Tiresome Racket Mouthpiece

The Birmingham News had an editorial yesterday complaining of the repeated and "tiresome"call for justice by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman who was targeted by the Rove Republican Racket after he left office.



As we reported earlier, 75 former State Attorney Generals have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to review Siegelman's case. The highly critical editorial page of the newspaper notes that none of the 75 are from Alabama (like that really would make a difference) and says that the Siegelman case should not be treated with political favoritism and must go through the regular legal channels.



No offense but having a review, like Holder did for former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, is part of the regular legal process, espècially when U.S. Attorney Offices act blatantly wrong.



The Birmingham News is a tiresome Rove Racket mouthpiece that did nothing to protect the legal integrity of Alabama's judicial system and has consistently paid political favorites with the Rove Republican Racket.



A political swine flu appears to have infected their brains.

Appeals Court Shredding Rove Racket?

In a sudden turn of events in the Paul S. Minor case, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has sent a letter requesting specific answers to a list of five questions. Reviewing the questions, it appears the court is about to shred the Rove Republican Racket's ridiculous political prosecution theories.

Minor may finally see freedom after being wrongly sentenced to 11 years in prison by the Rove-Bush-Cheney Administration.

The court has asked all parties to file briefs of no more than 15 pages by May 18th. Here is the exact text from their letter dated April 22, 2009:

The panel requests that the parties provide supplemental briefing on the following issues related to counts 11, 12, 13 and 14 alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666.

The court notes that section 666 provides that an agent of a state or local government or agency receiving federal funds as specified in section 666 – here “the Administrative Office of the Courts” of Mississippi – commits an offense if he “corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more . . . .” Section 666(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

Section 666 likewise provides that one commits an offense if he“corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.” Section 666(a)(2) (emphasis added).

1. What evidence shows that the matter or matters respecting which Judge Whitfield or Judge Teel intended to be influenced or rewarded, were a matter or matters in connection with any business or transaction of the Administrative Office of the Courts of Mississippi? Similarly, what evidence shows that anything of value which Minor gave with intent to influence or reward Judge Whitfield or Judge Teel was in respect to any action taken or to be taken in connection with any business or transaction of the Administrative Office of the Courts of Mississippi?

2. Describe the nexus that the “in connection with” clause requires between the relevant governmental agency – here the Administrative Office of the Courts of Mississippi – and the particular matter respecting which the “agent” defendant (here Judge Whitfield or Judge Teel) is intended to be influenced or rewarded.

3. What is the proof of such nexus with respect to the convictions under counts 11, 12, 13 and 14?

4. As to each appellant was a lack of such nexus adequately raised below and on appeal? If not adequately so raised, what authority would allow the court to consider the nexus in the present appeal?

5. If the court determines one or more of counts 11, 12, 13 and 14 should be reversed, what effect, if any, would that have on the proper action to be taken on any of the other counts of conviction, and what effect, if any, would that have with respect to whether there should be resentencing on any of the other counts of conviction even if the convictions on those other counts were not to be reversed?

Each party is to provide a brief not to exceed 15 pages, said brief to be filed by May 18, 2009.

Seventy-Five

From today's wires:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A bipartisan group of 75 former state attorneys general from across the country has asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. They want Holder to conduct an investigation similar to the one that led the Justice Department to drop its case against former Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Holder asked a judge to toss out Stevens' corruption conviction because prosecutors withheld evidence from his defense team during the trial. The attorneys general say in their letter that if similar misconduct is found in the Siegelman case, the once-popular Democrat's corruption conviction should be dismissed. Siegelman was sentenced to more than seven years in prison and is free on bond while he appeals.

Racket Wiretaps Congresswoman

Breaking News: In explosive allegations that broke over the weekend by CQ.com, Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman was wiretapped in 2005 by the Rove Republican Racket speaking to an Israeli lobbyist and offering to soften the prosecution of two Israeli lobbyists in exchange for support for a Congressional committee appointment.

But the most interesting (and ironic) item in this breaking scandal is the following (from CNN): "CQ.com also reported that after the intercept, the FBI tried to open an investigation of Harman, but then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pulled the plug because he wanted Harman's help defending the controversial domestic warrantless wiretapping program, which she supported."

Obviously, Gonzales' decision was pure politics. The Rove Racket successfully turned the U.S. Department of Justice into a branch of its political army.

CQ.com broke the story and here is the link. CNN did a follow up interview and the story is here. Harman has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to release any and all transcripts immediately.

Vague Argument

The Jackson Free Press points out today that the broad and vague argument used by the U.S. Attorneys who wrongfully convicted Paul S. Minor could be used against anyone who donates to a judicial campaign.

The Rove Republican Racket that targeted the Democratic fundraiser changed jury instructions on a re-trial after losing round one.

The same three-judge panel that deferred the furlough decisions [about Minor] to the Bureau of Prisons is currently reviewing Minor’s appeal, and voicing doubts about irregular jury instructions granted by ...U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate during Minor’s 2007 trial. Wingate had presided over the prosecution’s failure to convict Minor and three other judges in 2005. Wingate removed the necessity of quid pro quo proof of bribery in the 2007 re-trial, however, and instructed the jury that they did not have to find any proof of bribery, or even find that the judges’ rulings were illogical. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Collery recently informed the panel that prosecutors settled for a vague corruption arrangement. “The agreement,” Collery affirmed, “was you will take this money and in some future case you will rule dishonestly for me,” even though there was apparently no guarantee that the candidate would win the election or even preside over a Minor case.The lack of detail made convicting Minor a cinch, although [Minor's attorney]—who helped devise modern U.S. corruption laws—argued that the same argument could be fashioned to convict just about anyone who donates money to a judge’s campaign. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, donates millions of dollars to judicial candidates who favor plaintiffs and corporations, making the supreme courts of many southern
states a suit-free haven for businesses.

A Very Good Question, Indeed

In today's Montgomery Advertiser, a leading article focused on the debate over Alabama's ethics law. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to disagree with Republican Alabama Governor Bob Riley's interpretation.

There is quite an interesting passage inside the article:

"People, including those watching the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman, know that there are laws against quid pro quo, exchanging something of value for an official action. They argue prosecutors did not prove quid pro quo against Siegelman, but he was convicted of appointing Richard Scrushy to a state board in exchange for a large donation to a failed lottery campaign."

The governor's spokesperson then "asked who is supposed to determine whether a gift was given to influence."

A very good question, indeed! Maybe he and his boss should look in the mirror.

Riley's friends at the Rove Republican Racket targeted Siegelman. The Rove Republican Racket "determined"by their almighty wisdom that Siegelman was being influenced by a gift.

The Rove Racket now acts like the Puritans of Clean Politics when the whole case was nothing more than a political prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office used to destabilize the Democratic Party in Alabama.

Meet Brenda K. Morris and the $1.34 Million Misconduct Settlement

(Image: Copyright 2008, J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Ms. Brenda K. Morris, Deputy Chief of the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, has garnered fame as one of the six prosecutors responsible for the withholding of evidence in the case against U.S. Senator Ted Stevens which was recently tossed out.

The prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case shows deep patterns of inappropriate and unethical conduct throughout the DOJ. But Morris' misdeeds appear to have been a standard operating procedure. Mind you she's a shining star and the patron saint of "public integrity" for the Rove Republican Racket

Now comes an eye-opening column from Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey about Morris' behavior from 2002, when the Rove Republican Racket was at its infancy:

A San Antonio federal judge expressed similar feelings about Morris and her team seven years ago. The feds had obtained a search warrant to search the office and home of criminal defense attorney Alan Brown for evidence of tax cheating and money laundering, but U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled the search to be unconstitutional and barred prosecutors from using what they had collected. In seeking the search warrant, Garcia ruled, investigators misled a U.S. magistrate by failing to disclose that their primary source, a former office manager for Brown named Kelly Houston, had fallen in love with one of Brown’s clients, a drug trafficker whose 18-year federal sentence she hoped to get reduced by turning on Brown. Finding that an agent told the magistrate Houston was truthful even when he knew she had lied about some key financial documents, Garcia called the government’s conduct “reprehensible.” Morris appealed the ruling and, meanwhile, used a technicality to move the case to Austin. The 5th Circuit reversed Garcia’s ruling but ordered Austin federal Judge Lee Yeakel to address the issue. Yeakel’s rhetoric wasn’t as rough, but in 2005 he also found the search to be unconstitutional. Brown was tried in Austin on accusations of hiding more than $500,000 of income over four years. Morris put on 86 witnesses over 29 days of testimony. Witnesses for the defense included two former federal prosecutors and the former first assistant district attorney for Bexar County. It took the jury less than an hour and a half to find Brown innocent. One of the jurors, the wife of an evangelical pastor, held a party at her home for Brown, his wife and the other jurors. Charges against Brown’s wife, Jean, a family lawyer, were dropped. Unlike most defendants, however, the Browns weren’t content to give praise and try to rebuild their lives. They sued the federal government. One of the fine things about filing a lawsuit is that you get to subpoena all sorts of documents. “And the thing is, because I had been acquitted they couldn’t claim that the documents were part of an ongoing investigation,” said Brown on Friday. Among the e-mails he says he recalls was one in which an agent discussed indicting his wife without sufficient evidence because it would get Brown to accept a plea bargain. What else was in the mounds of papers? We will likely never know. Rather than go to trial, the government in 2007 settled the case for $1.34 million. Brown says he was required to return all the papers he had obtained.