By Roberta McNair

It may take years to deconstruct all of the machinations within the two-term George W. Bush Administration, but arguably the modus operandi for every action by every cog in the machine was Karl Rove’s goal of a permanent Republican majority in U.S. politics. As more and more of the details behind the prosecution and conviction of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman come to light, it seems clear that Rove’s stated goal motivated the orchestrated campaign to unseat and destroy Siegelman.

Three federal judges heard arguments on December 9 from Siegelman’s attorneys that his 2006 conviction for government corruption should be overturned. Those 11th Circuit judges focused on three issues in the case. As the AP reported, the issues were:

1. Whether the trial was tainted by jury misconduct, specifically allegations that jurors exchanged e-mails during the trial.
2. Whether there was enough evidence that Scrushy and Siegelman struck a deal to exchange contributions to Siegelman’s lottery campaign for a state board appointment.
3. Whether there was enough evidence to convict Siegelman of obstruction of justice

Many journalists and political figures have gone on record with their beliefs that the case against Seigleman was tainted by a political agenda. Most compelling are the 54 state attorneys general—a bipartisan group—who filed a brief that is among the many documents the 11th Circuit judges are reviewing for the appeal. The brief asks that Siegelman’s conviction be reversed, challenging the ethical nature of the prosecution.

During the December 9 hearing, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Senior Judge James C. Hill, and Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat listened to evidence that Hill commented could provide grounds for a new trial for Siegelman, if proven. This was the email messages that apparently passed between jury two members and included such comments as “gov and pastor [HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy] are up the creek” and “all public officials are scum.” Bruce Rogow, Scrushy’s attorney, spoke at length about the emails, which were generally derogatory toward the co-defendants.

Judge Hill commented that if the emails are proven genuine, “that is the basis for reversing a conviction and granting a new trial.”

Chief Judge Edmonson commented, “These are dynamite letters here.”

John Alex Romano, representing the U.S. Attorney’s office, argued that the emails, which had been mailed anonymously to the defense attorneys after the trial, have not been proven to be authentic.

The second issue regards Scrushy’s contributions to Siegelman’s state lottery campaign and his subsequent appointment to a state hospital board. Former Indiana Attorney General Jeff Modisett, a Democrat, has said, “Just because someone is looking for a contribution from someone who wants to be appointed to something, that is not a crime.”

The defense planned to argue Siegelman’s bribery conviction should be overturned because the prosecution had not proven there was an explicit agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy, and because the prosecution had not instructed the jurors that the prosecutors were required to prove their allegations.

Former federal prosecutor David Sklansky, now with U.C. Berkeley’s law school, commented, “That’s something that’s always struck me as odd about the Siegelman case.” “ The absence of strong evidence for quid pro quo, plus no evidence of personal enrichment, made the Siegelman case look kind of odd to me.” He said this after hearing about the charges against Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, whose “more traditional political corruption case” involves personal enrichment.

Instead, the judges steered the argument toward assessing the amount of evidence of a deal between Siegelman and Scrushy. Chief Judge Edmonson cut off Siegelman’s attorney, Sam Heldman, as he started to argue his main point– that prosecutors failed to prove there was an explicit agreement, or a quid pro quo, between Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy

The third element of interest for the panel was the charge of obstruction of justice in covering up a “corrupt payment,” according to the prosecution, of $9,200 through what they termed “sham check transactions.” While the prosecution termed this obstruction, the defense argued that it had never happened and had not even mentioned this charge in their appeal.

All three of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents, but Siegelman himself believes they will be fair in their deliberations. [Some analysts disagree with Siegelman’s opinion of the judges. See Roger Shuler in Legal Schnauzer. Siegelman, who spoke to reporters before the hearing, was feeling hopeful about the appeal, saying, “I’m optimistic based on the law and the facts. This year’s a lot different for me. Last year, I was in federal prison. This year I’m out and my spirits have been lifted by the support of friends and family
In spite of Siegelman’s optimism and the judges’ seeming focus on relative minutia, the issue for most people writing about the case is what seems to be clear political involvement in the Siegelman prosecution—at least at some level—by Karl Rove and the Bush administration. Glynn Wilson has written extensively about the case, and he contended in November that a Montgomery, Alabama, attorney can provide evidence that Bush himself had an interest in the Siegelman case. He wrote that others have corroborated Bush’s being in the loop. This would take Rove’s direction to Leura Canary through her husband, Bill, to a deeper level of political influence, even conspiracy, over a matter before the US Courts.

Time’s November 14 report on the Siegelman appeal revealed the contents of Tamara Grimes’ email correspondence, which not only showed that juror misconduct extended beyond contact between the jurors themselves to contact with the prosecution, but also that Leura Canary’s claim that she “recused” herself from involvement in Siegelman’s case, after conflicts arose due to her husband’s political connections, were false. Canary kept a close watch over the case, providing direction and material for use in the prosecution.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey reopened the DoJ’s investigation into the Siegelman prosecution after House Judicial Committee chair John Conyers’ eight-page letter to Mukasey, dated November 7, laid out whistleblower Grimes’ evidence. The Senate Judiciary committee led by Chuck Shumer expressed dissatisfaction with Mukasey’s investigation of Rove’s influence on the Siegelman prosecution during testimony in July, and it is likely that Mukasey has made this order reluctantly.

The 11th Circuit judges are not expected to render their decision until next year, and the DoJ investigation into the Siegelman affair could easily stall without consistent prodding from the House and Senate.

But what is revealed by that investigation may only confirm what too many people—both progressive and conservative—already see as unassailable fact. Political ends have influenced more facets of Bush’s Executive Branch than could have been imagined when he took office. And Rove’s goal seems to have been the impetus behind them all.