They stated that Siegelman’s case was pursued and developed by career prosecutors, that it was based on the law, and justified by fair evidence.
Each of the statements is about as honest as Attorney General Gonzales’s statement, under oath, before Congress, that he just couldn’t remember any details concerning any decisions to fire eight U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006. Which is to say, they are false.
First, we know that the first two career prosecutors assigned to the case, including the most experience prosecutors who worked on it, came to the same conclusion that Grant Woods did: no reasonable prosecutor would ever have charged this case......It’s extremely noteworthy that throughout the history of this case, whenever a career prosecutor concluded that charges should not be brought, that career prosecutor ran into a bump in his career and was off the case.....
Second, they claim that the case was brought on a fair reading of the law. It was not, and indeed reasonable career prosecutors never would have acted on the basis of the reading they advanced, and a fair detached judge never would have allowed the case to go forward. This case offered neither.
Third, they claim that evidence was produced to sustain the charges. But the key evidence that the prosecutors brought forward was false, and they knew it was false.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Go Read Horton --- Republican Justice
Just go read Scott Horton as he is recapping the CBS investigation of the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Siegelman, a successful Democrat. Right now the best available evidence indicates that it was a complete frame-job with a combination of false evidence, hiding favorable evidence from the defense, and a comprehensive plot directed by Rove et al to weaken a popular Democrat in the deep South. Here are the highlights but you should read the entire piece: