US Attorneys

Don Siegelman Files Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence

davidswanson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:01:08 -0400

By David Swanson

Former governor of Alabama and political prisoner Don Siegelman has filed a motion (PDF) for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Here are the highlights:

ISSUE I. THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE EXCULPATORY AND IMPEACHING INFORMATION IN ITS POSSESSION AS TO KEY WITNESSES AND CORRECT FALSE OR MISLEADING TESTIMONY DURING TRIAL VIOLATED SIEGELMAN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE JENCKS ACT.

The detailed allegations here are worse than the heading sounds. Siegelman accuses the government of shaping the testimony of a key witness.

Issue II: BECAUSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING IMPROPER CONTACTS WITH JURORS, IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT, AND IMPROPER CONDUCT IN PREPARING GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE BRADY MATERIAL, SIEGELMAN WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.

Jury tampering as well as witness tampering. The House Judiciary Committee and a group of 75 former state attorneys general have both already complained about this to the U.S. Justice Department.

Issue III. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF A SECRET INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF JUROR EMAILS, A CRITICAL MATERIAL FACT IN A MOTION THEN PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, VIOLATED SIEGELMAN’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

And what was still missing? ... Judge tampering, of course! This is like a Karl Rove election theft: it's attacked from every angle at once.

ISSUE IV: THE FAILURE OF U. S. ATTORNEY LEURA CANARY TO ABIDE BY HER ANNOUNCED RECUSAL DEPRIVED SIEGELMAN OF HIS ENTITLEMENT TO A DISINTERESTED PROSECUTOR

Her husband was a paid consultant to the political campaigns of Republican opponents of Governor Siegelman, as well as the campaign of then-Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, who at that time was involved in the ongoing investigation of Siegelman.

ISSUE V: SIEGELMAN WAS SELECTIVELY PROSECUTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IN VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE A CONTRIBUTION TO AN EDUCATION LOTTERY FOUNDATION HE SUPPORTED.

For background on this case and hundreds of others like it, watch The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove, and read Our Political Prisoners.

Obama and Congress Must Act to Restore the Constitution

dlindorff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:13:08 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney
administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the
Bush presidency tick down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep
pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.

For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable
exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction
of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation’s reputation,
and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress
itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice
President Dick Cheney, who have sought to establish an executive-led government
that answered only to itself.

Obama, running for the White House, initially talked of restoring
the constitutional order, and of prosecuting crimes where they had
occurred, much as he talked of ending the war in Iraq. But now, as he
increasingly assumes the role of President, he is backing away from
that kind of talk, with plans instead to extend the war and occupation
in Iraq for years, while actually expanding the war in Afghanistan, and
to give the outgoing administration of criminals and
Constitution-wreckers a free pass, in the name of “letting bygones be
bygones.” Ironically, he is doing this even as some in Congress,
including House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who ducked the issue of
impeachment and sat on proposed impeachment articles against Bush and
Cheney filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for two critical years when
he could have ordered a formal hearing by his committee, are now
calling for a special prosecutor.

But broken promises about the war aside, Obama cannot have it both
ways. If, as he is still declaring, “no one is above the law” in
America, then it is essential that those who have committed grave
crimes must be indicted and tried for those crimes. As he takes the
oath of office on Jan. 20, Obama will swear to uphold and defend the
Constitution. That means not only defending the integrity of the
document itself, but enforcing all the laws that have been passed in
accordance with that document.

As President, Obama has no more right than did his predecessor to
pick and choose which laws to enforce. At a time when the nation’s
jails are crammed to overflowing with hundreds of thousands of people
whose crimes are as minimal as stealing CDs from a convenience store,
if President Obama and his Justice Department fail to order an
investigation into profound White House crimes like the destruction of
evidence in the Valerie Plame spy-outing case, or the investigation
into the politicalization of the appointment and firing of US
Attorneys, or of the deliberate campaign of lies to justify an
unnecessary invasion of Iraq, if they fail to investigate fully what
the president’s illegal National Security Agency wiretapping program
was really all about, if they fail to investigate the rampant fraud and
profiteering by White House-connected private contractors in the Iraq
War zone, if they fail to investigate the clear evidence of White House
efforts to undermine fair elections in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, if
they fail to prosecute the White House, right up to the offices of Vice
President and President, for authorizing, directing and then covering
up evidence of systematic torture of captives in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and in the so-called “war” on terror, if they don’t
investigate what the administration really knew and what it covered up
in the days and weeks before the 9-11 attacks in 2001, it will no
longer be possible to say, with a straight face, that in America
everyone is equal under the law.

But that is only part of it.

Many of the current administration’s “crimes” are not statutory
violations. They are so called “high crimes” as defined by the
Founders. That is to say they are abuses of power that threaten the
nation’s very essense. They are not crimes in the sense that they
violate a law, but, even more seriously, they undermine our political
system and consequently threaten the very continued existence of our
free and democratic society.

The appropriate remedy for these high crimes—things like Bush’s
refusal, expressed through signing statements, to enact or envorce laws
or parts of laws duly passed by the Congress, his and Vice President
Cheney’s refusals to comply with Congressional subpoenas, his lies to
Congress regarding the true situation regarding the alleged threat
posed by Iraq in 2002 and 2003, and his overall assertion of “unitary
executive” power as commander in chief—was impeachment, but with Bush
and Cheney about to leave office, that is probably a lost cause.
(Certainly the two men could still be impeached, as impeachment itself
does not require that the impeached party still be in office, and the
potential penalty for conviction of an impeachable offence, besides
removal from office, also can include a permanent ban on holding any
future public office—an important sanction for the historical record.)
But here Obama—and the Democratic Congress--could act creatively, for
example by ordering the creation of a commission of inquiry to
investigate and condemn such constitutional undermining. By compelling
the testimony of witnesses under oath, it is possible that actual
punishable crimes such as contempt or perjury could still be committed
by White House officials and even by Bush and Cheney, but more
importantly, the nature of these crimes would be publicly exposed and
condemned, so that it would be far less likely that any future
administration would again commit them.

Obama should also act unilaterally to undo as much of the damage as
possible—for example revoking all unconstitutional presidential signing
statements from the Bush/Cheney years, and canceling all
unconstitutional Executive Orders, such as those authorizing torture
and extraordinary rendition programs.

The time is right for these actions. The public is almost uniformly
angry at the outgoing administration, which is walking away from office
leaving the nation a smoking ruin. Contrary to what Obama and his
advisers and the pathetic leadership in both houses of Congress seem to
think, the American public doesn’t want them to simply “move forward.”
Sure we want action to fix the wrecked economy, and to get all the
troops safely back home, but we also way the country put back together,
and we want those who wrecked the place to pay for the damage they’ve
done.

Few Americans would be dismayed to see Bush and Cheney squirming in the dock. Most would, in fact, be cheering and jeering.

The time has come for the newly empowered Democratic government in
Washington to stand up proudly and unambiguously for the Constitution
and the rule of law, and to prove that the phrase “No one is above the
law” isn’t just, as Bush’s hack lawyer Alberto Gonzales once said of
the Geneva Conventions, a “quaint historical artifact.”
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His most recent
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now
available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39045';
digg_title = "Obama and Congress Must Act to Restore the Constitution";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the Bush presidency tick down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.\r\n\r\n For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation’s reputation, and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to establish an executive-led government that answered only to itself.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Siegelman Juror Misconduct Investigation Re-Opened

fast2write — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:08:33 -0500

Appeals Panel Could Drop Siegelman Case Tuesday

In light of recent information from a new whistle-blower in the Bush Justice Department's political prosecutions still under investigation by Congress, including the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, the federal court in Montgomery has re-opened the investigation into juror misconduct, according a document just filed with the appeals court in Atlanta. And the three-judge panel could drop the case against Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy next Tuesday, Dec. 9, in Atlanta.

Read the full breaking news story here in The Locust Fork News-Journal:

http://blog.locustfork.net/2008/12/04/justice-department-re-opens-juror-....

http://tinyurl.com/6addol

LocustFork.Net

With a New Day Dawning in DC, Will Rove Escape Justice?

fast2write — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:56:48 -0500

With a new day dawning in Washington, D.C., due to the election of Barack Obama as the first black president in American history who looks determined to govern like Lincoln and make changes in that corrupt town, is it possible that Bush administration officials will totally escape the long arm of justice for their roles in high crimes and misdemeanors more damaging than any corruption in our history?

While former Bush political adviser Karl Rove is still in defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify under oath and still faces an investigation for destroying e-mails and other documents, obstruction of justice and other civil and criminal infractions for his role in turning the Bush Justice Department into a political arm of the White House, the Washington Post company actually pays him money to write a column for Newsweek magazine advising the Republican Party on how to get itself out of the political wilderness. There is something very wrong with this picture....

Read the full story at the permalink below in the the hottest independent news site in the American South by far, The Locust Fork News-Journal: http://www.locustfork.net/

Permalink:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2008/11/20/with-a-new-day-dawning-in-dc-will-...

A Day of Reckoning For Don Siegelman, Eleventh Circuit

fast2write — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:32:39 -0500

The Case For Why Siegelman’s Verdict Should Be Overturned

A detailed analysis of the appeals briefs in the Siegelman case reveals four solid arguments the appeals court panel could stand on to reverse the conviction, order a mistrial, or reduce the sentence after a hearing scheduled for Dec. 9 in Atlanta.

Full news feature with links and photos here:

http://blog.locustfork.net/2008/11/15/a-day-of-reckoning-for-siegelman-1...

News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:30 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to
the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning
that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from
Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by
existing case law.”

The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of
who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations
into presidential wrongdoing.

Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to
move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration,
which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses,
even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.

In the specific case under consideration here, the House Judiciary
Committee had been attempting to force the appearance of Josh Bolton,
the president’s former chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White
House legal counsel, to testify about the White House role in the
firing of a number of federal prosecutors around the country who were
reportedly deemed insufficiently political in their unwillingness to
“go after” Democratic elected officials, or to interfere with the
election process.

Bush had asserted that all such aides have blanket immunity from
Congressional inquiry under the concept of “executive privilege.”

But Judge Bates disagreed, saying that the White House had failed
to show a single case in which the courts had held White House aides to
be immune from Congressional subpoenas. In a strongly-worded 93-page
ruling, he not only said that no such blanket immunity existed, and
that aides had to respond to congressional subpoenaes. He also ordered
that the White House must hand over requested documents—something that
the White House for both of the president’s two terms, has been
unwilling to do.

Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will
appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end
up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on
Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident
about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited
for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to
appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider
using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by
having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it
suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among
the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush
has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the
Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once
confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to
uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t
know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the
same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent
counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton,
which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship
nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by
Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying
activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on
his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it
could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees
are reading the political handwriting on the wall: that the Bush era of
seeking to aggrandize absolute executive power is coming to an end.
With the president’s public support dwindling to just 21 percent, and
with all signs pointing to a big Democratic win in upcoming
Congressional elections, not to mention a possible Democratic president
in the White House this November, we may start to see at least some
Bush-appointed judges concluding that supinely acceding to the wishes
of the Bush/Cheney White House may not be the wisest career move for
anyone hoping to move up to a higher court.

Whatever the reasons for this important decision, I commend Judge
Bates for upholding the Constitution, and its all-important
establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government.

Now if only Democrats in Congress would do the same thing.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). Because of a clerical error and his own inattention to bureaucratic detail, he graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35170';
digg_title = "News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by existing case law.”\r\n\r\n The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.\r\n\r\n Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration, which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses, even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Neo-Cons Demand Mukasey's Criminal Complicity

Chip — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:09:25 -0500

Harper's Scott Horton just dropped da turd in da tank. Seems as though a few "movement conservatives" got some "private time" with the "independently minded" Judge Mukasey. They made two offers he couldn't refuse. First, don't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the US Attorneys scandal - that's essential to protect the Bush toadies Rove and Miers. Secondly, they wanted Mukasey's assurance that he would continue the protection of the authors of the waterboarding torture program.

Welcome, folks, to the world of Alice in Wonderland, as we peer down into the rabbit's hole, reading Senator Schumer's (ir)rationalization for endorsing Mukasey:

"...the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent attorney general. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

Wake up, you're not going to get a strong and independent attorney general. You're going to get another puppet whose primary function will be to hold the damn mess together for another year, until the corporate fascists can bail out to their K Street golden parachutes. If Mukasey has an ounce of integrity and a lick of sense, he'll bolt for the door.

But the really startling admission in Schumer's statement is his defeatist handwringing: "When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice..." Schumer must be tone deaf to his own words to be so accepting of the administration's lawlessness.

But, sadly, it gets worse. Mukasey either is waffling (hardly the stuff needed to manage the in-disarray DOJ) or he's scamming someone. Which is it? Or, Who is it? Schumer or the neo-cons? Here's what Schumer says Mukasey promised:

The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

But according to Scott Horton, Mukasey also shined on the neo-cons. "Mukasey, I am told, gave vague reassurances on both points, 'without completely giving away the shop.'”

Strong and independent? Or vague and waffling? And isn't conspiring to cover up crimes - even at the highest level - also a crime? Maybe not, down in Wonderland's rabbit's hole.

Move on to impeachment

richardmathews — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:16 -0400

MoveOn is finally moving on to talk about the possibility of impeachment proceedings!

Sign their petition:
http://pol.moveon.org/subpoena/

It states:

"Congress must force Vice President Cheney to respond to its subpoenas. If he continues to obstruct justice and disregard the rule of law, Congress has no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings against him."

Richard M. Mathews

Jill Simpson's Affidavit Lifts The Veil on Bush Justice Department, Karl Rove Dirty Tricks

fast2write — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:06:20 -0400

In a five part series, Jill Simpson tells the story of her affidavit filed in the interest of seeking justice against the Bush and Riley political machines in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.

The Locust Fork Journal

Glynn Wilson
Editor & Publisher
The Locust Fork News and Journal
http://www.locustfork.net/news/
http://www.locustfork.net/blog/

Judiciary Chairmen Subpoena Miers and Taylor but White House Claims Executive Privilege

Bob Fertik — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:30:17 -0400

As we all know, it's ultimately about Karl Rove...

Judiciary Chairmen Conyers, Leahy Issues Subpoenas For White House Officials, Documents

Senate, House Judiciary Panels Compel Former White House Officials To Provide Testimony, Information In Connection With Investigations Of U.S. Attorney Firings And Politicization Within Dept. Of Justice

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., today issued subpoenas to two former White House officials compelling them to provide testimony and related information as part of ongoing congressional investigations into the mass firings of well-performing federal prosecutors and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice.

The House Judiciary Committee issued two subpoenas, one seeking the documents and testimony of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and another seeking White House documents relevant to the panel’s ongoing investigation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued three subpoenas, two seeking the documents and testimony of Sara M. Taylor, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs, and another seeking White House documents relevant to the panel’s ongoing investigation.

“Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain,” said Chairman Conyers.”The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania. This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this.”

“By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of Justice,” said Chairman Leahy. “The White House cannot have it both ways — it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred. The involvement of the White House’s political operation in this project, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her boss Karl Rove, has been confirmed by information gathered by congressional committees. Some at the White House may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.”

So will the White House comply with the subpoenas? Hell no!

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

At long last, the Constitutional Crisis begins...