Judiciary Committee Releases Report On Politically Motivated Prosecutions

[Artist's conception of the Salem Witch Trials. Image credit: Knowledge News]

Lotus has written today about the release of the House Judiciary Committee's report on selective prosecutions by the Justice Department under President Bush. Here are a couple of choice quotes from that report's summary, with emphasis added:

There is extensive evidence that the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman was directed or promoted by Washington officials, likely including former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Advisor to the President Karl Rove, and that political considerations influenced the decision to bring charges. Several witnesses have corroborated testimony before two Judiciary Subcommittees that the investigation against Governor Siegelman was “coming to a close” without charges until Washington officials directed local prosecutors to go back over the matter from top to bottom, and that decisions regarding the Siegelman case were being made at the very highest levels of the Administration. That testimony in turn corroborates the sworn statements of a Republican attorney that the son of the Republican Governor of Alabama told her that Karl Rove had pressed the Department to bring charges. The issue of the involvement of Mr. Rove or others at the White House in the Siegelman case remains an important open question.

There is also significant evidence of selective prosecution in the Siegelman case. Department investigators pursued leads relating to Governor Siegelman but appear to have ignored similar leads involving similar conduct by Republican politicians.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our Federal Criminal Justice System

The U.S. Attorneys in Alabama appear to have been pikers compared to their counterparts in Western Pennsylvania:

The prosecution of Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht by politically-connected U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan continues to raise concern about selective prosecution. Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh powerfully described for two Judiciary Subcommittees his view that both the charges and the conduct of the prosecution reveal it, like other Pennsylvania cases he described, to be an “apparent political prosecution” and one that was “undertaken for political reasons as opposed to being done to serve the interests of justice.” After a two-month trial, a Pennsylvania jury recently failed to convict Dr. Wecht on any charges and, after the judge declared a mistrial, juror interviews revealed that “the majority of the jury thought he was innocent.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also stated its concerns about the matter, editorializing that the case “added up to a big zero” and that it would be a “travesty” for the prosecution to continue, concerns echoed by a group of local Republicans and Democrats who recently wrote the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney Buchanan urging that plans to retry Dr. Wecht be reconsidered. The jury foreman observed that “as the case went on, my thoughts were that this was being politically driven.” And news that FBI agents were contacting members of the Wecht jury only further raised alarm.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our Federal Criminal Justice System

Those of you who followed the Scooter Libby trial should recognize a significant problem with the emphasized phrases above. In the Libby case, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, even though he was opposed by some of the most able attorneys money could buy, managed to gain convictions on some subtle charges in a complicated case. In the Wecht case, the government is attempting to retry even though it's pretty clear they weren't going to get a conviction the first time. Paul Kiel explains:

The government's case relied on charges that Wecht had used resources from his coroner office for his private practice. Most of the counts of wire fraud against Wecht related to his use of county fax machines ($3.96 worth, his lawyers say) for his personal business. He was also charged with improperly billing the county for gasoline and mileage costs -- for a total of $1,778.55, his lawyers say.

Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury

Two grand or so worth of fraud triggers a two-year federal case, and now they want to go to the expense of another trial. What could motivate the U.S. Attorney to pursue such a case? Former U.S. Attorney General and Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburg, suggested that this was a case that should have been handled by an ethics panel. I certainly agree with that assessment, as do at least a couple of prominent Pennsylvania Republicans.

Moving on to Mississippi, the report continues:

Charges against a group of judges and a practicing attorney in Mississippi arising out of what appear to be relatively common campaign fundraising practices raise similar issues of selective prosecution. A Republican-connected attorney who appears to have engaged in similar conduct was not indicted by this U.S. Attorney, further raising concerns about the possibility of selective prosecution.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our Federal Criminal Justice System

This case looks a bit more circumstantial, and the accusations hinge partly on the fact that Dickie Scruggs, a prominent Mississippi attorney and brother in law of Senator Trent Lott, the former Republican majority leader, was not prosecuted for similar behavior. Unfortunately, given the preceding cases and the general level of apparent political influence in this Department of Justice, it certainly is worth further investigation.

Whether more investigation will be possible remains to be seen. The Justice Department has refused to release any more data than were available publicly already.

There is one ray of sunshine, though. The Judiciary Committee has announced that it will be issuing a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify about his involvement in Gov. Siegelman's prosecution.

UPDATE (Apr. 18): I've noticed in the comments on Lotus's article on this subject that there's a tendency to punch a strawman, which is that the report alleges that the people prosecuted weren't guilty of something. In the case of Cyril Wecht, I think he was clearly guilty of some questionable judgement, and may have committed the sort of fraud that would normally result in restitution or some similar punishment. Siegelman's case I'm less familiar with, but the apparent intervention of Karl Rove in a case that the local U.S. Attorney was seemingly willing to drop is the issue there. In the case of Judge Diaz, the government brought two weak cases against a sitting judge:

In addition, Justice Diaz never heard any cases involving Mr. Minor’s clients nor did he vote on any cases involving Mr. Minor. On those facts, the decision to indict Justice Diaz appears questionable at best, as confirmed by his acquittal. In fact, upon Justice Diaz’ acquittal of the corruption charges, Dunn Lampton was quoted as saying: “I knew we would have a problem on [prosecuting] Diaz because he didn’t vote on anything.”166 Regardless, U.S. Attorney Lampton appears to remain undeterred in his pursuit of a federal conviction of Justice Diaz. Three days after the acquittal, Mr. Lampton announced a second federal indictment of Justice Diaz, this time claiming that the campaign loans amounted to personal income that Justice Diaz had not properly reported. Justice Diaz was acquitted of that charge as well, after the jury deliberated on fifteen minutes. And in current comments, Mr. Lampton has hinted at yet more to come: “There are
other things I am aware of regarding Justice Diaz that caused me to refrain from commenting further on [the weakness of the prior cases], but it will come out later, and you’ll see. . . . I believe there was sufficient evidence to convict him, but maybe not for what he was charged.”

Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our Federal Criminal Justice System

Two weak cases are followed by an inappropriate statement about future prosecutions.

On the subject of Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht, the report makes this point:

It has been contended that Dr. Wecht’s case is indicative of other prosecutions in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Since beginning her tenure as U.S. Attorney in the Western District in 2001, [Mary Beth] Buchanan has apparently never brought corruption charges against a Republican official, and has only prosecuted officeholders who are Democrats. In addition to Dr. Wecht, Ms. Buchanan conducted highly visible grand jury investigations during the run-up to the 2006 elections of Tom Murphy, former Democratic Mayor of Pittsburgh, and Peter DeFazio, the former Democratic Sheriff of Allegheny County. During the same period, Ms. Buchanan did not bring a single charge against any Republican, including declining to prosecute former Republican Senator Rick Santorum for allegedly defrauding a local community by claiming residency when he and his family resided in Virginia.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution in Our Federal Criminal Justice System

Ms. Buchanan spent a lot of money to prosecute a weak case for a penny-ante "crime" against a Democratic politician, but refused to prosecute a U.S. Senator for apparently lying about his residence. It's possible there's a good explanation for the latter decision, but I can't think of one for the former.

You have to wonder what was on the minds of these USA's if it wasn't politics.

Dickie Scruggs Pleads Guilty

Image credit: The Oxford [Mississippi] Heritage Society

Since I was obsessing about FISA reform and other issues yesterday, I completely missed this item:

As has been posted, this morning in open court, Richard Scruggs and Sid Backstrom pled guilty to conspiracy to bribe a state court judge. This was a remarkable and sad event... Here’s at summary level what occurred:

* Richard Scruggs is pleading to conspiracy to bribe a state court judge, count 1 of the indictment, with other counts to be dismissed. This was an open plea, that is, no recommended sentence.
* The government expects that he will get the full five year sentence on that count.
* Scruggs is still in jeopardy from the investigation into whether the judge was bribed in Wilson v. Scruggs. Prosecutor Tom Dawson said: “I want to make it painfully clear as to the investigation with respect to the Wilson case: This has no effect on a subsequent investigation as to that case.” Reading between the lines, I would take it to mean that the Scruggs plea only resolves his exposure on the Lackey bribe issue. That is remarkable.

From the courtroom with the Scruggs guilty pleas

[links are mine]

That's the report yesterday from nmisscommenter, A.K.A. NMC, who was at the court yesterday. Wilson Vs. Scruggs was another case that Scruggs is alleged to have tried to bribe a judge for a favorable settlement in a dispute over legal fees. If only there were a pattern to these crimes ...

In any event, Lotus and NMC are all over this. Check out Folo for all the latest developments. The server went down yesterday, so things may be a bit of a mess for a while, but check back later if it is.

Finally ...

It appears that my ISP finally found the right button to push, and my DSL is now working at full speed.

Meanwhile, Lotus has some new twists in the Dickie Scruggs saga. It appears the government has everyone on tape conspiring. Or so they say.

Meanwhile, if you haven't heard, the dreadful version of the FISA update bill that was before the Senate has been shelved, at least for now. This is largely due to the efforts of Chris Dodd, who deserves thanks and then some. His website is over here if you want to contribute to his campaign, or just say thank you for being one of the few Senators willing to live up to his oath of office.

UPDATE: Lotus has more about the evidence in the Scruggs case. To quote her: I don’t envy the lawyers who’ve taken on the defense of the Scruggs accuseds.

UPDATE: (Dec. 19): Added the words in italics to explain what the bill was before.

While The ISP Works ...

My ISP is still working on the DSL issue. It still doesn't work very well. Meanwhile, for other reasons, I'll be posting on a spotty schedule for the next week and a half.

UPDATE: Lotus may have solved a mystery in the Dickie Scruggs saga. It's beginning to look like pride could have been a motive for Scruggs. The opposing lawyer seems to have gone out of his way to embarrass Scruggs:

That quote comes from [plaintiff John] Jones on what he says is the shabby way Dickie Scruggs treats business associates. I don’t yet understand why a court way down the road from Oxford in far-out-in-the-sticks Calhoun City (at least I think that’s where it is — various town and county names have flown by in different accounts) ended up with the case. Jones certainly did all that he could to make sure it be heard in Oxford:

In March 2007, Jones sued Scruggs and the other SKG partners. He specifically chose to bring the case in Oxford, where Scruggs lives and works, rather than in Jackson, where Jones does, in order to shame Scruggs, he says. (Oxford is about 160 miles north of Jackson.)

“I wanted a jury to hear it in Dickie’s backyard,” Jones says. “I wanted to ‘out’ this a little bit. I’d known he’d done this repeatedly to other lawyers, he and [Don] Barrett. They got them to do the work, but when the money came in, they’d just low-ball ‘em.”

Accordingly, Jones now supposes that if Dickie was involved in a bribery scheme (and he still says, “I did not think they had it in ‘em. I’d have bet they’d never do anything like that”), sending the case to arbitration — which would have at least shielded it from public view – might have seemed worth purchasing. “Mr. Scruggs would’ve been, in his public persona, highly offended by those allegations” being aired in public, Jones tells Parloff. “He has almost an obsession with image in the public.”

It Isn't What Clarence Darrow Would Have Done

These Southern gentlemen certainly take their honor seriously. Let's hope there are no dueling pistols within reach when this thing gets to court.

We're Still Working ...

We're still having Internet connection problems. My guess is that when the person at Qwest who knows how to fix these things shows up for work on Monday they'll be fixed. Or maybe not. Meanwhile, no progress there.

Lotus has been making progress, it appears, in the continuing saga of Dickie Scruggs. Any of you who guessed that somehow the overly-politicized nature of the Bush Justice Department had something to do with it may be right. It's a long tale, and it's probably best to just follow the link and read.

Speaking of drama, it looks like college football fans will have plenty to argue about. The No. 1 and No. 2 teams both lost yesterday, which means that they can't possibly be the two best teams in the country. Ohio State, who had the good sense to lose early in the season, is now number one. As sports columnist Dennis Dodd writes:

Six computers and 174 voters suddenly have to face this season's ultimate question.

Which two teams are less mediocre than the rest?

Two more upsets further muddy dirtiest BCS picture ever seen

I'll pass on whether this is the dirtiest BCS picture ever seen, since I know that sports columnists' memories are among the shortest, but it's certainly a tough call. Personally, I think the BCS system is just as daft as the one it replaced, but I seem to be in the minority. I'm not alone, however. Not surprisingly, there's an economics professor from Ohio State who disagrees with just about everything I just wrote. If the gargantuan PDF containing his paper ever downloads, I may actually read the thing.

Meanwhile, I've been reading on the Mosul Dam problem I mentioned last month. Hopefully, I'll have something on this soon. It's a whale of a story, that's for sure.

Enjoy your Sunday, and try not to trip over the cables.

You Can Almost Smell The Magnolias

Image credit: The Oxford [Mississippi] Heritage Society (see Note 1)


It's a plot you'd expect to see in a John Grisham novel: a successful, politically connected lawyer who fights greedy tobacco and insurance companies is indicted for bribing the judge in what may be the case of his career, a case in which he is representing Katrina victims against one of those greedy insurance companies. Perhaps not coincidentally, John Grisham knows these people. Yep, this is Southern legal drama at its best. Well, maybe not its best - no one's been murdered yet (thankfully). Almost makes me crave a mint julep and a front porch on which to sip it:

Richard "Dickie" Scruggs has carefully crafted an image as an aw-shucks country lawyer who champions the little guy in David-and-Goliath legal battles.

But in truth, Scruggs is himself a giant - a legend of the Mississippi bar, a supremely well-connected political insider, and one of the richest men in one of the poorest states in the Union, having made hundreds of millions of dollars from taking on Big Tobacco and asbestos and insurance companies.

Now he faces the fight of his life over a relatively modest $50,000 - the amount prosecutors say he offered to a Mississippi judge as a bribe.

Bribery allegations threaten career of lawyer Dickie Scruggs

Lotus, over at her new blog Folo, has been following this drama, with a followup today. Go over and pay her a visit. She's made more sense out of this thing than I could have.

Much has been made of Richard Scrugg's ties to Hillary Clinton, but for some reason the mainstream press have failed to note some of his other connections:

But his political loyalties have always been a little suspect, and not just because of his in-law status. This year, for instance, he has given nearly $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and several thousand dollars to Joe Biden. But he's also contributed to Republican John McCain. Next month, Bill Clinton was scheduled to headline a fundraiser for his wife at Scruggs' Oxford home. Not surprisingly, today a Clinton spokesman tells Mother Jones that the event is "not happening."

Hillary Clinton Says Bye-Bye to Indicted Trial Lawyer

[bold emphasis mine]

Like many folks whose living depends at least partly on government largess, Dickie Scruggs has been hedging his bets. Yet only the Clinton connection receives any attention. Wonder why?

Note 1: Oxford is home to both John Grisham and Dickie Scruggs, as reported in this AP article.

UPDATE: Added expository quote from the Associated Press, and corrected another link which has gone south since I published earlier.

Lotus has another article up, this one about the judge in the case, Henry L. Lackey. As she relates, little about this case makes sense. Scruggs and Lackey undoubtedly have known each other, if not personally than certainly by reputation, for decades. That Scruggs would try to bribe him now just doesn't make sense if Lackey were clearly not the sort of person who accepts bribes.

Like I said, this one is interesting.