company. Scrushy was a scumbag and Siegelman’s only mistake was ever soliciting political donations from him in the first place. If trading donations for political influence deserves jail time, then the US Attourney’s office ought to file charges against every single member of the Alabama state legislature as well as the governor and our US Congressional delegation. I’ve always liked him and thought he was a fine governor, but I’m ashamed of bob riley right now.
Comment by SamdfordDem — June 29, 2007 @ 2:36 am
This whole case does not pass the smell test. I predict that one day all the emails from
Rove’s RNC computer will reveal facts that will make Seigelman’s kids very wealthy.
Comment by Willie — June 29, 2007 @ 4:16 am
Heads up: Scrushy, Siegelman behind bars…
Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy sentenced to federal prison, taken into custody
……
Trackback by Wade on Birmingham — June 29, 2007 @ 5:59 am
Danny–perhaps the full quote by Franklin will help to clear up your confusion:
But chief prosecutor Louis Franklin said Siegelman deserves a harsh sentence partly because of his tough stance against crime.
“To say that when someone takes a harsh stance and then turns around and commits a crime they should be given lenient punishment, that’s the height of hypocrisy,’’ Franklin told Fuller.
Comment by Susan — June 29, 2007 @ 6:59 am
Danny is “independent”? That’s a joke for anyone reading. Conspiracy theories abound…Danny and his friends Dana and Glyn…
..none that they offer a shread of evidence over, but many that they spew every day on their little websites. Again,
this all started by a crazy woman in Rainsville saying she had a conference call 5yrs ago. Show some proof…Until then, Danny,
Dana and Glyn go down as a joke.
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Look, Scrushy is an evil man. Anyone outside of his family and friends who shed one tear over this guy being locked up is a complete idiot. He ruined the lives of thousands of decent hard working democrats and republicans who lost their life savings because of him. I don’t know much about Siegelman but why would officials in the White House be concerned with him? When this “alledged conspiracy” happened, the White House was dealing with the 9/11 shock, the Afghan war, the run up to the Iraq War was going on as well and they were having to plan their own re-election and god only knows what else they were doing. So we are supposed to believe that Rove and maybe Bush took time out of all of this to frame some little known Governor? It just doesn’t make sense boys and s.
Comment by mr turnbow — June 29, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Susan,
I see the quote from Franklin, but I have to confess that to me it sounds like a justification from someone determined to ask for the toughest sentence possible. Consider the flip side. If Siegelman had been demonstrably lax on crime previously, then the argument could come from Franklin, “Someone who has been demonstrably weak on crime deserves more punishment for their demonstrated disregard for our laws.” And I would understand that argument even better. It would make even more sense to me than Franklin’s argument that being tough on crime deserves more punishment.
And ultimately, to me, it doesn’t make sense that one could take opposite circumstances and argue that either deserves more punishment.
REALGOPGIRL,
I am not sure that I am offering any conspiracy theory. What am I offering that is so objectionable to you and that has no shred of proof?
That Riley went to Washington? I think that is really interesting. And there is documentation.
And sure I would like to know more about why Riley is called to Washington on short notice for a “high level meeting.”
That I think it odd that one can get additional prison time for charges for which one is innocent?
Does my aside that “Undoubtedly, Rove knows nothing about any role he may have played though what he means to say is that he has no comment” somehow indicate conspiracy to you? That was supposed to be a humorous reference to Rove’s comment the other day that he “knew nothing” about the conference phone call only to have a White House press aide jump in to say, “What he meant to say was that he has no comment.” That was a funny exchange, and I was simply trying to have fun with it by echoing it. Regardless, I don’t see how that indicates conspiracy.
So, REALGOPGIRL, I would be glad to hear from you on what is being posted here without a shred of evidence that rankles you so.
I know that folks on both sides of the aisle have accused me of being partisan in the other direction, but I really didn’t expect partisan folks to object to this post.
Comment by Danny — June 29, 2007 @ 10:27 am
i think the locust fork journal has infected this place.
Comment by the Real Tim — June 29, 2007 @ 10:42 am
REALGOPGIRL, I’ve seen you around the internet the past few days demanding proof of Ms. Simpson’s allegations. I, too, would like to see any proof she can produce. OTOH, you’re doing the same thing by attempting to discredit her with repeated claims that she’s mentally ill. Do you have any proof? Medical records, perhaps? Her own sworn testimony (or that of trusted associates) stating she’s been diagnosed with a mental illness that causes her to have delusions?
Ms. Simpson’s story may or may not be true, but the fact that it gets any credence at all can be laid directly at the feet of the Bush administration. Bush has a clearly demonstrated record of politicizing government agencies that were intended to be non-partisan (e.g., General Services Administration, career employees at the Justice Department) and of rewarding loyalty over competence or high ethical standards (e.g., bungling the peace in Iraq, appointing Michael Brown to head FEMA, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, appointmenting Alberto Gonzales as AG). I know every administration has done similar things, but Bush raises it to an art form. And before you dismiss all that as partisan, remember that there are quite a few reputable conservatives — some in Congress — who agree completely with my statement.
Comment by Kathy — June 29, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Danny,
I think your post is right on the money. The increased sentence because of hypocrisy is nonsensical and we should all be worried if it becomes commonplace for judges to pass sentences based on charges we have been acquitted of. Riley’s trip to Washington is very interesting. I wonder who he met with there.
To mr. turnbow,
Karl Rove cared about politics and politicians in every state, reportedly down to the precinct level. It was his job to care about that, not just for Bush but for the GOP. Until 2005, Karl Rove was Bush’s senior political adviser, officially in charge of strategic planning and political affairs. In 2005 Bush also made him Chief of Staff, with even more responsibilities. Karl Rove worked on elections in Alabama in the mid-1990’s. He certainly knew who Don Siegelman was and that he was a popular and gifted Democratic politician. Because of that time spent here working judicial campaigns, Rove was certainly aware of the indictment and prosecution of Guy Hunt. I don’t think it would take a man as sharp as Rove long to see that it would be a good strategic move to get Don Siegelman out of the way for good and to decide that the tactics used to get Hunt out of office would likely work against Siegelman, too.
And if this was part of a Rove plan, it worked brilliantly. The indictment of Siegelman (second time) and subsequent trial splintered the Democratic party in the gubernatorial race last year. And even unaffiliated voters got several earfuls of “Democrat … on trial for corruption, bribery …” during an election year, which hindered the efforts of Democrats up and down the ballot. Riley was reelected easily, Republicans made gains in several other offices and kept their stranglehond on the state courts. If you’re the top Republican strategist, what’s not to like?
Comment by mooncat — June 29, 2007 @ 11:53 am
I’ll tell you why national Republicans were concerned with taking down Don Siegelman. Rove and co have been involved in statewide politics in Alabama for years, all the way back to the Supreme Court election years ago. Tying Scrushy to Siegelman made the Republicans look tough on white collar crime (they’re not) and discredited Siegelman’s claims of voter fraud in the 2002 election. This was about further entrenching Republican control of the South, which has become their heartland.
Comment by SamdfordDem — June 29, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Danny,
Asking for a tough sentence beacause Siegelman was tough on crime is a response to Siegelman’s claims that he should be granted lienency because he was tough on crime (he put so many crminals behind bars). You have to take these statements in the context of the entire dialogue about sentencing. The prosecutors were doing what prosecutors do, the defense attroneys were doing what defense attorneys do–making the strogest arguments for their sides.
Comment by Susan — June 29, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
#9 shoud read, “OTOH, you are doing the same thing of which you accuse her by attempting to discredit her…”
As for Danny, he’s well-respected not only by bloggers of various political stripe but also by government officials of both parties, as evidenced by their willingness to blog here, comment here, or give him background on stories, knowing that they won’t be misquoted or misrepresented. It’s called being even-handed.
Comment by Kathy — June 29, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Danny, Dana and Glyn all defend Don Siegelman to the end and they all despise Bob Riley, George Bush, etc…to the end. I
was simply saying he’s partisan and that’s pretty clear (even his defense of being non-partisan was partisan). As for
Dana Jill or Glyn, if you simply read their ramblings, it leads to clear mental issues. Again, prove SOMETHING and
maybe I’ll change my mind. As for people offering Danny anything other than some entertainment on this blog…
I don’t see him with much credibility…
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
I think SamfordDem has some very interesting comments about the motivation behind the Siegelman prosecution.
Did anyone else guffaw when they read this quote from U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller:
“I am convinced the conduct Gov. Siegelman engaged in damaged the public’s confidence in the government of this state.”
As someone who has spent quite a bit of time before Republican state judges in the past 7-8 years, watching them repeatedly make rulings that run contrary to clear law, the insinuation that the public should have confidence in Alabama government (now that mean old Don Siegelman is behind bars) is laughable.
I’ve got overwhelming evidence of criminal activity by Republican judges, and it’s the same as one of the charges against Siegelman–honest services mail fraud. I’ve made Alice Martin and the FBI aware of it and guess how many times I’ve heard back from them: zero.
I’ve talked with numerous attorneys in Birmingham who say it is well known that our state courts are corrupt, particularly in Shelby County and the all-Republican Court of Civil Appeals. Curious if anyone else has heard this kind of thing.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/
Comment by Legal Schnauzer — June 29, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Legal Schnauzer, you are either an attorney or you get arrested far too often b/c you seem to spend a lot of time in front of
lawyers…
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
“…I don’t see him with much credibility…”
Then why are you here? Surely you’d be much more comfortable somewhere completely “non-partisan”. The Free Republic comes to mind.
Comment by Kathy — June 29, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
the conspiracy/black helicopter folks are entertaining
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
REALGOPGIRL,
You are making baseless accusations that demonstrate that you really don’t know what you are talking about.
I have asked you for specifics on where I am being unfair, and you have offered nothing specific.
You are saying things that are simply not true. For example, you said that I “defend Don Siegelman to the end” and that “I despise Bob Riley.” See… now you are just making stuff up. Riley has been a good governor, easily better for Alabama than Siegelman was, imo, and I’ve told people that for a long time.
If you have some specific objection with something I’ve said, then raise it. But all you have offered is a bit of baseless ranting with nothing backing up what you are saying.
In the meantime, you might try switching to decaf. :)
Comment by Danny — June 29, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Again, all of this conspiracy theory stuff started with an affidavit from a woman who says she was on a conf call 5 years ago.
Anyone on this blog can sign an affidavit and it mean nothing. Thus, I’ve simply asked that some proof be shown…that it -
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
- or any of the other accusations took place. Just something…until then, Danny, Dana and Glyn are a bunch of
loony conspiracy theorists…my opinion
Comment by REALGOPGIRL — June 29, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
REALGOPGIRL,
Tell me where I said I believed there was a conspiracy. Tell me the sentence, the paragraph, the post, where I said there was a conspiracy. You saying over and over and over that I am a conspiracy theorist doesn’t make it true.
Yes, Bush’s administration has politicized the DoJ. Yes, there are some questions worth raising. I am not saying there is a conspiracy. I’m not saying there’s not. I have publicly expressed doubt.
But show me where I said there was a conspiracy. Tell me when I said that.
Show me.
Comment by Danny — June 29, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Folks, there are some genuine differing opinions expressed on this thread, but Danny and Kathy have adequately demonstrated that REALGOPGIRL is a troll (dare I say a GOP troll?) posting here to waste your time, raise your blood pressure and hijack the comments thread with silly accusations and non-arguments. Better to pretend she’s in time-out and just ignore her. You’ve heard her talking points and she has nothing else.
Comment by mooncat — June 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
You are right. Anyone can sign an affidavit to anything….but they don’t do they? Google around and see how many stories there are about false allegations involving affidavits. Not many if any. Why? They are sworn statements, and if ever introduced by another party in a lawsuit, become grounds for charges. Would these powerful men not have already squashed this story if it so obviously not true? Perhaps they know, as Simpson alludes, that she has the back up phone records and other documents. Also, perhaps she has other information gathered from her time working for Riley. Dismiss this one at your own peril. What’s NOT being said by the other guys is deafening. I love the attacks on Simpson as “crazy” etc. I am reminded, ironically, of Prosecutor Steve Feaga’s comments during the Siegelman trial when the defense attacked Nick Bailey. Feaga said “deals cut in the bowels of hell are not often witnessed by angels.” And he went on to say…”Judge, these are there guys. We just take ‘em where we find ‘em.” The sharpest edge of any double edged sword is the one YOU choose not to use.
Comment by Terry — June 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Alright, the next time any one of your says anything about James McGreevy…
Comment by Lurker — June 29, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Terry, during the Craddick - Baxley keruffle, a multi generation xerox of an affadavit by a state parolee was circulating in gas stations and other places alleging various indiscretions by Craddick.
Overall, though I still Artur Davis’s take was the most balanced I’ve seen.
For the conspiracy theorists, Riley is a Mason, Bush is connected to Skull and Bones, both are connected to the Illuminati.
Comment by walt moffett — June 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Dan, your blog is losing credibility rapidly with stuff like this. Haven’t you noticed how every single “source” on this thing is from the area around Cullman County? You are lumping yourself in with fringe characters and your blog is becoming a joke.
Comment by Losing Credibility Fast — June 30, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Hey, “Losing Credibility Fast”, is your other name “REALGOPGIRL”? Because you sound a lot like a sock puppet to me.
Comment by Kathy — June 30, 2007 @ 9:52 am
[…] I suspect that the primary blog in question is Doc’s Political Parlor, which published this post on the matter. There were other blogs that proffered such speculation, but none with the solid history of political neutrality and bona fide access to insiders to rival Doc’s that would incite an actual response from the Gov’s office.. By Brian, June 30, 2007, 9:39 pm […]
Pingback by Flashpoint — June 30, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
[…] Thursday we cited The Cullman Times saying that Gov. Bob Riley had “unexpected business” in Washington at “a high level meeting.” […]
Pingback by Mr. Riley Goes to Washington » Doc’s Political Parlor — July 27, 2007 @ 3:00 am