In 2006, former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman was sentenced to serve seven years in a bribery case. Siegelman charges that he was the victim of political persecution by former Bush official Karl Rove, and his case has been plagued by improper conduct by the prosecution. In 2008, a “bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general from across the country” supported Siegelman’s bid to overturn his conviction, but a year later, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld five of the seven charges. Today, however, the Supreme Court gave Siegelman a second chance, ordering the court to look at his case again:

The Supreme Court ordered the 11th Circuit to review the appeals again in light of a high-court ruling last week that found fault with part of the government’s prosecution of former Enron Corp. Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling. The justices used Mr. Skilling’s case to narrow the reach of a federal law that allowed prosecutors to bring cases against company executives and government officials who deprived the public of “the intangible right of honest services.”

Some of the charges in the Scrushy and Siegelman cases also involved the federal honest-services law.

The high-court’s decision to send the cases back for further proceedings at the appeals court doesn’t necessarily mean that the men’s convictions will be affected.

(HT: TPMmuckraker)

Today, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld five of the seven charges against former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman, who was the victim of political prosecution by Karl Rove. From Siegelman’s statement in reaction to the verdict:

The three judge panel of the 11th Circuit has ruled. I am disappointed. The fight will continue. My family and I are deeply appreciative of the outpouring of support and prayers. Your words and actions keep our spirits lifted and our resolve strong. We will get through this and we will win.

Siegelman went to prison after his sentencing in June 2007, but was freed last year on appeal bond. He currently faces a seven-year term, which may be reversed since the 11th Circuit ordered a new sentencing hearing.

Today, TPMmuckraker obtained the written answers from Karl Rove to questions posed to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about former Alabama governor Don Siegelman’s allegedly politically-motivated prosecution. In the letter, Rove denies involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution, contradicting an affidavit and the sworn testimony of GOP lawyer Dana Jill Simpson:

I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

Earlier this month, Rove — despite being subpoenaed — skipped a House hearing on the Siegelman case by fleeing the country to Yalta, the historic Black Sea resort in Ukraine.

AP reports:

Federal prosecutors are no longer seeking stiffer prison sentences for former Alabama governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Prosecutors filed a motion this week with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that their appeals of the sentences be dropped. Their appeal had called for a longer prison term than Siegelman’s more than seven-year sentence and Scrushy’s almost seven-year sentence.

The latest filing does not say why prosecutors want to drop their appeal.

Last week a bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general filed a brief with the federal appeals court in support of Siegelman, writing that the government’s bribery prosecution “raised serious First Amendment concerns.”

Digg It!

AP reports:

A bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general from across the country has filed a federal appeals brief supporting former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman’s bid to overturn his criminal conviction.

Saying the prosecution and sentencing of Siegelman “raised serious First Amendment concerns,” the brief asks the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Siegelman’s conviction.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Dan Abrams yesterday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if he continues to refuse to testify about his role in the U.S. attorney scandal and prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. The Hill reports:

“Well, if that’s what it takes,” she said. “I mean we really cannot allow the co-equal branch of government, the legislative branch, to be trampled upon by the executive branch. The founding fathers established three branches of government. We are a co-equal branch, and this is an administration that essentially has ignored and disrespected the role of the legislative branch for far too long.”

Watch it:

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House aide Karl Rove to determine his knowledge and role in the decision to prosecute former Democratic governor of Alabama Don Siegelman.

ABC’s This Week host George Stephanopolous asked Rove if he was directly or indirectly involved in Siegelman’s prosecution. Having trouble coming up with a coherent explanation, Rove simply offered this legalistic non-denial denial. “I learned about Don Siegelman’s prosecution by reading about it in the newspaper,” Rove said.

When Stephanopolous continued to press Rove about his involvement in the case, Rove stuttered and stammered, then responded by again saying he learned about it in the newspaper. Stephanopolous astutely noted, “That’s not a denial”:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But to be clear, you did not contact the Justice Department about this case?

ROVE: I read about — I’m going to simply say what I’ve said before which is, I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But that’s not a denial.

ROVE: Uh. I’ve — I’ve — I’ve — uh — you know, I read about it. I heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.

Watch it:

Trying to defend himself, Rove said “everyone who was supposedly on that telephone call” — which points to Rove’s involvement in the case — says it “never took place.” But when Stephanopolous pointed out that there is a cell phone record of the call, Rove had nowhere to go.

Unfortunately for Rove, dealing with the House Judiciary Committee isn’t going to be as easy as ducking questions on a Sunday talk show. As committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said recently, “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

In a new interview with the Anniston Star (AL), former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman speaks out about Karl Rove’s involvement in his prosecution. Siegelman is currently out on bond, after being sentenced to serve seven years in a bribery case in 2006. In his chat with the Star, Siegelman questions Rove’s motives for refusing to testify to Congress under oath about the case:

The Star: Why do you believe Rove hasn’t agreed to testify under oath?

Siegelman: He doesn’t want to run the risk of lying under oath and being prosecuted for perjury.

You know, I think it’s telling that he talks a good game. He wrote a, I think it was a five-page letter to [MSNBC anchor] Dan Abrams basically asking Dan Abrams questions about why he should testify under oath. When Conyers invited him to testify under oath, he’s dodged that, he’s skated, and I think it’s clear he’s got something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason why he wouldn’t testify under oath.

Last week, House Judiciary Committee members rejected Rove’s offer to answer the committee’s questions in writing — rather than testifying under oath — stating that “we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee.”

In his interview, Siegelman also stressed that that his case is “not an isolated incident”:

Siegelman: I think this will make Watergate look like child’s play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it’s not about me. It’s about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press.

This was a pernicious, political plan that was set in motion by Karl Rove to further his espoused dream of establishing a permanent Republican majority in this country, and what he left out was by any means necessary.

Harpers’ Scott Horton has reported that “most experienced and senior career prosecutors” opposed the Siegleman prosecution, yet the Justice Department pushed the case forward “with blunt political force.” Former GOP operative Jill Simpson has also alleged that Rove asked her to find evidence that Siegelman was cheating on his wife.

(HT: TalkLeft)

Today, House Judiciary Committee leaders sent a letter to Karl Rove’s laywer, Robert Luskin, rejecting Rove’s offer to answer questions on his involvement in the Don Siegelman prosecution and other issues in writing. They wrote that, considering Rove’s willingness to speak to the media on the subject, “we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee”:

As our previous letters have made clear, the Siegelman case is a principal reason for our invitation to Mr. Rove. But as we have also explained, that issue cannot be separated from the broader concerns about politicization within the Department and the U.S. Attorney firings , and Mr. Rove has made on-the-record comments to the media about all these interrelated matters. [...]

Since you indicate Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews.

In April, Luskin had indicated that Rove would testify if Congress subpoenaed him. By the end of the month, Luskin backed away from the pledge, claiming he had been taken out of context.