The Martin Agenda
Posted by BrianIn June of last year Brett Blackledge broke one of his many stories about the two-year college scandal in Alabama. The story was about how an Auburn based contractor was engaged in a kick back scheme with then two year chancellor Roy Johnson. The story involved the state board of education representative for the district I live in (Mary Jane Caylor), so I took particular notice. My own research on the story pushed me deep into the murky waters of PAC-to-PAC transfers. It has now taken me to the editor and publisher of an Alabama paper, The Montgomery Independent, and provides reasonable doubt about whether the owner is just an unbiased observer in the matter.
First some background…
Alabama Contract Sales was the Auburn contractor engaged in the kickback scheme. It is (was?) owned by Tim Turnham, whose brother Joe is the Chairman of Alabama’s Democrat Party. Turnham said in a plea deal that he “gave $7,500 to a political action committee, which then gave him checks written to Caylor’s campaign. Turnham said he gave the checks to Johnson so he could deliver them to Caylor.”
I thought that it was a bit odd for an Auburn businessman to give money to a Huntsville mayoral candidate. I thought it was downright suspicious that he would use PACs to obfuscate the source. I set out to trace the money from Turnham to Caylor, which involved searching campaign finance documents from Madison county and the state. I was able to determine how Turnham laundered the money (legally) through two PACs operated by a man named Jeffrey Archer Martin. I also just recently learned that Martin is the son of Robert A. “Bob” Martin, the editor and publisher of the Montgomery Independent.
Jeff Martin, in addition to being a legal (for now) operator of multiple PACs, is also a Democrat activist in the state. Martin was also the Executive Director of the Alabama League of Environmental Action Voters (AlaLEAVs) until about a year ago, although the group’s website still lists him as the ED. Coincidentally Joe Turnham is the Founding Executive Director of AlaLEAVs. One of Martin’s 21 PACs is the AlaLEAVs PAC. It is the only one of his PACs that has been active within the last year.
The issue of why the money was given to Caylor hasn’t been solved. Was Johnson just contributing to a friend and using Turnham as his personal ATM? Or was this pay back for Caylor either supporting or turning a blind eye to Johnson’s antics?
Now is an appropriate time to briefly discuss PACs and how they operate. A PAC is a Political Action Committee. Virtually anyone can form one for any reason, as Dan showed us all last year, and they are great conduits for covertly contributing money. The best analogy I have found is that PAC managers can be thought of as banks. The numerous PACs that any one person might operate act as branches for the bank. If you want to hide the source of money you might make two or three deposits in separate PACs. You give your instructions to the PAC manager and he will make a withdrawal (or withdrawals) from whichever PAC he chooses and send the money to the intended recipient. It doesn’t have to get passed directly through the same PAC because the manager can keep a ledger of who has made deposits and withdrawals over all the PACs he operates. This is good for people engaged in unethical, illegal, or unpopular activities (like kickback schemes or gambling) as it allows candidates who receive the money to claim plausible deniability. For voters, however, it makes it difficult to know where candidate’s loyalty lies.
Back to the story…
Surely Bob Martin is not oblivious to his son’s role in Roy Johnson’s efforts to defraud taxpayers, even if he was simply an unwitting participant. As best I can tell with the blunt tool of a Google search Martin has written on the scandal directly three times in total, a rather paltry amount of ink dedicated to the biggest scandal this state has seen in quite a while. Most recently he spent two paragraphs describing the participation of software company owner Winston Hayes in Johnson’s kickback scandal. At the end of the second paragraph he writes:
[Johnson's driver] told prosecutors that he received cash from Hayes and an Auburn contractor, who has admitted paying kickbacks to Johnson and his family, and then gave the cash to Johnson or paid bills for the new house.
I wonder who that Auburn contractor could be and why Martin would pay them such cursory attention?
One might think that Jeff Martin’s role - even if he only served in the legal capacity of masking the money with his PACs - would be enough to cause his father to recuse himself from writing on the matter altogether. Instead, Martin has chosen to go after the prosecutor (who is incidentally also named Martin) whose investigation could include questioning his his son to determine if he was aware that the money was tainted. In a column published by the Randolph Leader Martin dredged up a 2003 allegation against U.S. Attorney Alice Martin for perjury that has not been resolved. He insists that the situation would normally call for the dismissal of the prosecutor, but that Martin is well connected. It should be noted that Bob Martin also publishes columns by Scott Horton, the rabid, semi-coherent, pro-Siegelman columnist for Harper’s, to run in his publication. Horton has been doing his best to smear anyone and everyone associated with the prosecution and conviction of Don Siegelman. If you’ve ever read one of Horton’s missives then you would certainly question Martin’s judgment or motives for running his slime - not to mention Horton’s sanity.
Now I am not defending Alice Martin on the issue of the perjury investigation. I honestly don’t know enough about that particular accusation to ascertain whether it is legitimate or not. I just question Bob Martin’s motives for bringing it up given his relationship to a person who could conceivably be questioned by Alice Martin to ascertain the extent of his role in the case.
Author’s Note: After I published the original post Jeff Martin and I corresponded offline. He expressed concern that some of the language I originally used indicated that he was knowledgeable about Roy Johnson’s criminal endeavors at the time that Johnson and Tim Turnham sent the campaign contribution to Caylor through two of Martin’s PACs. This was not the intent and there are no known facts that would support any such assertion. I have modified parts of the original post to make this point clear.
Related content:
February 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Seen Martin’s latest column dated 2/11/08? Looks like he is catching some heat from somewhere.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
A nice fictional conspiracy theory, although you do have one fact correct, I am proud to call Bob my father.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
What parts are theoretical, Jeff? That you operate 21 PACs? That two of your PACs (JAM and KAK) were used by Johnson to launder money to Caylor? How/why did Johnson/Turnham choose to use your PACs with all of the PACs available?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You’re worried about a measly $7,500 to Caylor? Ha, chump change. Try more than $100,000 going to the Birmingham Times founder for positive PR for new Bham Mayor Larry Langford during his recent campaign.
http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2008/02/birmingham_mayor_larry_langfor_2.html
I don’t think your theory holds water, but compared to actual media/political alliances going on in the state, your theory ain’t much to concern oneself with.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
For starters I don’t really care about Langford other than the fact that I am VERY, VERY happy he is not my mayor. I tend to focus on people who do (or could in the future) represent me at some level in government. I’ll let the folks in B’ham worry about the mess that Langford is going to make of that city.
As far as the $7,500 goes, it isn’t the amount that matters. It is the fact that that the contribution was mentioned in two separate criminal plea deals. I just want to know why that money was given to Caylor.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Very sad, and all too typical, that your sliming of an excellent writer, Mr. Horton, contains no evidence at all of ANY inaccuracy in his reporting, just unsubstantiated attacks on his character and sanity just because you don’t like his conclusions. Classic Karl technique. He has dilligently reported the FACTS on the Siegelman case, which hold up under scrutiny even if he may be a Siegelman supporter. Truth will out soon enough, and in the meantime, you should take to heart the Mark Twain quote you put on your “about me” page. Your convoluted conspiracy tale is a valiant attempt to balance the scales of sleaze, but it is chicken feed compared to the grand buffet of conspiracy behind the Siegelman prosecution.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jack, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you’re a fan of Glynn Wilson as well.
Finding factual inaccuracies in Horton’s work is like shooting fish in a barrel. For example, I’d like to see him prove this:
“You can read this on line at the Press-Register’s website, but why not read it at the website of the Alabama G.O.P.? After all, they are all part of the same operation. Why bother maintaining the pretense of independence?”
And has he ever written anything without mentioning Karl Rove? I understand Dems loathe Rove on a grand scale, but give it a rest. If anything it is Republicans who should be angry at Rove since he (and Bush) have wrecked the party.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Huh?
…I’d like to see him prove this:
“You can read this on line at the Press-Register’s website, but why not read it at the website of the Alabama G.O.P.? After all, they are all part of the same operation. Why bother maintaining the pretense of independence?”
The articles before and after the Press-Register editorial on the AL GOP website at the end of Horton’s link are, duh, GOP press releases. That bit is just a rhetorical question with a barb at the top of a longer story. Several of Horton’s previous posts are about coordination between P-R reporters/editors, the AL GOP, and the U.S. attorneys office. In extreme short, he argues that the U.S. attorney’s office has leaked grand jury and Federal investigation information to the Press-Register and/or the Birmingham News and acted in the interests of the GOP and not, say, truth, justice, or the law. True, it’s hard to know what kind of relationship the papers might have with the G.O.P. given that much e-mail/paperwork/testimony is outstanding but Horton has bothered to make a case based largely on public record.
“rabid, semi-coherent”? I find his writing even tempered though his range and his translations, etc. sometimes throw me. He’s freaky erudite and way too energetic but his DoJ reporting has been on target and insightful, IMO. He has made plenty of mistakes–supporting Mukasey, and predicting the results of various outstanding investigations, for example–but his takes on the U.S. attorneys purge, Gonzales’s resignation, various torture investigations, and so on have generally withstood the test of congressional testimony and/or additional reporting.
If you are curious about the fuss over Horton’s articles and/or are puzzled by his take on DoJ work in AL you might want to read his post about political prosecution abroad to see where he’s coming from. :
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002323
…has he ever written anything without mentioning Karl Rove?
Out of 1100 posts in the last year, I count maybe 90 that focus on Rove. I’m sure there are more. Maybe the Latin quotes on his blog are secretly about Rove and I just missed it. He does mention Rove a lot.
…he (and Bush) have wrecked the party
You said it.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Did you see the website of the woman who interviews Scott Horton all the time? Amy Goodman. She is called a Red Diaper Baby! I believe this is David Horowitz’s site. Lots of stuff here. This is the type person Horton is associated with so why be surprised of the liberal tendencies of Jeff and Bob Martin? I have a name for Jeff Martin—–PAC Man.
See: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1692
She is a Marxist!
* * * *
C
February 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Excellent post from numbertwopencil above. Rational, Intelligent and very well balanced.
Who’s Glynn Wilson?
You wrote above: “Finding factual inaccuracies in Horton’s work is like shooting fish in a barrel.” Is that the biggest fish you could pull out? Then you should take up a less strenuous intellectual endeavor. Or look for a smaller barrel. Horton’s credentials and intellectual prowess are impressive, and I don’t blame you for being intimidated. It is undoubtedly easy enough to pick out debatable passages in a prolific body of work such as his. But to call him semi-coherent, his work slime, and question his sanity makes you look foolish, and so heavily indoctrinated with party pablum you can’t see the blatant crimes and political persecution by party that he brings to light. How can that NOT stir some anger or disgust in you, as it has from at least 44 other state attorneys from around the country who have put their necks on the line? Is it just hatred for Siegelman and perhaps some latent anti-semitism that has blinded you so? Please tell me.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am
jack matthews - “hatred for Siegelman and perhaps some latent anti-semitism” - you need to get a job reporting for Harper’s… Siegelman is Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman
February 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
my apologies, my ignorance. should have checked my anger and “post haste”.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Forgive me for ranting again but…I’m an Alabama expat living in NY and you hit a nerve picking on an Alabama expat living in NY. I just took a look at your other post that mentions Scott Horton and assuming that you mean it when you say you blog to “open your mind a little to well formed and documented dissenting viewpoints” I think are short shifting him.
Other than your comment that he can’t prove collusion between the Press-Register and the AL G.O.P. as discussed above, I haven’t seen any documentation or argument at all that Horton’s narrative about corruption in the AL DoJ is wrong. Horton’s work is described in your posts as “rabid, semi-coherent”, “doing his best to smear”, “slime” and insane. Unless you are going to offer some clear examples of Horton being way off-base, that’s just plain rude, or worse.
Also, you imply that his political contributions undermine his work. Would you say the same thing about Horton’s colleague at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, Michael Mukasey, who gave roughly the same amount to G.O.P. candidates during the same period? And while, yes, Horton is highly critical of the current DoJ, I don’t think you’ll find him, in the long run, particularly partisan. He initially supported Mukasy for AG, for example. His interests are, for the most part, about very basic rule of law issues in emerging and transitioning democracies. (It’s really neither here nor there, I guess, but I suspect that Horton’s personal politics run more or less old skool G.O.P. realist. His legal practice focused on Soviet human rights abuses and the development of free markets in post-Soviet nations. See, for example, his mash note to Eisenhower: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-learning-from-ike)
Perhaps this is the wrong place for a serious discussion of Horton’s work. I see some problems with his arguments but I don’t think it’s worth outlining them here. I’ve glanced at your blog a few times over the last year and I was just digging around to see what reasonably informed political junkies in AL have to say about Horton. I’m not surprised, I guess, that Horton gets dismissed out of hand since he’s seen, rightly or wrongly, as an outsider and his work directly contradicts most of the AL papers. However, based on his track record, his research and documentation, and, perhaps, his legal and academic work in political prosecutions and the misuse of law in other states, he deserves a fair and respectful hearing, if not props and flowers.
It’s not enough, in Horton’s case, to just say “Well, the Press-Register and the DoJ says differently…” since he’s directly challenging the P-R’s account and basing his narrative on, mostly, the public legal record and/or other reporting that he finds more convincing, more logical, and closer to the truth. He’s made serious accusations that deserve to be taken seriously. I, for one, would be relieved if some of the things he has guessed at are wrong but without further testimony and released paperwork from the DoJ and, perhaps, the White House, it’s impossible to know who is telling the truth. That said, Horton’s account of corruption in the DoJ is, IMO, legally, ethically, and journalistically stronger on a range of key points than what has appeared in the P-R. If you see something seriously wrong with his account, I’m all ears.
Whew.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:00 am
It is the tone and rhetoric that Horton uses that makes his pieces so easy to dismiss. If someone doesn’t say what he believes then he usually accuses them of being a tool of the Alabama Republican Party. Brett Blackledge? “Riley Administration’s court chronicler.” Obviously the folks who gave him the Pulitzer for his work give his work a bit more credit.
I particularly enjoyed it when Horton tore into Huntsville Times Editorial Page writer David Prather by saying “he delivered up an editorial column which perfectly demonstrates the mental integrity of his paper.” He then elaborated, including accusing Prather of bias. Any regular reader of the Huntsville Times would be quick to tell you that such an accusation is beyond absurd. David Prather is easily the most liberal editorial page write on the staff and I firmly believe that he would take great relish in exposing a secret plot to go after Siegelman if one existed. Hell, the mere fact that even David Prather doesn’t buy the narratives beyond spun by the free Don crowd is quite damning to their arguments alone!
February 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
You should be ashamed of yourself. To shut down your critical thinking and “dismiss” the facts on a matter of such importance just because you don’t like someone’s “tone” is unforgiveable. You still have NO answer to the incredible story and specific details he has chronicled in this case, and apparently don’t seem to care about injustice unless you can use it against the “other team”, even though it pales in comparison.
I used to have faith that rational people could change their minds once the truth and facts have been presented to them, now I know better, and it is a sad realization indeed. Most people are blinded by their affiliations, whether it’s party or religion, and refuse to look at anything that contradicts their world(or afterworld) view. Usually the blinders of indoctrination are installed at a very impressionable age, when your critical thinking skills are weakest. And so we have, in the worst cases, otherwise rational human beings becoming suicide bombers going off to meet their virgins, good Irish Catholics killing Protestants to make a nationalistic point, the Sunni’s killing the Shiites, and so on and on an on throughout human history- injustice is perpetrated on people whose only guilt is to have been born into the wrong family or nation.
I should have known better than to expect that truth would change things. People believe what they want, and the blinders become surgical implants. My faith and optimism have been sorely challenged, but I still have hope that there are men of good will in our system who have the courage and decency to challenge injustice where they see it regardless of the consequences. For the consequences have been severe indeed.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
jack - “the courage and decency to challenge injustice” - the TRUTH is that Don Siegelman (D - Federal Detention Center Oakdale) was found guilty of corruption by a jury of his peers. Members of his staff were found guilty of corruption. And you call that injustice.
Consider that you defend a crook in the name of ‘challenging injustice’. Shame on you for dismissing inconvenient facts because of your own blinders.
Do me a favor if you reply: either display ‘rationality by changing your mind in light of truth and facts’; or at least try to stick to the topic without incoherently ranting.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Yes, Horton has “tone and rhetoric” a plenty. He is scornful of the AL press and his rhetoric at times is, well, heated. It can be tiring to read him. He makes certain assumptions of his readers–that they are curious, reasonably educated, interested in the truth, and don’t have ADD. I don’t think I’d ever want him mad at me, in court or out.
I assume you are referring to this Horton post:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001637
He does use the word “bias” in that article and, of course, the sub-head of the Prather section is rather, well, biased but I don’t think he’s trying to say that Prather is biased to the left or the right. He’s saying that Prather is biased because he hasn’t given the facts surrounding the Siegelman case a fair hearing. He points out that Prather himself more or less says he’s biased against Siegelman because Siegelman walked out on the Huntsville Times editorial board.
IMO, Prather’s editorial, just based on its internal logic, is weak. Horton doesn’t stop there though, he goes on to point out that the sketchy narrative and the facts in the editorial are just as weak. I don’t have time right now to go into detail about Horton’s argument but note toward the end of the article where he outlines the problems with Prather’s comment that “nothing—nothing—of substance has been revealed since the trial to show they were wrong in this case.” As far as I can tell, Horton’s list of the “nothings” that have surfaced after the trial is accurate, if a little dated. And that list of “nothings” consists of fairly basic matters about the case that, IMO, Prather should have taken into account. Horton hammers Prather but he provides specific details of where Prather is wrong. I’d add that I think Prather is out on limb proclaiming that Siegelman is guilty and the judicial process is clean because the DoJ, the WH, and the U.S. attorney’s office have refused to release materials that would show, one way or the other, if the judicial process was corrupt.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Yes, “Siegelman..was found guilty of corruption by a jury of his peers” but that doesn’t mean the judicial process wasn’t corrupt.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am
numbertwopencil - “I think Prather is out on limb proclaiming that Siegelman is guilty” - it seems that you’re much further out on a limb saying Siegelman’s not guilty…
February 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Here’s Prather’s editorial:
“It’s just more smoke in the eyes, distracting vision from the fact that Siegelman used his powers of appointment to get a huge chunk of change from HealthSouth guru Richard Scrushy for the ill-fated education lottery vote. It was sleazy, illegal governance and Siegelman and Scrushy deserved to go to jail for it.”
http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/dprather.ssf?/base/opinion/1194455886149600.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
February 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Reactionary, if you do not agree 100% with the erudite Siegelman supporters who argue that the criminal justice system was (is?) a malleable tool of the Republican Party then you are clearly not capable of critical thinking.
I see a lot of virtual ink spilled over the people surrounding the Siegelman prosecution, but I can’t recall the last time I read one of the pro-Siegelman authors describe the actual evidence against him and why there was no grounds for prosecution (or conviction). I’d love to see Horton turn his attention to that matter. No mention of Fuller, Rove, Bush, Hitler, Everett, Gandhi, or anyone else. Explain how Siegelman is innocent, not how everyone else (or at least everyone with an R beside their name) is corrupt and that poor, ostensibly innocent Don was caught up in the malicious actions of the nasty Republicans.
I’ve long said that I feel there may have been a political element to the prosecution. Fine. That does not equate to a groundless prosecution, though. Whatever the motivation for pursuing Siegelman, whether it was to rid free society of a crooked man or to take out a political enemy, an entire jury of Don’s peers felt that the truth was that he was a criminal. That fact is not in question.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Okay, fine, yes, he’s guilty, scratch that. (Yes, he’s been found guilty but usually if the process by which a person is found guilty is itself corrupt, then we say the person is not guilty. I’m sure there’s a better legal way of distinguishing being found guilty and being found guilty in a corrupt trial.)
Siegelman’s guilt or innocence is a secondary concern here. My main concern about the Siegelman’s case is the nature of the judicial process. You might find Horton’s presentation to the FBI/DoJ/DSO about political prosecution that I mentioned in comment 8 useful to see where I”m coming from:
“It is frequently impossible for an outside observer to form useful views as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Moreover, as law enforcement professionals you may be inclined to take the representations made by your local counterparts at face value. You need to approach them with a healthy level of skepticism when political figures are involved. In fact, I would recommend simply disregarding the question of guilt or innocence when you’re trying to form a view about whether a prosecution is politically motivated. These are separate questions. Remember that it is entirely possible both that a subject is guilty of the crime charged and that the prosecution is politically motivated.”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002323
February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
…whether it was to rid free society of a crooked man or to take out a political enemy…
I have to get back to work but I’d say we have rather different expectations of the DoJ. I do not expect the DoJ to “take out political enemies”. I’d say that’s an illegal act that has no place in an open democracy. In fact, I’d say that political prosecutions are a clear sign of a corrupt government. No, of course, I don’t assume that politics never leak into justice. They do. However, the DoJ has procedures and oversight focused on reducing political influence, weeding out conflicts of interest, and generally ensuring a level playing field. Standard procedures to avoid conflicts of interest and basic oversight are missing in the Seigelman case.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
…the actual evidence against him…
As far as I know, the transcript of the trial is still outstanding.If you see a copy, please post a link. I’d love to read it.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
good points, #2.
OK, so he’s guilty. The facts in the case and their apparent severity are debatable. What really gets me steamed is the sequence of events starting from the very strange election results, immediate sealing of the ballots, and denial of a recount, and other events leading up to and subsequent to his trial. Granted, I’m only an iterested observer, but I read everything published regarding this case, regardless of the slant, and so far I have seen nothing that refutes the allegations brought up by the Siegelman supporters, such as:
This case was previously dismissed with prejudice by Federal Judge Clemon, and prosecutors dropped all charges, forcing them to go evidence shopping, as testified to in a sworn affadavit by a republican representative’s wife.
Siegelman was singled out for prosecution while two republicans who were brought up with evidence of accepting illegal contributions were not so much as investigated.
Judge Fuller had a known grudge with Siegelman, and is a controlling shareholder of companies with lucrative contracts with the US Government, the DOD, worth hundreds of millions.
He was sent straight to jail and is being held incommunicado pending his appeal, denied bail though not a flight risk, and the transcript which is necessary for an appeal is being delayed over and over again. The convoluted reasons that Fuller has come up with for doing this are legally laughable.
I wont get into the incestuous connections between Riley, Rove, the Canary’s, Alice Martin, and the GOP, but that has been documented in a sworn affadavit by Rileys campaign attorney, who has had some interesting “accidents”
The fact remains, that by your own admission, Don Siegelman is a political prisoner in this country, and that’s OK with you?
February 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I think Jack covers the main points. However, I’d add that this happened in the context of the U.S. attorneys purge and we know, from congressional testimony and other documentation, that some U.S. attorneys were asked to pursue political prosecutions. The extent and nature of the corruption is unclear at this point because the DoJ and other parties have been dragging their feet, to put it politely, when asked to provide testimony or paperwork. Some of the people who are subjects of various purge investigations are also involved in the Siegelman case. The fact that we know there were other, somewhat similar improper prosecutions involving some of the same people makes it more likely, IMO, that the DoJ is stonewalling because they have something to hide. Again, it’s hard to know what’s what because of the stonewalling. Claiming that you know the DoJ is on the up and up in the Siegelman case is as much a matter of faith as the opposite view. Only the main players know the truth and they are not talking at this point. Just as an aside, I have some trouble calling Siegelman a political prisoner, based on what we know so far. His case is being appealed, and it’s possible, I guess, that the irregularities in the case can be accounted for by revenge and/or greed. It’s unlikely to be the case at this point but it’s possible.
I’m not sure what to say to people who believe political prosecutions are okay and/or not worth investigating and setting right. I haven’t run into many people who don’t think it’s a good idea for our courts to strive to be impartial. I’ve always assumed that accepting political prosecutions is a fairly radical political idea, rarely found in the U.S. and more commonly associated with the politics of non-democratic states. I may need to rethink that.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“an entire jury of Don’s peers felt that the truth was that he was a criminal. That fact is not in question.”
It is in question. There are credible allegations of jury tampering, and judge Fuller has blocked any investigation of it. Why wouldn’t he want to remove this shadow of doubt if there was nothing significant to discover?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
jack - tired argument. “they did it”, or “its a conspiracy against Don” just doesn’t resonate like you may think it does. if it did then there would be a public outcry instead of a tiny group of bloggers mumbling on the left.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
…tiny group of laywers mumbling on the left…
I don’t think I’d characterize it quite like that.
Have you taken a look at the petition from 44 Democratic and Republican former state AGs outlining their concerns about the case and asking for Senate and House investigations?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/seigelman-ag/
I can’t think of any recent similar bipartisan petitions. Also, it’s worth noting that the contempt resolutions passed by the House the other day for Miers and Bolten, resulting in the GOP walkout, are both related to the House investigations into Siegelman. I’d say the AGs petition and the contempt resolutions are both pretty high profile.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Oooops, that would be “tiny group of bloggers” not “laywers” sorry about that.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am
“if it did then there would be a public outcry instead of a tiny group of bloggers mumbling on the left.”
You have to ask yourself why the majority of media is so silent on this issue in light of the fact that there is SO much documented evidence of foul play, and such unprecedented national legal outrage by respected bipartisan groups. How can you expect public outrage when nobody knows what’s going on? I ask, at every opportunity, whether anyone in my area has heard of the allegations at question in this case, and have yet to meet someone who has. So much for public outcry. Everybody does know the latest on Britney and Clemens steroids, though.
Yah, I know, both sides blame either the “liberal media” or the “corporate” media for any story they don’t like. But when the vast majority of media outlets are owned and controlled by so few companies, and courts have actually ruled that the firing of reporters for refusing to mislead the public is legally justified (FOX news case, if you were wondering), there’s a good reason most people don’t know of this. It’s too regional, risky, and lacks infotainment value. And it’s no secret that the big two papers in AL have made their case, and are silent or dismissive of the opposing view, regardless of it’s credibility.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Million $ question: Explain to me how exposing a massive conspiracy to convict political opposition (and the associated indictments of scores of Republicans who undoubtedly would have to engage in unlawful activities to perpetrate the prosecutions) would not be a ratings coup for whatever media outlet might cover it? Blackledge earned a Pulitzer for covering the relatively benign two year college scandal. Surely the prestige associated with uncovering an even bigger corruption case would be enough to attract numerous eager journalists seeking fame.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Why would they want to expose their complicity in the matter and blatant disregard for their public duty as the fourth estate? It just makes them look bad. That’s not good for ratings.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Set your tivo’s and DVR’s for Sunday’s 60 minutes!! It looks like the Siegelman story is finally going to air!!
Can’t wait to read the AL media’s rebuttal, I’m sure they’re working feverishly on contriving it already. Judging from what I’ve read here, the campaign to slime the most vocal reporters of this story was begun a long time ago.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I dunno that I have much hope that the 60 Minutes story will significantly advance the Siegelman story. I suspect it will just round up what’s known and place it somewhat in the context of the U.S. attorney’s purge. Unless there have been significant leaks from the WH or DoJ sources, and that’s unlikely, the story is bound to end with more questions than answers, there’s just too much testimony/paperwork that’s being sat on to know, for example, what discussions took place between the DoJ and the WH, among other things. I guess it might put some more pressure on Congress to deal with the witnesses who are in contempt in a timely fashion but I just don’t see much or any of the outstanding paperwork/testimony coming to light before Mukasey and Bush are out of office. It’s going to be a lot more he said, she said, I suspect. I mean, come on, how can you evaluate the trial without a transcript and, doh, that’s not the only thing missing. I tend to think the meat of the story will focus on Judge Fuller’s conflict(s) of interest, perhaps the improper jury discussions, and maybe some mention of the dodgy handling of witnesses and plea bargains, basically technical stuff, important but not the whole story by any means. It’s also worth noting that the U.S. attorney’s purge context really is important to the Siegelman story and the evidence/testimony/etc. surrounding that story is also outstanding. Well see, of course, I may be completely wrong but I just don’t see 60 Minutes coming up with a lot of fresh evidence, given that the players in these stories have successfully stonewalled Congressional investigators.
I do agree that the Newhouse papers responses will be amusing. OTOH, it’s not clear to me that even if, say, Eddie Curran and/or Quinn Hillyer coordinated their work at the P-R with the U.S. attorney’s office and/or G.O.P. operatives, that what they did was illegal or even to subject to investigation/subpoena when other parts of the tale get sorted out. It’s possible, I guess, that if you could prove that the Newhouse papers set out to knowingly publish false information to take down Dems you would take them to court and go from there but, again, so far, the paperwork/testimony doesn’t really support that case, even if it it’s true. A lot of what Curran and Hillyer and others wrote was, technically, true even if the context and timing was suspicious. Coordinated leaks of grand jury information, etc. are, of course, illegal coming from the DoJ but are generally more firing offenses than criminal matters.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
No offense, but I really hope you’re wrong, and that this story sparks some well overdue public outrage. Here’s a juicy tidbit from what promises to be a well told tale:
http://blog.locustfork.net/index.php/uncategorized/republican-operative-to-out-karl-rove-on-60-minutes/
February 21st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Sigh. If the bit on Locust Fork about the 60 Minutes story, that it focuses on Simpson’s account of Rove asking her to spy on and/or photograph Siegelman, is correct, then, yeah, it’s just more he said, she said. Rove’s not talking. Congress can’t get him to talk. I don’t think we’re going to see him in any court before Bush is out of office. I don’t think more from Simpson, even if, I dunno, she has Rove on tape, which she doesn’t, is progress. Not to mention that AFAIK, spying, within reasonable bounds, on your political opponents is legal, even if it’s directed for the WH. Unethical, stupid, etc. but, again, within reason, legal. (Obviously, say, using, say, Federal wiretaps or FBI agents to spy on your opponents is illegal. But, according to LF, Simpson was just following Siegelman around, creepy but probably not something that’s going to land anyone in jail.)
I hope this isn’t the heart of the 60 Minutes story.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Jack, bad link in 36.
Is Glynn Wilson as, um, salty all the time as he is in the comments on that post about 60 Minutes on LF? Yowhza. I read a few of his pieces elsewhere and thought they were okay, a little loose around the edges, somewhat too narrowly focused and, perhaps rightfully so, a bit partisan but basically okay. More or less par for the course if you read, say, The Nation. However, he comes off as a piece of work in the comments on LF.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
44 other state attorneys - on glynn wilson’s site, someone claims it was 52 AG’s, not 44 - so which is it? these types of discrepancies leads the public to understand the absolute ridiculousness of the issue
February 21st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Glynn is a “salty”, arrogant jerk. His pompous, abusive, and overtly partisan online demeanor causes anyone other than the most die hard leftist to not take him terribly seriously. You can read one of the posts I’ve written about him if you like. And don’t bother commenting on his site unless you parrot what he says, otherwise he’ll likely delete your comment. Furthermore, if you disagree with him his first move – guaranteed – is to try to find out who you are and what you do so that he can start blabbing about it and using it as an feeble excuse to not address your questions/concerns. Oh, and he might call you a racist too.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Interesting. Wilson’s articles don’t bother me so much–yes, you make some good points about some of the details and context of his writing about the Siegelman case but, IMO, the general thrust of his work is fairly convincing–however, he comes off as a defensive jerk in comments on his site and elsewhere. Weird. He’s the anti-Horton in his comments– uncivil, stingy, aggressive, short sighted, and spastic–to be generous.
The petition from State Attorneys Generals (two plurals, right?) asking for an investigation into the Siegelman case can be found here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/seigelman-ag
The document in the link above is signed by 44 Republican and Democratic AGs. However, as I understand it, several additional AGs added their signatures, or support in some fashion, shortly after the document was sent to Congress. There are references to new supporters around but I can’t find a detailed account of the additional supporters. I don’t see that it matters one way or the other. It’s pretty common that the names are a little variable in the petitions of this sort, for all kinds of reasons, vacations, missed phone calls, changes of mind, etc. AFAIK, it’s safe to say something like “nearly 50 AGs of both parties” have signed a petition suggesting that something is amiss in the DoJ’s handling of the Siegelman case. Fair enough?
…the absolute ridiculousness of the issue…
I agree, it’s odd to be talking about Siegelman as a political prisoner. And certainly, the whole cast of characters is ridiculous–Rove, Martin, Simpson, Siegelman, Gonzales, Fuller, and, oh, Glynn Wilson, just to name a few of the characters involved, are a whacky bunch. However, the issue of DoJ integrity is quite serious, IMO. Gonzales and Co.’s testimony in front of Congress was a serious blow to the integrity of the DoJ and no laughing matter to Republicans or Democrats. Also, the current stonewalling of information and testimony by various players in the Siegelman case is quite serious. If things aren’t on the up and up, we need to know about it, now, and changes need to happen to make it right. If the case was handled correctly then we need to see evidence of that yesterday. As the AGs say in their petition “The U.S. justice system should be above reproach.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Yikes! I’m not that familiar with Glynn Wilson, and like #2 had no problem with his articles, but in reading his comments you mention, he does come accross a bit hyper defensive with a touch of messianic complex.
On the other hand, I read your full post mentioned in #40, Brian, and found it to be well written, logical, and addressing the pertinent issues directly. We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but I appreciate your perspective and balance.
But since that article several new issues have come to light, such as the attempts to coerce false testimony, jury misconduct, failure to prove an explicit quid pro quo as required for conviction (which was not explained to the jury), and numerous other legal issues outlined in the appeal. In fact, my impression was that the 60 minutes article focuses largely on whether the declared offense was actually a crime, considering that campain donors are routinely awarded with ambassadorships and so on.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the real shame is that we’re even discussing this, and that a trial and subsequent jury verdict should have so much extraneous political garbage surrounding it, leaving a substantial taint on our justice system. This taint, and it’s crossover into the electoral process will be Bush and Co’s permanent legacy.