Political Expediency for a Political Prosecution

Once a week or so, I make a scan of the latest articles on the Siegelman-Scrushy situation. And then I go on to look at the most recent editorials and make a quick check to see if there is any movement in the involved Federal Courts. And in making this sweep, I’ll usually take a detour down the Internet’s back-alleys, from the seedy bars and pubs of the Net to the more up-scale sophisticated cigar rooms, and finally to the Internet version of graffiti-strewn restrooms, where I’ll read what is written in all of these places as text messages stuffed in bottles and cast adrift across disparate forums. There’ll be wide spectrum of scrawled notes, from almost-informed impassioned arguments, to factual news blurbs, to the exposed raw nerves of hatred and the blind invectives of anger. The latter encompasses everything from small lives that have been bowed by a failing economy, from the ever-fresh frustration of stolen Southern Honor, to the embarrassment of Bull Connor’s dogs splashed across Life Magazine, to a still-simmering racial divide that quietly and quite voluntarily segregated itself in the aftermath of the 60’s, to the moral high-ground afforded by the close almost gang-like association to a political party. And to fear. Simply fear. And crisscrossing this uneven landscape is the perception of shady politicians from Bush to Clinton to Obama, and from Blagojevich to Jefferson to Cunningham to Sessions.

The Siegelman case is not simply a modern-day witch hunt. But it’s close.

Suppose there really were witches in Old Salem, people who did mischief by casting spells on cows and people, and if this were true—if there really were such people amongst the denizens of Old Salem—it might be easier to forgive the hysteria of a panicked public for mistaking innocent victims for actual witches. Then we might also expect—because it is a mark of humanity, a festering boil on the human race—that the people would error on the side of caution out of respect for the gravity of the situation. They might burn a few witches because of the danger that might come from having just one fully-empowered witch on the loose. Indeed, this is a topical dilemma in the age of terrorism. If the rights of an individual are sacred in a democracy, how sacred should the rights of a suspected terrorist be when allowing just one to slip through the cracks of justice could have disastrous consequences on the lives of the citizenry? Have we replaced one disaster for another?

We now know—at least we’re pretty sure—that there were no real witches in Old Salem. But we do know there are plenty of corrupt politicians that have seeped into our present-day world. There are enough that our society can be expected to error on the side of caution, they can be expected to parlay contentious political beliefs into a systematic denial of individual rights, something we once held to be sacred. We can expect that. We can further expect a restless public to continue spewing their vile thoughts across the back rooms of the Internet before retreating to the uneasy comfort of their fitful lives. We can expect the worst from our fellow humans.

It’s been a long time since that quaint episode happened in New England. Twenty-five people were convicted of witchcraft and were killed or died in prison. But that’s all over. There’s a statue in Salem that memorializes TV’s Samantha Stevens from the “Bewitched” sitcom. Cute. Quaint. In a darker memorial, there are bronze statues of dogs in Birmingham’s Kelly Ingram Park, almost in the shadow of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, where four little girls died in a very different kind of state-sponsored witch-hunt. But it’s all gone. Everything is quiet now.

No. It continues.

The worst of our democracy, the underside of our shared fears lives on. We like to think we’ve come so far from Salem, from Birmingham, but our fears and our prejudices still have us hunting witches today. And Siegelman will soon go back to prison. That much is all but certain. It will be a quiet act that will be cheered by many, rued by a few and shrugged off by the masses. The presence of real corruption and real bad guys makes it more difficult to stake out a moral high ground and stay the course. None of us want to be ostracized, to stand alone, we didn’t back then—in Salem—nor have we throughout history, but the rabble has become more entrenched, not less. In recent events, the Obama administration—or attorneys representing the administration—has filed a motion opposing Siegelman’s and Scrushy’s bid to have their case heard before the Supreme Court. Along with the sometimes understandable fear people have of standing with the accused, we can add a new low to moral integrity. Knowing, believing and understanding what is right and just, but still sacrificing individuals for the sake of political expediency is a moral lapse of which there is no depth and no dimension. Obama and others within the administration know that what happened in Montgomery was wrong. Anyone who can rise above the situational and topical anger of which Siegelman or Scrushy make a convenient scapegoat for, knows that these two people may have been flawed men who made mistakes, but they are hardly criminals. Some people will never know this, of course, because the fire in their brain is too hot. But people who put healthcare reform or economic programs ahead of their own conscious have fallen into the well of moral depravity.

In a limited defense of Obama and his actions, it is possible that he may feel the Blagojevich situation came too close—Obama’s name has already been smeared across too many court documents—and any association with a political corruption case, no matter how bogus, will cost him political capital. This could be doubly true for Obama because he already dodged some bullets over his association with Bill Ayers, during his presidential campaign. And Obama would know first-hand how historically corrupt Illinois’ politics is, and having supposedly woven through this minefield to the White House, he would probably have at least two thoughts on the subject now that it is in his rearview mirror. Associating himself with a person like Siegelman, even with all of the many red flags that are waving over Siegelman’s trial and conviction, could link Obama to this dark Illinois tradition and allow people to make the assumption that the President is likewise corrupt; and it is also likely that President Obama assumes Blagojevich is guilty as charged even without benefit of a trial because he would know-well the machinations of Chicago-style politics, and Obama’s assumptions, like other less-than-informed people, may carry over to politicians in other parts of the country. But in the end, Obama knows that what happened in Montgomery is wrong. Officials in his administration know that what happened is wrong. And to sacrifice Governor Siegelman for political expediency will forever taint what he might be able to buy with his political capital.

As for Scrushy, now rotting in a prison in Texas (even more people cheering, far less people rueing his plight) his incarceration is just as wrong because the case against him was equally tainted. And Scrushy’s situation is the personification of cynicism by the American Government. Obama and his advisors also know that to argue for Siegelman’s release in front of the Supreme Court is to argue for Scrushy’s. And no one in the administration wants to be remotely responsible for being the one who caused Richard Scrushy to be released. This is the gift that keeps on giving. As I have always reported, the single masterstroke of the government’s pursuit and criminalization of the Siegelman administration was reserving a seat for the pariah of Alabama, Richard Scrushy, at the defense table. Many people have had much fun and glee in watching Scrushy’s assets get sold in order to satisfy his $2.8 billion judgment in the civil suit resulting from the fraud at HealthSouth. This adds yet another dimension to the people’s blood lust that has Siegelman going to prison and Scrushy now behind bars for almost two and a half years now. The suit against Srushy and the judgment against him was vengeance, a financial stoning to death of the guy who made many people unhappy. It was vengeance at Scrushy for him having the audacity of doing exactly what he was licensed to do and had been encouraged to do. So while the guy from Selma does time in prison, there are people still today—in board rooms, heading banking groups, running hedge funds—who got away with it. Like Obama and his advisors, like certain attorneys, like many people who were victimized by real or perceived wrongs, like maybe you and I if we’re thinking clearly, these people not only know that what happened to Scrushy is wrong, they are living off the blood-money that cost him is freedom.

These are sad days in sad times.

On a personal note, I have not updated The Report from Birmingham much lately as I have been very busy on other projects, but it is something I faithfully pay attention to. I am not a noisy Democrat. Never was. I’m not a friend of Richard Scrushy and have incurred his, or his family’s, wrath more times than not. I know Don Siegelman but I would have no compunction to sort through the mountain of evidence as I did, or to sit through every day of his trial like I did, and conclude that he did it, that he’s guilty. I likewise have no problem with observing that the liberal media distorts a viewpoint about as much as the conservative media does. But it doesn’t matter—none of these things matter anymore. I know that I am not going to convince anyone. Those days are gone. Everything is quiet in Montgomery, just like Old Salem or Edmund Pettus Bridge or Kelly Ingram Park. All quiet. All gone. At this advanced date, it is way too late to worry about who believes me or who doesn’t believe me, who likes me or who doesn’t like me. But it is never too late to stand up for what is right. I can only wish and hope a few others believed this too. Like perhaps the Republicans with pea shooters, the HealthSouth employees who were once yelled at by the CEO. And like President Obama.

[Yes, it is increasingly likely that I’ll be there in Chicago with reports from the Blagojevich trial to contrast what we went through in Birmingham and Montgomery.]