Congressman Artur Davis has said that the House Democrat’s request for the recently freed Don Siegelman to testify in front of Congress is ill-advised, and that he would strongly advise Siegelman against making this trip to Washington. In published reports, the Congressman was quoted as saying it would be “extremely unwise” for Siegelman to appear because it would expose him to new Republican attacks. To Davis, a Siegelman appearance would not serve the interests of The Party because it would “undermine what we value most.” These words come from the same Democrats who did little or nothing, on a national scale, to address the circumstances of one of their own members being railroaded into prison as the result of a highly questionable investigation and trial. There were few words spoken by prominant fellow Democras, at least until Don Siegelman was already in prison, and not until they could mix the Siegelman situation with their own agendas concerning Karl Rove, and not until dozens of former Attorney Generals–including some Republicans–openly questioned the prosecution. This is the same Democratic Party, that while swirling into the midst of a particularly contentious election cycle, where the leading candidates routinely talk about Change and a new kind of politics, even when the candidates have yet to utter one word in defense of the persecution of one of their own members. It might be understandable that the political party would not want to spend any political capital on a corruption case–no matter how questionable or no matter how wrong–but it would be equally understandable if Governor Siegelman politely declines the advice of Artur Davis, and goes to Washington.
Davis said that he feared that Republicans would use the occasion of a Siegelman appearance to embarrass him, and to further discredit the former governor. With due respect to Representative Davis, and with a high regard for his motivation and sincerity, it would be hard for me to imagine anything that could be more embarrassing than to be shackled and jerked out of a crowded courtroom, and to be hustled off to prison. Siegelman went from General Siegelman and Governor Siegelman to not even being worthy of being called Mr. Siegelman, but more likely Convict or 24775-001. It is a pretty good bet that the most intense questions, the most vicious comments by members of Congress would not embarrass Don Siegelman any more than he has already been subjected to.
Artur Davis also said that his appearance could jeopardize his appeal or expose him to further charges like perjury or obstruction of justice. This is a legal matter, and I have no idea what Don Siegelman will choose to do, but if it truly was a politically motivated investigation and trial, then it would seem that having an opportunity to tell the truth could not possibly jeopardize further litigation. In fact, the Davis plan of hedging the bets might come off as a bunker maneuver that parallels the bunker mentality that has kept the truth buried and hidden throughout this whole affair. And even worse, Davis said that Congress might call some of the witnesses from the trial. Does he mean Nick Bailey? Again, I do not know what Siegelman’s plans are, but it seems that he would be delighted to have his old aide appear in a national venue. The exact nature of Bailey’s ever-changing testimony could be explored along with the circumstances of his interviews, the promises he was given, and his early release.
Davis curiously separates two related ideas. The Birmingham News quotes him as saying, “We will lose the high ground that maintains that the integrity of the criminal justice system is more important than an individual defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Yes, but one of the hallmarks of a Democracy is that the rights of every individual are important, and that if one innocent individual is deprived of his or her rights and is wrongly prosecuted, then it undermines the integrity of our entire system. Davis further asserts that Congress may be granting Siegelman his “day in the court of public opinion,” but that “critics will assail us for doing nothing more than second-guessing a jury-verdict.” But is bringing out the truth of a wrongful prosecution merely a matter of public opinion? Siegelman’s appearance will be up to him and his consideration of the counsel of Artur Davis. But I say bring on Nick Bailey. Give Karl Rove another chance to hide behind executive privilege, and give the administration another chance to say that most of the pertinent emails and documents have disappeared. Call Steve Feaga. Call Leura Canary. The more the merrier: Call investigator Bill Long. Call retired FBI agent Jack Brennan. Call Alice Martin. Even if the opposition is licking their chops, let them, as it is time to put it all on the table and allow the unvarnished truth to give us an answer. Davis might think it is risky–even distracting to their mission–but if the truth is on Siegelman’s side, let it erupt all over Congress. And then dare the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals not to kick the case out ot=f court and clear back to Mobile.
Public opinion indeed.