Andrew Kreig: As Rove Testifies About Firings At Justice, Why Did DOJ Fire Whistleblower?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/as-rove-testifies-about-f_b_228231.html

Andrew Kreig
Posted: July 8, 2009 06:03 PM

As Rove Testifies About Firings At Justice, Why Did DoJ Fire Whistleblower?

New questions are surfacing about political intrigue at the U.S. Justice Department after former White House political strategist Karl Rove provided his long-awaited responses to House Judiciary Committee staff Tuesday about allegations that he pressured prosecutors to target Democrats nationally.

Few details have emerged about Rove's questioning on such topics as the 2006 dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

By remarkable coincidence, however, the Justice Department separately confirmed Tuesday that it has fired Alabama whistleblower Tamarah Grimes. She was the top in-house paralegal for the prosecution team that won corruption convictions in 2006 against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Grimes later provided her Justice Department superiors and Congress with evidence that the rights of the defendants were violated. Siegelman and Scrushy cited her revelations heavily in their motions since June 26 for a new trial based on new evidence.

In an interview today for this article, Grimes alleged a bone-chilling conspiracy to frame the defendants for political gain. She says her experiences opened her eyes to parallels outside Alabama and to the ruinous consequences for federal government employees of protesting injustice.

"No one helps you," says Grimes, who adds that she was browbeaten with threats of false criminal charges by her superiors and investigators alike. She says Congress needs to enhance protections for whistleblowers to prevent wrongdoing by government officials.

- snip -

"When Leura Canary found out which I had done, she was livid. She called me into her office to threaten and intimidate me. It went downhill from there." Grimes said that she was repeatedly threatened with criminal prosecution on bogus charges of denying that she had made secret tape recordings, and then was placed on administrative leave. She was fired after writing a nine-page letter June 1 to Attorney General Eric Holder outlining prosecution misconduct against Siegelman.

"Selective prosecution is a tool that Leura Canary uses at will," said Grimes of Canary. "She has enjoyed a great deal of success thus far. No one has been able to overcome what she calls 'powerful friends' in Washington. My question is: What is still pulling the strings almost six months into a new administration?"

MORE

[madfloridian]

1. Yes, indeed. Who in this administration is pulling the strings.

Outrageous.

[Hissyspit]

2. .

[Enthusiast]

3. I wonder about those strings. K&R

Selective prosecution is an egregious violation of constitutional rights. Every instance of this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I can't imagine the Obama DOJ thinking setting a good example is sufficient.

[L. Coyote]

4. "Selective prosecution is a tool that Leura Canary uses at will,"

And Ted Stevens went free!

[Wednesdays]

5. K&R

:kick:

[L. Coyote]

6. Scott Horton: Did OBAMA DOJ Retaliate Against Siegelman Whistleblower?

July 7, 3:51 PM, 2009
Did DOJ Retaliate Against Siegelman Whistleblower?
By Scott Horton - http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005308


In a nine-page June 1, 2009 letter to her boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, Tamarah Grimes, a member of the Justice Department team that prosecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, itemized an astonishing list of acts of misconduct by her colleagues as they developed what they called “the Big Case.”

* Two key witnesses were cajoled, coached, and pressured to change their testimony to better support the charges. This specifically included the key evidence given by one witness on which Siegelman was convicted. But, as Grimes notes, the witness in fact had no recollection of the events–he was pressured to recount them in a way that suited the prosecutors.
* Documents were purloined from a Waste Management site.
* Members of the prosecution team communicated directly with a pro-prosecution juror while the case was pending and afterwards.
* Every aspect of the case was overseen by U.S. Attorney Canary. She had nominally recused herself from the case because her husband, a friend of Karl Rove and the most prominent G.O.P. elections advisor in Alabama, was advising a campaign against Siegelman for which the prosecution provided essential grist.

Eight days after submitting these meticulously documented complaints, many of which echo concerns stated by others in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Montgomery, Grimes received a reply of sorts. She was fired. .........

..........

[L. Coyote]

7. What the Justice Department is Hiding by Scott Horton

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-14/will-the-tables-be-turned-on-the-siegelman-prosecutors/p/
What the Justice Department is Hiding
by Scott Horton
November 14, 2008 | 4:22pm

Don Siegelman When a former Alabama governor was convicted for selling public offices, it set off an investigation into improper conduct at the Justice Department that leads directly to the White House.

The most dramatic political prosecution in the 21st century—involving a former governor in Alabama, the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the Bush White House and Justice Department—has been rocked by incriminating new disclosures by a knowledgeable career Justice Department staff member who has provided information charging serious misconduct by the prosecutors.

Among other disclosures shattering the credibility of the case, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary’s “recusal” for conflict of interest is revealed as a sham. Moreover, The Daily Beast has learned, the matter has touched off concerns within the Justice Department over efforts to sweep accusations of unethical conduct under the carpet.

It appears the Justice Department was aware of even more startling allegations of misconduct but it chose to hide this from the court and from opposing counsel. ......

.............