With a "honest services" statute, that has been criticized by many as allowing for enormous prosecutorial discretion in the charging process, it seems important that a quid pro quo should be mandated so that politicians know what is legal and what is illegal for purposes of violating the "honest services" statute. It's especially important in this case as Siegelman personally received nothing of value. The brief ties in the First and Fifth Amendments here and reminds the court of the importance of the Rule of Lenity in criminal cases.

A few days ago, a large bipartisan group of former state attorneys general (listed here) filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Siegelman.

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 the meantime, prosecutors dropped their appeal of Siegleman's sentence. Perhaps they squinted enough to read the handwriting on the wall. A court that stays a sentence because it doubts the validity of a conviction isn't likely to increase a 7 year sentence to the 30 years the government claimed was appropriate -- a sentence that would probably keep Siegleman in prison until he dies.

The 64 gazillion dollar question is whether the extent of Karl Rove's involvement in Siegleman's prosecution can ever be established. For how long will our legislative bodies allow Rove to duck subpoenas? Is it true, in light of Scott McClellan's book and an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, that the truth is closing in on Rove?

Karl Rove has been extremely slippery with what he was able to get away with while in service at the White House, but over the past couple weeks events have probably made him gulp and pull the collar away from his neck a couple times. Same with his former bosses.

Slippery he is. And if McCain is elected, his friend Rove will likely slip away from the grip of justice.