BREAKING: Don Siegelman Released On Bail Pending Appeal

Great news from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals:

ATLANTA, Ga. -- The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted former Gov. Don Siegelman's request to be released from prison pending the outcome of his appeal.

Siegelman is currently serving a 7-year sentence in the Oakdale Federal Correctional Complex in Louisiana following his 2006 public corruption conviction.

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin confirms the 11th Circuit granted Siegelman's release in a fou- page order which states Siegelman had raised a "significant question" about his conviction. source

Let the celebrations begin.

And make sure they keep his cell in Louisiana open, so that Karl Rove can take it over as soon as possible.

For the previous Don Siegelman essay, click here

Was Spitzer Like Siegelman The Target Of A Political Prosecution?

Don Siegelman, a former, Democratic governor of Alabama and a good guy, was railroaded to a federal prison where he's now serving a 7-year sentence, in a case that has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it. The case is a travesty and proof positive not only that there are political prisoners in the US but that Siegelman is one of them.

Yesterday, I wrote a diary about this disgraceful travesty because I wanted to keep the story alive. I don't want us to forget that this conviction is an example of why there was a US Attorney scandal and why investigation of that scandal must continue.

The best sources of information on Siegelman, if you're not yet familiar with this mockery of justice, is OPOL's Friday diary on the case, a diary with lots of video and background, and Siegelman's web site.

What's any of this got to do with Eliot Spitzer, who has been forced to resign as Governor of New York because of his hiring prostitutes? Plenty.

In an video interview with 60 Minutes about Don Siegelman's case, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a republican, one of 52 other former state attorney general's decrying Siegelman's conviction, explained that in Siegelman's case the travesty began when at the behest of Karl Rove and others law enforcement officials began to investigate Siegelman for entirely political reasons. They were not investigating a crime that had occurred; they were instead investigating a person, their political adversary.

At the start of the investigation of Siegelman, there was no reason whatsoever to believe that any crime had been committed. Quite to the contrary, from its inception the investigation was a political prosecution by appointed officials (the US Attorneys, the FBI, DoJ employees) to damage or remove an elected official, in effect, to nullify an election. This meant, in the simplest terms, committing large amounts of resources to their quarry until, presto chango!, something that could be turned into at the least a scandal or at best, an indictment mysteriously arose. You'll recall Judge Sol Wachtler's truism that a prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The dangers of having unelected officials remove elected ones should be obvious.

Now, what about Eliot Spitzer? You'll recall Troopergate, the enormous dustup between Spitzer and Senate Republican Leader Joseph Bruno arising from Spitzer's causing a state police investigation of Bruno for alleged use of state aircraft for personal reasons. That was just last summer and fall. In this kind of political lucha libre, there is always tit for tat.

Notice the similarities between the Siegelman and Spitzer cases. Scott Horton writes in TNR:

The story emerging around the fall of Eliot Spitzer suggests that the case did not start with the report of a crime. Rather it started with a decision to look into Spitzer and his financial dealings. snip

Specifically, the official narrative suggests that a Long Island bank noticed an odd pattern of payments made by Spitzer between different accounts. The payments were not enormous sums... snip
The Los Angeles Times reports that Spitzer asked that his name be taken off the money wires, which reportedly aroused suspicion. The bank submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the IRS. The payments which totaled up to $80,000, looked suspicious, we are told, and were examined on the basis that they might be an effort to money-launder bribes. This was reported to the IRS in Hauppauge, Long Island, which in turn involved the Public Integrity Section in the Department of Justice.

The Public Integrity Section sought an obtained approval to continue the investigation from the US Attorney General. The Section, which is highly politicized, prosecutes 5.6 democrats for every republican. Of course, approval to investigate further was granted.

According to Horton:

Considering that the official account shows this was a "routine" examination of bank records, the level of resources allocated to it, including investigators and prosecutors, was lavish. This again suggests a political prosecution. Political direction is rarely overt. It usually takes the form of generous allocation of resources for political targets, and constriction of resources for persons who are politically protected. Clearly, moving the case against Spitzer had become a priority.

Two more questions should be asked about the prosecution. The first is whether a selective attitude is taken in prosecution--that is, whether the Justice Department is treating Spitzer in a manner consistent with other (notably Republican) figures caught in a similarly compromised position. The second is how the matter was broken to the press.

On each of these points, the information now available raises unsettling issues about the conduct of the Justice Department. One close parallel involving a prostitution investigation is the case of the "D.C. Madam." In that case, federal prosecutors have proceeded against the prostitution ring and have shown little interest in the customer list, which is said to include a former high-ranking Bush Administration official (Randall Tobias, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development) and a U.S. Senator (David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana). The prosecutors' conduct in the "D.C. Madam" case has been remarkably deferential to the public figures involved. That case cannot be squared with the investigation into Governor Spitzer--it points to a double standard.

Politically abusive prosecutions are almost always marked by media-friendly prosecutors. The essence of political prosecution is less to bag the political prey than to make partisan propaganda by marking the target as "corrupt." And the accounts published in The New York Times, ABC News, and other media outlets reveal investigators and prosecutors eager to get the details out and on to the public record. (On Friday, a Times reporter received a tip that "Client 9" was "a New York official.") Indeed, there is an extremely revealing penchant for salacious detail in the complaint--insinuations about the sexual proclivities of "Client 9," for instance. This may have been included gratuitously to humiliate Spitzer and destroy any prospects for his future political career. If there is a legitimate prosecutorial purpose served, I can't fathom it.

Horton concludes that it's too early to decide with certainty whether the investigation of Spitzer was a political one. That may be so, but I don't believe it. The stench emanating from Siegelman's conviction and from the investigation of Spitzer is the same.

Is there going to be in inquiry into the investigation of Spitzer? One can only hope so.

It is vitally important to the preservation of our democracy that political uses of law enforcement, like the one in Siegelmans' case, like the one in Spitzer's case, be controlled. If they are not, elected officials will constantly risk subversion by appointed officials of the opposing party.

Free Don Siegelman!

photo and above text by OPOL

Today I spent several hours reading about a travesty of justice. Sometimes travesties of justice aren't based in significant part on race or national origin or poverty or bad lawyering. No. Sometimes, powerful and good people, people who are well defended but have even more powerful and devious enemies, get railroaded to prison. And so it is that Don Siegelman, a former governor of Alabama finds himself in a federal prison camp in Louisiana in a case redolent of chicanery and political hanky panky and judicial irregularity. A case, in my opinion, that has Karl Rove's despicable fingerprints all over it and is a farce and mockery of justice that cannot be permitted to stand.

Put in the vernacular, the case really reeks. But nevertheless, Don Siegelman, a good and progressive man, because of a confluence of being a democrat in the Republican state of Alabama, a hostile, politically motivated US Attorney, an even more hostile district court judge in Montgomery, the death of the court reporter who transcribed his trial, a corrupt, politically motivated prosecution, jury misconduct, and dilly dallying by the ever cautious 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, remains in jail almost 9 months since he was initially and surprisingly remanded without bail upon his conviction of 2 of 34 counts in an politically induced indictment. A previous prosecution of him was summarily dismissed as meritless; the current case is the second attempt by his political enemies to convict him to remove him from office.

Have you heard about this case? I did, during initial reportage about the US Attorney scandal, which seems to have faded into oblivion and forgetfulness, but I didn't penetrate how thoroughly this case stinks until today, thanks to a must read essay by my friend, OPOL. If you can, please read this essay in its entirety. If you can't, please instead watch this video. It will bring you up to speed in fifteen minutes. It will stun, shock and astonish you, as it did 52 state attorneys general, all of whom believe the conviction is garbage.

The spectacle of Siegelman, whom I briefly met about 40 years ago in Huntsville, Alabama, being in federal prison on this bogus case is nothing short of overwhelming. And the obtuseness, if not hostility with which the district judge and the Eleventh Circuit have met his requests for bail pending appeal sets some kind of high water mark for politically motivated vindictiveness. This is the kind of judicial hostility I encountered all too often during the civil rights era. It is utterly shocking to see that kind of callousness resurrected for Siegelman. All too ironical and upsetting is that the conviction was in the Middle District of Alabama, a court formerly presided over by Hon. Frank M. Johnson, one of America's great jurists of the mid-twentieth century. The political and intentional degradation of this particular, historically important district court, a district court that made courageous rulings in favor of civil rights throughout the sixties and seventies, is exemplified by Siegelman's conviction, his immediate, summary remand to prison, and his present inability to be bailed pending appeal. The rulings in Siegelman's case, especially those since his conviction, are simply disgraceful.

I have no doubt that there are reversible errors in Siegelman's case. These include everything from the failure to prove that a crime was ever committed (there was no quid pro quo in connection with the alleged bribery count) to juror misconduct (jurors, despite the court's instructions, emailed each other during the trial and deliberations to plot for a conviction) to the failure of the prosecution to provide the notes written by their star witness (a violation of 18 USC 3500). Doubtless there are other, equally important problems. And keeping Siegelman locked up-- he is no risk of flight-- because of the alleged lack of merit of his appeal is the kind of preposterous, willful vindictiveness that should never be tolerated. Simply put, his appeal has merit sufficient for him to be released. I have seen others who committed far worse crimes and had far weaker merits on appeal released for the duration of their appeals. Siegelman is getting "special treatment" because of who he is and his party affiliation.

What can you do about all of this?

First, watch the video and read OPOL's essay.

Second, visit Don's web site for updates, analysis, documents, links to press coverage, and more, very persuasive video produced by independent news agencies. Take a long, hard look at this ridiculous conviction.

Third, make a small Pay Pal donation to Don's defense. If enough people give just small amounts ($10, $20, $50), Don's defense will not find itself working for free.

Fourth, please send this essay or OPOL's essay to others. It's important that this travesty not be swept under the rug.

And fifth, go to Don's web site, which has links, so that you can contact the appropriate Congresspersons and urge them not only to deal with Don's plight but also to stop delaying and to pursue the contempt citations in the US Attorney scandals to which this case is so directly connected.

Travesties like this conviction and the horrendous treatment Don has received since his conviction need to be exposed. They simply cannot be tolerated, not if we value the rule of law and the necessity for it to be administrated fairly and impartially. Not if we believe in a fair and independent judiciary. Not if we believe we live in a democracy.