The Justice Department's Double Standard

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:41:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Legal Schnauzer asks a smart question about the Justice Department's prosecution of Don Siegelman: if what Siegelman did (acting in support of a campaign contributor) is illegal, why isn't the Justice Department prosecuting his Republican successor for doing much the same thing?

Now, let's consider the case of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican. Riley took a sizable campaign contribution from supporters of a biotechnology center in Huntsville and helped steer millions of state dollars to the project. ... Has Riley gotten in trouble with federal prosecutors for what appears to be a "quid pro quo" very much like the one Siegelman allegedly arranged? Heck, no. ...

(more ...)

[W]hy did the U.S. Justice Department treat the Siegelman deal as a federal crime while ignoring the Riley deal? Why does The Birmingham News trumpet the fruits of Riley's deal on the front page while apparently supporting the prosecution of Siegelman and Scrushy?
It's bad enough that Alabama's largest newspaper has that kind of double standard. But when our Justice Department has that kind of double standard, we aren't much better than the banana republics that thrive at many points on the globe.

< The New John McCain | Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Justice Department's Double Standard | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There was a good ol' boy witness (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST

whose name escapes me, brought in early in the investigation by the Feds. The gist of his information was that he'd been involved with Siegelman and fundraising and Alabama politics in a way that interested the feds very much. He'd also been involved, in the same manner, with Jeff Sessions, Republican US Senator from Alabama.

That part, the Feds weren't interested in, and never asked him about.

I know the information and particulars on this have been turned over a couple times, but I don't have the time to go hunt them up right now.

Point is, Siegelman's case was always, and only, about putting a popular, successful Democratic governor in prison. Because he was a Democrat.

Period.

Surely thou snarkest: (none / 0) (#1)
by magnetics on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST

Am I being overly cynical in stating my belief that standards had nothing to do with the Siegelman prosecution, which was from start to finish a Rove-directed political hit job?

OK OK, so I've turned in my tinfoil hat for copper mesh, which gives better shielding, and is see-through, so I can enjoy whole head coverage without having to cut eye-holes.

Sheesh!

Why? (none / 0) (#2)
by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST

Two words. Karl Rove.

Who's the question directed at? (none / 0) (#3)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:55 PM EST

Does anyone not a hack defend the Justice Dept?

Has the IOKIYAR legislation passed yet? (none / 0) (#4)
by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST

What about Hucksterbee? (none / 0) (#5)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST

I believe Gov Huckabee might have set the record for doing favors for donors.

Huckabee used campaign and state funds on a babysitter, doghouse, and Taco Bell, and his favors to donors revealed a "dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules, and propriety in general."

Don Sielgelman (none / 0) (#6)
by paul whitehurst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST

I am an Alabama resident. I have always liked Don Siegelman. I am no apologist for the Republicans.

His prosecution and trial were rather lengthy. As a lawyer I know you can't know much about a criminal case unless you sit through the whole thing and listen to all the evidence.

I have always thought there is no criminal bribery when a campaign contributor is rewarded following the election. It's just wrong.

Still there were two things in Siegelman's case that differed from the usual scenario. The campaign contribution was made to a campaign fund Siegelman set up to support a lottery amendment. Siegelman signed on a $100,000 bank loan to start the fund. Scrushy's contribution repaid the loan. Technically then Siegelman did personally benefit. But it wasn't like he was trying to gain from it. He was trying to get a lottery passed that he felt would benefit the state.

Also there was some mention of a motorcyle. I never did understand what the evidence was about the motorcycle.

: You gotta be kidding me... (1.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST

I have always thought there is no criminal bribery when a campaign contributor is rewarded following the election. It's just wrong.
What?? That is the classic example of bribery. If you let that slide you have just sold elective offices.

[ Parent ]
: There is more to the case (none / 0) (#9)
by jccamp on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:38:18 PM EST

than represented in the OP.
A lobbyist for Healthsouth testified that the Healthsouth CEO told him they had to make a large contribution to the governor's lottery initiative fund in order to gain a seat on a state medical board. The governor's aide testified that the governor told him the Healthsouth CEO made a large contribution in exchange for the seat on the same board.
The actual contribution came from a corporate client of a bank (UBS) that was trying to gain Healthsouth's business. Healthsouth's lobbyist testified that the CEO told the bank to make the contribution on Healthsouth's behalf if they wanted Healthsouth's business. The bank then demanded a 3rd party, another unrelated corporation, make the contribution in exchange for the bank waiving outstanding debt owed to the bank. The other corp's check was delivered to Healthsouth, who delivered it to the lottery initiative committee. The lottery committee failed to report the check (as required by law) or the donation until after the investigation became public.
As noted above, the governor was personally liable for a bank loan to the committee. The Healthsouth/bank/other corp check paid off that loan.
The other conviction involved a $12,000 motorcycle. The governor bought it and paid for it. Immediately after, his aide gave him over $9,000. The governor put the aide on the motorcycle title. The aide testified that a private party gave him the money to give to the governor, so the aide was put on the title as a way of hiding the true source of the cash. When the investigation became public knowledge, the governor sold the remainder of his interest in the motorcycle to his aide. The government alleged that the governor disposed of the motorcycle in order to hide the fraudulent dual-ownership and funding source.
The governor's aide was obviously a key witness. His credibility was rightly suspect. There was some corroboration. A jury heard the evidence and convicted on these counts, acquitting on others.
It all sounds very sleazy, but perhaps within behavior consistent with other politicians of either party. The United States Attorney's Office that prosecuted was headed by the spouse of the governor's campaign opponent. it's called conflict of interest. It's also called extremely stupid if this was a good faith prosecution. Maybe more stupid than one would expect from professional prosecutors, so it could very well be a political thing, although it looks like the governor contributed to his own dilemma by engaging in questionable conduct.

[ Parent ]