Attorney Doug Jones Advises Against It

by Glynn Wilson

It looks like Don Siegelman is going to Washington in May after all.

In spite of all the advice to the contrary by House Judiciary Committee member Aurtur Davis, Birmingham’s representative in Washington, and his former lawyer Doug Jones, Alabama’s only former governor to be imprisoned says he is willing to testify under oath before Congress anyway.

When asked by Dan Abrams on MSNBC’s legal show “Verdict” whether he was still willing to go, Siegelman said, “I’m ready to go to Capitol Hill and give them whatever information I can. This is not about me. It’s about America.”

In an extensive interview with Doug Jones, the former Siegelman attorney who testified before the House Judiciary Committee last year about the political nature of the prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, he said it might not serve Siegelman’s best legal interests to go.

“He can’t really shed any light on the political end of it, except for who he is, and everybody knows that,” Jones said.

He says Davis is right in raising the risk of what the Republicans might ask about the legal case in the open forum of a Congressional hearing.

“We have to be careful that we not confuse the political part of this with what’s in Don Siegelman’s best interest,” Jones said. “There are certainly the political battles being waged by you and others, and I think that’s great. I think it’s had a tremendous effect, ultimately, on shining a spotlight on this, and on the final outcome.

“But,” he said, “at the end of the day, though, this matter is really about Don Siegelman and his life and his family’s life.”

Jones said he hopes folks will sit back and start looking at the Siegelman issue “with an eye to what is going to be in Don’s best interest.”

He talked about the way the Republicans on the committee treated him and former Attorney General Dick Thornburg.

“They don’t want to ask questions,” he said. “They just want to make speeches.”

Jones is now representing a couple of state legislators in the continuing grand jury probe of the two-year college system in Alabama led by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Bush appointee.

The case seemed to fall apart a few days back when a number of legislators refused to voluntarily testify about their jobs in the community college system.

Jones advised them to consider whether they trust the U.S. attorney and the grand jury to treat them fairly, as he would advise Siegelman in deciding whether to face the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

“Do you trust these folks to treat you fairly?”

“If you trust them to treat you fairly then you should go,” Jones said. “If you don’t trust them to treat you fairly, you’ve got to figure that this is some kind of trap, that they are trying to whipsaw you against other statements that other people have made.”

He said a number of legislators have exerted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify against themselves before the grand jury in Birmingham, he said, “Because they don’t trust people to be fair.”

Jones said Alice Martin’s investigation has not completely fallen apart, yet.

“They are over there issuing subpoenas again this week,” he said. “Who knows who will end up testifying and who won’t. But there is just great danger with this Justice Department, I believe.”

He said there is “great danger” for Siegelman as well, when, according to Jones, “He really can’t add anything to the political facts.”

The only people now who can do that, Jones said, are former Bush political adviser Karl Rove, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez - and the people in the Public Integrity division of the Justice Department who were in on crafting the case against Siegelman.

“And they are refusing to testify,” Jones said, although WSFA in Montgomery is saying today in an uncomfirmed report that Rove issued a statement saying he would testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

Jones said he was unsure why committee chair John Conyers, the powerful Michigan Democrat, issued the statement on the day Siegelman was released asking that he be freed so he could testify, and he said Davis must not have been “in the loop” on that announcement.

“I don’t think they were thinking it through,” he said. “I think they would like to have additional hearings on this, to keep the spotlight shining,” Jones said. “I really do believe they don’t want this to die down, after the ‘60 Minutes’ thing, MSNBC, the blogs and all.”

But he said the committee doesn’t have many more places to turn.

“There’s only so much you can do without getting Don and some of the other folks involved,” he said.

Conyers is still obviously pissed at Rove and other White House aides who have refused to testify in the contempt investigation, and because the Department of Justice has failed to turn over all the documents sought in the case, including thousands of lost e-mail messages that would shed a tremendous amount of light on just how politically motivated the Bush White House was about every public policy decision made.

“That’s where the real issue is going to be,” Jones said. “The failure to testify is as significant as this administration deciding it’s OK to destroy e-mails and hard drives that contained e-mails. That’s just outrageous. It’s unbelievable.”

Was it coincidence that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta announced Siegelman’s release the same day?

Jones said he thinks it was coincidence, since the court finally got the trial transcript and the full appeals briefs, which he called “outstanding.” Although he said the publicity could have sped things up some and he acknowledged that lawyers often talk about how the public spotlight can make a difference in a close decision and on the timing of things.

Jones said Siegelman’s legal team met every legal test for his release on appeal, while Scrushy’s case did not, because of his boat ride in Florida awhile back.

And Jones was far more willing than he was last summer to be critical of Chief U.S. Judge Mark Fuller. He said the problems on appeal all go back to Fuller, when he refused to make findings and incarcerated both defendants, and then refused at first to comply with the circuit court’s demand for a more detailed explanation of his ruling.

He said the legal community was surprised at Fuller’s ruling to shackle them and put them in jail - and not surprised at the appeals court’s ruling to release him.

It is still unclear whether Siegelman’s legal team will use North Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson’s affidavit in his appeal in May, although Scrushy’s legal team has already raised the issue of a conflict of interest on Fuller’s part, since he was a defense contractor doing business with the federal government while hearing the case in Montgomery.

On the appeal itself, Jones said there are substantial issues to be raised about the alleged quid pro quo - Scrushy’s appointment to the hospital regulatory board in direct exchange for contributions to Siegelman’s education lottery campaign.

While the case law does not raise the direct quid pro quo issue, he said, the way the jury was charged by the judge did raise it, considering the specific facts alleged in the indictments and since it was the only real way to prove a corrupt benefit in this case.

He said the way Siegelman was charged under the witness tampering issue raises a serious question, along with the repeated Allen charges from the judge, “where the court really seemed to wrest a verdict out of the jury.”

He also said there is a substantial question about improper jury misconduct that was never fully investigated by the judge - the allegations that some jurors read news coverage of the case online and discussed the case by e-mail.

“I don’t believe Judge Fuller did as adequate a job as he should have investigating whether those e-mails were real, and whether there was misconduct,” he said. “Perhaps the court could reverse on that. But if it’s that issue alone, they are more likely to send it back for the judge to conduct a more thorough investigation. If it gets reversed on other issues, they may not even address that issue.”

As for the ongoing federal investigations in the state, Jones said he thinks the Bush Justice Department is “overreaching” in not backing down some from the political prosecutions in Bush’s final months in office, although he’s not surprised, “Not with this administration.”

“I am thoroughly convinced that they are trying to realign the (state) House and Senate in favor of the Republican Party. I didn’t believe that for a long time,” Jones said. “But I really believe that now.”

It won’t even matter if no convictions are obtained, he said. But it will go on, “to just taint people as if they are criminals - for having a state job and also being a member of the legislature, as if that was a crime,” he said. “That’s just crazy.”

The grand jury subpoenas are just fishing expeditions to see how people got their jobs and if they worked at their jobs - “and if they can prove it,” he said, placing the burden of proof on them rather than the federal prosecutors.

He pointed out that state Attorney General Troy King had to recuse himself from aiding in the investigation because of his conflict of interest in trying to get someone hired at a community college, yet he is a loyal Republican so he is not being asked to go before the grand jury.

The few Republicans who are being looked at are those who have been at odds with the Bush and Riley party lines at times, he said.

And, he said, “The manner they are going about it, to me, is just incredible.”

The CBS News magazine show “60 Minutes” will air an interview with former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on Sunday night’s broadcast, according to a spokesman for the network.

Siegelman was released from jail last week on an appeal bond after serving nine months in federal prison. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Siegelman’s case as part of an ongoing probe into allegations that the Justice Department under President George W. Bush pursued prosecutions for political reasons.

Here’s the show’s blurb:

Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports on the world’s fifth largest sovereign-wealth fund. Over the winter, the fund was part of a multi-national bailout of Wall Street. In his first interview as the new president of China’s government-controlled $200 billion China Investment Corporation, Gao Xiqing says his fund’s intentions are purely financial when it invests in companies and countries. “It is our policy not to control anything,” Gao says. Calling himself a passive investor, Mr. Gao vowed China will not buy controlling stakes in any company or use its investment to exert influence or steal technology. He also promises the fund will be transparent and not secretive. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers applauds the new openness Gao displays, but tells Stahl, “As Ronald Reagan said, ‘trust and verify.’ I think this is an issue our government does need to pay close attention to.”

Next, the question of why the U.S. went to war and one Pentagon insider’s answer may surprise you. “What we did after 9/11 was look broadly at the international terrorist network from which the next attack on the United States would come,” says Douglas Feith, the former under secretary of defense for policy and the No. 3 person in the Pentagon’s hierarchy from 2001 to 2005. “Our main goal was not merely retaliation for the 9/11 attack, it was preventing the next attack.” Feith tells correspondent Steve Kroft, “In an era where weapons of mass destruction can put countries in a position to do an enormous amount of harm, the old idea of having to wait until you actually see the country mobilizing for war doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Then, NASA is proposing to go where no man has gone before: Mars. There have been pictures and analysis of the planet from robots, but scientists say a man could do in a minute what takes a robot a day. Correspondent Bob Simon reports on the obstacles to this mission that must begin with a return to the moon to test new equipment and systems astronauts will need for the longer, more dangerous flight to the red planet. Landing on Mars will be quite a challenge, says scientist and Mars expert Steve Squyres. “The accuracy with which you need to target a landing site on the surface is like throwing a basketball from New York to Los Angeles and having it go through without touching the rim.”

These stories today, along with an update on “The Prosecution of Governor Siegelman”, and Andy Rooney does a drive-by on this Sunday’s 60 Minutes.

April 6 on ‘60 Minutes’

Also today, the New York Times ran a national news feature on the Fear and Loathing in Alabama’s State House, about the continuing political prosecutions planned by Bush’s appointee to the U.S. Attorneys office in Birmingham, Alice Martin.

I am working on a story about both of these cases based on an extensive interview with Birmingham attorney Doug Jones. And, I’m thinking about a Sunday column on “Victory Gardens” and “Victory Gin.” Check back in a little while for more…

Picasso’s Don Quixote

Fox 6 News in Birmingham had the story Sunday on the broadcast at 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. on how the independent Web Press influenced the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

A news team interviewed me and Roger Shuler of the Legal Schnauzer blog this afternoon in Picasso’s Blog Bunker, a.k.a. “The Bunker.”

The sign on the door is a print of Picasso’s depiction of Don Quixote. If you don’t know what that means, well, do some Google research.

Siegelman Released from Prison; Did Bloggers Play a Role?

The reporter seemed interested to learn about how blogs work, and especially the comment feature. The post we did on the great “60 Minutes” black out in the Tennessee Valley got 99 comments, in case she or anyone else is interested. This has to be close to a record for blog comments in Alabama…

Siegelman Prosecution Questions Answered on ‘60 Minutes’

House Judiciary Panel Moves Forward on Political Justice Investigation

by Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on trial

Don Siegelman will be free at last Friday morning after spending nine months in a Louisiana prison, and he will be on his way to Washington in early May to testify before Congress about the politics behind his prosecution at the hands of a Justice Department that has been called “out of control,” where politics mattered more than justice under President George W. Bush and his political brain Karl Rove.

Chances are Siegelman will see no more jail time in a case that should have ended in a mistrial in 2006, when jurors violated their oath against the standard charge by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and based their decision on reading online news reports and pressure from improper communications carried out by e-mail.

Writing for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, judges Susan H. Black and Stanley Marcus, just days after finally obtaining the long-awaited transcript from the two year old trial, ordered his release saying he proved he was not a flight risk and there are significant questions worthy of a full hearing on appeal.

“After a thorough review of this complex and protracted record, we conclude Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute, and has specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact,” they wrote in the four page order.

Mobile attorney Vince Kilborn told a Montgomery TV news station he was at a loss for words at the surprisingly quick announcement, coming on the heals of an inquiry by U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, after touring a Louisiana prison, asking the Justice Department to release Siegelman so he could testify about the politics behind his prosecution.

Kilborn then said Siegelman would be released sometime Friday and the legal team will continue working on briefs to get Siegelman’s conviction reversed.

“His wife and his daughter, Dana, are driving out to get him,” Kilborn said. He called it “a big win in a very long war. It’s a good feeling. He’s an innocent man and he’s been in prison for nine months.”

The House panel has been investigating claims Rove was involved in the dismissal of at least nine U.S. attorneys, as well as the prosecution of at least three Democrats who served as public officials, including Siegelman, who served as Alabama’s governor from 1999-2003.

The tainted jury convicted him and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy of bribery, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud and obstruction of justice, but acquitted him of other charges, including racketeering and extortion.

While Siegelman maintained that the case against him was political for months leading up to his trial and then his sentencing in June 2007, it was a signed affidavit in May 2007 and later sworn testimony by North Alabama Republican lawyer Jill Simpson that became the key evidence bringing the case to national attention.

That story hit the New York Times and Time magazine in June. Then, following an in-depth report in the Locust Fork Journal days later, New York lawyer and writer Scott Horton began blogging about the case at Harpers.org. The story made its way finally onto the CBS investigative magazine show “60 Minutes” last month, and was then picked up by hundreds of bloggers.

Rove resigned from the White House last August, days after Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez also walked away in the wake of Ms. Simpson’s agreement to testify under oath in Washington. Rove has since declined to answer questions under oath before Congress and faces an ongoing perjury probe for his failure to appear along with former White House legal counsel Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, Bush’s chief of staff.

The Alabama Democratic Party, which was reluctant to get out front in support of Siegelman in his election bid in 2006 while he was under the cloud of indictment, put out a press release today welcoming the news of his release.

“This is the correct step that should have been taken many months ago by Judge Fuller,” party executive director Jim Spearman said. “Fortunately the 11th Circuit is righting this wrong. The people of Alabama and this nation need to be reassured that justice is truly blind.”

Party chair Joe Turnham said he supports the House Judiciary Committee’s call for Siegelman to testify about the possible political influence within the Department of Justice.

According to House Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell, “The chairman has determined it would be appropriate to hear from Mr. Siegelman himself and believes he would have a lot to add to the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution.”

“Hopefully today’s call for Governor Siegelman to testify by the House Judiciary Committee is the first step to investigate charges of partisan justice in the U. S. Attorney’s Alabama offices,” Turnham said. “We renew our call for the U. S. Attorney General to name an independent investigation to look into these serious allegations of all current political prosecutions so as to reassure the people of Alabama that the justice system is not being influenced by partisanship at any level.”

The appeals court denied former Healthsouth CEO Richard Scrushy’s request to be released pending his appeal, indicating he failed to prove he was not a flight risk.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin, who prosecuted Siegelman and Scrushy, told the AP he was “absolutely” surprised by the court’s ruling, but added the government would continue to contest Siegelman’s appeal.

“We lost this battle, but we’ll still fight for the conviction,” he said.

Mike Hubbard, chair of the Alabama Republican Party, told the AP he was disappointed in the ruling.

“The former Governor’s release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers,” he said. “It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality.”

Jill Simpson said Hubbard’s response was surprising, treating the issues at stake as mere politics and not worthy of a full investigation.

“These are very serious issues,” she said. “Everyone should respect a person’s right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What he said was just distasteful and classless.”

At stake, according to Hiram Eastland of Greenwood, Mississippi, lead counsel for Siegelman, are “profound issues that should concern every American, Republican or Democrat” regarding political expression through campaign contributions.

Experts, including 44 U.S. attorneys, have said the alleged quid pro quo of Scrushy’s donations to help pay off the debt on Siegelman’s lottery for education campaign appear to be no more than typical campaign contributions, in part because none of the money went into Siegelman’s pocket.

Another Siegelman attorney, David McDonald of Mobile, said his client is “emphatically” eager to appear before the House committee.

“We welcome the inquiry,” McDonald said. “We will continue to cooperate in every way.”

No matter what happens before the House Judiciary Committee, and what ruling the 11th Circuit makes in the case, chances are Siegelman will never see another day of jail time, and may be poised for a political comeback with his newfound fame, some sources say.

Siegelman would most likely be pardoned by either Democratic candidate in the presidential race, University of Alabama political scientist Bill Stewart told the AP, if they are elected in November.

“If he’s out until January and we elect Clinton or Obama,” he said, “I expect he will be pardoned just like Scooter Libby.”

Bush commuted the sentence of Libby - the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney - just days after Scrushy and Siegelman were hauled off to jail in shackles last summer without the benefit of 45 days to put their affairs in order before self reporting, which is typical of white collar defendants in federal court.

That drastic action fired up Siegelman’s supporters to begin a campaign to get him freed by raising a cry that echoed all over the Internet and the World Wide Web, calling Siegelman, “America’s number one political prisoner.”

The e-mail lists and blogs lit up with hundreds of comments today as the news spread of Siegelman’s release.

“When I read your e-mail I actually started to tear up,” said Butch Lambard of the South Baldwin County Democrats, a regular reader of The Locust Fork News and Journal and a member of our e-mail list.

“If we, or anyone, can organize a ‘Welcome back, Don’ party, I want to be there,” he said.

“Hopefully, there will be a homecoming celebration of some sort,” said a commenter on another list. “There should be huge fanfare for his homecoming.”

After reading all the coverage of the case today, Ms. Simpson said the 11th Circuit Court made the right decision based on the evidence and the law. And she said it was gratifying to see the House Judiciary Committee move forward with the investigation by taking testimony from Siegelman.

“He will be the best witness,” she said. “And I believe Scrushy and Siegelman will be vindicated in the end. They did not receive a fair trial, and it was political.”

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be released on bond pending appeal, according to a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta today, the Associated Press is reporting.

In the ruling, the three-judge panel said Siegelman had raised “substantial questions of fact and law” in challenging his conviction.

Also today, the United States House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department to allow Siegelman to be released so he can testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution, according to the AP DC bureau.

Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, believes Siegelman “would have a lot to add to the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution,” said Melanie Roussell, a spokeswoman for the committee.

More details later…