K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
Today, Don Siegelman, former governor of the state of Alabama, sits in
a federal prison, sentenced to a seven year term for bribery.
Every day that Siegelman remains in prison every American citizen who
openly dissents from the policies and protests the criminality of the
Bush/Cheney regime is less free and more vulnerable to politically
motivated prosecution.
For the plain fact of the matter is that Don Siegelman is, in effect,
a political prisoner. The formal charge against him was bribery. But,
practically speaking, his offense was his political success as a
Democrat in a "red" Republican state. When Siegelman indicated an
interest in reviving his political career, one of his accusers was
heard to say, "[We're] going to take care of Siegelman." And so they
did.
donsiegelman.org
Larisa Alexandrovna, one of the few journalists to investigate this
case in depth, writes:
For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote
and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world
dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that
a prominent politician - a former state governor - could be tried on
charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a
trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled
off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost
unbelievable.
Less "unbelievable," perhaps, if we reflect upon a dominant Republican
mind-set: politics as warfare, the Democrats as "evil" and "the
enemy," and not as "the loyal opposition." "You are either with us or
with the terrorists," said George Bush -- no compromise, no
alternatives, and no middle ground. Thus the goal of the GOP warrior
is not merely to defeat the Democrats; the goal is to destroy them.
This was the objective of those who brought charges against Don
Siegelman, in a case that stinks from top to bottom of political
vendetta and manipulation. It's a rather complicated story, which I
cannot recount in detail here. Those details may be found in the Raw
Story (Alexandrovna et al) series and the DemocracyNow Scott Horton
interview, listed and linked below. However, these are the essential
elements:
The bribery charge rose out of Siegelman's appointment of Richard
Scrushy to the Alabama hospital regulatory board, a non-paying
position that Scrusky had held under two previous governors. The
appointment followed Scrushy's donation of a half million dollars to a
Siegelman foundation and gained Siegelman no financial advantage
whatever. Of course, political favors to donors is routine in both
state an federal government, as numerous ambassadorial appointments
will testify. Moreover, clearly illegal campaign contributions were
received by Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions and Federal Judge
William Pryor, who have not been investigated much less prosecuted.
Siegelman held the distinction of serving all four elective state
offices: Attorney General, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor and
Governor. With his prestige, popularity, and name-recognition, he was
a persistent threat to the well-oiled Alabama GOP political machine.
As his daughter, Dana, describes it,
The men and women behind this conspiracy have a lot against my dad. My
dad wanted an education lottery, brought jobs to the state, made big
businesses pay their taxes, sought to completely change Alabama's
constitution, raised teachers' salaries, gave African Americans jobs
that Caucasians had supremacy over for years, helped in fundraisers
for other Democrats, supported the arts, was well-respected on a
national level, etc... It was a battle against a truly liberal leader,
not some moderate Democrat. He held the highest offices in the state
and was Alabama's longest running politician. Republicans wanted their
state back, and they got it.
"They got it" through a stolen election. In 2002, Siegelman appeared
to have won re-election against Republican challenger Bob Riley. But
then, in Baldwin county, Republican election supervisors (no Democrats
allowed), locked the doors and "discovered" a "computer glitch" that
tilted the election to Riley, whereupon the GOP Attorney General,
William Pryor, put the kibosh on Siegelman's appeal for a recount by
sealing the ballots. (Siegelman gives his account of the theft here).
While Siegelman vowed "to come back and fight another day," the GOP
was determined to see to it that he was at last down for the count.
Enter Bill Canary, Republican kingmaker, friend and confidant of Karl
Rove, campaign advisor to William Pryor and Bob Riley, and, not
coincidentally, husband of U.S. Attorney, Leura Canary. It was Mrs.
Canary, along with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who brought the case
against Siegelman.
Enter next, Dana Jill Simpson, a rare and endangered political animal:
a republican political operative with a conscience and an allegiance
to the rule of law that trumps partisan loyalty. As Scott Horton
reports, in a sworn affidavit Ms. Simpson, Riley's campaign attorney,
provide[d] a detailed specific account of what transpired, starting
with [Bill] Canary's statement "not to worry about Don Siegelman that
'his girls would take care of him.'" Then Riley's son asked Canary if
he was sure that Siegelman would be "taken care of," and Canary told
him 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." "His girls" were
Canary's wife Leura Canary, who as U.S. Attorney in the Middle
District of Alabama, did in fact start the investigation, only
dropping off when objections were raised by Governor Siegelman's
counsel due to her obvious political bias and the U.S. Attorney in
Birmingham, Alice Martin. Ms. Simpson, who gave the affidavit, is a
lifelong Republican and was a worker in the Riley campaign against
Siegelman, and her account has been contemporaneously corroborated.
While communicating with Siegelman's attorney prior to releasing her
affidavit, Simpson's house was demolished by a mysterious fire, and
Simpson herself was forced off the road. Mere coincidences, of
course.
The judge at Siegelman's trial, Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee and a
former member of the executive committee of the Alabama Republican
party, had a well-known grudge against Siegelman. Fuller refused to
recuse himself from the case, denied bail, immediately put Siegelman
in shackles and ordered him to the Atlanta federal prison. After
seven months Judge Fuller, in violation of the law, has refused to
release the trial transcript without which the defendant can not
appeal his conviction.
Don Siegelman has since been shuttled back and forth among several
federal prisons out of touch with his attorneys and not allowed access
to the internet or to press interviews. This treatment has prompted an
unprecedented demand by forty-four former state attorneys general for
a Congressional investigation of the Siegelman case.
The Purge in Progress
The Siegelman Saga puts a human face on a widespread politicization of
the U.S. Department of Justice. In a similar case in Wisconsin,
Georgia Thompson, a purchasing official in the state government, was
convicted of corruption in a case that worked to the advantage of a
Republican candidate for governor. The Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals was so shocked by the injustice of her conviction that they
ordered Thompson's immediate release, even before issuing a ruling.
The evidence against her, said Judge Diane Wood, was "beyond thin."
The December, 2006, firings of eight Republican U.S. attorneys, who
insisted upon conducting their offices without partisan bias, has
brought national attention to the political corruption of the Justice
Department and has caused many to wonder about the behavior of the
remaining eight-five U.S. attorneys that Alberto Gonzales saw fit to
retain. It is a troubling question.
A study by Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of
communication, may supply an answer: "the offices of the U.S.
Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic
officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that
exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic
stops." (The numbers: 298 Democrats, 67 Republicans, 10 "Others").
This apparent partisan purge of Democrats, combined with amnesty for
Republicans, hits close to home. It is reported that Carol Lam, one of
the eight sacked U.S. Attorneys, was hot on the trail of my Republican
Congressman, Jerry Lewis. I've heard nothing more about this
investigation, so it appears that Lewis is off the hook.
So now we have in place a thoroughgoing corruption of the federal
justice system. The blindfold has been torn off the face of lady
justice, as the Department of Justice becomes, in effect, an extension
of the Republican Party, and possession of a public office by a
Democrat becomes a de facto crime, should the hounds of the Department
of Justice decide to go after said official.
The Democratic Congress has been remarkably complacent about all this.
True, they have called a few young graduates from Pat Robertson's
Regent U. Law school to testify, they have heard from the fired U.S.
attorneys, and the Democrats have promised hearings on the Siegelman
case. But its all show - a bark without a bite - as the White House
and the Department of Justice steadfastly refuse to recognize
subpoenas or allow the key players to testify under oath. These
offenses, by the way, were included among the articles of impeachment
against Richard Nixon.
Unsurprisingly, these outrages by the Department of Defense have not
excited much interest in the mainstream media, with the honorable
exception of Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams of MSNBC. Abrams series,
"Bush League Justice," which was broadcast last December, was
magnificent, and he promised that "we're not going to let this go
away... We are going to be watching very closely." Six weeks later, we
are awaiting the follow-up. In addition, rumor has it that 60 Minutes
is preparing a segment on the Siegelman case.
Two Roads Diverge.
The fate of Don Siegelman may reflect the fate of our republic. We are
at a crucial crossroads, one road leads to a restoration of the rule
of law, and the other road leads to despotism.
If Don Siegelman's persecutors have their way and he serves out his
term of seven years, and if the culprits who stole his re-election and
railroaded him to federal lockup enjoy the fruits of their villainy
and escape punishment, then the rule of law is dead in Alabama and in
critical condition in Washington D.C. Then the gangrene of
lawlessness in Alabama may spread until it destroys the entire body
politic.
I seem to recall a comment by some Bushie to the effect that "we're
pushing the limits until someone or something stops us." To date,
those limits have extended well beyond the Constitution and the rule
of law. Acts of Congress are nullified by signing statements,
Congressional oversight is blinded by "executive privilege" and a
refusal to recognize subpoenas. Elections have been privatized and are
unverifiable. All that's left to the Congress to contain this
burgeoning power of "the unitary executive" is impeachment, and
impeachment, as we all know, is "off the table."
Someone, somehow, must draw a line in the sand and say "no further!"
And then, push back - and back -- and back.
"Just wait," we hear, "in less than a year there will be a new
president and a new day dawning." If so, then this new day will
require a new leader with qualities and capacities that are not
conspicuous in any of the present-day contenders for that office.
Perhaps the next President, once in office, will surprise us with
inspired leadership qualities not now apparent. It has happened
before.
But the restoration of freedom never simply "trickles down" from great
leaders. It must also "percolate up" from the people. And I don't see
much reason for hope in the American public today. But extraordinary
crises have a way of summoning extraordinary virtues.
If, somehow, we follow the road to restoration of democracy and the
rule of law, we should see at the beginning of that journey the
release and exoneration of Don Siegelman, the disgrace and punishment
of his tormenters, and the end of political prosecution.
It will be a long and arduous road to follow. But it is the only road
worthy of our dedication and effort.
a federal prison, sentenced to a seven year term for bribery.
Every day that Siegelman remains in prison every American citizen who
openly dissents from the policies and protests the criminality of the
Bush/Cheney regime is less free and more vulnerable to politically
motivated prosecution.
For the plain fact of the matter is that Don Siegelman is, in effect,
a political prisoner. The formal charge against him was bribery. But,
practically speaking, his offense was his political success as a
Democrat in a "red" Republican state. When Siegelman indicated an
interest in reviving his political career, one of his accusers was
heard to say, "[We're] going to take care of Siegelman." And so they
did.
donsiegelman.org
Larisa Alexandrovna, one of the few journalists to investigate this
case in depth, writes:
For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote
and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world
dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that
a prominent politician - a former state governor - could be tried on
charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a
trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled
off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost
unbelievable.
Less "unbelievable," perhaps, if we reflect upon a dominant Republican
mind-set: politics as warfare, the Democrats as "evil" and "the
enemy," and not as "the loyal opposition." "You are either with us or
with the terrorists," said George Bush -- no compromise, no
alternatives, and no middle ground. Thus the goal of the GOP warrior
is not merely to defeat the Democrats; the goal is to destroy them.
This was the objective of those who brought charges against Don
Siegelman, in a case that stinks from top to bottom of political
vendetta and manipulation. It's a rather complicated story, which I
cannot recount in detail here. Those details may be found in the Raw
Story (Alexandrovna et al) series and the DemocracyNow Scott Horton
interview, listed and linked below. However, these are the essential
elements:
The bribery charge rose out of Siegelman's appointment of Richard
Scrushy to the Alabama hospital regulatory board, a non-paying
position that Scrusky had held under two previous governors. The
appointment followed Scrushy's donation of a half million dollars to a
Siegelman foundation and gained Siegelman no financial advantage
whatever. Of course, political favors to donors is routine in both
state an federal government, as numerous ambassadorial appointments
will testify. Moreover, clearly illegal campaign contributions were
received by Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions and Federal Judge
William Pryor, who have not been investigated much less prosecuted.
Siegelman held the distinction of serving all four elective state
offices: Attorney General, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor and
Governor. With his prestige, popularity, and name-recognition, he was
a persistent threat to the well-oiled Alabama GOP political machine.
As his daughter, Dana, describes it,
The men and women behind this conspiracy have a lot against my dad. My
dad wanted an education lottery, brought jobs to the state, made big
businesses pay their taxes, sought to completely change Alabama's
constitution, raised teachers' salaries, gave African Americans jobs
that Caucasians had supremacy over for years, helped in fundraisers
for other Democrats, supported the arts, was well-respected on a
national level, etc... It was a battle against a truly liberal leader,
not some moderate Democrat. He held the highest offices in the state
and was Alabama's longest running politician. Republicans wanted their
state back, and they got it.
"They got it" through a stolen election. In 2002, Siegelman appeared
to have won re-election against Republican challenger Bob Riley. But
then, in Baldwin county, Republican election supervisors (no Democrats
allowed), locked the doors and "discovered" a "computer glitch" that
tilted the election to Riley, whereupon the GOP Attorney General,
William Pryor, put the kibosh on Siegelman's appeal for a recount by
sealing the ballots. (Siegelman gives his account of the theft here).
While Siegelman vowed "to come back and fight another day," the GOP
was determined to see to it that he was at last down for the count.
Enter Bill Canary, Republican kingmaker, friend and confidant of Karl
Rove, campaign advisor to William Pryor and Bob Riley, and, not
coincidentally, husband of U.S. Attorney, Leura Canary. It was Mrs.
Canary, along with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who brought the case
against Siegelman.
Enter next, Dana Jill Simpson, a rare and endangered political animal:
a republican political operative with a conscience and an allegiance
to the rule of law that trumps partisan loyalty. As Scott Horton
reports, in a sworn affidavit Ms. Simpson, Riley's campaign attorney,
provide[d] a detailed specific account of what transpired, starting
with [Bill] Canary's statement "not to worry about Don Siegelman that
'his girls would take care of him.'" Then Riley's son asked Canary if
he was sure that Siegelman would be "taken care of," and Canary told
him 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." "His girls" were
Canary's wife Leura Canary, who as U.S. Attorney in the Middle
District of Alabama, did in fact start the investigation, only
dropping off when objections were raised by Governor Siegelman's
counsel due to her obvious political bias and the U.S. Attorney in
Birmingham, Alice Martin. Ms. Simpson, who gave the affidavit, is a
lifelong Republican and was a worker in the Riley campaign against
Siegelman, and her account has been contemporaneously corroborated.
While communicating with Siegelman's attorney prior to releasing her
affidavit, Simpson's house was demolished by a mysterious fire, and
Simpson herself was forced off the road. Mere coincidences, of
course.
The judge at Siegelman's trial, Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee and a
former member of the executive committee of the Alabama Republican
party, had a well-known grudge against Siegelman. Fuller refused to
recuse himself from the case, denied bail, immediately put Siegelman
in shackles and ordered him to the Atlanta federal prison. After
seven months Judge Fuller, in violation of the law, has refused to
release the trial transcript without which the defendant can not
appeal his conviction.
Don Siegelman has since been shuttled back and forth among several
federal prisons out of touch with his attorneys and not allowed access
to the internet or to press interviews. This treatment has prompted an
unprecedented demand by forty-four former state attorneys general for
a Congressional investigation of the Siegelman case.
The Purge in Progress
The Siegelman Saga puts a human face on a widespread politicization of
the U.S. Department of Justice. In a similar case in Wisconsin,
Georgia Thompson, a purchasing official in the state government, was
convicted of corruption in a case that worked to the advantage of a
Republican candidate for governor. The Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals was so shocked by the injustice of her conviction that they
ordered Thompson's immediate release, even before issuing a ruling.
The evidence against her, said Judge Diane Wood, was "beyond thin."
The December, 2006, firings of eight Republican U.S. attorneys, who
insisted upon conducting their offices without partisan bias, has
brought national attention to the political corruption of the Justice
Department and has caused many to wonder about the behavior of the
remaining eight-five U.S. attorneys that Alberto Gonzales saw fit to
retain. It is a troubling question.
A study by Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of
communication, may supply an answer: "the offices of the U.S.
Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic
officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that
exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic
stops." (The numbers: 298 Democrats, 67 Republicans, 10 "Others").
This apparent partisan purge of Democrats, combined with amnesty for
Republicans, hits close to home. It is reported that Carol Lam, one of
the eight sacked U.S. Attorneys, was hot on the trail of my Republican
Congressman, Jerry Lewis. I've heard nothing more about this
investigation, so it appears that Lewis is off the hook.
So now we have in place a thoroughgoing corruption of the federal
justice system. The blindfold has been torn off the face of lady
justice, as the Department of Justice becomes, in effect, an extension
of the Republican Party, and possession of a public office by a
Democrat becomes a de facto crime, should the hounds of the Department
of Justice decide to go after said official.
The Democratic Congress has been remarkably complacent about all this.
True, they have called a few young graduates from Pat Robertson's
Regent U. Law school to testify, they have heard from the fired U.S.
attorneys, and the Democrats have promised hearings on the Siegelman
case. But its all show - a bark without a bite - as the White House
and the Department of Justice steadfastly refuse to recognize
subpoenas or allow the key players to testify under oath. These
offenses, by the way, were included among the articles of impeachment
against Richard Nixon.
Unsurprisingly, these outrages by the Department of Defense have not
excited much interest in the mainstream media, with the honorable
exception of Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams of MSNBC. Abrams series,
"Bush League Justice," which was broadcast last December, was
magnificent, and he promised that "we're not going to let this go
away... We are going to be watching very closely." Six weeks later, we
are awaiting the follow-up. In addition, rumor has it that 60 Minutes
is preparing a segment on the Siegelman case.
Two Roads Diverge.
The fate of Don Siegelman may reflect the fate of our republic. We are
at a crucial crossroads, one road leads to a restoration of the rule
of law, and the other road leads to despotism.
If Don Siegelman's persecutors have their way and he serves out his
term of seven years, and if the culprits who stole his re-election and
railroaded him to federal lockup enjoy the fruits of their villainy
and escape punishment, then the rule of law is dead in Alabama and in
critical condition in Washington D.C. Then the gangrene of
lawlessness in Alabama may spread until it destroys the entire body
politic.
I seem to recall a comment by some Bushie to the effect that "we're
pushing the limits until someone or something stops us." To date,
those limits have extended well beyond the Constitution and the rule
of law. Acts of Congress are nullified by signing statements,
Congressional oversight is blinded by "executive privilege" and a
refusal to recognize subpoenas. Elections have been privatized and are
unverifiable. All that's left to the Congress to contain this
burgeoning power of "the unitary executive" is impeachment, and
impeachment, as we all know, is "off the table."
Someone, somehow, must draw a line in the sand and say "no further!"
And then, push back - and back -- and back.
"Just wait," we hear, "in less than a year there will be a new
president and a new day dawning." If so, then this new day will
require a new leader with qualities and capacities that are not
conspicuous in any of the present-day contenders for that office.
Perhaps the next President, once in office, will surprise us with
inspired leadership qualities not now apparent. It has happened
before.
But the restoration of freedom never simply "trickles down" from great
leaders. It must also "percolate up" from the people. And I don't see
much reason for hope in the American public today. But extraordinary
crises have a way of summoning extraordinary virtues.
If, somehow, we follow the road to restoration of democracy and the
rule of law, we should see at the beginning of that journey the
release and exoneration of Don Siegelman, the disgrace and punishment
of his tormenters, and the end of political prosecution.
It will be a long and arduous road to follow. But it is the only road
worthy of our dedication and effort.
