Rove linked to DoJ prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman during disputed election

[BrainGlutton]

From Time:

The allegation was made by Dana Jill Simpson, a lifelong Republican and lawyer who practices in Alabama. She made the charges in a May 21 affidavit, obtained by TIME, in which she describes a conference call on November 18, 2002, which involved a group of senior aides to Bob Riley, who had just narrowly defeated Siegelman in a bitterly contested election for governor. Though Republican Riley, a former Congressman, initially found himself behind by several thousand votes, he had pulled ahead at the last minute when disputed ballots were tallied in his favor. After the abrupt vote turnaround, Siegelman sought a recount. The Simpson affidavit says the conference call focused on how the Riley campaign could get Siegelman to withdraw his challenge.

According to Simpson’s statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor. Canary then made clear that “his girls” was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

According to Simpson’s statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor. Canary then made clear that “his girls” was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

Canary reassured others on the conference call — who also included Riley’s son, Rob, and Terry Butts, another Riley lawyer and former justice of the Alabama supreme court — that he had the help of a powerful pal in Washington. Canary said “not to worry — that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman,” the Simpson affidavit says. Both U.S. attorney offices subsequently indicted Siegelman on a variety of charges, although Leura Canary recused herself from dealing with the case in May 2002. A federal judge dismissed the Northern District case before it could be tried, but Siegelman was convicted in the Middle District on bribery and conspiracy charges last June.

William Canary called the allegations “outrageous” and “the desperate act of a desperate politician.” Terry Butts said, “I do not recall this telephone conversation — this whole story must have been created by a drunk fiction writer.” A White House spokesman told TIME that since the case of former Governor Siegelman remained before the courts, it would have no comment.

<snip>

In her interview with TIME, Simpson said the participants in the conference call expressed growing concern that Gov. Siegelman would refuse to give up his challenge to the vote count. According to Simpson, Rob Riley said, “Siegelman’s just like a cockroach, he’ll never die, what are we going to do?” At that point Canary offered reassurance by citing Rove’s news from Justice Department.

1. Who’s telling the truth, Simpson or Canary & Butts?

2. Assuming Simpson is, did Rove or the DoJ do anything illegal or improper here?

3. Is Siegelman really guilty or innocent?

[Boyo_Jim]

The conviction of Don Siegelman has a lot of parallels with the conviction of Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin. She was convicted of fraud chages after being part of a committee to award a state contract, and advocating for the low bidder, who also happened to be a contributor to the governor’s campaign. There was no evidence she knew anything about the contributions, which were indisputably legal.

Anyway, it the story behind the conviction is anything close to what Time purports, this conviction will be tossed out shortly with extreme prejudice.

[BrainGlutton]

@Boyo Jim

Anyway, it the story behind the conviction is anything close to what Time purports, this conviction will be tossed out shortly with extreme prejudice.

But, Siegelman was convicted on the evidence by a jury; a bad political motive for the prosecution does not necessarily invalidate the evidence.

[Boyo_Jim]

@BrainGlutton

But, Siegelman was convicted on the evidence by a jury; a bad political motive for the prosecution does not necessarily invalidate the evidence.

The appeals court found in Georgia Thompson’s case that no crime had been committed at all, and she was ordered immediately released. Much as I am generally happy to see elected politicians brought low for their corruption, I have a great deal of trouble seeing a crime.

However, I will say I have absolutely no other information about this case, and I wouldn’t want to rely on one souce, but if the Time account is the accurate gist of the events, I’d say he’s an innocant man:

Siegelman was convicted of appointing Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board in exchange for a $500,000 contribution to a campaign for a state lottery to fund education. Defense lawyers have argued that Siegelman drew no personal financial benefit from Scrushy’s donation to the lottery campaign, and they note that Scrushy had served on the hospital regulatory board under three previous governors, before Siegelman reappointed him. The reappointment, they have argued, offered little of value to Scrushy except more work.

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, if Siegelman is exonerated . . . Bob Riley remains governor. Right?

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Alabama Congressman Arthur Davis, questioning Gonzalez last week, suggests the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated.

[elucidator]

I invoke the Resident Master of Google-Fu to unearth my cite! It will provide the context of how many corruption charges the DOJ has leveled against Dems in recent years as compared to Chubby Pubbies.

Seems to me a simple matter of rotten economics: the party in power is going to get a lot more opportunities to succumb to temptation than the party on the outs. More bunghole for your buck, so to speak. I’d look it up myself, but I’m lazy and easily …ooh, shiny!

How about, for instance, little Teddy Stevens of Alaska? There’s a bit of stench about that.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

I invoke the Resident Master of Google-Fu to unearth my cite! It will provide the context of how many corruption charges the DOJ has leveled against Dems in recent years as compared to Chubby Pubbies.

Here ya go. (No Googling needed – found it right on the first page of this thread, post #28.)

@elucidator

Seems to me a simple matter of rotten economics: the party in power is going to get a lot more opportunities to succumb to temptation than the party on the outs.

That’s always true – but has any previous administration of either party, with or without a Congress of its own party, ever used the DoJ politically in this way, to this widespread and systematic an extent?

[BrainGlutton]

Update: From Harper’s:

The Siegelman prosecution was commenced as the result of a plan hatched between senior figures in the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove. This connection is not coincidental, because Rove was once fired by the first President Bush and then had to rehabilitate himself. Rove did this in spades, and the place where he worked his political magic was in Alabama. He put together a campaign to engineer the Alabama GOP’s capture of the state’s judicial machinery. It worked brilliantly. And Rove has retained tight connections with the Alabama GOP ever since. Rove and the Alabama GOP leaders set out to destroy Siegelman’s political career and thus smooth the path by which the Republican Party could secure and retain political control of the Alabama statehouse. It was crafted in such a way as to retard the ability of Democrats to raise money from campaign donors so that they might contest office in Alabama. Each of these purposes is “corrupt.” Key to this plan was the use of the machinery of the Department of Justice for its completion – involving the U.S. attorneys offices in Birmingham and Montgomery, and the Department of Justice in Washington. Rove was in a position to make this work and he did so.

The curtain was pulled back on this plan when Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who previously worked on a campaign against Siegelman, decided to blow the whistle. Her affidavit described William Canary, a legendary figure in the Alabama GOP, bragging that “his girls” would take care of Siegelman. Canary’s wife is Leura Canary, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama is a close confidante of Canary’s. He referred repeatedly to “Karl,” assuring that “Karl” had worked things out with the Justice Department in Washington to assure a criminal investigation and prosecution of Siegelman. Canary is a close friend of Karl Rove, and I have documented their long relationship in another post.

The response to Simpson’s affidavit has been a series of brusque dismissive statements – all of them unsworn – from others who figured in the discussion and the federal prosecutor in the Siegelman case, who has now made a series of demonstrably false statements concerning the matter. She’s been smeared as “crazy” and as a “disgruntled contract bidder.” And something nastier: after her intention to speak became known, Simpson’s house was burned to the ground, and her car was driven off the road and totaled. Clearly, there are some very powerful people in Alabama who feel threatened. Her case starts to sound like a chapter out of John Grisham’s book The Pelican Brief. However, those who have dismissed Simpson are in for a very rude surprise. Her affidavit stands up on every point, and there is substantial evidence which will corroborate its details.

You can view Simpson’s affidavit here.

Also from Harper’s, following day:

Then last week, Bush and Rove went on the road . . . to the Heart of Dixie. And on Thursday, a reporter for the Huntsville Times popped the question to Rove directly. So how did Rove respond?

Rove was in Alabama on Thursday with President Bush as he toured the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Athens. When asked about Siegelman’s allegations that he was pulling the puppet strings behind the ex-governor’s prosecution, Rove smiled and denied it. “I know nothing about any phone call,” Rove said.

Then a White House press aide stepped up and said, “What he meant to say was that he has no comment.”

Note Rove’s masterful non-denial denial. No one has ever suggested that Rove was in the phone call. To the contrary, it was a phone call among others about Rove. So his statement was not, in fact, a denial of anything. And note that immediate interpretive rebound by the unidentified press aide: “No comment.” How should that be construed? As England’s greatest lawyer, Thomas More, put it, Qui tacet consentit. He who fails to answer, states his consent.

[Zoe]

…after her intention to speak became known, Simpson’s house was burned to the ground, and her car was driven off the road and totaled.

This also reminds me of the Silkwood case.

Damn, BrainGlutton! If not Rove, then who? If not now, when?

Why do people not see this sort of thing as the overthrow of government?

[Boyo_Jim]

Er, because the government’s doing it?

[elucidator]

Its just so hard to believe, hurts the brain. Looks like the last 6 years have been one long dirty truck, or, in Rovespeak, a ratfuck. They really are trying to warp the mechanisms of government to keep themselves in power.

But I wonder if its so much to stay in power, or just to keep the lid on all the crap they’ve done and got away with. I mean, the Dems in Congress have been turning over rocks for about six months now, and you can’t keep up with the squirmy grey things, crawling out into the sunlight and withering, kind of things maggots wont hang with.

[Evil_Captor]

Yeah, my opinion of the Republican Party leadership was pretty low before Bush got in power, but I never really seriously thought of them as being a criminal conspiracy on par with the Mafia before. Now I do.

Which leads to more disquieting thought: I’d always accepted the notion that the Republicans were interested in packing the judiciary with Republicans was for ideological reasons, abortion and so forth. But now I have to consider the notion that it was to allow Republican operatives like Karl Rove to commit what would ordinarily be garden-variety crimes and get away with it. Which means they were planning the shit that happens now for the last 10-20 years.

[BobLibDem]

Pretty chilling stuff. I think if you cross Karl Rove you wind up with a severed horse head in your bed.

I saw this myself earlier, I imagine BG and I frequent the same lefty sites. But why is this in Harper’s and not the Washington Post or NBC or Fox (ok, just kidding with the last one)? This should be the lead story, there should be outrage. Could it be the GE for example doesn’t want to let NBC run with a story that could kill the Republican Party? The corporate masters of the media aren’t about to let this take center stage.

I can only hope that the investigation is done diligently and thoroughly and that someone gets nailed but good.

[Merijeek]

@elucidator

But I wonder if its so much to stay in power, or just to keep the lid on all the crap they’ve done and got away with. I mean, the Dems in Congress have been turning over rocks for about six months now, and you can’t keep up with the squirmy grey things, crawling out into the sunlight and withering, kind of things maggots wont hang with.

Are they? It seems to me they’re turning things up, said things deny any knowledge of any rocks, things, dirt, soil, or mulch, and then life goes on.

Am I missing some more exciting news somewhere?

-Joe

[BrainGlutton]

I’m thinking Siegelman is in a similar situation to O.J. Simpson: Just because he was framed doesn’t mean he’s not guilty.

But does anyone here think he’s actually not guilty?

[elucidator]

Just slightly beside the point. Its kind of like the FBI tracking and toying with AlQ wannabes for more than a year and then busting TERRORISTS! (AAAAArroooooga! AAAAAroooga!) at a convenient moment.

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

But does anyone here think he’s actually not guilty?

What do I care if you find me guilty of molesting mollusks if there’s no actual affect on my life or lifestyle?

-Joe

[kaylasdad99]

@BobLibDem

Pretty chilling stuff. I think if you cross Karl Rove you wind up with a severed horse head in your bed.

Cross Karl Rove with who and get a severed horse head in your bed?

[BobLibDem]

@kaylasdad99

Cross Karl Rove with who and get a severed horse head in your bed?

Seriously? Okay, cross

15. an opposition; thwarting; frustration.
16. to oppose openly; thwart; frustrate.
17. Obsolete. to confront in a hostile manner.

Number 43 comes closest to what I had in mind. I wasn’t aware that I was using an obsolete meaning.