Legal Schnauzer: Obama DOJ Is Stonewalling on Records Connected to Siegelman Case

[Hissyspit]

Mods: Reproduced in Entirety w/ Permission of Author

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-doj-is-stonewalling-on-records.html

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2010
Obama DOJ Is Stonewalling on Records Connected to Siegelman Case

The Obama Justice Department is withholding more than 250 documents related to the recusal of the U.S. attorney whose office oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

John Aaron, an attorney in Alabaster, Alabama, filed a Freedom of Information request in early 2006 seeking information about the recusal of Leura Canary. The Justice Department, then under the control of George W. Bush, turned over almost no information, so Aaron filed a federal lawsuit in 2009.

Barack Obama appointees, of course, now oversee the Department of Justice (DOJ). But Aaron's lawyer says the department continues to stonewall and has asked a judge to throw out the lawsuit.

Reports the Mobile Press-Register:

"It seems to me that transparency is not a priority," said Scott Hodes, a Washington, D.C.-area attorney representing Shelby County resident John Aaron in a lawsuit seeking the records. "They'd rather hide things, obviously."

Canary, a Bush appointee, remains the top federal prosecutor in central Alabama. Her husband, Bill Canary, is head of the Business Council of Alabama and a close associate of former White House strategist Karl Rove. Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer and whistleblower, has testified under oath before Congress that Bill Canary played a central role in initiating a politically driven prosecution of Siegelman, a popular Democrat.

Canary announced in 2002 that she was stepping aside from the Siegelman investigation. But supporters of the former governor have claimed that she remained involved with the case. Reports the Press Register:

In a court filing, however, Aaron said he believes the documents would show that Canary remained in touch with members of the team that prosecuted Siegelman and former HealthSouth Chief Executive Richard Scrushy despite her official recusal from the case.

Aaron also said that he thought the records could provide "critical evidence" in Scrushy's bid for a new trial.

The Justice Department, so far, has turned over little more than newspaper clippings, according to court filings. The DOJ admits it is withholding 259 pages of documents. What is its rationale? It sounds pretty flimsy to us:

Among other reasons for withholding the records, the Justice Department argues that they involve communications between Canary and agency legal staff that are covered by attorney-client privilege.

While Canary is a high-level public official, the Justice Department also says that releasing the information could result "in harassment in her private life" and expose her to "derogatory inferences ... in connection with the underlying criminal case."

This raises several obvious questions:

* How on earth could Leura Canary's communications with her own staff members be protected by attorney-client privilege? Since when are Canary's staff members "representing" her?

* One innocent man (Richard Scrushy) already is in federal prison and another (Don Siegelman) could be returning to federal prison, but the DOJ is mostly concerned about "derogatory inferences" that could be drawn about Canary's conduct?

* If the DOJ is concerned about "harassment in her private life" and "derogatory inferences," is it more or less admitting that Canary engaged in misconduct? Why would those be issues if Canary had acted properly?

* Is the DOJ aware that Canary is a public official, who is paid by public funds, and taxpayers have a right to know if she acted in a lawful fashion? Why would the DOJ be concerned about Canary's "private life" more than a possible abuse of the public trust?

Just when you think the Obama administration can't look much worse than it already does on justice issues, something comes along to tell you, "Oh yes, it can."

[John Q. Citizen]

1. K&R for open government!

[chill_wind]

2. K & R. n/t

[bvar22]

3. This one is especially irritating since....

..Obama's DoJ couldn't wait to get Republican criminal Ted Stevens out of jail.
1st thing on their list.

[EFerrari]

13. No kidding.

:grr:

[bleever]

4. K&R.

No backing down.

[katandmoon]

5. Obama's DOJ is committed to protecting Karl Rove just as Bush's DOJ did.

This is why Obama's administration is as criminal as Bush's. It will go any lengths to cover up the Bush Administration's crimes, and it has repeatedly made that clear.

[Bluebear]

6. He can't wave a magic wand!

:cry:

[jody]

8. If he can't do justice in the Siegelman case he is impotent to solve the Gulf oil disaster. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

15. Why is Canary still in office?

Why has Obama kept so many US attorneys in office. Especially some who were involved in blatantly criminal political prosecutions? Another one is up in Pittsburgh.

[QC]

30. He has so many shit sandwiches!!1!

:cry:

[jody]

7. The Obama administration refuses to investigate the Bush administration's political vendetta against

Siegelman.

I expected more from the "Hope and Change" candidate but all I've seem is "More of the Same".

I'm very. very disappointed.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. The politicization of the Justice Department and Attorneygate - disgusting.

This is another one of my hot buttons. I'm pretty informed and well-read on this particular topic and I didn't forget the details.

[madfloridian]

10. Recommended. Siegelman must NOT go back to jail.

Thanks for the post.

[Octafish]

19. Scrushy must be released, as well.

Obama is making a mockery of justice, just like Bush and Rove.

[jody]

11. k&r n/t

[Hissyspit]

12. .

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Damn

An absolutely travesty.

[olegramps]

16. So much for the Transparency Obama promised.

The enthusiasm that I had for Obama has waned dramatically.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Question: has Obama cleaned house at the DOJ? Bush packed it with RW ideologues.

If Obama has not gotten rid of them, there is no reason to expect the current DOJ to act any different from the last one. Indeed, we could have another sistuation in which the DOJ is conspiring against the President (as in the case of Clinton)

[dflprincess]

27. Holder is Obama's appointee

he's the one who is running the DOJ and has the power to do something about this. If he isn't performing to the president's satisfaction, he can be replaced.

Obama is not the victim here.

[mod mom]

18. does anyone have a theory as to why Holder would protect these criminals and not want to expose

the massive corruption involved in this case?

[Dr.Phool]

21. Just a guess.

He's one of them?

[KoKo]

24. That's what I'm starting to think..

:-(

[treestar]

20. It sounds pretty flimsy to them?

Before judging, they could at least tell us about the legal reasoning behind it. But then that would take work.

It's always good to listen to both sides first.

[laughingliberal]

23. I believe the paragraph that follows the 'flimsy' statement addressed their reasoning that.

It's always good to read further.

"Among other reasons for withholding the records, the Justice Department argues that they involve communications between Canary and agency legal staff that are covered by attorney-client privilege.

While Canary is a high-level public official, the Justice Department also says that releasing the information could result "in harassment in her private life" and expose her to "derogatory inferences ... in connection with the underlying criminal case." "

This raises several obvious questions:

* How on earth could Leura Canary's communications with her own staff members be protected by attorney-client privilege? Since when are Canary's staff members "representing" her?

* One innocent man (Richard Scrushy) already is in federal prison and another (Don Siegelman) could be returning to federal prison, but the DOJ is mostly concerned about "derogatory inferences" that could be drawn about Canary's conduct?

* If the DOJ is concerned about "harassment in her private life" and "derogatory inferences," is it more or less admitting that Canary engaged in misconduct? Why would those be issues if Canary had acted properly?

* Is the DOJ aware that Canary is a public official, who is paid by public funds, and taxpayers have a right to know if she acted in a lawful fashion? Why would the DOJ be concerned about Canary's "private life" more than a possible abuse of the public trust?

[Hissyspit]

29. Like the work you did investigating the legal reasoning and posting it here?

Go on, toss insults at the people who stood up at great personal risk against the Bush and Cheney and Rove criminals, and now stand up for ideals against those who act like Bush, Cheney and Rove for questionable reasons.

If you think more work needs to be done on the legal reasoning of DoJ, then, by all means, go do it and post it here, instead of tossing out insults against people who have proven themselves over the past years to have character and integrity.

[laughingliberal]

22. Thank you for keeping up on this for us. nt

[bvar22]

25. Kicking for wider distribution.

This is an important issue that deserves public outcry.
Without public awareness and action, this WILL be quietly swept under the rug.
Business as usual.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Octafish]

26. If I wanted four more years of Bush, I'd have voted for McPalin.

WTF, Holder? W.T.F.

And for those new to the party, what's with locking up the whistleblowers?

[Time for change]

28. This is so disappointing

but something I've come to expect.

The big question: Does President Obama really believe that this kind of thing is in the public interest and consistent with his oath of office? Or is someone pulling his strings?

[burrowowl]

31. KICK!

[midnight]

32. Thanks for this update. Makes one wonder if the stay behind is running the

DOJ?

[JDPriestly]

33. Obama is afraid of Karl Rove.

Obama just wants everybody to get along, so he doesn't punish rich, powerful criminals.