Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 4 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   8 comments

General News

George Will, Of All People, Stands Up for Justice in the Don Siegelman Case

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Valuable 2   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 2/12/12

Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer

Who could have imagined that George Will would prove to be more progressive than Barack Obama on fundamental matters of justice?

Will, probably the nation's foremost conservative columnist, writes in his most recent piece that the U.S. Supreme Court should review the convictions of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy to ensure that overzealous prosecutors are not criminalizing standard political behavior.

The Obama Justice Department, meanwhile, has stated that the Siegelman case was correctly decided and should not be reviewed by the nation's highest court. That presents a disturbing scenario for Democrats as they think about heading to the polls in November: George Will actually is more enlightened than Barack Obama on constitutional issues of profound importance to many progressives.

In a piece titled "Is It Bribery Or Just Politics?" Will makes it clear that he finds the Siegelman prosecution deeply troubling:

All elected officials, and those who help finance elections in the expectation that certain promises will be kept -- and everyone who cares about the rule of law -- should hope the Supreme Court agrees to hear Don Siegelman's appeal of his conviction. Until the court clarifies what constitutes quid pro quo political corruption, Americans engage in politics at their peril because prosecutors have dangerous discretion to criminalize politics.

Every American politician could wind up in the federal slammer if the "Siegelman standard" is applied across the board, Will writes:

Siegelman argues that political contributions enjoy First Amendment protection, and seeking them is not optional for a politician in America's privately funded democracy. Furthermore, elected officials must undertake official acts; some will be pleasing or otherwise beneficial to contributors. (See Solyndra.) Often this is nothing more than keeping campaign promises: People contribute because they endorse a candidate's agenda.

Will points out what we already have noted--that the Siegelman/Scrushy convictions hang on the definition of one word ("explicit")--and various courts disagree on what it means in the context of a bribery case involving campaign contributions. In fact, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that, contrary to clear precedent, a jury is free to find that a corrupt agreement is "implied." Will is correct when he states that the muddiness of current law requires U.S. Supreme Court intervention:

If bribery can be discerned in a somehow implicit connection between a contribution and an official action, prosecutorial discretion will be vast. And there will be the political temptation to ascribe unspoken but criminal mental states to elected officials. The Supreme Court can circumscribe this dangerous discretion by affirming the principle that the quid pro quo standard for bribery requires proof, not a mere inference, of an actual communication. In the law's current, contradictory condition, the line is blurry between the exercise of constitutional rights and the commission of a crime.

Actually, the current law on political bribery is not all that muddy. Prosecutors and defendants in the Siegelman case agree that a Supreme Court ruling styled McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) is the controlling law, and it requires that an agreement must be "explicit" in order to constitute bribery.

The real issue in the Siegelman case is not the law but judicial buffoonery (or corruption, take your pick). U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee who oversaw the Siegelman trial in the Middle District of Alabama, got it wrong by giving jury instructions that were contrary to established law. The Eleventh Circuit got it wrong by stating, more or less, that Fuller's instructions were "in the ballpark," and that's good enough for a criminal conviction.

Next Page  1  |  2


I live in Birmingham, Alabama, and work in higher education. I became interested in justice-related issues after experiencing gross judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. This corruption has a strong political component. The corrupt judges are (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Boy Scouts and the Horrors of Their "Perversion Files"

Bush vs. Obama on Spending: It's No Contest

Why Is Karl Rove Planning to Visit the Backwoods of Alabama?

What's the Real Story Behind Karl Rove's Divorce?

Is "Morning Joe" Scarborough a Murderer?

Rove Might Be Trying To "Pull A Siegelman" With Julian Assange


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Anyone who would like to think Obama is a liberal ... by Jim Arnold on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:50:40 PM
Can't understand why the Democrats didn't order an... by Rose Adler on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:52:01 PM
"The real issue in the Siegelman case is not the l... by Rixar13 on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:58:50 PM
"The real issue in the Siegelman case is not the l... by Rixar13 on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:59:13 PM
Obama signed NDAA.  Will gets a few things ri... by Richard Pietrasz on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:29:37 PM
Thank you, Mr. Will.  I support your opinion.... by JoAnn Macdonald on Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:44:53 AM
The prosecution of John Edwards, a potential polit... by Robert James on Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:29:12 PM
... to the claim that Obama just isn't forceful. I... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:00:31 PM