About a week ago, DOJ’s Middle District of Alabama released a remarkable memorandum that refutes various allegations made by Siegelman and his supporters, and reported by the press. The document is both odd and amazing for at least a couple of reasons. First, the prosecutors of the Middle District of Alabama investigated a case, secured a conviction, and have successfully sent two of the four defendants to prison. So with this successful prosecution in mind, why would the Middle District of Alabama care about what anyone says about the case, either from the lips of the defendant, from the coverage of the local press or the reporting of the national press. It is difficult to recall another successful prosecution where the prosecuting agency felt a need to defend themselves after the defendant was sent off to prison. And second, the document appears to come from Leura Canary, the US Attorney from the Middle District of Alabama, or at least generically from her DOJ office, which means that she is publicly commenting on a case in which she has recused herself from, and is supposed to be disconnected from, in any official capacity. It is possible that Canary was not responsible for the document, but if it came from Louis Franklin, the acting US Attorney in this case, then captioning the document as coming from the Middle District of Alabama is a misnomer. And both points add to the remarkable and odd nature of a document that seems to be coming from an agency that believes it must explain its actions to the people
The Middle District’s Response makes nine points. Below is a list of these issues followed by some brief comments. At no point do these notes suggest or claim that either side is right or wrong, but only that enough obfuscation has taken place that a thorough and air-cleaning investigation is warranted.
[The Middle District of Alabama's points are listed below, in italics.]
1. That the career prosecutors (i.e. not political appointees) handling the investigation and case after US Attorney Leura Canary’s recusal have issued statements unequivocally denying that Karl Rove or anyone from the Justice Department pushed them to bring charges or pursue them to conviction.
From the beginning of immeasurable time and in practically every conspiracy ever hatched, underlings have carried out the wishes of people above them. It is not only unlikely but rather unthinkable that if Karl Rove wanted to influence a criminal prosecution in Alabama, of if George Bush did, or if anyone in the administration wanted to, that they would directly involve themselves with the prosecuting attorneys, the people at the end of the chain. This is not to say that Rove or Bush or anyone in particular was behind the prosecutions, but it is to say that this opening nonsensical statement establishes a pattern for the Middle District of Alabama’s memorandum in that it spews out commentary which at best, doesn’t mean anything, and at the worst, is purely hypocritical nonsense.
The Middle District needs only to look as far as the Northern District to find an example where the government’s own theory had underlings carrying out fraud supposedly under the direction of a Mastermind they had no direct contact with. Yes, this would be the case of Richard Scrushy vs. The United States of America.
And as for their supposed “unequivocal” denials, it is not likely that these people would admit to such a thing and continue the prosecution at the same time. Without an investigation or any kind of meaningful inquiry, the statements of denial are worth no more or no less than the statements of Jill Simpson or the probing questions of Don Siegelman.
2. That the purported telephone conversation has been denied by all alleged participants but Ms Simpson and, indeed, even Mr. Siegelman denies those portions of Ms Simpson’s affidavit that related to him and explain Ms Simpson’s version of the basis for Mr. Siegelman dropping his 2002 re-election protest.
Without any kind of official inquiry, statements are just statements. One side says one thing and the other side says something else. If the version of events reported by Simpson actually happened, then the ramifications of admitting to the truth of her version would have serious consequences, both in the state of Alabama and on a nationwide scale. But without any sort of inquiry or investigation, the parties have complete government-sanctioned deniability and have no reason not to deny Simpson’s allegations, regardless of what the truth might be. Any criminal is free to deny any crime as long as they know no investigation will take place.
Once again, this is not to say or even suggest that the denials should be summarily dismissed, but the people behind the Middle District’s memorandum have to know that this is an empty statement and simply carries no weight.
3. That Mr. Siegelman was already under investigation more than 10 months before the alleged conference call took place, and the investigation had been widely reported;
The Jill Simpson allegations are not specifically time-stamped, and indeed, they report on something that took place in the past. Canary and Rove were associates years before the investigation began, and long before Siegelman was elected governor, so to date the allegations from the moment of the phone conversation is disingenuous.
The Middle District’s document likes to point out real or imagined omissions in statements made by Siegelman and his supporters, but they have conveniently substituted—in several places—omissions of their own.
4. That the investigation was actually spurred by evidence uncovered by an investigative reporter for the Mobile Press-Register and a series of articles written by him;
This point is one of a couple of their bullets that reach the high-water mark of hypocrisy and illogical commentary. To first preface these comments, this commentary has nothing to do with the integrity or honor of Eddie Curran who undeniably did good work in bringing out some valid issues about the Siegelman administration. But there are several problems. First, it is absolutely scary to think that the DOJ is allowing a newspaper to write its indictments, especially when there was evidence that the newspaper was—at least for some of its material—being fed information from someone who was close to the investigation. There is a breakdown in our system when widely publicized newspaper headlines are brought to a grand jury, where they are transformed from issues into “evidence,” before a tabloid-style indictment is cobbled together. But that’s not the best part about this point. The Middle District of Alabama spends the second half of their document talking about the errors and erroneous reporting of the press. Amazing. And it is true, the press has a certain agenda: Eddie Curran did, the New York Times and Harper’s do, but that is part of journalism, and it is the exact reason that journalism should not be a substitute for real and thorough investigations.
So is the Middle District of Alabama saying that they know for sure that the Mobile Press-Register had it perfect while these other publications have it wrong? Once again, this is not to say that Curran and the Press-Register were wrong or that these other publications were somehow more accurate, but it is only to point out the fallacy and you-can’t-have-it-both-ways nature of the question. Without investigating the claims of both sides, and moving away from journalistic agendas, we’ll never be able to know what the truth is.
5. That Ms Canary had already voluntarily removed herself from the case more than six months before Mr. Canary allegedly assured everyone that his “girl” Ms Canary would take care of Mr. Siegelman.
In another rather glaring and obvious omission, Simpson didn’t use the singular “girl,” but rather, she said “girls,” indicating both Alice Martin and Leura Canary. The recusal was voluntary in that she was not removed from the case by a judge, but it was not done until Siegelman’s lawyers pointed out the conflict, and then she “voluntarily” recused herself. In the years that have gone by since the recusal, the documentation and paperwork about why this action was necessary has never been released in spite of FOIA requests that have been approved as falling within the guidelines of information that should be publicly available. (The request was originally denied but the denial was overturned on appeal, but the documents have still not been released.) It is this kind of stealth activity that ensures that the questions will linger. If the Middle District really wants to set the record straight, to stop the persistent questions and the harping by the press, instead of issuing documents like this memorandum, they need to open themselves up, provide some real answers, and quit sneaking around like their guilty.
Once again, the length of the Rove association with the Canary’s negates the supposed six month time-window discrepancy. We don’t know the answer to this one, but they have still provided no information that it could not have been set in motion years before.
6. That Ms Simpson’s affidavit may have been motivated by her relationship with a disappointed bidder who lost out on a $7.1 million state contract by Governor Riley to a competitor with a lower bid – Ms Simpson wrote letters on his behalf and gave a companion affidavit asserting that Ms Simpson also told him about the alleged phone call;
This one is a spiritual twin of point #4, the one about the press, in the nature of its arrogance and hypocrisy. As an answer to the point being made, we can say, “Yes, absolutely,” Ms Simpson may have had an ulterior motive for making the claims that she did. But wouldn’t this just be speculative conjecture? Wouldn’t it just be putting together some coincidences and calling the results conclusory? Kind of like the coincidence of Leura Canary being married to Bill Canary, who happened to be a one-time close associate of Karl Rove and was a paid consultant to the guy who was investigating Siegelman. Like that? Or what about the newspaper that Claire Austin—also an associate of the guy who was investigating Siegelman—put a call into? In yet another coincidence, some of the things that this paper reported turned up in the indictment. Or even the coincidence of Bill Pryor getting a Federal Judgeship months after the election of 2002.
Rebutting Siegelman’s speculative claims by making speculative claims of their own is again disingenuous.
7. That Ms Simpson first told Mr. Scrushy’s lawyers of the alleged incidents made the basis of her affidavit in February 2007, and she prepared the affidavit at their urging, meeting with Scrushy and his lawyers on several occasions during the months before she signed her affidavit on May 21, 2007; yet, the reporters are not exploring her relationship with Scrushy and Siegelman and their role in the affidavit;
The government is not exactly exploring the relationship between Rove and the Canary’s or Bill Pryor and the Canary’s, or Alice Martin and Bill Canary. Once again, the government may have a valid point in that certain connections should be evaluated in order to establish the truth. But aren’t they asking for one side to be investigated while they expect the press and the public to rely on denials from the side that refuses to be investigated?
8. That Ms Simpson affidavit was never filed by Siegelman or his co-defendants in the actual court case, all allegations of selective prosecution having been raised by Mr. Siegelman solely in the media and never in the actual court case, where an evidentiary hearing to explore the truth of the allegations could have been conducted;
Absolutely amazing. The government successfully filed and was granted motions that prevented Siegelman from raising any issues about the political or selective nature of the prosecution, during the trial. By the government’s own actions, it would have been impossible for Siegelman to raise these issues during the trial. It may have been preferable to everyone if the allegations were subject to the rigorous standards of courtroom protocol, but with this avenue completely cut off, the only remaining outlet was the media.
Via this document, the government likes to look at tenuous timestamps. The Simpson affidavit came out months after the trial, so even if Siegelman wasn’t prevented from introducing it to the trial, there was no court case in which to file the document. The timing could be an issue. It is easy to think of three or four reasons why Simpson came forward at the time that she did, and easy to think of three or four government responses to why the timing would be an issue, but this would fall back into the realm of speculative conjecture. And it is on this level that the Middle District of Alabama released their memorandum, and these notes won’t slide back into speculation, but will maintain that a thorough and open investigation is the only way to the truth.
9. That Adam Nossiter, of the NY Times quoted G. Robert Blakey at length in his June 27, 2007 article regarding the purported “shakiness of the federal case against” Siegelman and the prosecutors’ alleged “garbage can theory of RICO” identifying Blakey as a professor at the University of Notre Dame and former prosecutor,” and as “the professor” whose career at the Justice Department began in 1960,” and never once mentioned that Blakey was Siegelman’s lawyer, an advocate on his behalf.
The final point of the Middle District’s document is aimed not at Siegelman or his supporters, but at a reporter. And it is not insignificant that the specific language of the reporter’s article they are taking issue with has to do with G. Robert Blakey, one of Siegelman’s attorneys. It is a fitting final point because it brings the whole argument full circle, and reveals the squirming, skittish nature of the prosecution’s discussion of a shaky federal case.
However, there is good evidence that it was more about the reporter’s subject matter than it was about his reporting, namely the comments of G. Robert Blakey. This was the guy who got under the prosecutions skin during the sentencing hearing, prompting one of the career prosecutors to say that he wasn’t a player, that he was a bottle thrower and that the only reason he was participating in the case was so he could go back and tell his students at Notre Dame that he had influenced the trial in some manner. Blakey my not have been much of a visible player, in the trial, but at the heart of the government’s case, there was a RICO conspiracy and Blakey was brought in as a RICO specialist. This may be significant because regardless of this non-player’s effect on the sentencing hearing, Siegelman was acquitted of all of the RICO charges.
The Blakey quotes Nossiter used were said in open court, making them part of the record of the trial and available to the public, not just a reporter for the New York Times. It is not as if Nossiter interviewed Blakey at the Times offices in New York, and hid the fact that his interviewee was connected to the case. The article was a general piece about the sentencing hearing, and Nossiter made references to “the arguments of Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers,” and “Mr. Siegelman’s large crew of lawyers.” To be accurate, it would have been semantically better if the reporter had included a specific attribute about Blakey’s relationship to Siegelman, but the article does not appear to be that un-clear or under-reported. Instead, when reading the article and comparing it to the Middle District of Alabama’s statement, there is an overwhelming sense of: Is this the best they could do to showcase biased reporting? Or did the comments of professor Blakey, about the shakey nature of the government’s case and the garbage can theory of RICO hit too close to home?
________________________________________________
After nine points and some verbiage about the government prosecutors involved, the Middle District of Alabama’s statement only serves to strongly establish that a thorough investigation of this case is warranted. The citizens of America want to believe in our system of justice, they really want to believe that trials and prosecutions are fair and honest, and that our system of justice makes our country strong and unique in the world of nations. It is for this reason, that the questions being asked about the investigation and prosecution of this case must be taken seriously.
Louis Franklin has said that the notion of a political conspiracy is ridiculous, and maybe it is. I don’t want to buy into a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, and I want to believe in the integrity of American justice and the sanctity of the jury system; but documents like the Response put out by the Middle District of Alabama make it hard to do this, even though we try.
Sounds like you are back in Richard’s conner?