Are Siegelman's days of freedom numbered?

[no_hypocrisy]

If former governor and convicted felon Don Siegelman at one time harbored hopes that political intervention in Washington would keep him out of prison, those hopes, fading in recent months, appear to have now been dashed. The lead-up to Siegelman's 2006 trial, and conspiracy and bribery convictions along with HealthSouth founder and former CEO Richard Scrushy, was fraught with allegations of political persecution.

After both were convicted and imprisoned - Siegelman sentenced to slightly more than seven years and Scrushy to slightly less than seven years - they began the appeals process. Siegelman was released from prison pending appeal, but Scrushy remains incarcerated in Texas, the court apparently believing him to be a flight risk.

It was during that time leading up to the November 2008 presidential and congressional elections that Siegelman became the darling of the Democrats and the poster boy for Bush administration politicizing of the Department of Justice. You'll recall, among other events: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised Siegelman in a Birmingham speech and promised reform of the Justice Department; the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, launched an investigation by his committee and even tried to force former White House advisor Karl Rove to testify; U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, was one of Siegelman's most vocal and outspoken defenders and even signed Conyers' letter demanding Rove testify before the committee; and there was even speculation that if Democrat Barack Obama was elected president that he would order DOJ to reexamine the Siegelman case and that a pardon could be in the offing.

A year ago, the Democrats won overwhelming victories in the House and Senate and of course put Obama in the White House. All of a sudden, the former governor of Alabama, a one-time darling of the Democrats, became Don Who?

-more-

http://www.al.com/opinion/independent/index.ssf?/base/columnists/1259619311191770.xml&coll=4

[snagglepuss]

1. k & r

[JPZenger]

2. k and r. Pardon Siegelman Now.

[Kingofalldems]

3. Rove's DU pal hopes so

[jgraz]

4. More Change We Can Believe In*

* Not valid in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or any U.S. territory, protectorate or illegally invaded country.

[rudy23]

5. Protecting Rove has to be part of some deal. Either that, or Obama really played us.

Or more likely, he's continuing a cover-up that if unraveled, would expose as many Dems for their role in election fraud as Repukes.

[L. Coyote]

8. DoJ filed a brief opposing a review of the case = Believing is not seeing!!!

The Sidley Austin intern seems to NOT be a Dem much of the time, esp. when Bush's DoJ is involved.

[samsingh]

6. kick

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Supreme Court Case Selection

The Court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:

to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution;

to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings; or

to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Case_Selection

I go with #2. The proceedings were an egregious judicial railroading of Gov. Siegelman. I'm counting on Stevens, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor to vote for certiorari.

[arthritisR_US]

9. I'm with you! n/t

[annabanana]

10. k&r. . . . . n/t