Saturday, May 23, 2009

WTF Is The Difference Between Stevens and Siegelman?

And why, if the Obamanauts can rapidly dispense 'justice' to that vile, venal, vicious, old, criminal Ted Stevens, on the basis of prosecutorial malfeasance, and toss out the sentence of the former dean of "No!" on the GOP side of the Senatorial aisle, can the Obama/Holder DoJ NOT find the similar grace to reprieve Don Siegelman, the former Gorenor of Alabama, who was caught and convicted in a purely political sting operation mounted for the purpose of ousting him from office by Karl Rove and a bunch of his shit-drenched cohorts in the Alabama GOP?

Stevens was restored to "innocence" when judicial authorities discerned serious mal-practice in the Bush DoJ prosecutors' handling of the case, including withholding possibly exculpatory evidence from the defense. (I think the prosecutors torpedoed their own case at the instruction of the ShiteHouse to 'save the bacon' of an old, valued ally.) The Obama/Holder DoJ has now got the smoking gun for reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case too.

At Scott Horton's "No Comment" blog at the Harper's Magazine site, Horton (arguably one of the busiest bloggers in the bidness), takes up the story. Turns out the Judge before whom Siegelman was tried--some fucking, drooling, gap-toothed criminal cracker named Fuller--bore a serious, extra-judicial animus against Siegelman, which should have precluded his sitting in judgment. But this was and is Dumbfuckistan Alabama, where they can't even SPELL "recuse." And the prosecution was the handiwork of Karl Rove and minions, so Siegelman was--and remains--fucked over, first by the busheviki, and now by the sainted Mocha Messiah. Here's "the Nutz" of Horton's piece:
Fuller, who came to preside over the criminal charges against Siegelman following a series of unusual maneuvers by federal prosecutors highlighted in Clemon’s letter to Holder. The Siegelman case came into Fuller’s court just as a series of hard-hitting accusations of judicial misconduct were filed with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (“PIN”). PIN, whose leaders are now themselves the targets of a special prosecutor’s investigation, led the prosecution of the Siegelman case. In the last week, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, whose affidavit making charges against Fuller was first secured and published here, has spoken publicly about the matter for the first time and has provided considerable further detail to his accusations. Weeks stated:
I just wish I had known about Siegelman’s case before his trial so they [defendants and attorneys] could have been able to understand the kind of animus Fuller has to have for Siegelman. I guarantee that Fuller blames Siegelman for my affidavit. If you look at how Fuller treated Siegelman, he clearly hates him.

What’s remarkable is that Siegelman has never been given a real chance to show why it’s not appropriate for Fuller to be his judge. The material I produced was never available. I think it was put into a separate file to keep it hidden.
Following the court of appeals decision to strike two of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted, the federal prosecutor on the case has suggested that he will seek to increase Siegelman’s sentence from seven to twenty years. Siegelman’s attorneys cite this as further evidence of vindictive motive on the part of the prosecutors. The Obama Justice Department has not yet announced a replacement of the prosecutors involved, and the Bush Justice Department’s team remains in control of the case. Attorney General Holder’s office advised the Huffington Post that notwithstanding the long-standing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, now amplified by a large group of attorneys general and the state’s former senior federal judge, the Justice Department had no investigation of the accusations underway.
No investigation underway? I repeat: What the FUCK?! Obama and Holder take care of some venal, graft-besotted Puke, but leave an (a least nominal) ally dangling in the wind. Some folks would find Obama's acrtions disappointing, but I am not one. I am never going to be disappointed in him because, frankly I never held out any hope for "change," unless it wer that species of the change exemplified by swapping dirty socks for clean ones.

No comments: