Rove Lawyer: Likely Early June For US Attorneys Testimony
By 
<http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/zroth>Zachary 
Roth - May 7, 2009, 9:08AM

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/rove_lawyer_likely_early_june_for_us_attorneys_tes.php

Karl Rove's long-awaited testimony before 
Congress about the US Attorney firings will 
likely occur around early June, according to 
Rove's lawyer.

Robert Luskin told TPMmuckraker that the Obama 
White House has been painstakingly sorting 
through the documents related to the firings, and 
is providing them to Rove and to the House 
Judiciary committee simultaneously. It's that 
process, said Luskin, that's driving the 
scheduling of Rove's testimony. Luskin stressed 
that the discussions have been cordial on all 
sides.

After the announcement in early March of the 
agreement securing Rove's testimony -- which will 
also cover the Don Siegelman case -- Luskin had 
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/rove_lawyer_testimony_wont_happen_for_several_week.php>suggested
 
that we'd be hearing from Rove in "several 
weeks," though he declined to be more specific. 
But clearly, the process is taking longer than 
anticipated.
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/rove_lawyer_likely_early_june_for_us_attorneys_tes.php>
Mark Fuller and the Siegelman Case
by Scott Horton

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000675

By Scott Horton

Over the last two months I have examined many 
different aspects of the Justice Department's 
prosecution of former Governor Don E. Siegelman. 
The controversy around Karl Rove and the Justice 
Department is often cast as a scandal concerning 
the U.S. attorneys and the prosecutorial 
function. But the scandal actually has more to do 
with the administration of justice-and thus with 
the role of the judiciary.

As I noted, four federal judges have played a 
role in the Siegelman case-two of them served as 
prosecutors, building and bringing the case, and 
two in hearing the charges. Of the latter group, 
the one who claims title to being "Siegelman's 
judge" is Mark Everett Fuller. Fuller presided 
over Governor Siegelman's trial and sentenced him 
to prison.

In a series of posts starting today and 
continuing over the next couple of weeks, I am 
going to examine Fuller's role in the Siegelman 
case: who is he? How did he come to be a federal 
judge? How did he conduct the trial? The 
Siegelman case, I believe, offers us great 
insight into the broader issue of the 
politicization of the criminal justice process, 
an issue that is front and center in the American 
political dialogue today.

First, Some Background
In 2002, Don Siegelman lost the governorship of 
Alabama to Bob Riley by 3,000 votes, raising 
suspicions of electronic vote tampering. 
According to an affidavit1

1. The affadavit was prepared to serve a 
limited-purpose challenge to the role of Terry 
Butts, who appeared as a lawyer in the 
Scrushy/Siegelman case, had previously worked for 
Governor Riley.

by lifelong Republican Dana Jill Simpson, on 
November 18, 2002, soon after Siegelman's defeat, 
a conference call was held among Bob Riley's 
senior aides, and during the call William Canary, 
a prominent Alabama Republican, said "not to 
worry about Don Siegelman" because "his girls"- 
meaning two U.S. attorneys, Alice Martin and 
Canary's wife Leura, both of whom subsequently 
indicted Siegelman-would "take care" of the 
governor; furthermore, Karl Rove was described as 
"pursuing" Siegelman with help from U.S. 
attorneys in Alabama. (Time has a thorough 
article on the issue, with a response from 
Canary.)

In November 2003, one year after Siegelman's 
defeat, the Mobile Press-Register published a 
poll showing that in the event of a rematch 
between Riley and Siegelman, Siegelman would 
prevail.2

2. Bill Barrow, "Riley's Ratings are Low: 
Governor Would Trail Moore, Siegelman in 2006 
Race," Mobile Press-Register, Nov. 16, 2003, p. 6.

I spoke with sources within the Alabama GOP who 
told me that this poll set off alarm bells and 
was cause for a number of meetings and 
discussions about how to deal with the "Siegelman 
problem." Before long, I believe, a solution to 
that problem manifested itself in the form of an 
indictment.

The Tuscaloosa Case

In May 2004, Alice Martin brought the case on 
claims that Governor Siegelman, with two other 
men, had been involved in an effort to rig bids 
on a state project in Tuscaloosa. After a series 
of recusals, the case came before the Chief Judge 
of the Northern District, U.W. Clemon, in 
Birmingham. As reported in the Montgomery 
Advertiser, Martin was opposed to Clemon handling 
the case and attempted to force his recusal. 
Clemon, however, rejected the Justice 
Department's request that he step aside. He also 
refused to allow the defense to portray the 
proceedings as a "political conspiracy," but also 
expressed skepticism that the government had 
enough evidence to make out a case of conspiracy, 
which was the principal count. In my analysis of 
the case, I found that Clemon asked penetrating 
questions of the prosecutors, and when their 
answers reinforced his suspicions, he demanded 
that they present a prime facie showing of their 
case before allowing the matter to proceed. When 
they were unable to do this, Judge Clemon 
dismissed the conspiracy case with prejudice, and 
with that, the first effort to prosecute 
Siegelman imploded in October 2004.

Enter Mark Fuller

But there was more to come. In October 2005, 
federal prosecutors indicted Siegelman on new 
corruption charges in Montgomery, Alabama, a 
different judicial district distinct from the 
Northern Alabama district in which Clemon had 
previously dismissed similar charges without 
prejudice. In theory, federal judges are assigned 
to cases at random. But according to a 
well-placed Alabama GOP source who wishes to 
remain anonymous, some senior figures in the 
Alabama GOP appear to have known from the start 
that this case was going to be handled by a man 
they counted a friend, namely, George W. Bush- 
appointee Mark Fuller. Regardless of whether the 
GOP had the power to influence case assignments, 
Mark Everett Fuller was in fact assigned as judge 
who presided over the grand jury proceedings in 
this second effort to prosecute Siegelman.

Fuller was born in 1958 into a well-to-do family 
with an entrenched position in Alabama Republican 
politics. I spoke with some of his former college 
classmates, none of who wanted to be named. They 
described him as a decent student-though never an 
intellectual standout. Fuller was a member of the 
Tuscaloosa chapter of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. 
He is repeatedly described as being right at the 
center of the University of Alabama's fraternity 
culture, and all who recall him remember that he 
was very deeply involved in Alabama Republican 
politics.

Fuller was nominated by President Bush and 
confirmed to the federal bench in November 2002. 
His nomination proved completely uneventful, and 
he was whisked through the review process. While 
Washington, D.C.-based organizations like People 
for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice 
were prepared for battle over Bush judicial 
nominations, Fuller himself was not a target.

Prior to his appointment in 2002, Fuller had no 
meaningful judicial experience, but he had served 
for five years as a prosecutor as District 
Attorney for Alabama's 12th Judicial Circuit. So 
while his qualifications were fairly thin-he had 
neither judicial nor federal prosecutorial 
experience, which are usually considered 
desirable for candidates for a federal 
judgeship-his experience met the minimal 
threshold for a federal judgeship. Significantly, 
he had solid backing from the Alabama 
Congressional delegation-from its two Republican 
senators, and from Alabama's powerful Second 
District Congressman, Terry Everett, Fuller's 
mentor.
NextÅ  the Fuller-Everett 
Relationship.<http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000675><link 
to source>

.......................................................................................................................................

More about Judge  Mark Fuller
<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry><<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>link
 
to 
1<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>4<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>
 
blogs 
<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>on 
Fuller<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry> 
at 
Harper's<http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>><http://www.harpers.org/subjects/MarkFuller/SubjectOf/BlogEntry>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected] OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to