Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman talked with OpEdNews this week before heading for this weekend's Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh. In our extensive, free-wheeling interview, he discussed being a target of the Bush DoJ, his case, the cast of characters, and how he's kept his spirits up during the ordeal.

::::::::

Under the George W. Bush administration, hundreds of Democrats were politically prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DoJ). Careers, reputations and finances were ruined in the process, families devastated. Many of the targeted politicians ended up in prison. Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is one of the most visible targets of the partisan DoJ. A hugely popular Democrat in a Republican state, Siegelman was the only person in Alabama history to be elected to the four top state posts. Political prosecutions were designed to achieve permanent Republican domination by undermining Democratic infrastructure across the country, particularly in swing states.

~

Gov. Siegelman was convicted on corruption charges, and taken straight from sentencing to prison in handcuffs and shackles, treatment reserved for dangerous and violent criminals. His harsh sentence left dozens of former states attorneys of both parties calling on the DoJ to reexamine his case. Gov. Siegelman is currently out on appeal. Welcome to OEN, Governor. Please tell our readers how what happened to you has any bearing on their lives and on the state of our democracy.

~

What has happened to me is un-American. If the power of our government can be abused and used as a political weapon against me, a former Governor, the same thing can happen to you or anyone. Sadly, our American democracy has been threatened, our constitutional rights and individual liberties eroded.

~

We have sat back and allowed our Department of Justice to be used as a political tool by Karl Rove; we have watched as we were led into war under false pretenses, as torture was utilized as a means of interrogation; we have allowed illegal wiretaps and seen elections in this country stolen.

~

We cannot allow these threats to the core values of our democracy to be swept under the White House rug. I firmly believe that holding those public officials accountable who abused their power is critical to the stability and restoration of democracy, our constitution and our freedom.

~

Tamara Grimes, a whistleblower that worked for the prosecution in your case, recently confirmed your claims that the key witness [Nick Bailey] was coached, threatened and coerced into giving testimony against you. Further, once he served his time, Bailey has recanted his testimony. Shouldn't that be enough right there to guarantee a new trial or to throw out your conviction?

~

It should at least be enough to raise an eyebrow at the Department of Justice. One would think that when an employee of the United States Department of Justice comes forward with information demonstrating wrongdoing on the part of U.S. prosecutors, that someone would be concerned enough to put someone under oath and at least ask about the allegations. So far, nothing.

~

That's very disappointing. Where does the latest decision by the 11th Circuit Appeals Court fit in here?

~

The 11th Circuit passed over our arguments [as set out below by journalist/blogger Roger Schuler]. We thought that the Court would have dismissed the entire case or at least have sent it back for a new trial. My lawyers and I were shocked! So now we have filed another motion for a new trial with the trial judge, the one who had me handcuffed, shackled and put into solitary confinement at a maximum-security prison.

~

We are preparing to file an appeal to the U S Supreme Court as well, based largely on the following legal issues:

54 former Attorneys General both Democrats and Republicans said the 11th Circuit's ruling in the Siegelman case means "... a prosecutor has the power to indict and convict any politician and any donor whenever a donation was made and the politician took action consistent with the donor's desire, while aware of said desire." Keep in mind the prosecutors never claimed that Don Siegelman put a penny in his pocket.

~

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in McCormick vs. U.S. (1991) that it takes an actual explicit quid pro quo agreement before the line between politics and crime is crossed. In the Siegelman case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that juries may infer such an agreement, from the minds and actions of the elected official and the contributor...the opposite of explicit.

~

The 54 former State Attorneys General in their brief told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Such an interpretation puts at risk every politician who accepts a campaign contribution." "...criminalizing activities that fall short of an explicit quid pro quo agreement, can only lead to an impermissible chilling effect on the First Amendment right to contribute to political campaigns."It is important to every elected official and their contributors that this First Amendment issue be clarified.

~

Issues missed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

~

* Statute of limitations--It's undisputed that the alleged actions that made up the government's bribery charge against Siegelman and Scrushy [Richard Scrushy, Siegelman's co-defendant, founder/CEO of HealthSouth] took place outside the five-year statute of limitations. So how did the government get away with bringing this case, much less winning it? It drafted an indictment that was vague, and when Siegelman/Scrushy moved for a bill of particulars that would have required a few specifics, the judge denied it. Defense attorneys raised the limitations defense in a proper manner for a case involving a vague indictment. But the trial court, and the 11th Circuit, wrongfully ruled that they had waived the defense.

~

*The fundamentals of bribery laws--It's undisputed that the controlling law in the Siegelman case was McCormick v. United States, 111 S. Ct. 1807 (1991). The 11th Circuit admits this and even correctly states that McCormick finds that an "explicit agreement" must be present to obtain a bribery conviction. But the 11th Circuit then turns around and claims the Siegelman team cites the need for an "express agreement." The Siegelman team, however, does not make this argument. Essentially, the 11th Circuit puts words in the mouth of the Siegelman team. And that's how the appellate ruling gets it wrong on the basics of bribery law.

~

*Jury instructions--This could not be clearer. McCormick requires an "explicit agreement." The trial court's jury instruction did not require an "explicit agreement," and thus was unlawful. But the 11th Circuit let it stand. The trial court's instruction focused on a "specific action." But McCormick makes it clear that bribery is not about any action that the parties might take; it is about an agreement, one that is explicit. The trial court did not follow the law, and the 11th Circuit let the bad jury instruction stand, meaning Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted for a crime that doesn't exist.

~

*Hearsay--Key testimony came when one former HealthSouth official said that another (a non-witness) had bragged to him about helping the company secure a spot on a hospital-regulatory board. Normally, this would be inadmissible hearsay. But the judge allowed it under the "coconspirator exception" to hearsay. For the exception to apply, a conspiracy must involve both the declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is offered. That would be Don Siegelman. But there never was any evidence that Siegelman was involved in a conspiracy involving HealthSouth officials. The coconspirator exception was not applicable. The trial judge allowed it anyway, and the 11th Circuit let it stand.

~

*Insufficient evidence--At most, evidence showed that Siegelman thought Scrushy expected a spot on a hospital-regulatory board in exchange for his campaign contribution. But the law is clear that evidence of an expectation on the part of one party or another is not enough to support a bribery conviction. There must be evidence of an "explicit agreement" between the two parties. That kind of evidence was not present. But the 11th Circuit let the unlawful convictions stand.

~

Thank you for laying it out for us. That's quite a list. Let's pause here, Governor. When we come back, we'll discuss the cast of characters involved and how the prosecutorial misconduct exceeds that in the case of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Please join us.

~~~

John McTiernan's documentary The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author79.html

Authors Bio:

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of transparency and the ability to accurately check and authenticate the vote cast, these systems can alter election results and therefore are simply antithetical to democratic principles and functioning.



Since the pivotal 2004 Presidential election, Joan has come to see the connection between a broken election system, a dysfunctional, corporate media and a total lack of campaign finance reform. This has led her to enlarge the parameters of her writing to include interviews with whistle-blowers and articulate others who give a view quite different from that presented by the mainstream media. She also turns the spotlight on activists and ordinary folks who are striving to make a difference, to clean up and improve their corner of the world. By focusing on these intrepid individuals, she gives hope and inspiration to those who might otherwise be turned off and alienated. She also interviews people in the arts in all their variations - authors, journalists, filmmakers, actors, playwrights, and artists. Why? The bottom line: without art and inspiration, we lose one of the best parts of ourselves. And we're all in this together. If Joan can keep even one of her fellow citizens going another day, she considers her job well done.


When Joan hit one million page views, OEN Managing Editor, Meryl Ann Butler interviewed her, turning interviewer briefly into interviewee. Read the interview here.

While the news is often quite depressing, Joan nevertheless strives to maintain her mantra: "Grab life now in an exuberant embrace!"


Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at Huffington Post, RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.