HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Siegelman Backers Seek Pa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:31 AM

Siegelman Backers Seek Pardon for Ex-Ala Governor

Source: Associated Press

Siegelman backers seek pardon for ex-Ala governor

Published: Monday, June 18, 2012, 10:18 PM Updated: Monday, June 18, 2012, 10:23 PM

By The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Alabama Some backers of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman want President Barack Obama to grant a pardon that would prevent the ex-Democratic officeholder from returning to prison for his 2006 bribery conviction.

Siegelman is out of prison on an appeal bond. But the U.S. Supreme Court this month rejected his latest appeal, and he may soon face a new sentencing by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Montgomery.

- snip -

Former Democratic Party executive committee member Pam Miles of Huntsville is now encouraging supporters to write Obama and urge the president to pardon Siegelman. She operates an internet e-mail network for Siegelman's backers.

Miles says followers are pursuing all avenues to prove Siegelman's innocence. Miles says she "can't bear the thought' of Siegelman returning to prison. "We can't forget about Don," Miles said.

Read more: http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/06/siegelman_backers_seek_pardon.html

22 replies, 3837 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Siegelman Backers Seek Pardon for Ex-Ala Governor (Original post)
Hissyspit Jun 2012 OP
EFerrari Jun 2012 #1
MADem Jun 2012 #2
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #4
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #7
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #9
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #13
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #21
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #22
still_one Jun 2012 #3
Iwillnevergiveup Jun 2012 #5
Matthew66 Jun 2012 #6
dougolat Jun 2012 #8
graham4anything Jun 2012 #10
Festivito Jun 2012 #11
Ian David Jun 2012 #12
eggplant Jun 2012 #14
Ian David Jun 2012 #15
eggplant Jun 2012 #19
Freddie Stubbs Jun 2012 #16
Ian David Jun 2012 #18
samsingh Jun 2012 #17
Blue Owl Jun 2012 #20

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:46 AM

1. This might be really good timing.

I'm on Pam's list but confess, I haven't read her mail for weeks. The news was just too depressing for too long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:47 AM

2. Practically speaking, I can't see a pardon being issued until after November...

Why didn't they look into "home confinement" while they pursued an appeal? He'd be well more than half done:

Scrushy was also convicted of being part of the scheme. His seven-year sentence was reduced by about a year after an appeals court dropped two charges. Scrushy is serving the final part of his sentence in home confinement in Houston.


They could still ask for it if he is re-sentenced in the interim...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:52 AM

4. Because the whole trial was corrupt.

He was asking for the same thing Stevens asked for and got. A dismissal of the conviction. Stevens trial was corrupt, although he was most likely guilty. The question is why was one dismissed and the other not?

This was a political witch hunt and should have been dismissed and even retried. But any conviction or even pardon based on that crooked process is a disgrace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 02:45 AM

7. I believe MADem is right that there wont be a pardon until after the elections at

the earliest (if ever) but my opinions is its because of why is because of the potential political issues with issuing said pardon.
Sucks though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 03:30 AM

9. Not sure what issues there would have been regarding doing what was done with the Republican Senator

from Alaska's trial. When a trial has been corrupted, the right thing to do is what was done in that case. Stevens' guilt was far more obvious than Siegleman's. He should not be pardoned as that admits guilt. Rove was involved in all of this.

There should be an investigation by the DOJ into what went on in that prosecution. I do not know why it was done for a Republican and not for Siegelman. Justice should not be political. A man's freedom is at stake, this should have been taken care of at least three years ago. It is a huge disappointment that a Democrat got such different treatment. I guess pandering to Republicans was the goal, but apparently you can't bend over far enough to please them, as we all knew. Siegelman's conviction should have been overturned at the same time as Stevens'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:08 AM

13. "Not sure what issues there would have been" Well the main issue

is if Obama was to step in right now after the court had its say that the Republicans as we all know would in all likelyhood attempt to use it against him and the other dems on the ramp up to the Nov elections.
Yes, I know that sucks but nonetheless its a fact that they will try to use whatever they can from the petty isues to the big ones to weaken him and the dems in their quest to regain majority control of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 12:27 PM

21. The Republicans will always be around to try to make 'Democrats look bad'.

It is this fear of Republicans that got us to where we are. That is no excuse for allowing a gross injustice to take place. It is shameful in fact to say a man should go to jail so a politician doesn't 'look bad'. In fact it makes a politician look worse to allow that to happen for that reason.

And worse to pander to stupid bullies by letting one of theirs off the hook to try to appease them when everyone knows you cannot appease bullies.

The American people admire courage and in general will support exposing corruption no matter which side it's coming from. Karl Rove isn't exactly the most popular person, even among Republicans, in this country. So we've allowed war criminals and economic criminals and corrupt Republicans, like Rove, off the hook, in order to appease the far right? And has that stopped them from criticizing the President? Maybe it would help to show them we don't care what they think and they might stop intimidating democrats especially if they are busy trying to defend themselves from criminal charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:20 PM

22. Well you did ask "what issues", my apologies

that you find the answer displeasing but it is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:51 AM

3. Should have been done years ago /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 02:07 AM

5. K&R

What the hell, President Obama - do it now! Pardon Don Siegelman. I think he has the wind at his back on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 02:22 AM

6. Spam deleted by tjwmason (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 03:25 AM

8. But if he starts "looking back" at things, where would it stop?

better late than never.
I don't want them to get away with "never."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:04 AM

10. But...maybe Obama can commute his sentence

 

if not mistaken, doesn't the person being pardon'd have to appologize and basically atone for his crimes to be considered in the first place for a pardon?

now, maybe what should happen is what they did with Scooter Libby, is to say time served and to free him that way (but it would still be on his record.) Commute his sentence.

that could be done, and use Libby as an example, however, the President has issued pardons
fewer times than any other modern day President.
He could easily commute Rodney B's sentence too (who made dreaming of riches a crime?)
and while he is at it, pardon that teenager kid Bush locked away Lindh, that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But I don't expect anything like this would happen before the election or even at Christmas time 2012 if Obama is reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:49 AM

11. Here's where I'd like to see a special prosecutor,

go after this very special prosecution.

Perhaps we could trade with Lieberman's Right-wing prosecutorial desires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:04 AM

12. IIRC, The President can't pardon him unless he admits he's guilty.

I don't think Siegelman would confess to a crime he didn't commit so that he can be pardoned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:14 AM

14. Didn't Ford pardon Nixon without an admission of guilt? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:25 AM

15. I have no idea. That's a good question. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:30 AM

19. Seems like it.

http://americanhistory.about.com/b/2006/09/08/ford-pardons-nixon.htm

On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon of any wrongdoings in the Watergate scandal. The pardon actually came out less than a month after Nixon resigned the presidency. Quoting his official pardon: "It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

16. The constitution provides no such restriction

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

18. So then this could work. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

17. i hope he gets pardoned so he can get on with his life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 12:07 PM

20. It's Karl Rove's turn to do some hard time

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread