Our Political Prisoners

Did you know the United States has in recent years prosecuted
hundreds of people for political reasons? This is a crime, or rather a
crime wave, that has thus far been addressed primarily by ignoring it.
You can read a lot about it from bloggers like Larisa Alexandrovna or Scott Horton. But you won't hear the president mention it on TV.

In an attempt to convince the corporate media that this issue ranked
right up there with governors' sex lives and celebrities' deaths, a
group of notable speakers, judges, attorneys, victims, and witnesses,
gathered and spoke on Friday morning at the National Press Club. You
can watch the whole forum on C-Span. You won't find it anywhere else. Below is what I blogged from the event:

8:00 a.m. Don Siegelman (former governor of Alabama and victim of a
politically motivated prosecution) had to go back to Alabama and won't
be here. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers may not make
it either. But everybody else is milling and chatting. Some people, I'm
not supposed to say are here. I spoke with Scott Horton about Spain. He
thinks they're going to spend 1.5 years on the 6 lawyers and prosecute
and convict 'em. He also thinks Italy will soon convict the CIA agents
and report them to Interpol and end their traveling.

8:11 John Edward Hurley, President, Sarah McClendon Group, opening, welcoming.

8:31 Andrew Kreig, journalist, author & attorney, says Siegelman
was here yesterday but had to get back to Alabama for a filing of new
evidence with his attorney.

8:36 Kreig says the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined an invitation to participate in today's forum.

8:37 Scott Horton: prosecutorial misconduct is the topic.
Prosecutors wield incredible powers. Abuse must be held in check by
Justice Dept itself. [Isn't that a weakness?] Horton quotes Robert
Jackson on danger of targeting people rather than taking up important
cases, of picking individuals to find a crime for rather than picking
crimes and finding the guilty parties.

8:42 Horton notes that as attorney general, Michael Mukasey gave one
speech on corruption and claimed to know of none, at the same time that
stories of former attorney general John Ashcroft's corruption were in
the news. Mukasey claimed that for the 14 months he headed DOJ there
was no evidence of politically motivated prosecutions. Yeah? What about
Don Siegelman, Sen Walker, Paul Minor, and many others? And what about
all of the cases of refusing to prosecute Republicans or sabotaging
possible prosecutions of Republicans, like Renzi, as exemplified by yesterday's report
by Murray Waas -- a story documenting sabotage of a case by a man then
appointed as director of public affairs by Mukasey? Mukasey repeatedly
promised in Congress to look into the Siegelman case but never did. The
current DOJ says it has inherited a mess (detentions, torture, etc.)
but there is another mess. Holder did the right thing in the Stevens
case. But what about all of these other cases?

8:51 Nan Aron, President, Legal Director, Alliance for Justice,
introduces Elliot Mincberg, Head Counsel for the House Judiciary
Committee, speaking in place of Chairman Conyers who has to stay on the
hill and vote this morning. Mincberg refers to reports like this one and this one.
Committee is still investigating 2006 firing of US attorneys and has
already demonstrated clear political motivation in firings, based on
which prosecutors were too aggressive or insufficiently aggressive in
going after Republicans or Democrats respectively. Mincberg recounts
holding Miers and Bolten in contempt, and says settlement has given the
committee more White House documents and that the terms of the
settlement will be revealed after interviews, and there may be
hearings. Second, the political hiring and firing, the testimony of
Monica Goodling ... but we now have a new AG. [So what?] Holder might
reconsider prosecuting Brad Schlossman. Third, the torture [he doesn't
use the word]. Mincberg stresses the importance of the Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, and says Conyers will hold
hearings with Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, and "hopefully a representative of
the DOJ" after that report is released? [Why must this town shut down
until that report is released? Who will enforce the subpoenas? Will
Conyers use the Capitol Police? Why can they not subpoena a
representative from DOJ?] Fourth, the warrantless spying (also waiting
for a report). Fifth, today's topic: selective prosecution. We held
LOTS of hearings, claims Mincberg and found extensive evidence of
political prosecutions. Just the percentage of prosecutions of elected
officials that were against Democrats had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being
coincidence. A couple of cases in WI and PA have now been thrown out.
But what about all the troubling activity by Republicans not
prosecuted, such as the Republican voter registration firm in Nevada
tearing up registrations of Democrats. See report on HJC website.
Sixth, deferred prosecutions - Ashcroft. Seventh, abuse by FBI of Natl
Security Letters (warrantless search warrants). Eighth, state secrets
abuse. This is area where Mincberg admits great disappointment with the
current DOJ and cites its sovereign immunity claim. Says committees in
House and Senate are waiting [absurdly] for the DOJ's statement prior
to marking up the State Secrets Protection Act. Ninth, the Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) had been turned into an office that told the White
House what it wanted to hear. Tenth and final, voting rights was dealt
with politically -- we held hearings, John Tanner - chief of civil
rights division - resigned. [To Mincberg's credit he says a lot more a
lot faster than Conyers would have.]

9:14 Q&A: Scott Horton asks Mincberg about settlement but he
says he can't give details but that they have received new documents
and that the White House continues to claim privilege to withhold other
documents.

Go to 1:06:12 in the C-Span video,
and watch what I ask Mincberg and how he answers. The camera is on me
when I'm asking the question, and I wish it had been on him. Another
camera in the room may have been on him. You'll notice that partway
through my question I stop and ask him what he thinks is funny. What
had happened was that I had asked whether the House Judiciary Committee
would ever use the Capitol Police to enforce its subpoenas. The very
idea of thus defending the powers of the first branch of our government
made Mincberg giggle nervously. The notion that one might assert such
power completely apart from the decrees of the emperor always disturbs
congress members and their staffers.

9:20 I asked Mincberg why in the world his committee would delay
subpoenaing Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury until the OPR report and whether
they would use inherent contempt if subpoenas are violated, and why in
the world not impeach Bybee. He said he really does believe that the
OPR report will be out soon, although Holder recently said otherwise if
you use the word "soon" the way I do. Mincberg also said that every
subject of every OPR report is permitted to submit comments, even
though Senator Whitehouse has said this is unprecedented - allowing
Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury to submit edits. Mincberg thought that
inherent contempt was funny and claimed that they had done better going
through the courts, a claim that the public cannot judge except by
saying there have been no hearings and no public satisfaction, and it's
hard to imagine what secret outcome could have been BETTER than
compelling all the recalcitrant witnesses to appear and testify.
Mincberg said the House had just impeached Kent and probably would
impeach another judge soon, and so was very busy, apparently too busy
to impeach Bybee.

9:21 Mincberg says an interview with Rove has been scheduled but not
occurred. No straight answer as to whether Rove will be put under oath.
But every word will be transcribed and made public and under 18 US Code
Section 1001 Rove cannot legally lie. In other words, the BETTER
outcome than locking Rove up until he testified is this: he will
testify in secret and not under oath, and he has still, years later,
not yet done so.

9:28 End of Q&A. And speaking of abuses of justice, check this out: Proposal Offers Specifics On Preventive Detention.

9:30 We're running 30 mins behind schedule. Kreig introduces Hon.
U.W. Clemon, Shareholder, White, Arnold & Dowd, former Chief U.S.
District Judge, Alabama's Northern District (1981-2009). He says
Siegelman case in May of 2004 didn't just spring up, but like a phoenix
rising from the ashes it had an earlier existence. Two years earlier Dr
Phillip Bobo convicted of Medicaid fraud and narrowly defeated in
reelection. Siegelman was leading in polls for his reelection. 11th
Circuit Appeals reversed conviction of Bobo. But Bobo was reindicted
with Siegelman and an aide to him added as part of a conspiracy. And
prosecutors were already shopping for a Republican judge and had
requested a Judge Johnson to recuse herself. Then a Bush Sr.-appointed
judge recused himself. Then a Clinton-appointed judge Smith was lobbied
to recuse himself although Siegelman had no complaint and he saw no
reason to recuse himself - but he did so. Then a Bush Jr.-appointed
judge got the case and Bobo was doctor to this judge's children.
Siegelman objected. So then the case came to Judge U.W. Clemon. A
dishonest campaign in the media sought to disqualify Clemon. Clemon
denied double jeopardy claim by Bobo but granted motion to disqualify
Siegelman's lawyers. Justice Dept still sought to have Clemon removed
and sought to poison the jury pool through the media. Clemon found no
conspiracy. Government moved to dismiss and Clemon granted. Prosecutor
said she was untroubled because a new indictment of Siegelman would
come in a different district. DOJ was focused on the man, not the
crime. It was the most unfounded case Clemon ever saw. (Of course, that
new indictment did come.)

 1  |  2