| The New York Times 5/1/07 “It appears they were looking for ways to get him.” |
The government charged the pair with a crime that hasn't been a crime in Alabama, or anywhere.
Countless contributors to political campaigns end up holding some kind of public office just as Mr.
Scrushy did. Why did that activity suddenly become a crime in Alabama? The judge and prosecutors
saw beyond the law and convinced jurors the two committed a crime. The case smells of politics just
as the alleged political firing of the U.S. attorneys is troubling, so is this case because the suspicions
go to the heart of our system of self-governance. Congress should look beyond those firings and
into this case.
[The Decatur Daily, Editorial, 4/26/07] < link to full article>
Countless contributors to political campaigns end up holding some kind of public office just as Mr.
Scrushy did. Why did that activity suddenly become a crime in Alabama? The judge and prosecutors
saw beyond the law and convinced jurors the two committed a crime. The case smells of politics just
as the alleged political firing of the U.S. attorneys is troubling, so is this case because the suspicions
go to the heart of our system of self-governance. Congress should look beyond those firings and
into this case.
[The Decatur Daily, Editorial, 4/26/07] < link to full article>
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Mobile Register "Mouth Piece" Relationship
with Federal Prosecutors raises questions
.... the Mobile paper seems to have a rather amazing relationship with the federal
prosecutors handling the case – a relationship that certainly raises questions under
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, under which prosecutors are
obligated to maintain the secrecy of matters coming before a grand jury. The Mobile
Register seems to be the prosecutors’ mouthpiece of choice, in fact, and its
extensive knowledge of the prosecutors’ case and evidence was a sure sign that
something was wrong. Indeed, when prosecutors begin to conduct a case through
the media, that generally means that they are not pursuing a case with the interests
of justice in mind, but rather something else.
<more>
..........................................................................................................................................................Sessions,
FBI Used Taxpayer Dollars To Investigate Folsom, Worked
Closely With Reporter To Publicize False Information
Jeff Sessions, A Republican candidate For Attorney General, planned a
smear campaign against Folsom using the FBI’s resources, both to help
his own campaign and Fob James, a Republican running against Folsom.
“The meeting, admitted to by both Turner and Sessions, lasted three to
four hours. Sessions told Turner that the FBI in Mobile is interested in
investigating Folsom, particularly Folsom’s Cayman Island trip. Sessions
wants any information on Gov. Folsom which could help him in the
Attorney General’s race. It is Sessions’ political strategy to attack Evans
for not investigating Gov. Folsom, thus fostering the misconception that
Evans was trying to “cover up” for Gov. Folsom, the major theme of
Sessions’ Campaign.”
[Montgomery County Circuit Court, In Re: Grand Jury Investigation of Cayman Islands
Trip By James E. Folsom, Jr., Motion To Disqualify Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
7/29/96, Pg. 8]
<link to full document>
...............................................................................................................................................
with Federal Prosecutors raises questions
.... the Mobile paper seems to have a rather amazing relationship with the federal
prosecutors handling the case – a relationship that certainly raises questions under
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, under which prosecutors are
obligated to maintain the secrecy of matters coming before a grand jury. The Mobile
Register seems to be the prosecutors’ mouthpiece of choice, in fact, and its
extensive knowledge of the prosecutors’ case and evidence was a sure sign that
something was wrong. Indeed, when prosecutors begin to conduct a case through
the media, that generally means that they are not pursuing a case with the interests
of justice in mind, but rather something else.
<more>
..........................................................................................................................................................Sessions,
FBI Used Taxpayer Dollars To Investigate Folsom, Worked
Closely With Reporter To Publicize False Information
Jeff Sessions, A Republican candidate For Attorney General, planned a
smear campaign against Folsom using the FBI’s resources, both to help
his own campaign and Fob James, a Republican running against Folsom.
“The meeting, admitted to by both Turner and Sessions, lasted three to
four hours. Sessions told Turner that the FBI in Mobile is interested in
investigating Folsom, particularly Folsom’s Cayman Island trip. Sessions
wants any information on Gov. Folsom which could help him in the
Attorney General’s race. It is Sessions’ political strategy to attack Evans
for not investigating Gov. Folsom, thus fostering the misconception that
Evans was trying to “cover up” for Gov. Folsom, the major theme of
Sessions’ Campaign.”
[Montgomery County Circuit Court, In Re: Grand Jury Investigation of Cayman Islands
Trip By James E. Folsom, Jr., Motion To Disqualify Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
7/29/96, Pg. 8]
<link to full document>
...............................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................
| __________________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored by Friends of Don Siegelman 2007 <feedback>________________________________________________________________________________ __________ |
Propaganda or Press?
Why Daniel J. Metcalfe, former director of the
Office of Information and Privacy at the U.S.
Department of Justice, retired.
The day that I decided to retire, for example, was one on which I was
asked to participate in a matter in which a significant part of the
department's position was aiming to be -- there's no other word for it --
false. Briefly stated, someone in the White House had determined that it
would be a good idea for an op-ed piece on the subject of government
secrecy to be prepared, and although its subject matter extended
beyond the Justice Department's jurisdiction in multiple respects, it was
decided that the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs would take
on that task nevertheless. I was perfectly able to make several
corrections and substantive improvements to a last-minute draft that I
received but drew a line at even attempting to "improve" a Defense
Department-related paragraph within it that was incorrect by a full 180
degrees.
Knowing what the facts of that matter actually were, I flatly refused to aid
that part of the enterprise, pointedly observing that the Gonzales-era
political appointee who was behind the draft did, in fact, to my own
certain knowledge, know them as well. I suppose I can take some small
satisfaction that the false part of that "final draft" was then entirely
replaced with something that was at least arguably true, but that's hardly
the point. (That political appointee, by the way, did indeed receive his
promotion, but is no longer in Washington.)
<more at Law.com>
Office of Information and Privacy at the U.S.
Department of Justice, retired.
The day that I decided to retire, for example, was one on which I was
asked to participate in a matter in which a significant part of the
department's position was aiming to be -- there's no other word for it --
false. Briefly stated, someone in the White House had determined that it
would be a good idea for an op-ed piece on the subject of government
secrecy to be prepared, and although its subject matter extended
beyond the Justice Department's jurisdiction in multiple respects, it was
decided that the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs would take
on that task nevertheless. I was perfectly able to make several
corrections and substantive improvements to a last-minute draft that I
received but drew a line at even attempting to "improve" a Defense
Department-related paragraph within it that was incorrect by a full 180
degrees.
Knowing what the facts of that matter actually were, I flatly refused to aid
that part of the enterprise, pointedly observing that the Gonzales-era
political appointee who was behind the draft did, in fact, to my own
certain knowledge, know them as well. I suppose I can take some small
satisfaction that the false part of that "final draft" was then entirely
replaced with something that was at least arguably true, but that's hardly
the point. (That political appointee, by the way, did indeed receive his
promotion, but is no longer in Washington.)
<more at Law.com>
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |