by Glynn Wilson

Karl Rove admits having a “senior moment” in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, dancing around the key allegations that he had direct knowledge and an active role in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the firings of U.S. attorneys. He takes what Washington insiders call the Ronald Reagan defense, a.k.a. the “Alzheimer’s defense,” as in “I don’t recall.”

In other words, and in contradiction with other published reports that Rove once again denied his role in manipulating the justice system from the White House, Rove’s testimony is what we call in the news business, “a non-denial denial.”

In transcripts and documents released Tuesday by the committee, Rove freely admits his friendship with former Alabama Attorney General William “Bill” Pryor, who started the first investigation of Siegelman in 1998.

Rove admits the role he and his campaign operation played in turning Alabama’s Supreme Court Republican. He admits knowing Bill Canary of the Business Council all the way back to the days when he worked for George Herbert Walker Bush, and to communicating with Canary “maybe a dozen times” while Rove was the top political adviser to President George W. Bush in the White House

Under questioning from Elliot Mincberg, majority chief counsel for investigations and oversight, Rove admits meeting Bill Canary’s wife Leura Canary, the federal prosecutor who first brought the second case against Siegelman in Montgomery.

“I’m pretty sure I’ve met her, but I don’t have any great familiarity,” Rove testifies. Then later, when asked how he communicated with her, “in person or on the phone,” he says, “I’m sure I had contact with her, but I literally couldn’t tell you if I have ever talked to her or if I have ever seen her in person. I believe I met her at something in Alabama, but — I am sure Bill has introduced me to her, but I don’t know. It may have been to the White House holiday party or something. But I don’t recall.”

Right.

Rove admits he most likely advocated for her to get the nod as U.S. attorney initially, “If she passed the process with Justice.”

When asked if the issue of political corruption in Alabama ever came up during her confirmation process, Rove answered: “Not that I recall.” When asked if the issue of Governor Siegelman ever came up in his conversations with her, he testified: “Not that I recall.”

According to legal analyst Scott Horton, a contributor to Harper’s magazine and a lecturer at Columbia, “the documents collectively make it clear that Karl Rove was not only at the center of the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys, but also exercised close oversight over other matters at the Justice Department. The case in New Mexico seems clearly to be one where the dismissal of a U.S. attorney occurred in order to corruptly influence a criminal investigation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

New York Times and Washington Post Pawns in Leaks

Alabama Whistle-Blower Says Rove Should Be Charged

President George Bush comforts Karl Rove on the day he was forced to resign from the White House in August, 2007.

by Glynn Wilson

The master of spin from the Bush years, Karl Rove, is at it again, even as he testified before the House Judiciary Committee for the second time Thursday about his role in manipulating America’s judicial system from his office in the West Wing of the White House.

While the transcript of Rove’s testimony might be released in August and the committee may hold a public hearing on White House involvement in the political firing of U.S. attorneys and other executive branch intrusions into the judicial branch, including the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Rove had already granted interviews with the New York Times and Washington Post to spin the story his way in what may constitute an act of obstruction of justice. Rove even selectively released a few e-mail messages to the papers to bolster his case, although what was reported seems to indicate he was just as involved as we have been reporting for the past two years.

Here’s how the Washington Post played the story.

Political adviser Karl Rove and other high-ranking figures in the Bush White House played a greater role than previously understood in the firing of federal prosecutors almost three years ago, according to e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, in a scandal that led to mass Justice Department resignations and an ongoing criminal probe.

Rove Had Heavier Hand in Prosecutor Firings Than Previously Known

In the exclusive interviews Rove granted to the Post and the Times earlier this month, Rove described himself as a “conduit” of grievances from lawmakers and others about the performance of certain prosecutors.

“The e-mails and interview were provided on the condition that they not be released until Rove’s House testimony concluded,” according to the Post.

Rove said he did not recall several events because of his “busy job” and asserted that he had done nothing to influence criminal cases, “an allegation by Democrats that has dogged him for years,” the Post reports, even though the Post has not been the lead news organization investigating Rove.

The Post allows itself to be used by Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin, who asserts that “there was never any point where Karl was trying to get a particular prosecution advanced or retarded.”

“Yes, I was a recipient of complaints, and I passed them on to the counsel’s office to be passed onto Justice,” Rove told the papers in what appears to be a total distortion of what actually happened. This will most likely come out in the end in either the congressional probe or an ongoing criminal case.

Rove injects a canard about “weak enforcement of voter fraud laws and public corruption,” which he says “had the sound of authenticity to me. If what I’m told is accurate, it’s really troublesome.”

What the two top newspapers in the land don’t seem to realize is that this is an attempt by Rove to not only snake his way out of culpability in politicizing the Justice Department, but to actually try and make it appear as if he gives a damn about the problems he created as Bush’s lead political brain and attack dog. Every single decision made by the Bush administration was filtered through Rove to make sure it met political muster, and the administration aggressively pursued a strategy of taking over the country by the Republican Party. Rove often promised his GOP buddies that his mission was to keep the Republicans in charge of the country “for a generation.”

So why does this come as a surprise to the Post and the Times at this late date?

Read the rest of this entry »

Whistle-Blower Jill Simpson Issues Rare Public Statement

by Glynn Wilson

In response to a new story in The Huffington Post Wednesday about a conflict of interest on the part of the judge who presided in the federal case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, attorney and whistle-blower Jill Simpson issued a rare, lengthy public statement today calling on the Obama Justice Department to immediately set aside the convictions of Siegelman and release his co-defendant Richard Scrushy from prison.

In her statement, included in full in the comments below, she details misdeeds on the part of the Bush Justice Department’s Public Integrity Division, including hiding evidence, and comes to this conclusion.

“As a result of these misdeeds the DOJ should immediately release Mr. Scrushy and file motions to set aside the convictions. To do anything less is just plain wrong,” she said. “It is important for our Justice Department to seek Justice, not just to seek to win. Justice will only be served at this point by the release of Mr. Scrushy and by the convictions being set aside.”

Based on her research into the case, and an affidavit filed by another attorney named Paul Weeks, she says once again that Fuller had a conflict of interest that was never disclosed to Siegelman’s attorneys and that he should have recused himself form sitting in judgment in the case.

She revealed her knowledge of a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Fuller to me in the very first story written about this nearly two years ago.

Weeks detailed a political vendetta on the part of Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller against Siegelman dating back to Siegelman’s term as governor and Fuller’s days as a local district attorney from Enterprise, all in an affidavit that was in the possession of the Bush Justice Department but completely ignored by the Public Integrity Division investigating the case.

“The time has come for those at the Department of Justice to admit their wrong doings by accepting responsibility for not providing the Weeks affidavit, and for allowing an attorney who is supposed to be over investigating a complaint on a judge to defend that judge in another matter without ever disclosing his conflict,” she said.

She indicated she was exercising her First Amendment right as a citizen to speak out on the injustice that has occurred at the U.S. Department of Justice in the Siegelman-Scrushy case because it was the right thing to do.

“Not to speak out in my opinion would be wrong because it will allow this ridiculous injustice to continue,” she said.

From his reporting on the case, attorney and investigative reporter Andrew Kreig has stored a number of the documents in the case on his Web site, including some of the most relevant exhibits here.

Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman urges supporters in Rainsville at his 63rd birthday party to keep the pressure on Congress to continue the investigation of Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, who perverted justice for political reasons not only in his case, but in cases across the country.

New Evidence in Prosecution of Governor Don Siegelman

by Glynn Wilson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers once again made it clear that he and his committee are not going to allow the corruption of the Justice Department on Bush’s watch to be swept under the proverbial “let’s just move forward” rug.

There is still some serious business to attend to, and at the top of the list, in the lead of Conyers’ press release, is a brand spanking new subpoena for Mr. Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove, demanding that he appear in person before the committee and “testify regarding his role in the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.”

The subpoena calls for Mr. Rove to appear for a deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.

Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates — and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as “completely misguided.”

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Mr. Conyers said. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added: “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

Click here for the page with the link to a copy of the subpoena.

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman reacted quickly from his iPhone via a Google Gmail account: “Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of Karl Rove gives hope to those who want to know the extent of Karl Rove’s abuse of power and his misuse of the Department of Justice as a way to win elections.

“Chairman Conyers’ action gives meaning to the change that has been ushered in by the election of President Obama,” he said. “I am sure that I speak for millions of U.S. Citizens when I say that I am grateful for Mr. Conyers’ determination to seek the truth.”

“Those who abused their power must be held accountable, otherwise their misuse of power will be more likely to happen again,” he wrote. “Our democracy has been threatened by the use of the Department of Justice as a political weapon. Chairman Conyers’ action will serve to protect our democracy and restore people’s faith that no man is above the law.”

North Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, who came forward as a whistle-blower last summer and provided the key evidence for starting an investigation showing Siegelman’s case was political, said she was happy to hear about the subpoena.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Case for Why Siegelman’s Verdict Should Be Overturned

by Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was cooking a pizza at his Birmingham home when I got him on the phone Thursday night to talk about his appeal coming up on the ninth of December in Atlanta.

Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in front of the federal courthouse in Montgomery on a break from his sentencing hearing in June, 2007.

I called to ask about the appeal and other things, like his reaction to the election of Barack Obama as president and the somewhat less-than-stellar performance of the Alabama Democratic Party in the same election.

He had some thoughts on how the state party could have done a much better job, and he was disappointed to see another Republican elected to the state Supreme Court. He was surprised the state went so heavily for Senator John McCain, who won Alabama’s nine electoral votes with 60 percent of the overall vote and maybe 80 percent of the white vote.

For now I’ll keep most of his comments private on the problems with the state party and save them for a more detailed analysis in the works for later. Here the focus is mostly on the appeal.

But I have to report that Siegelman got excited when he talked about the Obama landslide, which he called “astounding” and “stunning.” And he talked in the language of a policy wonk on how the campaign did it: A massive and highly effective Web and Internet fundraising campaign, block-by-block nationwide canvassing, educated and dedicated workers at every level, not to mention one of the smartest, most articulate, gracious, and calm-under-fire candidates since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“It was without a doubt the most impressive and effective campaign in the history of politics,” he said. “Too bad we couldn’t do more with that on the state level.”

He was reluctant to talk in great detail about his hearing before a three-judge appeals court panel in less than a month, especially considering how Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller in Montgomery sentenced him to a number of months of extra jail time last summer for talking about the case to the media.

But he is hopeful the court will find its way to justice and throw out the case and let his co-defendant Richard Scrushy out of prison by Christmas.

While we were talking on the phone and he ate his pizza, he also managed to e-mail me a copy of the Time magazine story about to come out on the Web and in this week’s edition. He had not had time to evaluate it or react to it. After reading the story and my take on it the next morning, Siegelman told the TPMMuckraker on Friday he considered it “another shocking revelation in the misconduct of the U.S. attorney’s offices.”

He called the level of manipulation of the prosecution team by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, who supposedly recused herself from the case because of her involvement along with her husband Bill Canary in previous political campaigns with Siegelman’s opponents, another example of the “outrageous criminal conduct in the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Department of Justice.”

He said further that what the Time story revealed was “more frightening than anything that has come before.” And he believes that his case is just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of politicized prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department, with the full knowledge and direction of former White House aide Karl Rove and most likely Bush himself.

Solid Arguments

A detailed analysis of the appeals briefs in the case reveal four solid arguments the appeals court panel could stand on to reverse the conviction, order a mistrial, or reduce the sentence.

The first and perhaps most important reason for the court to completely dismiss the case is the lack of substantial proof of an explicit quid pro quo, a Latin and legal term meaning “something for something,” for Siegelman’s appointment of Scrushy to the state hospital regulatory board. This exchange was supposedly for contributions of $500,000 to pay off the debt on an education-lottery campaign, none of which went into Siegelman’s pocket.

The jury in the case heard the prosecution hammer this point about a “tit-for-tat” exchange over and over again during the final weeks of the trial. But in their appeals brief, Siegelman’s attorneys point out that according to precedent, the quid pro quo would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt among all of the charges — conspiracy, mail fraud, and bribery. And, they argue that in addition to insufficient proof, Judge Fuller’s jury charge did not make this clear. They ask for complete acquittal on those grounds alone.

Glynn Wilson

Scott Horton speaks to a North Alabama media reform group in April.

According to New York attorney Scott Horton, who has followed the case closely and written about it himself for the Harper’s magazine Website and The Daily Beast, the tit-for-tat business the way it was used in this case has “broad consequences for the political world.”

He said in an e-mail interview if the standard that the prosecution argued and Fuller implicitly accepted is correct, “politicians around the country should be in jail right now. Indeed, that number would arguably include Judge Fuller, whose appointment to the federal bench by George W. Bush followed a lifetime of contributions to Republican campaigns.”

He pointed out that it would include the 146 individuals who gave $100,000 or more to the Bush-Cheney campaign who received appointments to federal jobs in return.

Two, on the bribery charge, the appeal brief argues that the statute of limitations had run out. The timing of the alleged bribe was never spelled out in the original indictment, but the judge allowed the prosecution team to nail down the details later. This is a shoddy way to run a prosecution at best.

In an earlier interview, Siegelman’s attorney in the early phases of the case, Doug Jones, said he agreed to wave the statute of limitations on the alleged bribery in the interest of appearing to cooperate fully with the prosecutors in the investigation. But that was at a time when he was being told that the chances of an indictment were slim, well before the “top down review” of the case from Washington he testified about last year before the House Judiciary Committee.

It is clear from the dates looking back now that the alleged crime of passing checks in exchange for the appointment took place in the summer of 1999. Scrushy was appointed to the CON board on July 26, 1999, and the prosecution’s evidence showed the first check from Scrushy was received about that time. The indictment came down on May 17, 2005. For the bribery indictment to be valid, the crimes would have had to take place after May 17, 2000.

The prosecution brought its case too late. Case closed. Charges dismissed, except in a courtroom run by a political opponent of Siegelman with a mandate from the Republican White House to dispatch a brand of political justice only allowed in corrupt, criminal empires.

This should have been dealt with by the judge and should never have made it to the jury. But as we now know, the judge was not acting as an honest broker.

While some newspaper reporters and members of the public may scoff at this notion of dropping the case on appeal based on a technicality, perhaps they should consider the argument that this alleged bribe was nothing more and nothing less than a political contribution. And it’s not like Scrushy needed to give Siegelman money to sit on the board. His role as founder of one of the most innovative health care companies in the state and country at that time would have warranted him a position on the board without the contribution. He sat on the board under previous Republican governors.

Glynn Wilson

HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy and his wife Leslie in front of the federal courthouse in Montgomery in June, 2007.

While people have a right to dislike Scrushy for the way he treated people and for cashing in his stock options as the tech bubble was bursting and costing many people great sums of money who had invested in HealthSouth, if the government was going to put him in jail for his role in “cooking the books” in that case they should have convicted him in the Birmingham trial, which was botched by another political appointee, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Republican of questionable qualifications placed in her office for her loyalty to George Bush and the GOP.

Certainly the practice of rewarding loyal political subjects and campaign contributors with jobs should be reformed. But the question people should ask themselves is this: Is the best way to accomplish that throwing innocent people in jail?

Three, on the issue of juror misconduct, the very idea of jurors reading news coverage online and e-mailing each other about the case outside the jury deliberation room would be instant grounds for a mistrial in any honest court. It is clear that the judge and prosecution team in this case did not fully investigate this issue by examining computers and e-mail addresses used by jurors or by questioning the jury or U.S. marshals at length about this.

The new disclosures by Time magazine this week make clear that claims of juror misconduct in the case “are much more substantial than Siegelman or his attorneys knew when they filed their arguments,” Horton says. “In fact, there were improper communications between prosecutors and at least one juror. And it was one of the jurors implicated in the existing misconduct concerns.”

In other words, one of the jurors who was communicating with the prosecution through the U.S. marshals’ service about a romantic relationship with one of the prosecution team was also one of the jurors who read news coverage online and sent e-mails to other jurors trying to get them to find Scrushy and Siegelman guilty.

“Moreover,” Horton says, “the Justice Department hid these facts from the court and the opposing counsel. At this point it seems clear that the jury was corrupted, and that the Justice Department played an active role in that process.”

I have covered many court trials over the past 28 years as a reporter, and I have never seen any judge, Republican or Democrat, who would allow this kind of shenanigans to go on. It is simply outrageous and someone should be held accountable for it.

If the conservative newspapers in Alabama can’t see this, then I have no sympathy for them for their falling circulation numbers. It is irresponsible journalism of the highest order to allow this kind of corruption of the court system — no matter what your political-editorial slant.

Then finally, without citing the affidavit of GOP whistle-blower Jill Simpson or raising the issue of a conflict of interest on the part of the judge themselves, Siegelman’s attorneys adopt all of the arguments in the appeals brief of Richard Scrushy, who does cite Simpson’s claims, and argues that Fuller should not have sat in judgment in the case while he was in the defense contracting business with the federal government. As has been previously reported ad nauseum, Fuller was a lawyer in the defense contracting business in South Alabama when President George W. Bush appointed him to the court — just in time to take up the case and knock Siegelman out of the race for governor.

Doss Aviation, a company in which Fuller owned a controlling interest, received a $117 million contract with the Air Force on the day Siegelman was convicted. If Fuller had been appointed by a Democrat, you would have been able to hear the screams of the conservative newspapers in Alabama on Fox News, all the way to New York.

While some attorneys have expressed skepticism that the appeals court panel will rule favorably on this claim, we think they should consider it, especially since the prosecution team goes to great lengths to tie Siegelman and Scrushy together in an unholy conspiracy. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the bigger conspiracy was on the other side and directed by Karl Rove with the full knowledge of the president himself.

There is an attorney in Montgomery who could shed considerable light on the extent to which George W. Bush was interested in keeping up with developments in the Siegelman case. We won’t name him for now, but we know from talking to other sources who have heard it from him that Bush was in the loop in this case. On top of all the other grounds for impeachment, this would certainly add to the list. Unfortunately, the hierarchy of the Democratic Party refused to pursue this for the past couple of years, and now it is too late.

Then consider what it would be like if you were on trial in a case like this. Would you want to sit in a courtroom and place your fate in the hands of a judge who did millions of dollars in outside business with the U.S. government, the military, and the FBI? Common sense, and basic ethical considerations, should raise red flags in the mind of any honest person on this score — especially appeals court judges.

The Siegelman brief asks for a complete dismissal of the verdict in the case on appeal and for a judgment of acquittal. Short of that, it asks for an order for a mistrial and reassignment to another judge if there is a retrial.

It would be very unusual for an appeals court to “smack down” a district court judge in “quite so harsh a manner,” Horton says. “On the other hand, their ruling setting Siegelman free already indicated what I’d call a lack of patience with Fuller. They clearly suspect something extremely foul and have not acted on it.”

At least not yet.

Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman had clearly lost some weight while he was in prison last year. He is shown here having a little fun at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Birmingham May 2.

In the response brief from federal prosecutors, they counter all these arguments with legal boilerplate language that looks as though it was copied and pasted from a computer program. There is simply nothing in it worth citing or reporting. From an objective point of view, it is simply not believable.

If the court rejects any of the options laid out by Siegelman’s lawyers, they make a detailed case for why he should be released for time served (nine months) because of the unconstitutional addition to his sentence for exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech to talk to the media.

They cite an internal report from the Bush Justice Department itself which said there is “significant evidence of selective prosecution” and “extensive evidence that the prosecution [was] directed or promoted by Washington officials, likely including former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Advisor to the President Karl Rove, and that political considerations influenced the decision to bring charges.”

In other words, the case was political. That’s not the purpose of courts. Case closed.

And then, of course, there are implications for the future of American jurisprudence on how this case comes out, beyond the immediate fate of Don Siegelman, Horton says.

“Leura Canary and her team have been fending off a Congressional probe of their misconduct with claims that the case is still active and they cannot therefore be compelled to testify before Congress,” Horton says. “Canary did, however, submit a representation to Congress to the effect that she had no involvement in the case after major decisions were taken — a claim which has now been objectively established as untruthful. Making false statements to Congress is potentially punishable as a felony.”

In addition, Canary’s office has refused to release more than 600 pages of documents about the case, including e-mails, letters, and memos.

When the court of appeals rules in the case, perhaps by Christmas, the case will be close to its legal conclusion, Horton said, other than an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

“Then their stonewalling tactics will come to an end,” he said. He called the hearing on the ninth of December and their decision in this case a “day of reckoning for the Eleventh Circuit.”

“This is a court overwhelmingly dominated with Republican judges, most of whom have gotten to the bench after a career engagement in GOP politics,” he says. “Will they be able to put their partisan interests aside and deal fairly with a Democrat who has been abused by a Republican administration? We’ll know shortly.”

by Glynn Wilson

A Republican-dominated appeals court panel issued a ruling Monday that effectively allows White House aides to President George W. Bush to escape public testimony on the political manipulation of justice until the next Congress convenes next year.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat, says there will be an appeal.

“While the delay caused by this incorrect decision is unfortunate, at the end of the day, I believe Judge Bates’ decision will be affirmed and that Harriet Miers and other key witnesses will appear before the House Judiciary Committee, and that we will get to the bottom of the Bush administration’s disgraceful politicization of the Justice Department,” Conyers said in a statement.

The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, two appointed by Republicans, rejected a demand from House Democrats to force two of President Bush’s top aides to cooperate with an investigation about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

The ruling leaves unresolved a major constitutional battle between two branches of government, most likely leaving it to the next Congress with a new president to decide what, if any, punishment should be meted out to current chief of staff Josh Bolton or former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“The present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches,” the judges acknowledge. “Even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the judicial branch … before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009.”

“At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire,” the judges wrote.

“In view of the above considerations, we see no reason to set the appeal,” the panel concluded. “If the case becomes moot, we would be wasting the time of the court and the parties.”

The ruling blocks an order by U.S. District Judge John Bates issued in July to force Miers to testify before the House Judiciary Committee and Bolton to turn over documents about the controversial firings.

Democrats say the firings, which led in part to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last year, were politically motivated. That charge was backed up by an internal Justice Department investigation, which last week found “substantial evidence that partisan political considerations played a part in the removal of several of the U.S. attorneys.”

Lawyers for House Democrats have said they plan to continue the investigation during the next sessions, which would require new subpoenas to hear from Miers and Bolten. They could appeal the decision to the full circuit court, but acknowledged that would not likely happen before next year.

They also plan to continue the related investigation of former Bush political guru Karl Rove, who is still in defiance of a Congressional subpoena.

Jill Simpson, the key whistleblower in a related case of the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, said the delay is Nancy Pelosi’s fault.

“She blew it, and she needs to pay the price for it,” Ms. Simpson said. “Congress could still hold Rove in contempt.”

Congress was scheduled to adjourn Sept. 26, but are still in session mainly to deal with the financial crisis and Bush’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

Birmingham attorney Doug Jones, who testified that the Siegelman prosecution was political before the House Judiciary Committee last year, said it is important to remember that this opinion does not address the merits of whether Bolton and Miers should be required to testify.

“Instead, the Court is simply acknowledging that the issue cannot be fully resolved in the courts before this Congress ends. I am not surprised by the ruling as the Courts often will find a way to delay a ruling on a hot political issue during an election season,” Jones said. “The big issue will be whether or not the new Congress will press the issue next spring. Unfortunately, the decision will also likely give the Democratic leadership in the House a reason to avoid a full House vote on Rove this session.”

New York attorney Scott Horton, who has followed these cases for Harpers.org, said Monday’s ruling strips Congress of its oversight authority.

“Today, George W. Bush delivered an address to the annual meeting of the Federalist Society in which he extolled the accomplishments of his judicial appointments policy. At about the same time, in Washington, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling that made the point even more clearly: they stayed Congress’s investigation of the U.S. Attorney’s and political prosecution scandals,” Horton said. “Under the Constitution, Congress is given three essential powers, one of which, and arguably the most important, is the power of oversight, which is pursued by convening hearings using its subpoena power.

“The appeals court, dominated by Republican appointees, has just rewritten the constitution by stripping Congress of its oversight authority,” he said. “This is judicial activism of the most outrageous sort.”

Related Link:
Jill Simpson Calls on Pelosi to Find Rove in Full Contempt

It’s news quiz time in Alabama, although a good number of people from New York, LA and DC are in on the game over on a certain listserv originating out of Huntsville, if you know what I mean…

They are playing 20 questions.

1. Go to this Website and look at the picture of Air Force One being refueled by a Doss Aviation truck. Who can guess who owns a controlling interest in this corporation?

Just to make it easy, here’s the picture.

Doss Aviation

A Doss Aviation truck fueling Air Force One

Winner on question one: New York lawyer and writer Scott Horton:

But of course. Doss Aviation is owned and controlled by Mark Everett Fuller, a former member of the Alabama GOP Executive Committee who ran a series of campaigns for the Alabama GOP in which Don Siegelman campaigned in opposition, and who then was elevated to the federal bench by George W Bush. Fuller sat as Siegelman’s trial judge after failing to disclose a series of disqualifications, including a statement he made to a TV station in Enterprise, Alabama to the effect that an audit of his records as district attorney, which he believed to have been started by Siegelman, was “politically motivated.” Following a trial marked by extraordinary connivance between Fuller and the prosecutors, Fuller entered a sentence of nearly unprecedented severity against Siegelman. He was immediately awarded with a massive no-bid contract awarded to Doss Aviation. The upshot of the no-bid contract is that Fuller will be a wealthy man until the end of his days, thanks to taxpayer largesse.

Not to mention the fact that Fuller failed to fully investigate the e-mails that would prove jury misconduct in the Montgomery case against Siegelman and Scrushy, and immediately qualify the case for a mistrial.

Whether the three judge panel over at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will rule on that issue is up in the air. If Fuller had recused himself from the case, chances are Jill Simpson would never have signed and filed her affidavit. And of course, there’s all likelihood that Siegelman and Scrushy would never have been convicted in the first place.

Is Bush hitting the Jim Beam again?

Even with a sympathetic judge with a grudge on Siegelman and a mandate from Bush, the jury was hopelessly hung to the point of fisticuffs — until Fuller issued that late Friday afternoon “dynamite” charge.

But there are many more unanswered questions originating down there in Montgomery and Enterprise, home to a very important component of the military-industrial complex of America and with all kinds of secret intel deals going on under the noses of the sleeping press in Alabama.

Like Bush likes to say, we know, “It’s hard.” Of course he was talking about governing, not investigative journalism, or his reaction to the U.S. Women’s Olympic Volleyball team in China the other day…

This pat on the butt is for you, Bush fans…

How Ms. Simpson Discovered A Corrupt Judge

2. The next question is: Does this Website called DossAviation.com show that it does business with the FBI and, if so, does it concern anyone in Alabama and why?