Originally Published: 9/3/2008
By The Issue Wonk
In April 2008 the scandal of firing federal attorneys led to the inevitable discovery that the attorneys were fired because they wouldn’t “play ball.”1 But what was the game? It was to direct prosecutions dictated by the White House.
Improper White House manipulation of criminal justice machinery took a consistent form: political appointees, acting on White House instructions, would “allocate resources” and “deny resources.” When Rove wanted people “taken out,” copious resources – FBI investigators and prosecutors – would be allocated to concocting a case. When Rove wanted to shield Republican operatives who came under suspicion, federal prosecutors would be fired, transferred, retired or reassigned with regularity. The so-called U.S. Attorneys scandal is one manifestation of this process, but in fact it is reflected in a consistent pattern of dealings that stretch back to the beginning of the Bush Administration.2
And who were the people targeted? Most were Democrats that were posing problems for Republicans. Some were Republicans who refused to play along with Bush, Cheney, and Rove. But all were people active in politics that become a threat to the reigning powers. The stories are amazing. The most notorious are Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and Bob Ney.
Don Siegelman is a former governor of Alabama and was the most successful Democrat in that Republican-dominated state until the U.S. Justice Department finally managed to put him in prison on the charge of bribery. The actions taken against him are so outrageous that 54 former state attorneys general have asked Congress to investigate what they believe is political prosecution.3 “One part of the Justice Department mess that requires more scrutiny is the growing evidence that the department may have singled out people for criminal prosecution to help Republicans win elections.”4
In the 2002 election, Don Siegelman went to bed having been declared the winner. But, “in the dark of the night,” Republican-heavy Baldwin County said that there was a glitch in the computation of the votes and that Siegelman had been given an additional 6,000 votes. Baldwin County uses paper ballots read by an ESS optical scan machine. Officials subtracted 6,000 votes from his tally and awarded the election to Republican Bob Riley, whose campaign was run by Bill Canary. Riley won by about 3,000 votes.
According to Lynch:
Kitty McCullough – also known as Kelly Kimbrough – was Rove’s business partner at his political consulting firm K. Rove & Company in Alabama. The state Republican Party gave her credit for finding the irregularity that Siegelman describes as vote theft. The other operative, Dan Gans, is a self-described electronic ballot security expert who later went to work for a Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff-related company, The Alexander Strategy Group – which has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal – and had close ties to now Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. Gans claimed credit on the Web site for finding the votes that delivered the election to Riley.5
Auburn University professor James Gundlach crunched the numbers and concluded that Siegelman lost because of “electronic ballot stuffing.” He believed that, “in the dark of the night,” an “operative” accessed the computers and “edited” the results.6 Siegelman requested and received permission to do a recount of the paper ballots by hand. However, on November 8, 2002, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor denied the recount and threatened to arrest anyone who did it.7 No recount was ever done.6 At the time Karl Rove served as Pryor’s political consultant.
Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for the Republican party (the same position held by Monica Goodling, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ White House liaison), claims that the Siegelman prosecution “was part of a 5-year campaign to ruin the governor.” She said that in 2001 she met with Karl Rove who asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife and that she spied on Siegelman for months but saw nothing. She said that she wasn’t surprised at Rove’s request. She had worked with him on several campaigns and “had had other requests for intelligence before.”8
Republican consultant Bill Canary is a close Rove associate. Simpson said that, in 2002, Canary told her she didn’t have to snoop on Siegelman anymore because, “my girls” can take care of Siegelman. He was referring to Leura Canary, his wife, who was Alabama’s Middle District U.S. Attorney, and Alice Martin, Alabama’s Northern District U.S. Attorney. Bill Canary had worked on Martin’s campaign. Martin is known for abusive prosecutions.9 Both Leura Canary and Martin were appointed by George W. Bush and both of their offices ran investigations on Siegelman.8
In 2004, as Siegelman prepared for another run for governor, one of the investigations by the U.S. attorney for a Medicaid scam went to trial. Grant Woods, a former Republican attorney general in Arizona and one of the 54 attorneys general calling for a Congressional investigation, said, “The government gives their opening argument. The judge says, ‘I want to see you in chambers because this case, there’s no case here.” The judge threw the case out.8
Simpson said that at this time Siegelman started focusing on his campaign and she heard, from Rob Riley, the son of then Republican governor Bob Riley, that the Justice Department was going to try again, that they were going to re-indict him. Simpson testified to this, under oath, before a Congressional investigative committee. Rob Riley denied that the conversation had taken place.8
4 months after Simpson’s alleged conversation with Rob Riley, Siegelman was indicated on a new charge. The charge was that he took a bribe from Richard Scrushy, who runs a healthcare company, in exchange for giving him a position on the Certificate of Need (CON) Board, which regulates hospital construction. Siegelman and Scrushy were both convicted on the testimony of Nick Bailey, one of Siegelman’s aides, who claimed to be an eye-witness to the pay-off.8
Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor’s office, just the two of them,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers. “And then, as soon as Mr. Scrushy left, the governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have (sic) given him for the lottery foundation.8
According to Bailey’s testimony, Siegelman showed the check to Bailey and Bailey asked what Scrushy wanted in exchange for the money. Siegelman allegedly replied that Scrushy wanted a seat on the CON Board.8 However, “Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it.” In fact, the check was cut days after Bailey said they met, so there was no way for Siegelman to walk out of his office with the check in his hand. Also, Nick Bailey, unknown to Siegelman, “had been extorting money from Alabama businessmen” and was facing 10 years in prison. “Bailey agreed to cooperate with prosecutors to get a lighter sentence.”8
60 Minutes interviewed Bailey but the Justice Department wouldn’t allow cameras at the interview.
Bailey told 60 Minutes that before the Siegelman trial, he spoke to prosecutors more than 70 times, and he admitted that during those conversations he had trouble remembering details. He told 60 Minutes the prosecutors were so frustrated, they made him write his proposed testimony over and over to get his story straight.
If Bailey’s telling the truth, his notes, by law, should have been turned over to the defense. But Siegelman’s lawyers tell 60 Minutes they never saw any such notes and never had a chance to show the jury just how much Bailey’s story had changed.8
Scrushy did make donations totaling $500,000 to the education lottery campaign, a pet project of Siegelman’s with profits going to enhance education, and, after serving on the CON Board under 3 previous governors, he was re-appointed by Siegelman. Woods calls this politics, not bribery.8
As Siegelman campaigned in the 2006 Democratic primary for the Alabama governorship, his case went to trial. He lost the primary. After 2 months of trial, the jury deadlocked twice then voted to convict on its 3rd deliberation. Leura Canary personally handled the case for 8 months but, when defense attorneys objected, she turned it over to her assistants.8
Woods said, “I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done. I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat that they could never get rid of.”8
The prosecution had some help from the jurors. A WOTM Special Report10 hosted by former U.S. Attorney Raymond Johnson, had as a guest Alabama lawyer Julian McPhillips, who produced e-mails from 2 jurors about influencing other jurors in order to achieve a conviction. Since jurors are not supposed to discuss a case outside of the deliberation room or to consider information other than what is presented in court and allowed by the judge, the outside communication among the jurors is sufficient to declare a mistrial.
However, Federal District Judge Mark Fuller, a George W. Bush appointee, ignored the tainted jury. When Fuller was appointed to the federal bench, his successor was appointed by Siegelman and produced evidence that suggested that Fuller had contrived with his former assistant to form a “pension spiking” scam which some viewed as a fraud or attempted fraud against the state retirement system.11
Questions about the impartiality of Judge Mark Fuller have also been raised regarding his stockholdings in Doss Aviation, Inc. Doss “has done $258 million in business with the federal government, the military, and the FBI since its inception,” explained attorney Julian McPhillips.10 Judge Fuller disclosed in his 2004 and 2005 financial records that he received between $100,000 and $1 million for his stock holding. The Doss contracts with the FBI are particularly “problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout the trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.”11
Siegelman was sentenced to 7 years for bribery and given a $50,000 fine.12 Federal Judge Mark Fuller, at sentencing, sent Siegelman directly to prison “without allowing the usual 45 days before reporting.” Woods said:
He had him manacled around his legs like we do with crazed killers. And whisked off to prison just like that. Now what does that tell you? That tells you that this was personal. You would not do that to a former governor.8
Siegelman wasn’t the only one “whisked off.” Governor Bob Riley was “whisked off” to Washington. “Riley told [people] that he will meet with Bush Administration officials to discuss damage control relating to the Siegelman case. ‘The sentence will come down today, and they’re very concerned about all the questions about the role Karl Rove played in this prosecution.’”12
Siegelman petitioned Fuller to be released, on bond, while his appeal was pending. Fuller denied the petition, saying that he didn’t think Siegelman could win an appeal. (See Opinion.) But, in March 2008, a federal appellate court released Siegelman from prison while his appeal is pending. The same appeal by Richard Scrushy has been denied and he remains in prison.
Paul Minor, a leading Mississippi trial lawyer,13 was a major funder of Democrats and Democratic causes. He was against tort reform and opposed limiting injury awards. Between 2001 and 2004 he and his law firm donated more than $100,000 to Democrats, including the presidential campaign of John Edwards.14 In 2002 the FBI began looking into campaign funding of Mississippi judges. Minor’s name surfaced in connection with loans he allegedly secured for Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, former Chancery Judge Wes Teel, and former Circuit Judge John Whitfield.15
In 2003 Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee, returned to Mississippi and started his campaign to re-take the state government for the Republicans. At this time the real assault against Minor and Diaz began. “The local press began to print articles laden with innuendo and smear, and articles appeared accusing Minor of ‘corruption’ based on information that was consistently [attributed to] anonymous ‘sources close to the investigation.’ As a practical matter this could only have come from the prosecution team.” In addition, it also poisoned the pool of potential jurors for any trial that would take place.16
The first trial was in 2005. A jury acquitted Minor, Diaz, Teel, and Whitfield on some corruption charges but failed to agree unanimously on others. (Diaz was later acquitted on another charge of tax evasion.) Federal prosecutors re-tried them and all were found guilty in March 2007 on all charges including bribery, racketeering, conspiracy, and honest-services mail fraud.17
Most public corruption cases revolve on a quid pro quo: a public official is asked to do something for some form of compensation or reward. But in these cases there is no quid pro quo, and none is ever alleged. As the New York Times’s Adam Liptak observed:
The central charge against the 2 men [Minor and Diaz] is so convoluted that setting it out requires a diagram, if not a family tree: trying to influence a libel case against Mr. Minor’s father, Mr. Minor guaranteed a loan to Justice Diaz’s former wife.16
Diaz never voted on a case in which Minor had an interest. However, 2 years after Minor help him secure a loan, Diaz joined in a unanimous decision in favor of Minor’s father, Bill Minor, a prominent journalist known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era, who was defending a libel case. Shortly thereafter Diaz and 2 lower court judges were accused of failing to report loans on financial disclosure forms and failing to disclose to attorneys in the case the details of Minor’s loans. Diaz was eventually acquitted of all charges but during the several years that he defended himself he was forced to step down from the bench.
But what was the purpose of the prosecution? To keep Diaz off the bench, and thus remove one Democratic vote, shifting the Mississippi Court’s partisan balance. Seen this way, what the Justice Department did was an assault on the political franchise of Mississippi voters and an attack on the State’s Constitution, all pursued for partisan political purposes.16
Minor was charged with honest services mail fraud, deprivation of honest services,18 and the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was applied.
Minor was sentenced to 11 years, Whitfield to 110 months, and Teel to 70 months. Judge Henry Wingate who presided at the trial is a Republican appointee.
Minor appealed the decision. A key issue on appeal was whether there was a quid pro quo and whether the jury received an instruction explaining it. At the first trial the court instructed the jury that the government’s case required a finding of quid pro quo, but it refused to provide the same instruction in the second trial. Therefore, there was no finding of bribery but bribery standards were used for sentencing.19
Minor had been free on bond prior to his trial but he violated one of the terms of his pre-trial release – he drank alcohol to excess. So, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who presided over the trial, found him a danger to community and ordered him into an alcohol treatment program. He was then put on house arrest but allegedly violated the terms of his pre-trail release by meeting with a hurricane expert and a restaurant that served alcohol. He was imprisoned at that point. After his conviction he applied for release pending appeal. Wingate denied this, saying he was a danger to the community. Recently his wife became ill with terminal cancer.20 He made another appeal for release with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but was denied. The judge who heard the appeal was Priscilla Owen, a Bush appointee and a Karl Rove protégé.21 She denied the appeal, saying, “Minor has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to pose a danger to the safety of the community if released.”22 He is still in prison.
As egregious as the cases of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor are, the most shocking is the case of Bob Ney. He challenged the Bush administration in its march to war with Iran.
Representative Robert W. Ney, a Republican from Ohio who served 6 terms, was charged with corruption, the charges coming to light in the influence-peddling investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramhoff. As so many politicians do, he claimed he had a drinking problem and went into treatment. He emerged only to head to court and plead guilty to performing official acts for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions and other things.23 He was sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison and was released from a half-way house in August 2008.
Ney admits that he did things that were wrong, that were, in fact, felonies. However, as we all know, politicians take “gifts” from lobbyists all the time and, in turn, do “favors.” When was the last time you heard of one being prosecuted? It rarely happens. So, why was Ney singled out?
Ney had already drawn the ire of Bush/Cheney/Rove by being one of only 3 Republicans to vote against the U.S.A. Patriot Act. And he supported rolling it back 5 years later.24 But the final straw appears to be his knowledge of their dealings with Iran.
Ney is the only member of Congress who speaks Farsi, having taught English as a Second Language in Iran prior to the 1978 revolution.25 Ambassador Tim Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Iran, delivered a letter to him from Iran, containing a peace proposal. It was put together by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; then-president Mohammad Khatami, and then-Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, “according to a copy of the cover letter to the Iranian document.”26
In May 2003, the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for an end to U.S. hostility. The Iranian paper offered “full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments.” The Iranians also offered support for “the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government” in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including “above all, al-Qaeda”); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups like Hamas. In return, the Iranians asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the “axis of evil”; that all sanctions end; that the U.S. support Iran’s claims for reparations for the Iran-Iraq War as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that the U.S. pursue anti-Iranian terrorists, including “above all” the MEK.27 MEK members should, the Iranians said, be repatriated to Iran.28
In a recent interview with radio host Thom Hartmann, Ney stated that he sent the letter to the White House.29 In fact, Trita Parsi, Ney’s former aide, said that on or about May 4, 2003 the letter was sent to Karl Rove and that Rove confirmed receipt of the Iranian offer just 2 hours after it was delivered to him, saying it was “intriguing.” At the same time the letter was faxed to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.30 Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice denies she ever saw the letter and “even chastised former State Department, National Security Council, and Central Intelligence Agency official Flynt Leverett for having failed to bring it to her attention.” Leverett responded by saying it was “unthinkable that it would not have been brought to her attention” and demanded an apology from her.30
Parsi also claims there was a “discussion about this at the high level in the Bush administration.” He said that hard-liners, led by Dick Cheney, immediately rejected it, even going so far as to “reprimand the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.”31
The White House denies this but Powell’s former assistant admits that he received the document.
Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a “secret cabal” of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney. “The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran,” Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS).32
I believe that every step of the way, and I think it came more from Cheney’s people, but every step of the way that I attempted to deal with Iran, it got pretty harsh back. So I think part of this, I gave them the bullets, but I think some of the force was also involved with Iran and people that would rather see those countries not communicate, no matter who is head of Iran.29
Indeed, this appears to be the case.
Basking in the glory of “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer and criticized Guldimann for even presenting it. Several years later, the Bush administration’s abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish and the administration moved to suppress the story. Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his Op-Ed crudely censored by the NSC [National Security Council], which had to clear it. Guldimann, however, had given the Iranian paper to Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney . . . [who] had lived in Iran before the revolution, spoke Farsi, and wanted better relations between the two countries.28
In 2007, long after Ney had been sent off to the hoosgow, the Washington Post disclosed that foreign policy professionals have been discussing “whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity 4 years ago to strike a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran at a time when Washington appeared at the height of its power after the invasion of Iraq and Iran had not mastered uranium enrichment.”26,33 Clearly having this come out has been not only an embarrassment for the Bush administration but calls into question their effectiveness in foreign policy matters or, more frighteningly, their attempts to start a war with Iran. A very good reason to discredit Ney.
John Edwards. The Republican machine targeted donors to John Edwards’ presidential campaign, primarily trial lawyer donors, because he was seen as the one most like to win the Democratic nomination. (See Paul Minor above.)
It appears that Justice Department lawyers involved in the scheme improperly issued subpoenas to financial institutions designed to collect information on campaign fundraisers for Edwards. The subpoenas were marked with a legend saying that their existence was to be treated as a secret. Since the subpoenas were issued in violation of federal laws protecting the secrecy of information by financial institutions, one has to suspect that this extraordinary step was taken because the Justice Department officials involved knew their conduct was unlawful and sought to obscure that fact by avoiding detection. In any event, the existence of the subpoenas was not a fact entitled to protection. The prosecutors also invoked grand jury secrecy requirements as a reason for maintaining secrecy, a contention which is sure to raise eyebrows in light of the aggressive leaking of grand jury materials in a wide array of political prosecutions. More likely, the prosecutors were extremely anxious to insure that the full breadth of the scheme targeting the Edwards campaign be kept out of public knowledge.2
Georgia Thompson. A Wisconsin State employee, Thompson was prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic on the charge that she steered a state contract to a donor to the campaign of Democratic Governor James Doyle, then up for re-election. Thompson was convicted and her conviction used against Doyle in the campaign. However, a federal appeals court overturned the conviction, saying that there was no evidence. One of the appeals court judges said that Biskupic’s case was “beyond thin.”34
The stories go on and on. Suffice it to say that the firing of federal attorneys was tied to the Karl Rove plan to get rid of Democrats in all levels of government – from judges to governors to the people who funded them. And he used the United States Justice Department to do it.
1 It is the Congressional investigation into this matter that led to the subpoena of Karl Rove and a federal judge’s order that the White House must comply with the subpoena. The scheme for political prosecutions is also what drove the hiring practices of Monica Goodling at the Department of Justice. The White House attempted to spin the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys by saying that they refused to prosecute voter fraud violations. This also played into their scheme to push for stricter voter requirements to suppress minority votes. (See Mark Follman, Alex Koppelman, and Jonathan Vanian. How U.S. Attorneys Were Used to Spread Voter-Fraud Fears. Salon, March 21, 2007.)
2 Horton, Scott. Chicago Court Orders Discovery of DOJ Political Prosecutions. Harper’s Magazine, October 13, 2007.
3 Associated Press. Former State Attorneys General Back Siegelman. WKRG.com, May 31, 2008.
4 Editorial. Selective Prosecution. The New York Times, August 6, 2007.
5 Lynch, Adam. Secrets & Lies: GOP Accused of Political Prosecutions. Jackson Free Press, June 4, 2008.
6 Cohen, Adam. A Tale of Three (Electronic Voting) Elections. The New York Times, July 31, 2008.
7 Opinion of Bill Pryor, Alabama Attorney General, directed to Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett, November 9, 2002. Preserved at FindLaw.com.
8 60 Minutes. Did Ex-Alabama Governor Get a Raw Deal? CBS News, February 24, 2008. (Watch video) The 60 Minutes piece didn’t get shown in most of Alabama. The Alabama CBS stationed blacked it out, with a statement that said "We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring 'The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.'" WHNT said they lost the feed. (Tuscaloosa News) CBS in New York denied this. WHNT was one of those 77 stations that released fake news videos back in 2006. (PRWatch) According to the Democratic Underground, WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, founded and run by Robert M. Bass. Bass was a classmate and personal friend of Bush and he and his brother, Lee, "helped Bush financially both before and throughout his political career. . . Most recently, in 2004 he started Aerion Corp to develop supersonic corporate jets, which is the beneficiary of lucrative Federal DARPA contracts. (Wikipedia)
9 Horton, Scott. Alice Martin’s War. Harper’s Magazine, March 9, 2008.
10 Johnson, Raymond. Special Report with Raymond Johnson, WOTM video.
11 Horton, Scott. The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller. Harper’s Magazine, November 2, 2007.
12 Horton, Scott. Siegelman Sentenced: Riley Rushes to Washington. Harper’s Magazine, June 28, 2007.
13 Minor made millions of dollars prosecuting cases against tobacco and asbestos companies, which infuriated Republicans and gave rise to their shouts for “tort reform.”
14 John Edwards was targeted early in 2004 by Republican operatives as a strong Democratic presidential candidate against President Bush. They targeted prominent trial lawyers across the nation as the likely financial vehicle for Edward’s support and directed that their campaign finance records by “fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses. (See Horton, Scott. Tracking Political Prosecutions. Harper’s Magazine, September 22, 2007.) Civil litigation, Beam v. Gonzales, raised questions of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ and Federal Election Commission chair’s Robert Lenhard’s pursuit of a group of Edwards fundraisers. (See Horton, Scott. Chicago Court Orders Discovery of DOJ Political Prosecutions. Harper’s Magazine, October 13, 2007.)
15 In Mississippi, judges are first appointed by the governor and then must be re-elected in their own right. There is no law prohibiting attorneys who practice in front of a given judge from donating to or advising that judge’s campaign.
16 Horton, Scott. A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor? Harper’s Magazine, October 5, 2007.
17 Legal Schnauzer. Mississippi Churning, Part I. September 19, 2007.
18 For a common language explanation of “honest services mail fraud,” see Legal Schnauzer. For a more legalistic discussion as well as a history, see FindLaw. For an explanation of “deprivation of honest services,” see PointOfLaw.
19 Podgor, Ellen S. Paul Minor’s Appellate Brief. White Collar Crime Prof Blogs, a Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network, July 7, 2008.
20 Alexandrovna, Larisa. Government Opposes Appeal by Imprisoned Attorney to Visit Dying Wife. Raw Story, July 29, 2008.
21 Beyerstein, Lindsay & Alexandrovna, Larisa. Judge Who Denied Jailed Democrat’s Motion for Release was Karl Rove Protégé. Raw Story, August 25, 2008.
22 Lee, Anita. Minor Denied Release Pending Appeal. SunHerald.com, August 18, 2008.
23 Schmidt, Susan & Grimaldi, James V. Ney Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges. Washington Post, October 14, 2006.
24 Ratner, Ellen. My Friend, Bob Ney. The Hill, October 25, 2006.
25 Wolfson, Paula. Ney/Iran. Voice of America, January 8, 1998. Preserved at Federation of American Scientists
26 Kessler, Glenn. 2003 Memo Says Iranian Leaders Backed Talks. Washington Post, February 14, 2007.
27 The MEK is the Mujahedin of Iran, a “militant Islamic Socialist organization that advocates the otherthrow of Iran’s current government.” See Wikipedia for more information.
28 Galbraith, Peter W. The Victor? Excerpt from Trita Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The New York Review of Books, October 11, 2007.
29 Kall, Rob. Bob Ney (R-OH): Prosecuted for Not Playing Ball with Bush Administration. OpEdNews.com, 8/21/08.
30 Porter, Gareth. Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal. IPS News, February 16, 2006.
31 Goodman, Amy. Ex-Congressional Aide: Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003. Interview with Trita Parsi. Democracy Now, February 26, 2007.
32 Porter, Gareth. Neo-Con Cabal Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks. Inter Press Service, March 28, 2006.
33 Beals, Gregory. A Missed Opportunity With Iran. Newsday, February 19, 2006.
34 Nichols, John. Senators Expand Inquiry of Political Prosecutions. The Nation, April 11, 2007.
© The Issue Wonk, 2008