Comments (46)

Node of Evil wrote on June 27, 2007 3:20 PM:

Sentencing seems to be the latest front in the Republican war against negative press. It seems that every other week another Abramoff-related pol takes a fall. But the eye-popping sentences sought by the prosecution -- 200 years for Jefferson and 32 for Sigelman -- seem way too large for the alleged crimes. I could see sentencing Jefferson to 20 or 30 years, but his case is particularly egregious. 200? That's artifically high. Who's drawing up these sentences anyway? Does the Justice Department have input? If so, who is calling these shots?

Node of Evil wrote on June 27, 2007 3:26 PM:

...my first comment doesn't seem to have made it through, so I'll reiterate what I said in case it gets posted later. Prosecutors in Jefferson's and Siegelman's cases seem to both be asking for unusually harsh sentences. I could see Jefferson doing twenty or thirty years if he's guilty. But 200? The same with Siegelman, maybe a couple of years but 32 seems excessive. How do these crimes compare to those of the Abramoff gang? Will similarly large sentences be sought in the VECO/Alaska prosecutions? I wonder who's drawing up the sentencing requests for the prosecution and whether or not the Justice Department is involved. I wouldn't be surprised if they were. It seems like Republicans are trying to win the "longest" sentence for a Democrat so they can then say "Abramoff was bad, but look at this guy! He got sent up for thirty/two hundred years!"

donviti wrote on June 27, 2007 3:34 PM:

I have a question:

He was found guilty of 7 things? So what is the issue here?

They threw out 25 things but 7 stuck. Doesn't that mean the guy was guilty? Regardless of motive, they still found him guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rove or anyone I think they are slime, but he was found guilty right?

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 27, 2007 3:35 PM:

Perhaps U.S. Attorney Louis Frankin should look into who burned down Jill Simpson's home and totaled her car (click on name and read Scott Horton's June 24 story, "Justice in Alabama").

Garth wrote on June 27, 2007 3:59 PM:

i don't know if Seigelman is guilty of anything or not. ordinarily, a conviction settles the issue for me, but, something stinks here.

this case was either drummed up or tainted by rove.

200 years!!!

cunningham only got 8 and he was the most corrupt congressman ever caught.

bush political hamfistedness is getting out of hand.

200 years. that's like communist russia or china sentencing. divorced from reality.

hopeless pedant wrote on June 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

Excellent coverage.

If you could permit a pedantic note:

“Jibe” means “to agree,” but is usually used negatively, as in “the alibis of the two crooks didn’t jibe.” The latter word is often confused with “jive,” which derives from slang which originally meant to treat in a jazzy manner (“Jivin’ the Blues Away”) but also came to be associated with deception (“Don’t give me any of that jive”).

EH wrote on June 27, 2007 4:06 PM:

donviti: That's some tasty O'Reilly logic there, but let's not fly off the handle. The law says the sentence must fit the crime. If your standpoint is that guilty is guilty no matter what the crime, then why have different sentences at all?

oldtree wrote on June 27, 2007 4:08 PM:

a crooked investigative and legal prosecution brought
the USA bringing is a tool of the dog, rover
the charges are known to have been rover oriented
and the same dog is in charge of the justice department and the shithouse and the excreme court?

justice? someone get me a chair, I believe I have the vapors!
there will be no further justice.

dalloway wrote on June 27, 2007 4:10 PM:

So Seligman should get thirty years for rewarding a crony -- but George Bush, who handed the DOJ to an incompetent liar and Dick Cheney, who started a war that he's subsequently reaped millions from via Halliburton get off scot free. That's America, Republican-style.

Security code: jewel, as in they have us by the family jewels!

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on June 27, 2007 4:13 PM:

donviti: You have never been on a jury, have you? There are plenty of ignorant people (and voters) that would base a guilty verdict on "since there are 32 charges, he must be guilty of something. I not sure, so I'll vote guilty on half of the charges."

The point is that the Justice Department and US Attorneys have been so tainted by politicization by the Bush Administration, that you can't trust that Seigelman had a fair trial. If you can't say that he had a fair investigation and trial, how can a guilty verdict on any of the charges be believed?

Bush has been appointing judges also...

AVVORIO wrote on June 27, 2007 4:14 PM:

Whole convictions should be thrown out. Unfortunately, our judicial system, including the Supreme Court majority is as corrupt and in collusion with the Bush White House as any other corporation.

Tom wrote on June 27, 2007 4:16 PM:

It has been said that in Alabama "you can convict a ham sandwich." (And I say this as someone who was born and raised in Alabama.)

kenga wrote on June 27, 2007 4:17 PM:

Whole convictions HAVE been thrown out recently.
An appeals court vacated a conviction of a D recently. Minnesota? Wisconsin? Details are murky in my head, but the R prosecutor got a conviction in that case too.

jak1 wrote on June 27, 2007 4:30 PM:

I love the selective use of words.

"had no role" key word being role.

They're even so bold to tell you what THEY ARE doing. "the entire story is misleading" meaning the story THEY ARE telling you is misleading.

Karl Rove had no role whatsoever, that is it was his idea from his mandate, but it was our decision to do it.

But still they got the mission accomplished. Karl Rove had no role whatsoever, no finger prints. Sort of like killing cause the Bible/Koran says so. It's not GOD's fault, when one of his followers acts because of something in his book.

>> that the entire story is misleading because Karl Rove had no role whatsoever in bringing about the investigation or prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.<<

ham sandwich wrote on June 27, 2007 4:33 PM:

"It has been said that in Alabama 'you can convict a ham sandwich.'"

I object!

Jak King wrote on June 27, 2007 4:36 PM:

A question: Let us say it is January 2009 and Bush issues general pardons "for any sins committed during his term of office" to, say, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales. Does the incoming Prez have any chance of overturning those pardons?

jak1 wrote on June 27, 2007 4:40 PM:

Stephen Colbert should award this guy with his Brass Ball Award.

He implies that it's dishonest to even suggest that Mr. Rove influenced or had any input.
-Did he say that with a stright face?

Mr. Rove wrote the play book. They carried out the mission, a general fill in the blank type mission (insert your favorite DEM's name from your assigned states here).

>>It is intellectually dishonest to even suggest that Mr. Rove influenced or had any input into the decision to investigate or prosecute Don Siegelman” Franklin said. “That decision was made by me, Louis V. Franklin, Sr., as the Acting US attorney in the case, in conjunction with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office.”<<

St. Augustine wrote on June 27, 2007 4:41 PM:

Tom@4:16

I have also noticed a propensity to sentence Baked Ham sandwiches to longer terms than those given to Boiled Ham sandwiches.

jak1 wrote on June 27, 2007 5:17 PM:

"His genius," Hoffman said, is that "he builds networks and puts the right people in the right places, and then trusts them to make well-informed decisions that comport with his overall vision."

Oh wait, that was Cheney he was talking about.

you don't think these guys are up to something?

Orwell's Intuition wrote on June 27, 2007 5:26 PM:

How many years has Abramoff been sentenced to? How about Duke Cunningham? How about Libby, the waterboy for the traitors in the White House? How many years have all those Repub criminals been sentenced to? What do you think DeLay will get? Maybe 5 years?

Indict, convict and imprison on a level playing field, but this egregious imbalance of justice is beyond the pale.

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 5:27 PM:

"He was found guilty of 7 things? ....They threw out 25 things but 7 stuck. Doesn't that mean the guy was guilty?"

If he's guilty, of course he should be punished--but the punishment should fit the crime. I believe that the point is that the severity of the sentencing is being based on all the charges, even those of which he's innocent. Say it's a year-per-charge: if he's sentenced to 32 years instead of seven, he's going to jail for things he didn't do.

Of course then we have people such as Cunningham, who aren't going to jail for things they did do. Ah, American justice.

bill wrote on June 27, 2007 5:42 PM:

"He was found guilty of 7 things? ....They threw out 25 things but 7 stuck. Doesn't that mean the guy was guilty?"

This is fully addressed th the second half Horton's "Justice in Alabama" report.

wrb wrote on June 27, 2007 5:45 PM:

"He was found guilty of 7 things? ....They threw out 25 things but 7 stuck. Doesn't that mean the guy was guilty?"

This is fully addressed th the second half Horton's "Justice in Alabama" report.

JEP wrote on June 27, 2007 5:47 PM:

...how does Schliegelman's appointment of Scrushy compare to Bush and Rove handing out plum State Department posts, particularly ambassadorships, to Rangers and Pioneers, ostensibly in exchange for their fundraising work? They certainly were not appointed for their diplomatic expertise.
And Scrushy was helping out the taxpayers, the Rangers were only helping out the Bush campaign.

If someone in Congress could somehow focus the same laws on Bush that were applied here against Siegelman, maybe that magnifying glass would heat things up a bit, and they will reconsider their Seigelman vendetta.

justadood wrote on June 27, 2007 6:11 PM:

Once upon a time, the awarding of positions to supporters was called the 'spoils system', and had been used extensively throughout the 19th century...I recall specifically the Jackson Administration as one insance in which it was abused, as Jackson really gutted the Government to provide jobs for supporters, competent or not.

Personally, I support hiring without consideration of Political Connection, based on education, background, and competence. You'll usually get the better hires that way, and avoid the Gonzaleses, of the world

flady wrote on June 27, 2007 6:20 PM:

Well put JEP @ 5:47.

like getting a plum government jobs because you attended an evangelical college or grad school.....

Becca wrote on June 27, 2007 6:24 PM:

Josh Marshall ,

Time to demand impeachment.

had enough wrote on June 27, 2007 6:36 PM:

The DOJ is a joke, but not a funny one, using incredibly powerful "law enforcement" resources and tools they can basically frame anyone they choose to target (shown thru the phoney FBI lab results and phoney "experts" that have been proven liars who sent many away for decades etc.- Texas has alot of this in Death cases with incredibly questionable law enforcement "experts"). Let's face it, the evidence now coming out tends to show that criminals run the DOJ and most of the US Attorneys' Offices now, the "intelligence" community is complicit in torture and political assassination at the orders of the President, and the executive branch, at "Defense", announced a missing trillion or two the day before the towers were knocked down on 911, destroying many records and ending huge criminal prosecutions of real criminals not right wing set ups (and killing some real law enforcement officers who were not playing ball with the psychopaths running our country), and we have heard nothing since as to these trillions. Since $8 billion in cash of $12 billion left lying around in Iraq "disappeared" somewhere, probably financing the overthrow of some progressive, fair government and the killing of its people - - the country is a sad, bitter joke. The prosecutors should be on trial starting with the AG, who the evidence has proven, in my opinion beyond any argument right or left, is nothing but a phoney liar leading the same against decent citizens . . . .

Randi Bates wrote on June 27, 2007 6:39 PM:

Billy Pilgram--what Scott Horton doesn't tell you is that Jill Simpson's House burned on Feb 21. The Fire marshall said it was probably an electrical fire. The affidavit didn't exist until May 21.

canvas

tomm wrote on June 27, 2007 6:41 PM:

Sounds to me that the statements JIVED plenty. But did they JIBE? That's the real question. And isn't TPM the place where I learned that a "series" now only needs two items instead of the three that Webster says the English language plain meaning of the word requires? Which trivia I annouce in the most loving, caring way because the reporting here is so wonderful that all I can do is unleash the copyeditor in my soul to deal with such trivialities of presentation and expression because such great info deserves a form as good as the content, right?

Btw, has anyone compiled a list of nonexistent investigations? Bush probing the Plame leak is one. The Biggus Dickus leak to Chalabi. And then this. Are there others?

JMOHR wrote on June 27, 2007 7:19 PM:

There is an important difference in the sentencing recommendations and strategy based upon the party of the offender. We know that Democratic defenders outnumber Republican defendants by 8 to 2 in the federal prosecutions of state and local officials. It is easy to say that Jefferson and Siegleman are guilty and thus deserve their punishments. However, the selective prosecution of one party's members is also an effective tool to intimidate a political party.

1. It is clear that Democrats are more often targeted by Republican federal prosecutors when local or state office holders. The Republicans know that these are local news items and thus not as likely to be noticed on the national level.

2. We know that Duke raked in far, far more graft money than Jefferson (Duke's millions) but Jefferson faces 200 years. Siegleman did not even directly receive any money. Yeah, prosecutorial discretion permits you to multiply the number of charges or sample a few of the potential charges possible against a defendant in order to affect the severity of a sentence.

3. Longer sentences permit Republicans to argue that the Democrats are worse criminals (Duke got a few years but Jefferson got over 100 and Siegleman 30 - So we can all see that it is the Democrats who are real crooks.

4. Pure intimidation. You are more likely to be investigated, indicted and receive a far higher sentence versus a Republican. Do you really want to run for office?

JNagarya wrote on June 27, 2007 8:13 PM:

I have a question:

He was found guilty of 7 things? So what is the issue here?

They threw out 25 things but 7 stuck. Doesn't that mean the guy was guilty? Regardless of motive, they still found him guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rove or anyone I think they are slime, but he was found guilty right?

Posted by: donviti
Date: June 27, 2007 3:34 PM

ASre you new to this, or "merely" a pro-
Bushit troll?

There are numerous other questions about the trial, including potential conflict-of-interest on the part of the judge -- $178 million contract with FBI/DOJ to a company in which he owns a controlling interest.

Emails between jurors discussing the case.

A exactly equivalent action by the prior, Republican, governor: appointing the exact same person to the exact same Board, in apparent exchange for money, which wasn't -- in his case -- illegal. A difference is that Seigelman, unlike the Republican, did not receive any money: it went to an education scholarship initiative.

The identical sort of case against a Democrat in WI -- filed and publicized before the election, which resulted in the imprisonment of the Democrat -- which on appeal, after the election, the judge essentially accusing the Bushit-appointed AG of fabricating the case, was thrown out (that Democrat is now -- properly -- suing for damages).

Defending Rove while pretending to view him as "slime" is intellectually dishonest. It is also about putting party and criminal enterprise before country.

boing wrote on June 27, 2007 10:45 PM:

"It has been said that in Alabama 'you can convict a ham sandwich.'"

Well, then, how come the one that got Mama Cass is still walkin' around?!

Thomas wrote on June 28, 2007 12:05 AM:

The prosecutor is a black man in Alabama, and a career civil servant. Anyone want to bet that the guy who is being slimed here is a loyal Democrat?

You guys are a hoot. There's politics of personal destruction, and then there's the game you all play. This guy didn't sign up for this crap. What a disgusting bunch of idiots.

matt rose wrote on June 28, 2007 1:30 AM:

If the Judge and the Prosecutor both want a prosecution, you'll get a conviction. The judge simply tells the they jury they must convict based on the evidence presented.

Rove's Baloney Sandwich wrote on June 28, 2007 9:45 AM:

Sirs:

Your claim that you can convict a ham sandwich in Alabama does not cut the mustard.

Jane wrote on June 28, 2007 10:10 AM:

To state that you made the decision to investigate when your own statement reveals that another attorney was handling the case before you were even assigned to it is to engage in blatant proganda.

This is true whether the speaker is black or white, Democratic or Republican or a horse's ...

Thomas wrote on June 28, 2007 10:27 AM:

Hey, you're right Jane. I think we should haul every career prosecutor up to the Hill and publicly embarrass them, and challenge their integrity for no reason at all. No, scratch that. Let's just do it to the Democratic career prosecutors.

It will do one of two things, it seems to me: It'll turn them against Republicans, because Republican leadership at the DoJ wasn't able to protect them from crap like this. Or it'll turn them into Republicans, because who'd want to be in a party with a bunch of slimeballs who ruin your good name without any basis, all to win a news cycle?

Jane wrote on June 28, 2007 11:10 AM:

Claiming that you made a decision you did not make is a lie.

Is that no reason at all?

Why is this guy falling on his sword for Rove?

Canary's wife started the investigation and had to recuse herself.

She is the one in position to know whether Rove is involved. So is Franklin vouching for her integrity?

If there is some aspect about the facts that I am missing, Thomas, you can lay out the facts. Otherwise stop the propaganda suggesting that calling somebody to account for a misleading statement is an instigation to slime any and all career prosecutors.

donviti wrote on June 28, 2007 3:34 PM:

JNagarya,

You asked me ASre you new to this, or "merely" a pro-Bushit troll?

I am new to this case yes. click my link bro ifyou think I'm pro bush and you would have to ask dumb questions.

Defending Rove while pretending to view him as "slime" is intellectually dishonest.

next time don't answer then ahole! I asked serious questions with no bias at all. you are being intellectually dishonest and formed opinions of me without doing a simple point and click.

I was wondering why and how and I thank those that were nice enough to answer cordially.

you sir/ma'am are a schmuck and give lib's a bad name.

loosen up the underwear bro it tends to bunch when you sit in a chair all day surfing the net. It will help with your circulation and maybe your disposition.

donviti wrote on June 28, 2007 3:37 PM:

rodney,

no I have never been on a jury, unfortunately. Though I hope to be someday. I live in delaware such a small state I am actually surprised I have never been called.

thanks for the response

imntacrook wrote on June 28, 2007 11:23 PM:

"We know that Democratic defenders outnumber Republican defendants by 8 to 2 in the federal prosecutions of state and local officials"

Definitely a culture of corruption!! -- Nancy! You hypocrite, just like all Dems

Steve Myers wrote on June 29, 2007 2:17 PM:

I posted something on the video page as well.
A little background on the Siegelman investigation: it was sparked at least in part -- and maybe entirely -- by articles in the Mobile Press-Register that exposed various schemes by the Siegelman administration. Those articles started in the first part of 2001 and were written by an award-winning investigative reporter, Eddie Curran. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was a full-time reporter at the paper, too, though I didn't work on the stories.)
I don't doubt that Republican operatives were glad that the Democratic governor was being investigated, but it's a mistake to suggest that the investigation started with those operatives. The conversation cited in the affidavit occurred a year and a half after the first articles were published.
I think Talking Points needs to go back and read those articles. And frankly, the writer of the Harpers article needs to do the same.

mpowell wrote on June 29, 2007 2:55 PM:

Donviti,

You may not be a Bush supporter, but you clearly don't know much about the legal system. If you have the USDA's office and the local judge hellbent on convicing you, you're going to be convicted. You don't seem to get the basic point here, which if that the trial was unfair, a guilty verdict doesn't mean anything. So when you ask, "but he was found guilty right?", you sound like a freakin' idiot. Of course he was! Half of the issue here is the legitimacy of that verdict! The other half is the legitimacy of a sentence based on such specious reasons as those things he was not convicted on. If you're accused of jaywalking and murder and you get convicted of jaywalking but not murder.... should the murder count be relevant to your sentence? Its simply ridiculous and a disgrace that a judge was willing to admit that it factored in.

The case was brought by the USDA's office. That means the prosecutor is a card-carrying Republican. Regardless of skin color.

donviti wrote on June 29, 2007 3:54 PM:

Mpowell,
You may not be a Bush supporter,....There is no MAY...I'M NOT, VISIT MY BLOG IF YOU WANT PROOF, jesus people. I just asked some honest questions. Sorry if I sound like an idiot to you.

Christ, you people bash your own around here. Real supportive you are.

No I don't know anything about legal issues, CHRIST! I'm a consultant for a bank. I never said I was an expert and too boot I PREFACED MY QUESTIONS WITH LANGUAGE THAT SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU I DIDN'T. It was the reasons I askd the questions that I did.

again thanks for less than cordial answers I got from you.

a##hole

TGM wrote on December 13, 2007 3:34 PM:

Rewarding a contributor with a volunteer job is not crimnal. Even rewarding a contributor with a paying position in it self is not criminal. if i contribute to a campain then i am hired by the campain because it has paying positions i am qualifed for isnt criminal. But to put in positions of power people who will directly benifit or influence government policy to thier own financial intrests is a conflict of intrest. Futher more if a conflict does occur then one must recluse them self if they dont it would invalidate any decisions made they benifited them in personal fianancial ways. This segelman case appears to be a clear case of illegal tactics and he seems to fit under the label of political prisoner. if he is not set free then the higher karmic courts will act on all involved till the karmic dbt is paid in full with blue sky damages.