Comments on: Siegelman Prosecution on Cover of Time

by: Jim

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:37:12 +0000

What’s not so subtly presented in the Time piece is the suggestion that the claims Lanny made about Sessions and Pryor are the same made about Siegelman. Again, Time chose to present the piece this way, but the facts don’t support it. First, Lanny made the claims as if to say, “Well, I didn’t do anything wrong because I did it for these guys too, including your boss.” Second, prosecutors already had identified the warehouse project as evidence of favorable project set up to benefit Lanny, but there was no similiar claim of a favorable project or even favor set up for him by Sessions or Pryor. Third, Lanny admitted to prosecutors and investigators that he had an arrangement with Siegelman for quid pro quo, but nothing with Sessions or Pryor (although he “hoped” he could get one.) Fourth, Lanny made no mention, even when asked directly by his interrogators, that Sessions and Pryor knew anything about his campaign contributions.

So the disengenious effort by Time, and really the Siegelman lawyers and Democrat supporters who handed Time the story, hopes that the reader is not sophisticated enough to identify these problems with the story’s premise that the claims warrant the same type of criminal investigation. The attempt here is to manipulate national media to make these connections, and hope that the readers do too. So Danny, your point that people feel uncomfortable about this is only relevant if people aren’t aware that the premise of the Time article is seriously and fatally flawed.

I would have hoped you caught that, but apparently you and others didn’t. Too bad.

by: Anonymous

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:16:45 +0000

But when you factor in that Lanny Young’s lobbying partner was a top aide in both the Sessions and Pryor campaigns, you at least get to a need for investigation. To me, the problem is not so much selective prosecution as selective investigation. To date, the US Attorney’s Office has not said a thing about how they proved or disproved the lack of direct benefit to Lanny Young’s clients from either Sessions or Pryor. Without that investigation, how can you say whether or not there was a parallel to the Siegleman situation?

by: Kathy

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:49:55 +0000

I guess that answers the question.

by: Don

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:50 +0000

(Copied and pasted from http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-31/1191542761125210.xml&storylist=alabamanews&thispage=2)

“Feaga also said it would have been impossible for them to have prosecuted Sessions or Pryor if they had done something wrong, because the statute of limitations had expired at the time Young provided the information about possibly illegal, unreported contributions.”

by: Kathy

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:44:48 +0000

As far as I can tell from this report, Lanny Young didn’t claim that either candidate was aware of what he was doing. He did say clearly that there were staffers on both campaigns who did know, and if that is true prosecutors certainly had reason to follow up on his accusations. Maybe they couldn’t be bothered because they would only be able to go after minions and wouldn’t be able to bring down a big name. The question still remains: if they were so willing to take everything Young said about Siegelman as gospel truth (although, as Danny points out, the jury did not), why weren’t they as fervent in their belief of what he told them about other campaigns? Maybe they thought the fish were too small to fry, or maybe they weren’t interested in pursuing allegations against Republicans. We’ll likely never know, but Bush has only himself and his mismanaged, highly politicized Justice Department to blame for questions like these.

by: Danny

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:28:01 +0000

Interesting question, commenter #1…

I think the part of this story that makes many people uncomfortable, including some people on both sides of the aisle, is that we want to believe that everyone gets equal protection under the law and that everyone is held equally accountable. I want to believe that my neighbor is held to the same standards I am. There are parts of this story (and others nationally) that suggest we are not all held to the same standards, and that decisions about investigations and prosecutions sometimes are made based on something other than a desire to provide “justice for all.”

I really think that is what makes people uncomfortable about this - a suspicion that maybe justice isn’t blind. And that is what the Time article speaks to. I’m not sure the article is about Siegelman as much as it about the Justice Department being politicized.

But to attempt to answer to your question… Lanny Young apparently was credible to the satisfaction of the prosecutors and the judge. I have not heard anyone on either side of the story suggest that he is not telling the truth, so until someone presents a strong challenge, I’m willing to accept that he is probably telling the truth.

Does that hurt Siegelman? The accusations Lanny Young made regarding Siegelman apparently did not figure into any of the charges that Siegelman was convicted on. Lanny Young already said his piece about Siegelman in court, and Siegelman was acquitted of those charges. If what he said wasn’t strong enough to convict him previously, I’m not sure it will hurt him further now.

by: Susan

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:02:49 +0000

Based on the Norman HSU case (Hillary’s largest fundraiser), if Young had been having other people make federal donations on his behalf to circumvent the campaign donation limits the lawbreakers would be Young and his surrogates and not Sessions unless he had direct knowledge of the scheme. After all, Hillary is not being prosecuted for Hsu’s actions.

As for Pryor, he was not running for federal office and there are no individual spending limits on Alabama campaigns.

by: Kathy

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:48:33 +0000

We’re missing the point here. Lanny Young testified that he routed contributions through third parties to the Sessions ($15,000 to $22,000) and Pryor ($12,000 to $15,000) campaigns in order to circumvent the limits that were in place at the time ($1,000 for a primary, $1,000 for a general election) and that he did so with the knowledge and cooperation of top aides in each campaign. Whether or not there was a direct quid pro quo, this kind of money laundering is blatantly illegal, yet no investigation ensued, even though officials from then-AG Pryor’s office were present when the allegations were made.

Here’s my question: if prosecutors considered Young so credible regarding Siegelman that they based some half of the 32 counts on his testimony, why did they not also follow up on his accusations against the Pryor and Sessions campaigns?

by: Get Real

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:42:18 +0000

Roy, your first point seems weak. If bribery is indeed standard operating procedure the Feds would likely want to stop it.The second point - that this was a political prosecution - rings truer, but again it would appear that Siegelman admits (de facto) that he violated the law by his argument.

I don’t see how this particular line of defense results in anything but death for Don’s political career, which means a type of death for him - he lives for elections.

by: Roy

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:28:16 +0000

It actually is not that simple: Obviously, one of Gov. Siegelman’s objections to the charges is that he is the victim of selective prosecution based on politics. Part of that argument is the notion that the conduct that served as the basis of the charges (rewarding campaign contributors with a position) is standard operating procedure in Alabama (and elsewhere) and has not been previously the subject of criminal prosecution. The Time story that prosecutors didn’t seem interested in Young’s statements that he also gave money to Republicans like Sessions would seem to support Gov. Siegelman’s position that his was a political prosecution. The answer to all of this, however, may lie in Feaga’s response that none of the Republicans to which Young made contributions actually did anything in return for the money.