No Justice From Justice

"Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration [BA]. The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorneys general from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the [BA's] use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who 'they could not beat fair and square,' according to Grant Woods, a former Republican Attorney General of Ariziona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he's never seen a case with so 'many red flags pointing to injustice.' ... Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for Rove, testified to the House Judiciary Committee and went public on '60 Minutes.' Simpson said she was told by Bill Canary, the chief GOP political operative in Alabama, that 'my girls can take care of Siegelman.' Canary's 'girls' are two US Attorneys in Alabama, both appointed by President Bush. ... Federal prosecutors claimed that Scrushy's charitable contribution was a bribe to Siegelman in exchange for being appointed to the Certificate of NeedBoard [CNB]. In the words of federal prosecutor Stephen Feaga, the contribution was 'given in exchange for a promise for an official act.' ... As a large number of attorneys have pointed out, every US president appoint his ambassadors and cabinet members from people who have donated to his campaign. Under the reasoning applied in the Siegelman case, every president, every cabinet member and ambassador should be in federal prison. .. Presented with threats of a long sentence, Bailey agreed to testify falsely that Siegelman came out of a meeting with Scrushy and showed Bailey a $250,000 check he had accepted in exchange for appointing Scrushy to the [CNB]. Prosecutors knew that Bailey's testimony was false, not only because they had Bailey rewrite his testimony several times and rehearsed him until he had it down pat, but also because they had they check. The records show that the check, written to a charitable organization, was cut days after the meeting from which Siegelman allegedly emerged with check in hand. ... [Judge] Fuller himself was part of the prosecution. He bore a strong grudge against Siegelman. Fuller had been an Alabama district attorney [DA] before Bush made him a federal judge. Fuller's sucessor as [DA] was appointed by Siegalman and produced evidence that Fuller had defrauded or attempted to defraud the state retirement system. Despite his known animosity toward Siegelman, Fuller refused to recuse himself from Siegelman's trial. According to the WOTM special report, Fuller owns a company that was receiving federal money during Siegelman's trial. Fuller did not disclose this conflict of interest. ... The Justice (sic) Department's answer to the exposure of its frame-up of Siegelman is that Siegelman was indicted by career prosecutors and convicted in a fair trial by a jury of his peers. These claims are no more truthful than anything else the DOJ says. ... The Siegelman case makes it clear exactly what Bush, Rove, and the disgraced Bush flunky Alberto Gonzales intended by firing the eight Republican US Attorneys. These eight refused to politicize their office by falsely prosecuting Democrats in order to achieve a Rovian political agenda. Apparently, there were only eight honest persons among the 1,200 Republican US Attorneys, Bush, Rove, and Gonzales had no problem with the other 1,192", my emphasis, Paul Roberts (PR) at http://www.lewrockwell.com/, 28 February 2008.

"Congress is looking into the decision by the [US] attorney for New Jersey, Christopher Christie, to hand former Attorney General John Ashcroft a hugely lucrative job monitoring a wayward company. ... Congress should conduct a broader inquiry into prosecutors' selection of richly rewarded monitors and require that the appointments be made on merit. ... But we have already seen how federal prosecutors appointed by the [BA] used their offices to help Republicans win elections. Congress needs to ensure that they are not using their positions to throw patronage to friends and political allies. The Ashcroft appointment came in a 'deferred prosecution agreement,' a fast-growing arrangement ripe for abuse. Rather than file criminal charges against corporations, federal prosecutors ... increasingly are striking deals. These agreements are done without court supervision and sometimes in secret", Editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/, 26 February 2008.

The BA's new found respect for the jury system is touching. How can anyone take the InJustice Department seriously? I think suborning perjury is the norm for the DOJ. This is the same DOJ that wants to protect drug companies from tort suits, apparently out of fear that juries might make damage awards against corporations. What, do we see some consistency here? The DOJ is consistently on the side of large corporate interests.

I would go further than the NYT. I would ban deferred prosecution agreements. They are more than "ripe for abuse". They are an abuse. Have the Crips, Bloods or MS-13 gangs in Los Angeles ever been offered one? Why not? Is is because they can't offer multi-million dollar monitoring jobs to DOJ alumni?