They should of course release him or whatever action they could take to help him but wont because of the blow-back from the TERRORISTS who have stolen power in the House and Senate...

Dont ask me how those vile, vicious, disgusting pigs won the Senate without stealing it because if they did win it without stealing it (and sadly it appears they may have) that means the majority of americans who voted are really dumb motherfuckers

DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS

of major Obama fails, along with Gitmo, prosecuting & criminalizing whistleblowers, etc.

It doesn't matter what the details were, it does not matter if "everyone else did it," it does not matter that Karl Rove targeted this guy--this is the bottom line:

Republicans have expressed outrage over this conviction. How were the optics for Ted Stevens case? I didn't notice much outrage when this same DOJ overturned his conviction, for FAR less reason than the Siegelman case which was CLEARLY corrupt.

It is shameful that anyone would even try to 'explain' this gross miscarriage of justice.

And cowardly at best for any leader who KNOWS the details of Karl Rove's plot, failed the first time, to bring down his 'enemies'. Because Siegelman isn't the ONLY ONE who has been a victim of that evil criminal.

The optics would be great the day someone has the courage to drag that moron into a court of law.

So I don't believe it is 'optics'. It's something far worse.

You can get mad at me all you want, you can flip the script and try to shoot the messenger for telling a simple truth here, but let's cut to the chase:

Obama ain't gonna pardon this guy. It's not cowardly, it's politics. The guy was convicted of trading a job for a half million bucks. That's what middle America sees. All the other stuff doesn't matter.

You can believe what you'd like, it really isn't going to change the outcome--and it's not my fault that this is the case either. I am simply reading the handwriting on the wall. Like I said, the guy's lawyer did him a real disservice by not putting him in an ankle bracelet during all that "out" time while he was appealing--this could be wrapped up, done, and Siegelman could be getting ready for a book tour.

And speaking of lawyers? Ted Stevens, quite obviously, had better ones.

word you say. I KNOW it isn't about justice. We once thought that electing Democrats would change things. But seven years later, as you say, it's STILL all about THEM and to hell with justice, or a good Democrat's life. His main crime is that he IS a Democrat.

Do you think people are not aware of what you say? That they don't realize by now that all the talk of 'change' meant nothing? That voters are no longer willing to buy campaign rhetoric because they have learned, as you just pointed out, that it means NOTHING?

And then people blame voters when the lose! Did they really think we, ordinary people, think like THEM, scurrilous, soulless political animals?

That we the people will EVER become THEM?

You told me a reality I already figured out. Now I'm telling YOU a reality, THEY better learn that we don't care about 'optics' or 'images'. Because we are real people, who care deeply about justice.

I'm not blaming you for the 'way things are'. Karl Rove already told us years ago, how 'things are'. But we, back then, thought he was a psychopath and that if we elected decent people, we would prove him wrong.

But, as you say, that never happened. Yet.

That's how you win appeals. It's not about retrying the case, it's about finding the mistake that made the decision unfair.

He could have been a Martian, it had nothing to do with his party--it's down to the quality of his lawyers.

FWIW, Stevens was prosecuted by a GOP DOJ. They cheated when they prosecuted him, though (they withheld evidence and his team of lawyers smoked that out) --that's why he won on appeal.

across political lines. From Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and from people who WITNESSED the corruption that took place during Rove's campaign to 'get him'. Stevens had none of that.

They cheated when they prosecuted Siegelman and the evidence of that was incontrovertible. Yes, Stevens trial was corrupted, but nearly to the extent that Siegelman's was.

Do you know anything about this case at all?

It is BECAUSE Stevens' case was overturned with far less evidence of gross corruption than in Siegelman's case that people are so outraged at this DOJ.

Karl Rove was not behind Stevens' conviction. HE WAS behind Siegelman's. And when his first attempt to get him failed, he didn't give up.

Please, let's stop with the excuses. It isn't often that Republicans jump to the defense of a Democrat, but this case was so BLATANTLY corrupt, with so much evidence, and with great lawyers, that even they could not believe it had not been overturned.

A smart legal team would have put him in an ankle bracelet during the appeal process. They didn't do that.

And they sure as hell didn't find the loophole, did they?

You keep bringing up Ted Stevens' case as if that has anything to do with this one--here's the deal, it does NOT. They're not equivalent. And he plainly had better lawyers, because he got off on appeal, and Siegalman didn't.

The GOP DOJ withheld evidence with regard to the Stevens case. One more time, the GOP DOJ WITHHELD EVIDENCE. Stevens got off on what's called a "technicality."

Siegelman's team couldn't find the loophole, like Stevens' team did.

No one's making "excuses"--I'm dealing in fact. And no one, least of all me, is "defending" anyone. Why would you even try to use that kind of gripe as an argument? You might try reading up on those facts instead of making accusations about me.

But you have a nice night; I see that this conversation will only devolve into continued personal invective if it carries on.

corruption, not to mention a corrupt judge with a conflict of interest which in itself was enough to overturn the conviction.

This is a political assassination, orchestrated by arch criminal Karl Rove. The very fact that he was involved, and that a person who worked on the PROSECUTION became a witness for Siegelman, was more than enough for any rational person to end this torture of an innocent man.

So no, something else is at play here. And everyone with a brain cell working, including Republicans, knows it.

Fact--Ted Stevens' lawyers found the loophole--the GOP Justice Department that prosecuted him had withheld evidence. That's a miscarriage of justice. That is why their appeal was successful. That doesn't mean that Stevens was innocent of wrongdoing--he got lucky because the prosecution was unfair to him during the trial.

Siegelman's legal team didn't find the technicality needed to overcome their failure to get an acquittal at his trial. On appeal, again, to be clear, it's all about the technicalities. One does not "retry" the case, one can only find out where the judge, or the prosecutors, or even the defense, screwed up and made the proceedings somehow unfair to the defendant. Siegelman's team didn't find that screw-up -- at least not to the satisfaction of the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court hearing the case.

Once you are past the trial, the defendant has been convicted, and you are onto the appeals process, that's the bottom line. It's not about "brain cells" or party affiliation at that point--it's about proving that there was something unfair about the trial itself. And it's not the DOJ making the decision to keep him locked up, it's the 11th Circuit judges hearing the appeal--three of them.

overcharged and got the high end of what I would consider appropriate sentencing. And his wrongdoing was definitely targeted.

But he still is convicted, and I think his conviction will be upheld.

You would think I suggested the firing squad for a kitten, or something!!!

medium-rare.

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

A Canadian, a Texan and a tea bagger walk into a bar, and the bartender says:
"Nice to see you again, Senator Cruz"

Richard S. Scrushy did not donate the money to Don Siegelman personally or to his political campaign. He donated the money to a referendum to enact a lottery whose proceeds would fund Alabama public schools.

Don Siegelman asked Scrushy to remain in an administrative position to which he had previously been appointed by republican governors from Alabama. No quid pro quo.

That's what middle America sees. No shooting the messenger.

Like I said (several times, not just in this thread but others as well), I think the Governor was poorly served by his legal team. They should have put him under house arrest during the appeals process which would have cut down his sentence considerably and he would be creating an outline for his book and planning a "Clear My Name" tour, instead of looking at what, two more years in the pokey.

has been aided and abetted by a Democratic DOJ. The DOJ that overturned Republican Sen. Ted Steven's conviction.

I read recently of the treatment of Don Siegelman and it sickened me.

Who do they represent? Karl Rove? Does he have something on all of them?

Because even REPUBLICANS have described this crooked, criminal prosecution as one of the worst examples of a political use of the judicial system they have ever seen.

Why did they go after him so cruelly?

I remember Siegelman speaking out against Bush/Cheney while he was Gov.

The judge in his case is crooked, recently adding more crimes to his list.

Rove of course is a criminal.

It's our fault, we have such short memories. There should be outrage over this.

It puts the DOJ into serious question.

Not only should that conviction have overturned, there should have been an investigation of those involved conducted by the DOJ.

THAT is what we expected in 2008, JUSTICE and a return to the rule of law.

We are further away from that than ever.

BANKSTERS and their sentencing guidelines?

Thank you for saying it so well.

If he were still in politics here in Alabama , he would be running on the GOP platform.

missed after years of following it??

who always had his hand in the public's cookie jar!

posters don't carry much weight. I asked for something I might have missed which means a link to something substantial.

Your opinion is merely that, like everyone else's here, it means nothing.

never claimed anything more.....make of it what you will.....

from being guilty of anything other than a Democrat Karl Rove hated. Even members of Rove's original team, have confessed and come forward to give us the information we had only suspected.

The judge on the case is corrupt, and continues to have problems with the law to this day.

Anyhow, thanks for being honest about your statement merely being your own personal opinion. I appreciate that.

He was an enemy of George Bush. And didn't all 50 of the states' atty generals sign a letter to have him exonerated?

I didn't say anything about Karl..........

the governor is guilty of. Bush will agree with you but most states' attys Generals don't.

If we are arguing about political prisoners...Don may be one, however; Does anyone know this face?

I talked up the injustice of Leonard's incarceration for years and years, wrote letters, signed petitions etc. After Clinton didn't pardon him I basically lost hope. And I don't expect that Obama will do it either. Disgusting and heartbreaking.

I doubt Obama will do it. And who knows what's going to happen in 2016

should have gone to prison before Don Siegelman.

Much more important than actual Justice. How naïve are we? Both parties stink to high heaven. Still, the Replugs are worse.

The Republicans *must* be batshit crazy in order for the Dems to keep moving rightward.

The people's willingness to accept the lesser of two evils, to fall for the scam, is exactly what allows the predatory corporate agenda to keep advancing.

That scam is how this united corporate oligarchy wearing a "two-party democracy" costume keeps and grows its power.

making it easier for the other party to move closer to them and still look 'slightly better'. The baseline of a civilized society has moved so far away that people have adjusted to where we are now.

Remember eg, the outrage over the genocide in Fallujah from the Left? It was appropriate for civilized people to react that way.

Karl Rove told us the plan. From Ron Susskind:

Well done!

The Attorney General is the federal prosecutor, that side argues for the government's case against a defendant. It is the defendant's attorney who can argue for the defendant.