The still-as-yet-uncontroverted sworn affidavit of Republican attorney Dana Jill Simpson set the alarm bells clanging even louder over another AUSA scandal. Simpson testified that the prosecution of Don Seligman was engineered by Karl Rove for political purposes. The matter has been hanging fire lately, with Democrats hanging back from making a big deal about it because of questions about Seligman's guilt.
So here's something new: Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine argues that the conviction of Seligman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, was in Horton's words based on evidence that is "bizarrely thin." Horton, an attorney, writes with the same penetrating clarity as Glenn Greenwald.
Horton sets it all out here.
What persuaded Horton are facts set out by Richard Scrushy's defense attorney in an Alabama op-ed. Horton confirmed them for himself. The case already smelled rotten. It smells worse now. Among other things, it involves judicial forum-shopping by the Republican US Attorney Laura Canary, wife of Rove buddy, William Canary. The first judge threw the case out. But then USA Canary found a Republican judge with "deep roots in Alabama Republican politics,[and] a relatively shallow judicial résumé." Voila. The case was on again.
The facts of the case include allegations of "corruption" that rendered no benefit to Seligman and evidence of wrongful jury behavior that should have resulted in a mistrial.
The op-ed piece is by Julian McPhillips in the Montgomery Adveriser
This is huge. Horton not surprisingly calls (appropriately) for an independent counsel.
And no, there isn’t a person in the country who would have any confidence in the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to do that job. It requires a special prosecutor of unquestioned integrity and independence with no attachments to Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales or Alabama Republican politics. I have two trustworthy Republicans in mind for the job: David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Seattle.
I like it.