My item re: Bush, Perry and Don Siegelman was, I regret, a bit misleading, as it implied that Siegelman did do what the Texans did--when, in fact, he didn't, since he took no money at all, whereas they both did. Indeed, the prosecutors in the kangaroo court trying him could not actually support the claim that he'd been bribed, there having been no bribe.
Thom Hartmann explains below (and I thank him for it). MCM Mark, Siegelman took NO money. It was donated to a fund to advocate for a statewide lottery to fund education (an idea that Jack Abramoff opposed). Thom On May 14, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Mark Crispin Miller wrote: >Two more reasons to demand some change from Pres. Obama, and >some justice from his DoJ: > >First, as Roger Shuler tells us, Texas Governor George W. Bush >routinely did the same thing for which Alabama Governor Don >Siegelman went to prison--and for which Holder's prosecutors want >him to spend two more decades in the pen. That is, Bush took large >donations from >supporters whom he then appointed to state boards and commissions. > >And then there is the not-surprising news, reported by the Houston >Chronicle, that Texas Governor Rick Perry also did what Bush did >(and Perry raised $5 million from his appointees-to-be, while >Siegelman received a mere half-million from Richard Scrushy). > >So here's what Holder's DoJ should do: Bring indictments against >Bush and Perry (and all other >governors who've done the same)--or vacate the whole stinking case >against Don Siegelman. > >MCM > >Bush Did the Same Thing That Landed Don Siegelman in Prison > ><http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/bush-did-same-thing-that-l>http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/bush-did-same-thing-that-landed-don.html > >Recent Texas governors, including George W. Bush, took major >donations from people and then appointed them to state boards and >commissions. > >That comes from an article in the Houston Chronicle, spotlighting a >common political practice that landed former Alabama Governor Don >Siegelman in federal prison--under the Bush Department of Justice. > >Neither Bush, nor other Texas governors, was investigated or >prosecuted for their appointments. > >The Houston Chronicle reports that Texas Governor Rick Perry (a >Republican) has received almost $5 million in donations from people >he appointed to state boards and commissions. And the newspaper >reports that other Texas governors, including one who goes by >"Dubya," have followed the same practice. > >Siegelman, you will recall, accepted a $500,000 donation for an >education-lottery campaign from Birmingham businessman Richard >Scrushy and then appointed Scrushy to a health-care oversight >board--one he had served on under three previous governors. > >That transaction led to their prosecution and conviction on federal >corruption charges. Scrushy is serving a federal-prison sentence as >we write this, and Siegelman might be headed back to prison after >the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of his conviction. > >So why isn't Rick Perry on his way to the federal pen? There are >several reasons: (1) He's a Republican, and only Democrats have been >targeted for such "crimes" in the era of Bush. (Why do you think >they call them political prosecution?); (2) Such transactions, while >they might appear unseemly, have never been considered crimes under >federal law. They only became crimes when Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," >initiated a jihad against Democrats over the past eight years. > >Want to talk about hypocrisy? Get this line from the Chronicle story: > >Appointees represent a significant lever or power to any Texas >governor, an office with comparably limited powers. Perry's >predecessors, Ann Richards and George W. Bush, also accepted >donations from appointees. > >In other words, Karl Rove's boss practiced exactly the same behavior >that has turned Don Siegelman into a federal "criminal." > >What a country. > >As for Siegelman, he isn't just sitting around saying, "WTF." He is >making every effort to help Americans understand the hypocritical >and bogus nature of his (and other) political prosecutions. > >Reports Sam Stein of Huffington Post: > >A lobbying effort to persuade the Justice Department to intervene in >the politically tainted case against Don Siegelman has intensified >in recent days, as a deadline for appealing the charges against the >former Alabama Governor nears. > >After being released on appeal bond last spring, Siegelman was >convicted in March by a Court of Appeals on charges of bribery, >conspiracy and obstruction for appointing a prominent donor to a >state post. Now he is pushing for a rehearing of his case--which >critics say was orchestrated by state and national Republican >officials--with the hope of replacing the three-judge panel with a >larger eight-judge panel that comprises the entire 11th Circuit. He >should hear a decision on his appeal any day. > >"If we get a rehearing then we have a few months to pursue options >with the Department of Justice," Siegelman told the Huffington Post >in an interview. "If we don't, then I'm going to be re-sentenced to >prison by the same judge and prosecutors which I say, >parenthetically with an exclamation point, is probably the most >bizarre twist yet. I'd be still fighting the same right-wing [Karl] >Rove-anointed and Bush-appointed prosecutors even with [Barack] >Obama and [Eric] Holder in charge." > >Federal intervention appears to be unlikely, Stein reports: > >The DOJ says there is virtually nothing it can do when it comes to >Siegelman's appeal. "Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full >11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the >three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this >matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura >Sweeney. "The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the >court's, not DOJ's." > >Siegelman recently received support from Professor Bennett L. >Gershman, author of the book, Prosecutorial Misconduct: > >"I have never encountered another prosecution in which it appears so >clearly that the prosecutors were zealously bent on pursuing an >individual, rather than on a crime," reads the note, obtained by the >Huffington Post. "As an example of bad faith prosecution, the >Siegelman case may be without parallel.... There is no better >example of the corrosive effect on the reputation of the Department >of Justice... than the prosecution of Don Siegelman." >Meanwhile, TPM Muckraker recently reported that Rove is expected to >testify before Congress in early June. > >Here's a question someone might want to ask Rove right up front: As >governor of Texas, George W. Bush routinely appointed his donors to >boards and commissions. Why did that same behavior, when practiced >by Alabama Democrat Don Siegelman, suddenly become criminal under >Mr. Bush's Justice Department? Please explain. > >Records show appointees gave Perry $5 million >But governor's office says donations are not considered in job assignments >By MATT STILES > ><http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6406108.html>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6406108.html > >AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry has accepted nearly $5 million in political >campaign donations from people he appointed to state boards and >commissions, including some in plum jobs that set policy for state >universities, parks and roads, records show. > >Nearly half the appointee donations came from people serving as >higher education regents, including more than $840,000 from those at >the University of Texas System, according to a Houston Chronicle >review of campaign-finance records. > >Political patronage is nothing new for Texas governors in both >political parties. The contributions are a legal and common >practice, though it has been fodder for critics over the years. > >"The reason people should care is that it would be nice to think >that government functioned as a meritocracy," said Andrew Wheat of >the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, which has tracked >appointee donations in the past. > >Perry's office didn't dispute the Chronicle's analysis, but rejected >any notion that the governor considers donations in choosing his >appointments. His spokesman, Mark Miner, noted that many people >serving the state for the governor aren't donors. > >Indeed, only about one in 10 of the 2,400 people currently serving >Perry have written campaign checks, according to the review, which >matched names and other records in computerized data to flag donors. > >The appointees have given about $4.9 million since Perry became >governor in late 2000, with the average donation topping $7,000. The >total is only a fraction of the more than $60 million the governor >has raised since he took office. > >In some cases, Perry's appointees gave money in the weeks before or >after being selected. A commissioner on the Prepaid Higher Education >Tuition Board, for example, gave $33,000 two weeks after his >appointment. >Rick Francis, an El Paso banker who has donated more than $180,000 >to Perry, including a $25,000 donation six days before his >appointment to the Texas Tech University Board of Regents, said he >was proud to support the governor financially. > >"I believe in Rick Perry's leadership and vision for Texas and, as a >result, have contributed money to the 'Century Council' every year >for many years,' he said in a written statement, referring to a >designation the campaign gives its top donors. > >Miner said appointees, whether they give donations or not, are >subject to applications, general background checks and legislative >confirmations. As to those who do give campaign money, Miner said >the governor sometimes chooses community civic and business leaders >and people who are politically engaged. > >Peggy Venable, Texas director for Americans for Prosperity who >vetted federal appointees during the administration of President >Ronald Reagan, said their financial support can be an indicator of >whether they will implement policies that jibe with an elected >official's vision. "You look for people who you know will uphold the >policies and ideals that you worked so hard on." > >Jeff Sandefer, founder of an Austin-based energy investment firm >appointed to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, said his >$270,000 in donations over the years weren't a factor. "The main >reason I support the governor is that he defends our basic freedoms >and continues to keep taxes low, both of which I believe will make >Texas a better place for my children." > >Many not scrutinized > >Unlike regents and other plum appointments, such as the Parks and >Wildlife Commission, many of Perry's appointees serve in >lower-profile positions that typically don't require detailed >scrutiny from the Texas Senate, which considers nominees every two >years. > >Last week, for example, newly appointed regents from Texas A&M >University System were asked to testify before the nominations >committee. But those selected to serve on the Credit Union >Commission, Family and Protective Services Council and Texas Public >Finance Authority were not called. > >Generally, the rank-and-file appointees, if they give at all, do so >in smaller amounts, records show. >Appointees represent a significant lever or power to any Texas >governor, an office with comparably limited powers. Perry's >predecessors, Ann Richards and George W. Bush, also accepted >donations from appointees. > >"This is one of the big perks that come with the office of the >governor," Wheat said. "You get to dole out this stuff to reward >your donors." > ><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] > > >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
