Are We Calling This Victory?

You all probably know by now that Karl Rove was deposed in front of House Judiciary Committee staffers the other day, about the US Attorneys scandal and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. But what you don't know, and what I don't know, and what nobody knows, is why. At some level, I'm glad that Congress was able to assert a modicum of its authority and at least get Rove (and apparently, Harriet Miers back in June) on the record with a set of questions. But to what end? Certainly not one of precedent, and not an investigative one as well, it seems.

The White House's foot-dragging may have inflicted some measure of political damage. But in terms of the legal repercussions, by coming to a deal while the case was still pending in an appeals court, the Bushies have largely succeeded in one of their goals: ensuring that no clear precedent has been established limiting the president's power to claim executive privilege in such cases. And the Obama White House's role in helping to secure the deal for Rove's testimony suggests that's an outcome they wanted too.

As for the underlying issue -- the quest to learn what really happened in the firings and the Siegelman prosecution, things remain murky at best. There are conflicting reports about whether Rove will sit for another day of testimony. It's also unclear when and how the committee will decide which parts of Rove's testimony, if any, can be made public, and in what form the probe's findings will be released.

Siegelman, quoted later in the piece, thinks John Conyers will continue to investigate until he finds the truth. He must be an eternal optimist. This has reached the point where Republicans can demagogue with the words "old news," and that was precisely the Bush White House's goal. Even if House Judiciary eventually cobbles together a report and makes recommendations, the chances of the Justice Department taking whatever recommendations concern accountability measures are, in a word, remote. They haven't even moved to set aside the verdict on Siegelman, though I did notice that the Justice Department whistleblower in the case has been fired. At least someone is held to account, right?

Siegelman Convictions Upheld

An appeals court in Atlanta upheld most of the charges against Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, throwing out only two.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down two of the seven charges that Siegelman was convicted of and ordered a new sentencing hearing. That means Siegelman's seven-year sentence could be reduced.

He won't get off entirely: The court upheld key bribery, conspiracy and obstruction counts against him in what prosecutors described as a scheme that put Scrushy on a state hospital regulatory board when he was at the helm of HealthSouth. The court upheld all six counts against (Richard) Scrushy and his sentence of almost seven years.

Siegelman, 63, and Scrushy, 56, were convicted in 2006 by a federal court jury in Montgomery, where Siegelman was a prominent Democrat with a political career dating back three decades.

Siegelman has claimed his prosecution was pushed by Republicans, including former White House adviser Karl Rove, a claim career federal prosecutors who handled the case have emphatically denied. Rove, a Texas strategist, was once heavily involved in Alabama politics.

It's important to recognize the context, the way Scott Horton, who maybe knows more about this case than any living human, does. The three-judge panel were all Republicans, two of whom had an "active record of political engagement in G.O.P. causes." They delivered the opinion “per curiam," without putting their name on it. And much of the evidence that would exonerate Siegelman was outside the purview of the judges in this appeal.

Nearly all the disclosures that undermined confidence in the fairness of the Siegelman trial occurred after the trial record was closed–and none of these disclosures were examined by the Court of Appeals. Even though the appeals court looked into jury misconduct, it did not have before it the much more powerful evidence of misconduct that a whistleblowing member of the prosecution team subsequently disclosed to the Justice Department—because the Bush Justice Department, in violation of its plain ethical duties, chose to keep all of that secret. So although an appeal has been taken and resolved, not one of the truly significant issues with the Siegelman case was ever briefed or argued. That remains for the future.

Siegelman has responded to the verdict by saying that the fight will continue. As for Karl Rove, his big sit-down with the House Judiciary Committee, which can include questions about his involvement in the Siegelman case, will now not happen for several weeks, according to his lawyers.

They Don't Know Halfway

After shrugging off Republican caterwauling about the Holder nomination, the only one the right seems to have any interest in making a stink over, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is pushing back the hearing date a week, a kind of compromise.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will delay confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Eric Holder after all -- accommodating Republican concerns that the appointment was being rushed and more vetting of Holder's resume was needed.

In an announcement from his Senate office on Monday afternoon, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the hearings would be moved back from January 9 to January 15, giving Republicans more than "30 days from today" to consider Holder's qualifications.

I sincerely hope that Leahy doesn't think this will calm anybody on the other side of the aisle. In fact, there will be some talk that this "proves" the "bipartisan concern" with the nomination, and the perception that it's in trouble, and that Holder will have to endure even more scrutiny, perhaps a request for multiple confirmation hearings, etc. This is not necessarily about blocking Holder from becoming the Attorney General but elongating the process and throwing up doubt. They've de-mothballed Karl Rove to lead the effort:

On Dec. 1, just one day after Holder’s nomination, Karl Rove told the Today Show that Holder’s record “will be examined” because he was the “one controversial nominee“:

ROVE: He was deeply involved as the Deputy Attorney General in the controversial pardon of Marc Rich. … I think it’s going to be clearly examined, if for no other reason that people want to lay down markers that that kind of behavior is inappropriate. … But again, there will be some attention paid to this [...]

Today on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Show, Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly revealed that Rove is indeed “helping lead” the effort against Holder:

CONNOLLY: Word on the street is that Karl Rove is going to be helping lead the fight against Eric Holder when his nomination for Attorney General heads up to the Senate.

This is a textbook partisan ploy, designed to engender anger throughout the base and a whiff of illegitimacy to the Justice Department. Of course, that agency is already hopelessly compromised, so any effort to improve it or, ye gods, fire those burrowed deep inside the Department who are responsible for the politicization of the past few years, will then have a counterpoint in the figure of Holder, no matter how ridiculous it may appear.

It shouldn't be any surprise that the one cabinet post Rove is being tapped to sully and turn into a partisan brawl is the one that happens to be investigating him. There may or may not be merit to the idea that Rove wants to provide cover for Bush's pardons, but the Siegelman case threatens Rove where he lives, and he desperately needs to paint it as the rantings of a partisan liberal Justice Department. In fact, painting justice itself as partisan, putting it into the political arena, serves Republican needs in a variety of ways, devaluing the rule of law as just another he-said/she-said situation.

I think Leahy did the wrong thing by listening to these jackals. They have no interest in being mollified.

Guinea Pig

So Mary Beth Buchanan has been drafted to manufacture the first bogus scandal of the Obama Administration.

Mary Beth Buchanan was appointed by President Bush to serve as U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh in Sept. 2001. Buchanan has held several significant posts within the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department, most notably serving as director the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

Just last month, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Buchanan’s reign was expected to end. Indeed, when a new president is elected, U.S. attorneys of both parties generally submit their resignations to make way for the new appointees. But Buchanan has other plans:

Despite a new administration coming into power, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said she plans to stick around.

“It doesn’t serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time,” she said yesterday. […]

More than that, she said she would consider working in the Obama administration. She would not discuss what her future might hold beyond the U.S. attorney’s office.

“I am open to considering further service to the United States,” Ms. Buchanan said.

Well, isn't that nice, she's open to it!

Buchanan, by the way, is one of the US Attorneys Bush kept in power because she was doing the bidding that those federal prosecutors who were fired wouldn't do. She has been implicated in politically motivated prosecutions of Pennsylvania Democrats, in particular Cyril Wecht:

...in 2006, Buchanan raised more than a few eyebrows when she went after former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, indicting him on multiple counts of various federal crimes, including theft from an organization that receives federal funds.

What, exactly, did Wecht do? Apparently, his transgressions included the improper use of the coroner's fax machine for private work. There was no evidence "of a bribe or kickback" and no evidence that Wecht traded on a conflict of interest.

But Wecht's a Democrat, and for a U.S. Attorney anxious to impress her superiors in the Bush administration, apparently that was enough.

This week, a jury mulled over Buchanan's case against Wecht. The case ended, at least in the short term, with a hung jury.

Actually, a judge eliminated more than half of the charges and the trial was stayed indefinitely. The case was criticized by Republican attorney general Dick Thornburgh.

Buchanan has very close ties to the Bush Justice Department - she HIRED Monica Goodling. And so she's going to try and hang on as US Attorney. And Obama will likely fire her in favor of his own selection, and then the right will scream bloody murder. The concept that US Attorneys generally resign at the beginning of a new President's term will be completely forgotten, and instead there will be a false equivalence made between this and the US Attorney purge. It's so patently obvious.

Digby writes:

This is a Republican soldier and if Obama attempts to fire her, she will become a martyr to the cause. And she's not alone. They are all over the Justice Department.

When the US Attorney scandal broke, you'll recall that there was a lot of wingnut chatter saying that because Bill Clinton had asked for the resignations of all US Attorney's at the beginning of his term, Bush had a perfect right to fire US Attorneys who refused to do political dirty work. They set the stage for this at the time. It was entirely predictable that the new administration would be held to a completely new standard --- he would not be allowed to fire any US Attorney who had been appointed by Bush for any reason at all or risk being accused of using the Justice department for partisan gain. It's how they roll.

Digby says that Democrats made this tougher by not pursuing the scandal enough, which I don't agree with up to the point of them not filing inherent contempt and jailing Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten and Karl Rove in the Capitol basement. And not only are they are still seeking investigations inside Congress, but the independent prosecutor probe ordered up by Mukasey looks to actually have some teeth, and just yesterday Main Justice reopened the Don Siegelman trial, responding to a dogged effort by John Conyers.

Siegelman, the Democratic former governor of Alabama, was convicted in 2006 on corruption charges. (He is appealing the conviction). The whistleblower, who works in the US Attorney's office in Alabama, has claimed that, during his trial, there were inappropriate contacts between members of the jury and the prosecution, including messages passed by jurors revealing that some jury members had developed a romantic interest in an FBI agent attached to the prosecution team.

A DOJ investigation of the claims, launched after the whistleblower came forward and carried out by two US Attorneys, concluded that no such contacts had occurred. But in a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey last month, Rep. John Conyers, whose judiciary committee has been looking into the issue, questioned the thoroughness of that probe, noting that investigators had not contacted the jurors themselves, or the federal marshals who allegedly passed notes between the jurors and the prosecution team.

In the recent court filing -- which responds to a filing made previously by Siegelman's defense lawyers in connection with his appeal -- prosecutors referred to that DOJ investigation, then added in a footnote:

"Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice recently reopened the investigation into this matter in response to concerns raised about the completeness of the investigation ... It remains the case that we are not aware of any improper contacts."

In other words, DOJ appears to agree that Conyers' concerns have merit, and has reopened the investigation into whether inappropriate contacts between jurors and the prosecution team did indeed occur. That could be good news for Siegelman as his lawyers seek to have his conviction thrown out on appeal.

So there may be potential consequences at the margins. But what's important right now is that Buchanan will be made a martyr if she's fired. The right wing and talk radio will make her famous. She'll have her own talk show on Fox within a few months. And it will all be based on a lie - a deliberate lie at that.

This is just the beginning of how the right will try to distract and distort right from the beginning of the Obama Administration, at a time of absolute financial crisis. They are still playing a very partisan game - in fact, there's a credible case to be made that they'd favor a deep recession for a variety of reasons. "The good of the country" isn't going to matter to these people. They are in this for the long haul.

More Misconduct In The Siegelman Case

I didn't get to this on Friday, but there was a major revelation in the Don Siegelman investigation, involving interventions with the US Attorney who had recused herself and contacts between state prosecutors and jurors:

The USAtty, Leura Canary, supposedly recused herself from the case due to substantial conflicts of interest involving her husband, a GOP political strategist running the political campaign for Siegelman's gubernatorial rival. In subsequent emails (PDF), Canary specifically gives directives and strategy to the AUSAs in her office handling -- on multiple occasions [...]

AUSAs in the case had multiple ex parte communications with jurors, while the jury was deliberating on its verdict -- passed through US Marshalls at the courthouse -- which were never disclosed to either the judge or opposing counsel. Via Time:

Grimes last year also gave DoJ additional e-mails detailing previously undisclosed contacts between prosecutors and members of the Siegelman jury....

The DoJ conducted its own inquiry into some of Grimes' claims, and wrote a report dismissing them as inconsequential. But the report shows that investigators did not question U.S. marshals or jurors who had allegedly been in touch with the prosecution.

A key prosecution e-mail describes how jurors repeatedly contacted the government's legal team during the trial to express, among other things, one juror's romantic interest in a member of the prosecution team. "The jurors kept sending out messages" via U.S. marshals, the e-mail says, identifying a particular juror as "very interested" in a person who had sat at the prosecution table in court. The same juror was later described reaching out to members of the prosecution team for personal advice about her career and educational plans. Conyers commented that the "risk of [jury] bias ... is obvious".

This is really incredible, and grounds for disbarment if not indictment. Siegelman called these revelations "more frightening than anything that has come before." The fingerprints of GOP operatives are all over this case, and the fact that these revelations came out of John Conyers' office makes me think that he knows it as well. Karl Rove still needs to be compelled to testify in this case.

And Siegelman, a Democrat, left no doubt that he believes that the apparent politicization of his prosecution was just one example of many such cases. "If this were isolated to just the middle district of Alabama, it would be shocking enough. But I guarantee this kind of misbehavior has been going on all over the country."

He added: "Whoever is the new Attorney General has to be strong enough to weed out the Karl Rove clones who have been embedded in US Attorneys' offices throughout the United States. If not, it is going to eat at our system for years to come."

At one point, Siegelman turned philosophical: "If I've been put through this for a reason, it's to expose the fact that this is not an isolated incident. I am prayerful that Congress will dig in and demand the truth. These folks have got to be weeded out."

Emptywheel has a lot more.

Contempt

I'm really trying to figure out what the hell these mean anymore.

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee approved a report and resolution recommending that the House of Representatives cite former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, for contempt of Congress for failing to appear before the Committee as required by subpoena. The report and resolution passed by a vote of 20-14.

“Today’s vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person – not even Karl Rove – is above the law.” said Chairman John Conyers, Jr. “This week’s Inspector General report on the pervasive politicization of the Department of Justice particularly underscores the urgent need for Mr. Rove to testify before Congress. Any suggestion that the matters for which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed are not important, or that no Administration misconduct has been revealed, is just inconsistent with the facts. Our investigation has revealed Mr. Rove to be a key figure in the firings of US Attorneys, and the questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount.”

Okay, and.... these citations have to get a full majority vote in the House. Will that be scheduled in the weeks left in the session? And, you know, what then?

The House's earlier contempt citations against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were referred under the statutory contempt procedure to the US Attorney who, at the instruction of the White House and the Department of Justice, declined to prosecute the cases. An ironic situation, given that the contempt citations arose in the context of an investigation into whether or not the DOJ and the White House were improperly directing prosecutorial decisions of the US Attorneys.

The House Judiciary Committee subsequently filed suit in federal court, seeking an order compelling the US Attorney to proceed with the prosecution, and somehow -- magically! -- the case was assigned to former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel John D. Bates, the federal judge who dismissed the Plame lawsuit, dismissed the Cheney Energy Task Force lawsuit, upheld the validity of Bush's signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress, and dismissed the DNC's lawsuit seeking to force the FEC to rule on John McCain's attempt to withdraw from his presidential campaign's public financing commitments.

I don't know about you, but I'm not really feeling the fear with respect to the statutory contempt thing.

One other possibility: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) testified in last Friday's non-impeachment hearing before the Judiciary Committee regarding his legislation that would grant Congress the authority to petition the courts to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where the DOJ refused to take up referrals of contempt of Congress. That bill, H.R. 6508, now sits before the Judiciary Committee awaiting action, albeit with powerful cosponsors including Chairman Conyers, and subcommittee chairs Linda Sanchez and Jerry Nadler.

Probably time to get moving on that.

Kagro is absolutely right. If this gets stacked up in the same flawed process it'll lead down the same road as the Miers/Bolten citations. A special prosecutor is desperately needed. And I'd also keep in mind that this process should absolutely not end in the 110th Congress. Rove isn't connected to the Bush Administration anymore, there's no reason for this investigation to end when their term ends.

I would also add that Rove has been informally advising McCain. Any member of the press going to ask him about that?

Siegelman's Lament

Don Siegelman got a special pass from Alabama lawmakers to attend Netroots Nation, and he sat down with Air America's Sam Seder for an in-depth discussion of his case. Most of it was devoted to explaining the entire history of Siegelman and Karl Rove in Alabama - you can find plenty of that information in Scott Horton's archives. The story is quite sordid; both US Attorneys in Alabama and a cast of characters worked for years to put Siegelman behind bars. But Siegelman tried to keep the focus off of himself and onto the principle of justice. "My fate is in the hands of the 11th Circuit. What's important is the preservation of the rule of law in this country."

And that means getting Karl Rove in the Congress to testify. He has blown off the House Judiciary Committee, leaving for a paid junket on the day he was set to appear. There's not much time left in the Congressional session to get a resolution on this. At Netroots Nation, Siegelman asked Sen. McCain to step in.

On Friday, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman called on John McCain to compel his informal adviser Karl Rove to testify before Congress, and to remove Rove from any and all campaign capacities.

"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth." [...]

...he argued that it was absolutely vital that the presumptive Republican nominee -- who, according to published reports, has received money from and privately consulted with Rove -- insist that the former Bush confidante respect Congress' investigative prerogatives. Barack Obama, he added, should do the same.

"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."

There's no question. Rove's roots in Alabama go back to the days when he was rigging Supreme Court elections. Siegelman was the one Democrat he could never beat, so he put the full force of federal law to bear to ruin his career and his life. As the former governor said, "if this can happen to me, it can happen to you and your family." We need to send Karl Rove to jail.

UPDATE: At emptywheel's site, both Siegelman and fired US Attorney David Iglesias marvel at the logic that Karl Rove thinks he can avoid testifying by claiming that his role in the US Attorneys probe was part of his "official duties."

Claiming that the performance of "official duties" includes possible unlawful or criminal activity sets a dangerous new precedent, namely that as long as an advisor works in the West Wing of the White House, they have carte blanche to engage in any possible activity without being subject to the rule of law.

Um, yes.

Send Karl Rove To Jail

I'm watching the premiere of Meet The Bloggers, a brand-new Web-only issues and answers chat show, at the main hall at Netroots Nation. Marcy Wheeler, Baratunde from Jack and Jill Politics and Liliana from Alternet are discussing the case of Karl Rove blowing off the House Judiciary Committee and politicizing the Justice Department. I saw Don Siegelman today, and we all know this story, but to hear Gov. Siegelman say it himself is absolutely stunning. As he said, "If this can happen to me, someone with power and authority, this can happen to you and your family." This is about perverting the system of justice and restoring fundamental rights and the rule of law.

There's a lot of activity around this today. Gov. Siegelman put up a site called ContemptForRove.com, to send a petition to legislators to not let up on their emasculation by this Administration.

Recently, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, demanding his testimony about his own role in the politicization of the Department of Justice and politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic leaders, including me.

Karl Rove refused to even show up for the hearing, claiming that Congress has no power to compel senior White House officials from testifying. That's outrageous. Yet again, Karl Rove has showed his callous disregard for the law and for Congress' constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government.

It's time for Congress to act: Forward an email to your Member of Congress below, urging him or her to support a contempt resolution against Karl Rove. If Karl Rove won't respond to a legitimate Congressional subpoena, it's time to turn up the heat.

And Brave New Films has come out with SendKarlRoveToJail.com.



To paraphrase Baratunde Thurston, there are 2.3 million people in prison in this country, but Karl Rove can blow off Congress and have relative impunity. If anyone deserves jail, it's him.

At Least He Doesn't Say "I Don't Recall" A Lot!

So while the Senate was legalizing warrantless wiretapping and granting Bush and the telecoms immunity yesterday, that nice Mr. Mukasey had a meeting with the Judiciary Committee on the Hill. Thought you'd like to know what he said:

• He wouldn't admit that Alberto Gonzales politicized the Department of Justice, contradicting his own agency's recent Inspector General report that has put former DoJ officials in so much trouble that independent organizations are trying to get them disbarred. He also refused to allow for any accountability to those officials, probably because he wouldn't admit they did anything wrong.

• He argued that those Administration officials who authorized and directed torture at Guantanamo Bay and throughout US detention sites worldwide "cannot and should not be prosecuted," nor should any CIA agents who participated in the torture.

• He didn't want to involve himself in the investigation over Karl Rove's involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, and appeared to deny that the Office of Professional Repsonsibility had any role in such an investigation, even though it was reported just yesterday that the OPR contacted the Siegelman camp for documents in the probe.

• He decided, essentially, that it was okay for Fourthbranch Cheney to have outed Valerie Plame, and that he wouldn't step into that investigation either. He's already risking a contempt citation from the House Oversight Committee for refusing to turn over Cheney's FBI interview transcripts.

But, you know, Sens. Feinstein and Schumer are right, this guy IS an improvement over Alberto Gonzales!

Closing In

Karl Rove has been extremely slippery with what he was able to get away with while in service at the White House, but over the past couple weeks events have probably made him gulp and pull the collar away from his neck a couple times. Same with his former bosses.

First you have Scott McClellan basically admitting that Bush and Cheney gave the go-ahead to Scooter Libby to selectively leak contents of the 2002 Iraq NIE, and in the process the identity of Valerie Plame. Henry Waxman, upon hearing this, immediately set to work.

New revelations by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan raise additional questions about the actions of the President and the Vice President. Mr. McClellan has stated that "[t]he President and Vice President directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby." He has also asserted that "the top White House officials who knew the truth - including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney - allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie." It would be a major breach of trust if the Vice President personally directed Mr. McClellan to mislead the public [...]

In his interview with the FBI, Mr. Libby stated that it was "possible" that Vice President Cheney instructed him to disseminate information about Ambassador Wilson's wife to the press. This is a significant revelation and, if true, a serious matter. It cannot be responsibly investigated without access to the Vice President's FBI interview.

The interviews with senior White House officials also raise other questions about the involvement of the Vice President. It appears from the interview reports that Vice President Cheney personally may have been the source of the information that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. Mr. Libby specifically identified the Vice President as the source of his information about Ms. Wilson. None of the other White House officials could remember how they learned this information [...]

In his FBI interview, Mr. McClellan told the FBI about discussions he had with the President and the Vice President. These passages, however, were redacted from the copies made available to the Committee. Similar passages were also redacted from other interviews.

There are no sound reasons for you to withhold the interviews with the President and the Vice President from the Committee or to redact passages like Mr. McClellan's discussions with the President and the Vice President. Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation is closed and he has indicated that it would be appropriate to share these records with the Committee. There has been no assertion of executive privilege.

Well sure, when you line it all up like that, it looks like a conspiracy.

What's more, Marcy Wheeler thinks Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted the Plame case, might be ready to talk about allegations about his potential firing that came out during the investigation into the US Attorneys scandal.

Later in the Rezko trial, two witnesses said that Rezko told them not to worry about the criminal investigation, because the Republicans—Rove and Kjellander—would get rid of Fitzgerald. Hastert would install a friendly federal puppy who wouldn't bother the Combine, according to the testimony. "The federal prosecutor will no longer be the same federal prosecutor," testified Elie Maloof, a Rezko associate who is now a cooperating witness.

And a state pension board lawyer who has already pleaded guilty told grand jurors that Cellini told him "Bob Kjellander's job is to take care of the U.S. attorney." [...]

"If I owe a response [about the putsch to remove him from his job], I owe it to Congress, first," Fitzgerald said when asked about all this after the verdict.

But that's not all. As pressure grew on Rove for answers about the railroading of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, prosecutors
abruptly dropped their appeal that sought longer sentences for him and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in the "bribery" case, also known as "a politician appointing an ally to a board." And 54 former state attorneys general from across the country filed a brief on Siegelman's behalf with the appellate court where he is contesting his conviction, asking that it be overturned. And now the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating.

The US Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is investigating the conduct of at least two specific US Attorneys in the “selective prosecution” of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, sitting Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz Jr., and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, according to attorneys close to the investigation.

In a May 5 letter sent to House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI), OPR Director H. Marshall Jarrett wrote that OPR “currently has pending investigations involving, among others, allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor.”

RAW STORY has confirmed that Leura Canary (above right), the US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Dunnica Lampton, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi , are under investigation. Their offices are also being probed.

This leads back to Rove - the Siegelman case, the politicization of US Attorney positions, firing prosecutors who wouldn't play ball, leaking classified information in the Plame case. Rove is a slippery creature. But there are a lot of investigations all happening at once.

Yeah, That's The Ticket

This Karl Rove spin didn't pass anyone's smell test:



You can "hear about" an actual prosecution from the paper and still be involved in the getting of that prosecution. I think that's pretty clear to everyone. Rove needs to stop going on these shows and he really shouldn't even be in the country, considering the mess he's in, between the Siegelman case and Scott McClellan's charges of deception in the CIA leak case. But it's really the Siegelman case where Rove has major vulnerabilities, as evidenced in that media appearance. Here's Josh Marshall.

There's never been any doubt in my mind that Siegelman was the victim of selective prosecution. Even the government's theory of the main case against him amounted to something that is standard in contemporary American politics and actually much less worse than lots of other stuff that no one thinks twice about. Cracking the nut of White House involvement has always been more difficult; but the evidence for it is substantial.

If Siegelman's and Alabama GOP lawyer Jill Simpson's stories are true, that would make this case the centerpiece example of the corruption of the DOJ revealed by the US Attorney firing scandal. In fact, it would make most of what we know now seem minor by comparison.

Good luck staying out of jail, Karl.

Subpoena Power, Only Without The Power

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove today. Which is just dandy. But Rove has been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee for over a year, and you know, he didn't testify and nothing happened. And there's still a legal fight over getting the likes of Harriet Miers to testify after delivering a subpoena.

So I don't see Karl Rove strolling into the hearing room anytime soon.

However, the OPR investigation could be promising:

Late Update: The committee is especially interested in Rove's involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. In conjunction with issuing the subpoena to Rove, the committee released a letter from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility confirming that it has launched an investigation of "allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor."

I don't know how far an investigation under the purview of the Bush Administration would go, but typically investigations like this go for a while. As in, well into the next Presidency. And depending on the new Attorney General, this could mean that the OPR probe would actually gather some momentum next year. I'm looking for accountability wherever I can find it.

The Thugs Are Out

Kudos to Raw Story for an incredible piece of journalism detailing the lengths to which the Administration's goons are trying to shut down any investigations into the perversion of the Justice Department. Jeers to the traditional media for its near-total blackout on these incidents. We're talking about serious business here.

These crimes raise serious questions about possible use of deliberate intimidation tactics not only because of who the victims are and the already wide criticism of the prosecutions to begin with, but also because of the suspicious nature of each incident individually as well as the pattern collectively. Typically burglars do not break-into an office or private residence only to rummage through documents, for example, as is the case with most of the burglaries in these two federal cases.

In Alabama, for instance, the home of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was burglarized twice during the period of his first indictment. Nothing of value was taken, however, and according to the Siegelman family, the only items of interest to the burglars were the files in Siegelman's home office.

Siegelman's attorney experienced the same type of break-in at her office.

In neighboring Mississippi, a case brought against a trial lawyer and three judges raises even more disturbing questions. Of the four individuals in the same case, three of the US Attorney’s targets were the victims of crimes during their indictment or trial. This case, like that of Governor Siegelman, has been widely criticized as a politically motivated prosecution by a Bush US Attorney.

It's more than just a bunch of Watergate-style burglaries, too.

The incidents are not limited to burglaries. In Mississippi, former Judge John Whitfield was the victim of arson at his office. In Alabama, the whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, Dana Jill Simpson, had her home burned down, and shortly thereafter her car was allegedly forced off the road.

While there is no direct evidence linking these crimes to the US Attorneys’ office targeting these individuals, or to the Bush administration, there is a distinct pattern that makes it highly unlikely that these incidents are isolated and unrelated.

All of these crimes remain unsolved.

Read the whole thing. You'd think there was some kind of Nixon's plumbers' reunion tour or something.

For a really good look into the Siegelman story in case you haven't kept up, Thom Hartmann interviewed the former Alabama governor last week. Here's the audio.



I wasn't aware of this part:

[Thom Hartmann]: And, in fact, if I understand this correctly, you were being prosecuted by a woman whose husband was the campaign manager for the Republican who ran against you for governor and in the middle of the night in one county because of a voting machine malfunction after the election had apparently already been called in your favor, suddenly in the middle of the night when there were nobody expect Republicans standing around, they discovered a couple thousand more votes and said 'Oh, yeah, no no, Don Siegelman actually lost'. Do I have that right?

[cross talk]

[Don Siegelman]: You have it right. They electronically shifted votes from my column to my Republican's column.

[Thom Hartmann]: To Bob Riley's column.

[Don Siegelman]: I believe, yes, to Bob Riley's column. And oddly enough, it didn't effect a single down-ballot race. They took five thousand or six thousand votes of mine and shifted it over to Bob Riley and when they counted everybody else's votes, the shift at the top which logically would have made a difference at the bottom...

[Thom Hartmann]: Sure.

[Don Siegelman]: You know, had no impact whatsoever.

[Thom Hartmann]: So the people running for the lesser state offices, the folks who voted Democratic right down the ticket all of a sudden at the very top of the ticket were 'Oh, I'm going to vote for every Democrat except Don Siegelman, I'll put that over to Riley ' and only in this one area in this one county on this one set of machines that was discovered in the middle of the night. by the Republicans.

[Don Siegelman]: Yes, a couple of other interesting things, Thom, since you brought this up, but the two people who either were given credit or who gave themselves credit for stealing the election and swinging the election to my Republican opponent for catching this 'electronic glitch' as they called it, one was Karl Rove's partner, business partner, her name was Kitty McCullough also known as Kelly, oh gosh, I can't remember what her second name was but she had a different married name.

[Thom Hartmann]: But she's the one who discovered the extra votes that caused you to lose and caused Bob Riley to won, OK.

[Don Siegelman]: And the other person was a guy named Dan Gans who right after that went to work for an Abramoff/Tom Delay related company, a group called the Alexander Strategies Group. And he claimed credit on his web site that he was responsible for this, because he had an expertese in electronic ballot security.

That 2002 election, in places like Alabama and Georgia, was as dirty as the day is long.

You've got election theft, destruction of evidence (5 million emails), violation of subpoenas, perversion of the instruments of justice, railroading Democratic officials into jail, and now intimidation of witnesses, arson and burglary. It's all wrapped up with a nice little bow if any Woodwards and Bernsteins want to take a whack at it. Even, you know, Woodward, or Bernstein.

How Do You Take "Sure" Out Of Context?

Funny stuff. So Karl Rove's lawyer, Donald "Gold Bars" Luskin, gave a statement to MSNBC's Dan Abrams saying that his client would be happy to testify in front of Congress as they investigate the imprisonment of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, which appears to have been politicized. Yesterday members of the House Judiciary Committee took Rove up on the offer, figuring that if he talks to GQ Magazine and Fox News regularly, he can chat with them about Siegelman. Suddenly, that offer dried up.

MSNBC provided Roll Call with an e-mail exchange with Luskin that the network broadcast in which a producer asked, “Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”

“Sure,” wrote Luskin, according to the e-mail. “Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”

But in an interview with Roll Call, Luskin said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.

“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.

Let's take a look again at what Luskin considers to have been taken out of context.

“Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”

“Sure. Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”

Man, we need to have a convention on the English language, because when the word "Sure" now doesn't mean "sure" because of context, clearly the words we use have lost all meaning. It's a Derrida-like universe! Differance!

Meanwhile, Karl Rove has no time to sit down with the HJC, but found a spare moment to write a 2,100 word letter to Dan Abrams accusing him of all sorts of perfidy by daring to suggest that the most nakedly political figure in recent memory might have had a political motive to investigate a Democrat. I especially enjoyed this part:

Did you inquire when and where (Dana Jill Simpson's) supposed 2001 meeting with me took place at which she was asked to follow Siegelman and photograph him? If so, did you make any effort to see if she could document her claim?

And if you were personally convinced by her answers that there was a good likelihood of such a meeting, did you try to figure out if there was any way that I was likely to have been available for such a meeting? Or is it merely enough for her to assert for you to repeat?

Like, did you call me and ask if I would give testimony to you? Did you? I wouldn't have responded, like I won't respond to John Conyers, but still, did you?

The whole letter's like that, by the way. Someone's worried, I'd say.

Siegelman Speaks

In a follow-up piece, Don Siegelman himself appeared on 60 Minutes last night. For those of you just tuning in, Siegelman was the Democratic Governor of Alabama until being accused and eventually convicted in a bribery scandal. The evidence was so thin, and the prosecution so suspect, that Siegelman was actually released from jail pending appeal. And last night, he pointed the finger squarely at the unequal justice of the Bush Administration and in particular a certain political operative.

Siegelman was in prison in February when he watched the original 60 Minutes broadcast with other inmates.

In an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, he describes the jailhouse reaction to the broadcast: "Well immediately people were standing up, sayin', 'You got screwed.' And I'd say, 'Well, you know, I think there were a lot of ya'll that got screwed.' And then, one guy stood up and said, 'No, I was guilty. You got screwed.' "

Using different words, a federal appeals court raised the same possibility, agreeing that his "appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal" of his conviction.

Siegelman was once the most successful Democrat in Alabama. He claims his prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice was influenced by the president's former political advisor, Karl Rove.

"What we need," Siegleman says, "is Karl Rove to get himself over to the Judiciary Committee and put his hand on a Bible and take an oath and give testimony. And he can either tell the truth or take the Fifth. Either one will satisfy me."

We of course know how adept this Congress has been at getting Bush Administration officials to submit testimony, but in this case, they are investigating the circumstances surrounding the Siegelman case. When you have the prosecution's star witness admitting to have practiced his testimony over and over to make sure he got it right, when you have a Republican lawyer stating that Karl Rove personally instructed her to get dirt on Siegelman, and when you have the collected wisdom of seven-plus years of Justice Department politicization and intervention, it's hard for Congress not to notice. Remember that this is the same Administration that decided they had an exemption to the Fourth Amendment. There's absolutely no reason to believe that those wiretaps were used for strictly terrorism-fighting purposes. We have too much evidence to the contrary.

The Justice Department's inspector general is investigating whether a career attorney in the department was dismissed from her job because of rumors that she is a lesbian. The case grew out of a larger inquiry into the firings of U.S. attorneys and politicization at Justice under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales...

Hagen received the highest possible ratings for her work as liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys' committee on Native American issues. Her final job evaluation lists five categories for supervisors to rank her performance. For each category, a neat X fills the box marked, "Outstanding." And at the bottom of the page, under "overall rating level," she also got the top mark: Outstanding.

The form is dated February 1, 2007. Several months before that evaluation, Hagen was told her contract would not be renewed.

Rove On Arrogance

Karl Rove kicks off the opening salvo in the quadrennial "Question The Democrat's Patriotism" derby:

Are you surprised at how Obama exploded?
You know, I want to be careful—I think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"—the Republicans who support Obama.

You don't buy that?
No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it's nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it's three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why. There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did—

I think we all know what's coming next... all together now...

You're not wearing a flag pin, Karl.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on.

I'd be thrilled if the Republicans decided to fight a War On People Who Don't Wear Lapel Pins fought by people who aren't wearing lapel pins themselves. Ionesco couldn't have come up with such an absurd scenario.

But let's look at this larger point, this depiction of Obama as an effete, out-of-touch elitist. Here's some more from Turdblossom's interview:

Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?
Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.

Arrogant, ay? Well yes, if there's one thing that divides Democrats and Republicans, particularly Barack Obama and Karl Rove, it's arrogance.

Example #1:

After midterm election interviewer Robert Siegel stated that "many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism" regarding Republican hopes to retain both Houses in November, Rove suggested that the NPR host was biased.

"Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that," Rove said. "You're just making a comment."

"I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day," Seigel responded

"No you're not!" Rove exclaimed.

Rove said that he was reviewing 68 polls a week, and that "unlike the general public, I'm allowed to see the polls on the individual races," as opposed to public polls reported in the media.

"You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome," Rove said.

Rove claimed that the polls "add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House."

"You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math," Rove said. "I'm entitled to 'the' math."

Example #2:

We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at the science of global warming. Much to our dismay, he immediately got combative. And it went downhill from there.

We reminded the senior White House advisor that the US leads the world in global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Anger flaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administration position on global warming which is that the US spends more on researching the causes than any other country [...]

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

Yes, it's OBAMA that's the arrogant one.

It's really like watching a Greek tragedy watching the Republicans. They ALWAYS project onto others the deficiencies in themselves. But the other thing they do is thrive on constant repetition. There is nothing different in this critique of Obama that we haven't heard in critiques of Al Gore and John Kerry. They reinforce back on themselves because they aren't critiques of individuals but Democrats generally. Rove is trying to get you to paint a picture of all Democrats as latte-sipping Volvo-drivers who aren't real Americans. In fact there isn't anyone less American than a political hack who views his President as a king who is unanswerable to his lowly subjects. Honestly I don't think these attacks on patriotism work anymore when the guy supposed to be the ultimate patriot has deceived us into an intractable war, ruined our international standing and emptied our Treasury.

But where this interview got fun is when Rove was asked about his role in the Siegelman railroading:

Let's talk about the last couple of scandals you've been involved in. Don Siegelman in Alabama [the Democratic governor whom Rove was recently accused of trying to sabotage by forcing U.S. attorneys to bring corruption charges against him prior to an election]. What happened?
[rolls his eyes] Will you do me a favor and go on Power Line (hilarious -ed.) and Google "Dana Jill Simpson" [the Republican lawyer who told 60 Minutes that Rove asked her to take a picture of Governor Siegelman cheating on his wife]? She's a complete lunatic. I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her. And what the media has done on this… No one has read the 143-page deposition that she gave congressional investigators—143 pages. When she shows up to give her explanation of all this, do you know how many times my name appears? Zero times. Nobody checked!

Then how did this happen?
Because CBS is a shoddy operation. They said, "Hey, if we can say 'Karl Rove,' 'Siegelman,' that'll be good for ratings. Let's hype it. We'll put out a news release on Thursday and then promo the hell out of it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." And Scott Pelley—the question is, Did [60 Minutes correspondent] Scott Pelley say to this woman, "You say you met with him. Where? And you say that he gave you other assignments earlier. When did he begin giving you assignments, and what campaigns did you work with him in? What evidence? I mean, this woman, she said she met with him: Okay, you met with him—where? Did you fly to Washington?" Now she says that she talked to me on the phone and she's got phone records. Of calls to Washington and Virginia. But what's Virginia? I don't live in Virginia. And it's 2001. What is in Virginia? It's not the Bush headquarters; that was in Austin, Texas. What is in Virginia? So—but look, she's a loon.

Touchy, touchy. As you would expect from someone whose fingerprints are smeared all over the case. By the way 60 Minutes initially caved to pressure to kill the story and then reluctantly aired it on the same night as the Oscars, so I'm not sure it was a ratings bonanza they were after.

Rove is trying a classic Chewbacca defense, going personal on Dana Jill Simpson to muddy the waters. It's what he does - personal attacks are the only ones that interest him. But in 2006 he should have recognized that his political moment was over. I'm hardly afraid of a guy who attacks Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin when he isn't wearing one himself. If that's the best he's got he ought to go back to superior court judge campaigns in Alabama.

Hope For Justice

Activism and relentless focus from progressives have yielded fruit. Don Siegelman is free pending appeal.

Former Gov. Don Siegelman will be released from prison, after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted him an appeal bond, the lead prosecutor in the case said.

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin said he received a courtesy call from the court today. "He's going to be released," Franklin said.

He said he was disappointed but said, "The 11th Circuit has the discretion to do that and I respect that."

...I just got off the phone with Hiram Eastland, one of Siegelman's lawyers, who said that today the appeals court had issued a "straightforward" four-page order simply finding that there were, indeed, "substantial questions" raised by Siegelman's appeal. The ruling overruled the controversial finding by the district judge in the case, which had sent Siegelman immediately to prison after his conviction.

The House Judiciary Committee was already seeking Siegelman's temporary release to testify before them, and now that he will be released, I expect that hearing will take place.

The Siegelman case is maybe the clearest case of Bush's Justice Department misconduct, and Karl Rove is right in the middle of all of it. Rove had better give Gold Bars Luskin a call - time for some more billable hours.

Michael Copps - Looking Out For You

I'm glad he's taken up this cause:

Doubts about an Alabama TV station’s explanation of a blacked-out segment of “60 Minutes” have been reinforced by a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission who says it “needs to get to the bottom of this.”

In an appearance before the National Press Club today, Michael Copps confirmed that he had urged Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the F.C.C., to investigate a question raised by the extraordinary timing of the malfunction at the station: It began just as a highly anticipated report about a major political scandal in the state was to begin, and ended in time for the program’s next segment.

Remembering a 1955 case of a Mississippi TV station that blocked a network news program about desegregation and spuriously claimed that cable trouble was to blame, Mr. Copps said, “The F.C.C. now needs to find out if something analogous is going on here,” according to Reuters.

John Kerry has been working on this as well. Apparently the FCC is investigating, as well they should. Equipment fails all the time - especially in little local stations like this - but the timing is extremely suspicious.

Free Don Siegelman

This is awesome:



He has a real allergy to the truth, doesn't he? What an awkward reaction.

There's a lot of power in simple confrontations like this.

UPDATE: Dana Jill Simpson basically says tell it to the judge:

Yesterday we brought you Karl Rove's expansive denial of Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson's testimony to Congress and comments to 60 Minutes.

Simpson responded last night on MSNBC's Dan Abrams show: "Since Karl Rove has said that and he feels so good saying that, what I want him to do is go and swear before the United States Congress and swear what he's saying is true."

Simpson also responded to accusations from the Alabama Republican Party that Simpson had never worked for the party and no one had ever heard of her. She said that phone records would show conversations with party officials in Alabama and Washington, D.C. in 2002 and 2006.

60 Minutes Does Siegelman

CBS' story on the Don Siegelman case last night was fine for a 9-minute television expose, but of course it isn't possible to take in all of the contours. Scott Horton, who has doggedly followed this case for Harper's, and who was interviewed for the story, adds a little more context.

...the show was dominated by one of 52 former attorneys general from 40 of the 50 states who have called for a Congressional probe of the conduct of the Siegelman case, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. He leveled a series of blistering accusations at the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. With the Alabama G.O.P. this evening issuing a near-hysterical statement in which it characterizes the CBS broadcast—before its transmission—as an anti-Republican attack piece, it was notable that Woods, like the piece’s other star witness, is a Republican. Not just any Republican, either. Grant Woods is co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and a lifelong friend and advisor to the presumptive 2008 G.O.P. presidential candidate. Woods is also godfather to one of the McCain children.

Attorney General Woods has this to say about the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”

In other words, not being able to beat Siegelman at the polls, Woods believes that his own party corruptly used the criminal justice process to take out an adversary. This is an extraordinary, heavy accusation. Not something that a senior Republican would raise easily about his own party. And the facts back the accusation up, beginning to end.

Siegelman allowed HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to remain on an oversight board on which he had already served, and in return Scrushy gave money to a noble effort to improve education in the state of Alabama, an effort Siegelman approved of. That's literally the reason that Siegelman is in a jail cell right now. This is the kind of thing that, were it actually considered bribery, would put every politician in America in jail. The case hung on this idea that Siegelman walked out of a meeting with Scrushy with the check, a baseless lie spouted by a criminal on Siegelman's staff, and the Justice Department KNEW it was a lie and yet continued the case. 60 Minutes tried to talk with the accuser, a man named Nick Bailey, but the DoJ refused to authorize the interview (he's in a federal prison).

The prosecutors nabbed him and then told him he could get a light sentence if he worked with them to nail Siegelman, their real target. This very process is a perversion of the justice system, which as former U.S. Attorney Jones very properly says, requires that prosecutors investigate crimes and not people. But it gets still worse. Bailey testifies that he saw a check change hands at a meeting at which Scrushy’s appointment to the oversight board was decided. This is the evidence that landed Siegelman in prison. And it was false. And the prosecutors knew that it was false.

Horton also notes that CBS has plenty more on this case:

CBS conducted dozens of interviews and has much more that it hasn’t shown. The additional footage concerns the Canary team—husband Billy who advised the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidates against Siegelman, and wife Leura Canary, whose prosecution of Siegelman was essential to the G.O.P.’s efforts to secure the Montgomery statehouse. And they have much more on the inexplicable conduct of federal Judge Mark Fuller, appointed by George W. Bush, a former member of the Alabama G.O.P.’s Executive Committee, and a man who publicly stated that Siegelman had a grudge against him—but who refused to recuse himself from the case.

Apparently, the show was kicked off the air in portions of Alabama, for what the station claimed were "techincal" difficulties (this was refuted by CBS National). This station is owned by Republican Party backers. Ho-hum.

I don't know if the 60 Minutes story will act as a defibrillator, to bring the Siegelman story back to life. I sincerely hope it does. Karl Rove deserves to go down for illegitimizing the cause of justice in this country.

UPDATE: Siegelman's lawyers call for a special prosecutor.