Davis to House committee:Siegelman shouldn't be asked to testify to Congress.

And Rep. Davis has made a valid point. Putting Siegleman to testify to the HJC would jeopardized his innocence while he is released from prison pending appeal. And since Davis said on Dan Abram's show, The Verdict, that his focus is getting Rove to testify to the HJC, it would sense to focus on Rove since would not have executive privilege in the Siegleman manner. I would rather see the evidence in Siegleman's appeal to expose a much corrupted judge that used his position and loyality to the Administration to illegally convict a former Governor for political and personal reasons.


Posted by Birmingham News March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - Rep. Artur Davis advised the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee today not to ask former Gov. Don Siegelman to testify at a future hearing, saying it could undermine Siegelman's rights and cause the committee to lose focus on the broader issue of the integrity of the U.S. Justice Department.

Davis, who has said before that he would rather have former White House adviser Karl Rove at the witness table, said in a letter that Siegelman "presumably" could not testify directly about any interaction Rove may have had with the Justice Department. Instead, "the sole value of (Siegelman's) testimony would be a prolonged assertion of his innocence," Davis said in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

Davis, D-Birmingham, is a member of the committee and said he was concerned that Siegelman could be asked questions about the underlying facts in his criminal case.

"His answers could either constitute substantive evidence in a retrial, or form the basis for additional false statements or obstruction charges by future prosecutors," Davis wrote. "To compel Siegelman to expose himself in this way would undermine his rights in a manner that would shock us if our Republican counterparts had conceived it."

"Most importantly, we will lose the high ground that maintains that the integrity of the criminal justice system is more important than an individual defendant's guilt or innocence," he wrote.

The committee announced last week that it was planning to call Siegelman to testify in another hearing about political influence in the Justice Department. Siegelman was released from federal prison on Friday after a federal appeals court said bond should have been granted while the former governor appeals his conviction.

Here is Davis' letter:


The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2214

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate your leadership in pursuing allegations that the Bush Justice Department has targeted individuals for partisan reasons. Because of your vigilance, the House Judiciary Committee has unearthed evidence that at least three U.S. Attorneys may have been dismissed because they resisted political pressure to file charges against certain Democratic officeholders or activists. The Committee has presented testimony and E-mails suggesting that high-level Department of Justice appointees actively promoted a political agenda within the Department. These revelations have served the public interest by identifying a dangerous cloud around the Department and by contributing to Alberto Gonzalez's resignation.

As you know, some of the most dramatic allegations have involved the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. An Alabama lawyer has given sworn testimony that she was told that Siegelman would be indicted in order to derail his political career, and that a highly placed Republican told her that then Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove had interceded with the Department of Justice to ensure Siegelman's indictment.

Siegelman has also raised a variety of claims on appeal, alleging major errors by the trial judge and possible juror misconduct. On March 27, 2008, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Siegelman's release on bond pending the resolution of his appeal.

Prior to the appeals court's actions, it is my understanding that the Committee had subpoenaed Siegelman for public testimony regarding his case. Had I been consulted regarding this matter affecting my state, I would have told the Committee that Siegelman' s public testimony before the Committee would be extremely unwise, from both Siegelman's perspective and the Committee's. I would have advised that pursuing Rove's testimony on the specific question of his contacts regarding the Siegelman case was the far better option, and that our narrow focus here makes our claims against executive privilege even stronger than the ones we assert against Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers.

Because I do feel strongly about our options, I want to state my position in some detail. First, Siegelman's appearance would inevitably subject him to questions regarding the underlying facts in his case. His answers could either constitute substantive evidence in a retrial, or form the basis for additional false statements or obstruction charges by future prosecutors. To compel Siegelman to expose himself in this way would undermine his rights in a manner that would shock us if our Republican counterparts had conceived it.

In addition, since Siegelman presumably cannot tell us about conversations involving Rove and others, the sole value of his testimony would be a prolonged assertion of his innocence. It is my belief that frankly, whether Siegelman violated criminal laws, and whether he received a fair trial, is not a determination within our jurisdiction. Our scope of concern is whether there were improper contacts with Department of Justice employees by political forces, and whether these contacts led to a prosecution that would not have been brought otherwise.

I am worried that if we call Siegelman, our proper focus will be lost. We may offer him a day in the court of public opinion, but our critics will assail us for doing nothing more than second-guessing a jury verdict. The Republican opposition within the Committee will use the occasion to discredit him with the least flattering facts of the trial and his governorship. It is even conceivable that they could call some of the cooperating witnesses who testified against Siegelman to further damage his credibility.

Most importantly, we will lose the high ground that maintains that the integrity of the criminal justice system is more important than an individual defendant's guilt or innocence. I have listened to Alabamians who have argued with me about the ethical character of the Siegelman Administration; or who want to tell me why various characters in this episode are more believable than others; or who simply want to appeal to me to "respect" the jury's verdict--I have countered them by saying that the legitimacy of the process, and resolving the question of whether politics infected it, matters more than all of these claims.
I know from the times I have heard you argue for habeas corpus for detainees, or for the strongest fundamental rights for the accused in American courtrooms, that you agree with me about the primacy of process over the specific facts in a case. I fear that we will undermine what we value most if we divert this committee into a fact-finding quest into what Don Siegelman did or did not do.

I appreciate your consideration of my views. I will communicate them to Governor Siegelman's lawyers as well.

Sincerely,

Artur Davis
Member of Congress