Kentuky Attorney Lawyer

The recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to release pending appeal Don Siegelman has added fuel to the fire ignited by the CBS 60 minutes documentary featuring Siegelman’s case and imprisonment. Even though it has been six weeks since the documentary was broadcast, the coffee shop and Internet chatter continues. It seems to have stirred the souls of partisans on both sides.

The hardcore hardcore Democrats and Republicans have come out of the closet and gone to the wall on this topic. Both sides have legitimate arguments, but at the end of the day nothing changes about Don Siegelman’s dilemma. He still faces seven years in a federal prison. However, the appeals court ruling in the language gives hope to Siegelman. It will be a year before the final adjudication of the appeal is rendered.

After the program aired, Siegelman attorney’s called for the Justice Department to bring in a special prosecutor to retry the case. The motion was based on Siegelman’s former aide, Nick Bailey, coached him saying prosecutors and coaxed him out into writing his testimony 70 times in order to get it right. The defense was not privy to these notes as is required by law.

Those who know Nick Bailey suggest that his propensity for truthfulness and honesty are not something you should hang on a your. Siegelman this convicted in large part because of Bailey’s testimony. Bailey has now changed his story several times while in prison. In fact, the female attorney who was interviewed in the feature and stated that she was asked by Karl Rove to photograph a Siegelman compromising the position appeared to lack credibility. The Republican Party quickly debunked credentials and her veracity. However, the Republican former Attorney General of Arizona gave the story some legs. He appeared steady, dark, and credible when he said Siegelman’s prosecution and conviction had red flags all over it. When he stated that Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons it gave some gravitas to the story. That is not an earth shattering revelation. It was obvious that the Republican administration had targeted for Siegelman scrutiny. He was constantly under investigation for eight years. It is surprising that he was indicted not more than he was. The bar for indicting someone is a lot lower than legally for conviction. It is often said that if you could indict a potato a prosecutor wanted to badly enough.

Was it wrong to go after Siegelman legally for political reasons? The answer is yes, but unfortunately that is the political nature of the game today. The acrimony and mean is vitriol. It is not enough to defeat your opponent, today they want to destroy their opponent. It goes on in both parties. The Republicans have had the upper hand the last eight years having had control of the Justice Department. You can bet your boots that the Democrats are chomping at the bit to get back and get even if they take the White House next year. You will see wide ranging probes, indictments and convictions of Republican policies based solely on Alabama politics. I would not be surprised if you did not see a presidential pardon for Don Siegelman if a Democrat is elected President.

The Republicans have a valid point that the media appears to have a tendency to gravitate to a Democratic slant. The 60 Minutes broadcast was definitely slanted against Rove, the White House and the Republican Justice Department. However, the worst case of a smear campaign was illustrated by the New York Times in its sensational front page of John McCain ambush in February after he became the apparent Republican nominee.

The New York Times is renowned for being overly liberal and democratic, but their article was way beyond philosophical prejudice. Their involvement was that McCain having an improper affair with a female lobbyist was based on eight year old rumors that had no basis of fact. In fact, McCain’s office proved that they had not even gone too bat for the lady’s firm. All McCain had done was perfunctory write a letter asking the FCC to expedite a decision that should have been made six months earlier. This story was more than overzealous partisan journalism. It slammed yellow of journalism and makes them appear to be nothing more than a tabloid. It puts the New York Times and category in the league with the National Enquirer. You should take all political attacks with a grain of salt and a jaundiced eye.