Citing new evidence since his 2006 conviction on bribery-related charges, Siegelman's nine-page filing called for a hearing with cross-examination, plus a new trial and new judge.
The arguments responded to a government filing on Aug. 28 that no new evidence has been produced since Siegelman's 2006 convictions to justify a hearing or other relief.
More generally, Siegelman's prosecution remains the dramatic centerpiece of still-unsolved allegations that the Bush administration mounted a nationwide effort to change the country's political leadership by hundreds of disputed prosecutions of Democratic office-holders, candidates and contributors.
Nowhere else have so many whistleblowers stepped forward and so many investigative reporters unearthed scandal, with so little result. If you'd like to see a step-by-step of what DoJ does to a whistleblower -- and its justifications for doing so -- read my new 5,000-word OpEd News interview with Grimes, who played figured prominently in Siegelman's arguments as an insightful professional.
For the first time, Siegelman unloaded directly on the government's top prosecutors against him in Washington and Alabama by suggesting that they oppose a hearing because they fear evidence of their own crimes for obstructing justice.
Siegelman noted that "active players in his case have included DoJ Public Integrity Chief William Welch, II and Criminal Division Appellate Chief Patty Stemler, who are already under criminal investigation for misconduct in last fall's conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
