The victory-at-all-costs mentality of the prosecution of The Big Case pervaded the office. Every question was answered with, "This is the most important case in the office." Every milestone in The Big Case was rewarded with a personal acknowledgement from U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. When the superseding indictment was unsealed, Mrs. Canary hosted a party at the Marina to celebrate. This pattern of special recognition by Mrs. Canary was repeated throughout the case. Eventually, there was new office furniture, premium office space in the new building, plum appointments and assignments, conferences and seminars, new titles, generous time-off and no supervision, all-related to the work on The Big Case. FBI Agents also received perks and rewards for their work on the case.
Leura Canary, the wife of Karl Rove's ally Bill Canary and a Bush appointee, was theoretically recused from the Siegelman case for conflict of interest, of course. Yet she remains in office as of today nearly nine months after President Obama took office. You spoke also of a downside to her control?
Reprisal is a concept familiar to employees in the Middle District of Alabama. The instrument of choice has often been a selective and/or malicious prosecution of some type utilizing the resources of DoJ.
I know you provide a lot of specifics in your letter to Eric Holder, but can you summarize the pattern you saw?
The prosecution of The Big Case divided the employees along ethical and ideological lines. The first group, comprised of those willing to do whatever it took to succeed, received extraordinary rewards and preferential treatment with the full support of Mrs. Canary. The second group, comprised of those who opposed unethical and sometimes unlawful conduct, were subjected to harsh retaliation. The third and final group simply sought to keep their heads down and make it through the day without getting on the wrong side of the "right" people and losing their jobs. This is the reality of life in the Montgomery U.S. attorney's office for dozens of DoJ employees. As a consequence of observing harsh retaliation, it is difficult to find a single employee willing to risk his or her job to honestly discuss the matters without fear of reprisal. This is particularly true since they have seen me and the other employees who were willing to stand up for principles and ethics escorted from the building and terminated.
As you know, the defendants were convicted at their second trials of five bribery-related charges out of 32 brought by prosecutors. The main charges involved Scrushy's donations in 1999 and 2000 to the non-profit Alabama Education Foundation, along with Siegelman's reappointment of Scrushy in 1999 to a state health care board. Also, Siegelman was convicted of obstruction of justice for a check for a motorcycle from a lobbyist who had made many gifts to Alabama politicians. What was your general impression of that prosecution, and what happened to you?
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
