Siegelman sought for Capitol Hill testimony

[JohnWxy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23830254/

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court said former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman can go free while appealing a bribery conviction, and his lawyer said the former governor has agreed to testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Siegelman had raised "substantial questions of fact and law" in challenging his conviction.
~~

Congressional inquiry proceeds
A spokeswoman for the House Judiciary Committee said Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, wants to hear directly from Siegelman because lawmakers are having trouble getting information elsewhere, particularly from the Justice Department.

"The chairman has determined it would be appropriate to hear from Mr. Siegelman himself and believes he would have a lot to add to the committee's investigation into selective prosecution," spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said.

[JohnWxy]

1. Q&A with Don Siegelman: 'I think this will make Watergate look like child's play'

http://www.annistonstar.com/showcase/2008/as-open-0518-mricks-8e18a0747.htm


BIRMINGHAM — Almost two months after being released from a federal prison in Oakdale, La., former Gov. Don Siegelman looks noticeably healthier.

The ghostly pallor and thinness that seemed to cling to him when he was released is all but gone.

He's got color in his cheeks, a little more weight on his body and a fierce determination to not only clear his name but to do his part to expose a scandal in the U.S. Department of Justice that he says is bigger than Watergate.

(more)

[JohnWxy]

2. Siegelman Asks 11th Circuit to Rehear Case - moe from Siegelman

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the McCormick case made it clear, he says, that in this area of First Amendment rights, before a jury could convict an elected official or a contributor on bribery there had to be an “explicit” not an “implied” agreement.

“My three judge panel has allowed my conviction and my seven and a half year sentence to stand basically by defining ‘explicit’ to be something that can be inferred or implied by the jury form the mind and actions of actors,” he said.


“Yes, this is about my personal freedom but it is even more important this First Amendment issue clarified so the law wont be a trap for the unwary,” he said, citing Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote: “Whenever the people see things that are wrong the people can be relied upon to set those wrongs to right.”



“We need to get a message to the U.S.Department of Justice to help get this wrong set right,” he said. “If the three judge panel’s new definition changing an ‘explicit’ to an ‘implied’ quid pro quo is allowed to stand not only am I up the creek without a paddle but federal prosecutors will be able to pick and choose contributors and elected officials seeking convictions based solely on a jury’s view of what was in the minds of the elected official not based on any express communication.”


“After having gone through this unbelievable episode in our lives,” he said, “I had an opportunity to re-read The Federal Prosecutor, a speech by the U.S. Attorney General at the time, Robert Jackson. Just read the first paragraph and you’ll get a flavor of what my family has been through and what I ask you to help guard against.”

Siegelman said 11 of the 12 judges decide whether a full court hearing is justified. He said three of the judges have recused themselves in this case, including Republican Bush appointee William Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama. That leaves 8 judges to make the decision. Three of those have already voted to uphold the conviction, so he says it will require five of five votes to order a new hearing.

Legal experts say the full appeals panel rarely overturns three judge panel decisions en banc, the legal term for the full court. So this is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether they will agree to hear the case is anybody’s guess.
(more)