Even before Siegeman's sentencing, U.S. Representative Artur Davis had heard enough to raise questions. In his questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last week, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, suggested on a national stage for the first time that the prosecutions of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman may have been politically motivated.
Davis suggested during Gonzales‘ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee that the corruption case against Siegelman may have been part of a larger U.S. Department of Justice tactic to target Democratic politicians for prosecution before major elections.
After Siegelman's sentencing (88 months withoug parole), immediate removal to the Atlanta federal prison in shackles and subsequent convoluted move to a more appropriate facility, even more people were starting to get a clue. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, several smaller Alabama papers and of course, Harper's magazine were beginning to ask questions about possible political motivations for the Siegelman investigation. Rep. Artur Davis continued to look into the facts of the case and on July 7, 2007 the Mobile Press-Register wrote: U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, stepped up his advocacy of convicted former Gov. Don Siegelman on Friday, formally urging the House Judiciary Committee to include Siegelman's case in an upcoming hearing on allegations of selective prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department.
The letter from Davis to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers mentions unusual features of the Siegelman case A variety of claims have arisen regarding the Siegelman case. It has been suggested that the case against Siegelman was unusually weak and uncorroborated. Only one witness testified that there was any linkage between the appointment of Scrushy and his contribution to the lottery initiative, and that individual professed to have no first hand knowledge. Despite the lengthy indictment, no government witnesses claimed to have direct knowledge that Siegelman had solicited or obtained favors or contributions in exchange for official actions: virtually all of the evidence of “cash for contracts” involved Siegelman staffers, and not the governor himself. (notably, all of the counts involving these claims were rejected by the jury).
and also raises the possibility of selective prosecution by the Bush DOJ. A claim of selective prosecution is not implausible in this Justice Department. In addition to evidence that prosecutors were fired for failing to bring cases that would bolster the Republican cause, the press has reported on several cases where the government’s cases against Democratic officeholders were strained at best. I have referenced the Wisconsin prosecution of Georgia Thompson, where the Seventh Circuit summarily reversed a corruption conviction and denounced the prosecution case as “beyond thin”, and I note the prosecution of a Democratic District Attorney in Michigan on charges related to a campaign contribution from a relative of a defendant for whom the DA sought a new trial. The case, which resulted in a swift acquittal, was marred by the complete absence of any proof connecting the contribution to the DA’s actions.
And Davis wasn't the only one who thought there were unusual features to this case. From the Birmingham News on 7/16/07: U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Vestavia Hills, said, that while he does not support the former governor, everyone has a right to fair prosecution under federal law. He said the case was unusual in at least one way that could bear investigation: Siegelman was taken immediately into custody after sentencing, while other non-violent offenders that are not at risk to run are "allowed to put their affairs in order."
On July 17, Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, Representatives Linda Sanchez, Artur Davis and Tammy Baldwin formally requested the Attorney General provide information about the Siegelman case and two others the committee identified as possibly part of a pattern of selective political prosecution across the nation. As you are well aware, the bedrock principle of our federal criminal system is that justice must be served objectively, on a non-partisan basis, and without fear or favor. Our investigation into the U.S. Attorneys scandal, however, has raised serious concerns about efforts to undermine this basic principle. Because of these concerns, and in order to further our investigation, we ask that you provide us with certain critical documents and information relating to U.S. Attorney’s offices that may have initiated prosecutions against public officials and others based on their political affiliation.
Pam Miles told me that she can reach 30,000 people when she gets really fired up about something and sends a message to all her listserves and other groups. That's a pretty incredible reach for an individual, but it isn't nearly as many people as the Birmingham News reaches every day. The real news story isn't that Pam and other "advocates for Siegelman" were able to communicate their doubts about the Siegelman case to enough people to get the attention of a Congressional Committee. The real story is that the Alabama media didn't raise those questions, leaving it up to what I would call "advocates for equal justice" to do the job for them. You would think that Alabama journalists would have been raising those questions during all the years of this investigation. Why did it take a group of citizens to see that there were some pretty unusual features in this case? I don't mean to take anything away from Pam and Jeff Miles and the hundreds of others who have tirelessly advocated for Siegelman and equal justice over the last several years, and especially the last 4 months. They did a great job. I'm just disappointed that no one else did that job first. Like people who get paid to do investigative journalism. |
