Federal prosecutors no longer seeking stiffer prison sentence for Siegelman.
Federal prosecutors no longer seeking stiffer prison sentence for Siegelman.
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.”
54 former state attorneys general support Siegelman.
54 former state attorneys general support Siegelman.
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.
Wasserman-Schultz on arresting Rove: ‘Well, if that’s what it takes.’
Wasserman-Schultz on arresting Rove: ‘Well, if that’s what it takes.’
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:
Rove Issues Non-Denial Of Role In Seigelman Case: ‘I Read About It In The Newspaper’
Rove Issues Non-Denial Of Role In Seigelman Case: ‘I Read About It In The Newspaper’
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.”
Siegelman: ‘This Will Make Watergate Look Like Child’s Play’
Siegelman: ‘This Will Make Watergate Look Like Child’s Play’
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)
Congress to Rove: ‘No justification’ for refusing to testify on Siegelman case.
Congress to Rove: ‘No justification’ for refusing to testify on Siegelman case.
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.
Bloch dismissed Office of Special Counsel probe of Siegelman case.
Bloch dismissed Office of Special Counsel probe of Siegelman case.
Last September, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) opened an investigation “into whether partisan politics were a factor in the Justice Department’s prosecution of former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges in 2006.” But a memo written last January by OSC career investigators has revealed that OSC chief Scott Bloch — whose office and home were recently raided by the FBI — ordered the Siegelman case closed, “saying that he had not authorized it.” According to the memo, Bloch also diverted focus and attention from other high profile cases, including the political activities of former White House aide Karl Rove and DoJ’s hiring practices:
Among various concerns, the staffers said the office’s probe of the political briefings was overly broad. […] They recommend narrowing the focus and completing key interviews before proceeding with the related probe into Rove’s activities. […]
The career investigators also wrote of their long-standing desire to open a probe into allegations that certain Justice Department officials considered political affiliation in their hiring and promotion decisions. Bloch told them not to open one last August, then approved a limited investigation in November. In their memo, the staffers pushed for more.
Rove’s Lawyer On Subpoena In Siegelman Case: It’s All Dan Abrams’s Fault
Rove’s Lawyer On Subpoena In Siegelman Case: It’s All Dan Abrams’s Fault
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena former White House adviser Karl Rove, unless he agrees by May 12 to testify about his role in the allegedly political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
Yesterday, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported that Rove will now only “talk about it with the committee, and only if no transcript is made, and if it’s not done under oath.” Furthermore, according to Abrams, Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin is “blaming us” for the subpoena threat because of an incriminating e-mail exchange that was taken “out of context.” As Luskin wrote to the Committee on April 29:
Your invitation is premised on reports that I had expressed Mr. Rove’s “willingness to testify before the committee.” The report in question was based on an e-mail exchange with a producer for a cable news network and was taken grossly out of context.
Watch Abrams’s segment:
But Luskin’s statements to MSNBC were not “grossly taken out of context.” Yesterday, Abrams provided the exact e-mail exchange with Luskin. Luskin clearly said, “sure” to Rove testifying if subpoenaed:
From: Verdict with Dan Abrams
To: Robert Luskin
Sent: April 07, 2008 4:59 PMSorry. Let me be more clear. Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?
From: Robert Luskin
To: Verdict with Dan Abrams
Sent: April 07, 2008 6:59 PMSure. Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assume he has: something to hide, even though — gov siegelman’s uncorroborated assertions aside — there’s literally no credible evidence whatsoever to substantiate his charges. I would hope that you’d get around to mentioning that fact.
Rove and Luskin have regularly assaulted MSNBC for its reporting on the story. In a 2,100-word letter containing 58 questions, written on April 13, Rove blasted Abrams personally. Luskin criticized Abrams in an Roll Call interview earlier this month, hinting that Rove would hide behind executive privilege to avoid testifying.
House committee threatens Rove with subpoena.
Today, the House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena former White House adviser Karl Rove, unless he agrees by May 12 to testify about former Alabama governor Don Siegelman’s corruption case. In a letter to Rove’s attorney, the committee wrote, “We can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the committee. We urge you and your client to reconsider…or we will have no choice but to consider the use of compulsory process.”