TPMM and TIME comment on emails disclosing improper jury-prosecution contacts. The emails also disclose problems with the US government ignoring court orders.

There is a curious pattern between Siegelman and Wecht: The same players involved with FISA and Geneva violations are linked with prosecutorial misconduct. 

This summarizes for TPM how the WH likely applied the lessons from Siegelman to Wecht.

The information below may help Congress, DOJ OPR, and other interested parties explore the deliberations occurring between (1) the White House and (2) legal counsel connected indirectly with the University of Chicago.


The similarities between the Siegelman and Wecht prosecutions deserve exploration. It appears:

A. WH Developed A Scheme

The White House political office was aware of the improper conduct and the investigation, applied these lessons to the Wecht Prosecution, and adjusted how it would tamper with the Wecht jury and hide the scheme to ignore the court order.

B. WH Took Overt Action

The White House, knowing these improper contacts were under "independent" investigation, applied the (impoperly gleaned) leassons from an ongoing DOJ investigation, and used the FBI as intermediaries in the Wecht to bypass the court order.

C. WH Spread Disinformation

It appears the WH, hoping to break the link between the WH and the improper conduct, attempted to use outside legal counsel, indirectly connected with the University of Chicago to achieve the same goals in Wecht case it attempted in Siegelman.

The Time article is based on information known after 2005 within the Department of Justice. A close reading of the TIME article suggests the White House and others knew of these lessons related to Siegelman, and applied these lessons to the Wecht prosecution.

For example, Time says the Siegelman court ordered the prosecution not to contact the jury. Similarly after the Wecht trial, the court issued a verbal order to the jury that they avoid contacts with the prosecutors.

In the Sigelman case, the DOJ delayed informing the court of the improper contacts. This raises the prospect that the White House-GOP knew of this improper activity, that it was under investigation; and attempted to use a different, indirect methd to achieve the same objective in the Wecht prosecution.

Using the TIME article, we can develop a list of "rules" the White House likely gleaned from Siegelman; then explore the likely things the White House-US Attorneys would have (likley) done in response to cover their tracks in Wecht.

Rule 1: Break the link between the White House, US Attorney, and the (improper) jury interactions

Time: "Now new documents highlight alleged misconduct by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney and other prosecutors in the case, including what appears to be extensive and unusual contact between the prosecution and the jury."

Lesson: Rather than use emails or directly contact the jury members, cloud the link between the White House and prosecutors by using intermediaries.

Application to Wecht Trial: The White House, learning the lessons from 2005 re Siegelman, attempted to break the link between the White House-GOP-prosecutors by using the FBI as "intermediaries".

Legal problem: The White House cannot explain why, despite court orders to the contrary, the FBI had access to jury names the court said were only available to the legal counsel.

Repeat problem: The problem with Siegelman the US govenment refusal to respect the court order. The US prosecutor's conduct re Wecht shows the objective of the white house-GOP did not change, but they merely created a new ruse to cloud the court's detection of that continued improper WH-DOJ disregard for the court orders.

Rule 2: Hide the connection between the White House-GOP and the prosecutors

Time: Conyers says the evidence raises "serious questions" about the U.S. Attorney in the Siegelman case, who, documents show, continued to involve herself in the politically charged prosecution long after she had publicly withdrawn to avoid an alleged conflict of interest relating to her husband, a top GOP operative and close associate of Bush adviser Karl Rove.

Lesson: It is likely the Department of Justice will learn of the connection between the White House political office and the prosecution. One method to thwart disclosure is to use an intermediary. A 'recused' prosecutor was discoveed. The WH learned to use another "honest broker"--the FBI.

Application to Wecht Trial: To avoid questions about the WH connection with the meddling, the WH directed the prosecutor to publicly state that the prosecutor had "directed" the FBI to do something.

Logic Problem: US Attorneys do not control the FBI; the FBI agents, to be used, would have had to be coordinated, at a minimum, through DOJ Staff in DC. Goodling shows us when DOJ-DC Staff is involved, the White House through DOJ liaison is involved.

Legal problem: The court said there should be no contact; and the WH cannot explain why the FBI agents had access to the list of jury members which the court said was sealed and only available to the prosecutors.

Repeat Problem: Siegelman and Wecht show the White House has a political agenda of monitoring the case. When detected, it appears the WH was also involved with the efforts to monitor the ongoing discussion and DOJ investigation into that political tampering.

Rule 3: If detected, conduct a white wash investigation.

Time: "The DoJ conducted its own inquiry into some of Grimes' claims, and wrote a report dismissing them as inconsequential. But the report shows that investigators did not question U.S. marshals or jurors who had allegedly been in touch with the prosecution."

Lesson: As with the Abu Ghrabi and Guantanamo abuses, the US govenrment can quickly issue a report without interviewing all the witnesses, and hope the legal problem goes away.

Application to Wecht Trial: The best way for the government to hide the misconduct was to bring the "investigators" into the problem, but claim they are above question. When that didn't work, the government stupidly used the prosecutors to issue misleading media statements about the jury deliberations.

Legal problems:

A. Failure to address the pervasive prosecutorial misconduct linked to the White House;

B. DOJ legal counsel are not meeting their legal obligation to report peer-misconduct to DOJ OPR for review; and

C. Prosecutors allegedly violating DOJ OPR standards of conduct, prohibiting prosecutors from using the media to make improper statements about the defendant.

Repeat Problem: Despite subsequent revelations of misconduct, each subsequent "independent" investigation proves to be tainted.

Rule 4: Waste Time With Investigations

Time: "What's more, when prosecutors conducted their own investigation of suspected improper conduct by jurors after the trial, two of them were interviewed, despite express instructions from the judge that no contact with jurors should occur without his permission."

Lessons:

A. When prosecutors from one office are tainted, use another office similarly tainted to conduct an "independent" investigation.

B. Find another way to ignore the court orders, and hide evidence of that violation from the court.

Application to Wecht Trial: The best way for the WH to hide the link between the WH and the WEcht prosecution is to claim the information is privileged, as a smokescreen from the pervasive pattern of tainted prosecutorial misconduct investigations.

Legal problem: Rather than ensure credible investigations, the goal of the WH was to thwart Congress from getting access to more information which should have prompted Congress to investigate.

Repeat Problem: Rather than solve a problem of prosecutorial misconduct, the WH was more interested in creating a smokescreen from it's complicit with that misconduct.

Let's suppose the above nexus is true -- that the lessons of the DOJ investigation into the Siegelman prosecution were disclosed to the WH, and applied to Wecht. This raises a number of questions:

1. WH Access To Ongoing Investigations,  Not Just Prosecutions

A. How were the lessons of the "investigation" into the improper prosecution-jury contacts re Siegelman improperly provided to the White House?

B. Has the Attorney General been adequately challenged to explain the apparent (improper) dissemination of information an ongoing investigation within the Executive Branch?

2. Improper Use of DoJ Investigation To Thwart Detection of Future Prosecutorial Misconduct

To what exgtent did the White House, relying on this information from the Justice Department re Siegelman, adjust how it would organize and gather information in the Wecht prosection and tampering?

3. Pervasive Tainted Investigations into Prosecutorial Misconduct: 9-11, Wecht, Siegelman, Guantanamo

A. Has the White House and media adequately commented on the irony of the US government conducting an "investigation" into improper disclosures of information, yet the very entity conducting this investigation was also improperly disclosing information to the white House?

B. Does the public see the inherent conflict matches the same conflict of the W. District of PA conducting an "outside review" of the DC office for imperoper prosecution disclosures to witnesses of trial transcripts re 9-11; yet, the same W. District office apparently had a similar problem of not adequately safeguarding information and improperly disclosed it to the FBI?

Editorial

There is cause for concern with this Wecht-Siegelman prosecutorial misconduct: Congress, in passing FISA immunity and refusing to impeach, shows it is not serious about taking this investigation to its logical conclusion: Conducting a war crimes prosecution against legal counsel and the President.

Congress appears just as conflicted as DOJ.

Senator Obama supported FISA immunity not accountability. It is not expected he will as President be free of the conflict driving his vote in the Senate.

The US government does not appear positioned to check itself. Real oversight will, sadly, require the abused-defendants to challenge the malfeasance within the United States government.

This is not impressive, nor does it send a signal to foreign nationals the United States is serious about change or accountability in the court room. Do not be surprised when Russians vote to bring Putin back as President to confront the United States using "non-diplomatic" channels as they did in Georgia.