Stupid DOJ Tricks: Don’t Watch this Bush Ad
I have to admit. I find this ad totally unappealing. While Bush comes off as the same kind of mob-inciting thug as George Allen did in Macaca, Geoffrey Fieger’s smug delivery doesn’t make me want to have him represent me in any lawsuits. Still, it’s marginally more subtle than most trial lawyer advertisements. And who can fault a guy for trying to make a buck off of being attacked by the astoundingly unpopular Bush?
Still, a pretty harmless ad.
Except that DOJ appears to be preparing to argue that it threatens their ability to try Fieger for crimes relating to campaign finance. They have subpoenaed the firm that made the ad, asking for:
(1) broadcast reports or media schedules for any television commercials that feature defendant Geoffrey Fieger together with a video clip of President George Bush. To the extent that Sussman Sikes has this information, the reports or schedules should include information about the number of TV commercials, the content of the TV commercials, when the TV commercials have played, when they are scheduled to be played, and on which television stations.
(2) the name and contact information of the person affiliated with Mr. Fieger who delivered the TV commercials to Sussman Sikes and who directs when and where the commericals should be played.
Now, there are two sides to this argument. Fieger has argued that Republicans at the state and then federal level targeted him for investigation and indictment because he was (still is) a loud obnoxious Democrat and because he pissed off Bush by vocally encouraging Democrats McCain in 2000.
In the presidential primary of 2000, Mr. Fieger encouraged the people of Michigan to vote for John McCain and against Bush which caused droves of Democrats to the polls and gave McCain a win in the Michigan primary. The day after the primary, George Bush gave a speech at Lawrence Technological University during which he denounced Mr. Fieger by name no less than four times (referring to him as “Kevorkian’s Attorney”). These facts demonstrate that the charges now before this Court originated in Washington D.C.
Fieger has even submitted the Bush clip as an exhibit to a motion on selective prosecution.
The government, on the other hand, argues that Fieger’s public claims of selective prosecution threaten their case. The have moved to prevent Fieger’s team from discussing selective prosecution during his trial, including any discussion of whether he was targeted for encouraging people to support McCain.
More particularly, the government asks that the defendants be precluded from asking questions during voir dire, or asking questions or submitting evidence or arguing at trial, relating to the following:
[snip]
2. Any claim that they are being prosecuted for who they are, or because they supported Democrats, or because they opposed the Bush administration, including by supporting other Republican candidates, and any other claim that they have been chosen for prosecution for any reason other than the fact that the government had allegations, which were substantiated, that they violated the law as described in the indictment;
Still, the judge declined to issue a gag order for the case. And he has not yet even ruled on whether he’ll allow Fieger discovery on the larger selective prosecution issue. Plus, this ad doesn’t explicitly mention Fieger’s indictment. So if the Prosecution is successful in excluding any mention to Bush’s attack on Fieger, a juror would have to be pretty damn sharp to make the connection between Bush and Fieger’s prosecution.
Besides the fact, I still think it rather thuggish for DOJ to fail to recognize that being attacked by Bush may well be good for business.
Hi, Emptywheel! Now to read the post!
One question, EW. What ad? It’s not showing up on my screen!
Should show up as a YouTube at the top of the page.
Hi EW. Smarmy is the word that comes to mind.
Yeah, I’d agree with smarmy. I’d make another comment abotu trial lawyers, but I suspect bmaz will be around shortly to scold me.
Ooooh. I hadn’t seen this yet! And to think I was out lobbying to send you to the Super Bowl…..
Just when you thought it was safe to go out in public. *g*
what’s next ???
are we going to prevent defendants from presenting an ALIBI
because, you know, a defendant having an alibi might just damage the government’s case …
and we wouldn’t want to damage the government’s case, would we ???
look over there, scary brown people …
thru the fucking looking glass
First amendment is out…spin is in the courtrooms. Judge better not allow this BS.
Doesn’t Feiger have some Congressional representation that should be getting a little curious about now. If he, like me, has all Rethug reps in both the Senate and the House, can’t he think of someone else that might be interested enough? In fact, isn’t there someone in Congress that actually is already investigating something similar–selective prosecution of a Governor?
Has the court actually ruled that this isn’t a case of selective prosecution?
Such claims should threaten the government’s case, because it’s pretty transparent payback.
Well, given the outcome of Bush v. Gore, the SCOTUS would likely determine that if Figer is allowed to rant or provide a credible, George W Bush could be deprived of his right to equal protection under the Constitution. Therefore, to preserve the integrity of the White House, Fieger should be taken to a secure location and blackwaterboarded. After all, freedom isn’t free! (But if you are rich, it is subsidized.)
Yeah. I’ll bet they do. If only we had an Amendment to cover this issue; it might ought to even be at the top of the list…..
EW,
Is this ad recent? Is it airing in response to his indictment?
In which case I could understand why the gov’t would be caliming it’s trying to pollute the jury pool. But, you would expect the motion in repsonse to that would be for a gag order.
What you have quoted sounds more like a motion in limine to limit what evidence or arguments can be used at trial.
Crazy
Exactly; because its certainly not like the government has been publicizing their anti-trial lawyer crusade or anything in an attempt to cripple Democratic funding….
I hope you can help us understand why DOJ is selectively prosecuting Feiger, selectively covered up Sibel Edmonds information on their dropping the 911 ball, and selectively prosecuted Siegelman, with abundant substantive evidence that they did, and why Material Mike Mukasey (Obstruction is My Middle Name) at Unitary Executive DOJ won’t release the Fitzgerald interviews of Rove, Cheney, and Bush.
The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok
Most importantly, as I think you know, there have been a number of law reviews citing studies that DOJ has been selectively prosecuting Democrats at a 4:1 rate to Republicans nation wide in the 94 federal districts and trial courts in the U.S.
Yes, it’s recent. And yes, Fieger did do some ads directly addressed to the investigation pre-indictment.
But, to answer Fieger, the judge has already declined, once, to impose a gag, using the logic that Fieger is still entitled to engage in his business–practicing law (at least until and if he is convicted of a felony).
But you also need to understand that it is inconceivable that people wouldn’t know of Fieger, of Cox’s attempts to indict him, and of his fights with Republicans. He has been that public for 10 years, and to now say he can’t engage in that speech (or counter the stuff that has come from the Republicans who run our Supreme Court) is ridiculous.
OT to this thread, but I hope that when you get the time, you will update your take on the recent information connected with Sibel Edmunds.
If I understand correctly (although LOL I can’t find their opinion–did the D.C. Circuit seal the opinion?–are we a board certified bannaa republic to that extent), the D.C. Circuit upheld Reggie Walton’s ruling on the FBI’s usual song and dance when they want to criminally coverup–state secrets, and ACLU as an amicus couldn’t get 4 cert. votes from the cowardly Supremes.
There have been discussions and a lot of links on Sibel on two of your recent threads, and I’d really appreciate hearing your updated take on this.
New Sibel Info
Today’s comments on the SE thread start @125.
Bob in HI
Thanks Bob. Have been catching up. It’s hard to keep up with all the threads. They seem to be proliferating as things move towards Super Tue.
There should be broad discovery in this case to subpoena whomever the hell Feiger’s defense team wants to trace this prosecution to its birthplace in the offices of Fielding, Gillespie, including Rove, and the West Wing who ordered the puppett obstructionist DOJ to initiate this proseuction as they did Seigelman’s prosecution.
Re: trial lawyers – I notice that Nataline’s parents weren’t all that repelled at the thought of going to stand with one. Obama if your dream is dead, Edwards if your daughter is dead, and any DOJ lawyer if you want a Canadian disappeared to Syria for torture.
Heh heh. Well, you know, EW is going to pound me on the trial lawyer bit for this one; but if the election thing doesn’t work out for Edwards, he is going to need a new client and Nataline’s parents could do a hell of a lot worse for counsel…..
I assume you’ve seen who they’ve hired already?
Yes, I agree.
If you drill into transplants in this country, (I know Natalie’s case is in the category of insurance intransigence and no one is suprised to know it is extensive in so many situations), the lists are a mosaic of inconsistency.
But when there isn’t funding, that makes it even worse.
I think I saw Geragos. I hope Edwards has the decency to talk to them a little bit about their case in return for them campaigning with him. It is a tragic story, that is on the national stage; they are in position to not only be compensated handsomely but to make a difference as well. Most cases like this, and there are way more than people know (my old partner had one eerily similar against Cigna where the child survived but is brain dead), are surprisingly off the radar. This deserves to be done right…
Yup, Geragos. He got another one, too. Ever the publicity lawyer.
I never heard of this guy, but I think it’s great that Michiganders went and f*cked with the R’s primary, just like the R’s have been doing to Dem primaries here in the south for so long. They had a hand in helping Clinton in Texas, I know that for sure. They wanted him because they thought with his skirt chasing rep he would be the easiest to beat, and failing that the easiest to screw with once elected. I’m sure “bipartisan” Obambi will do well here too. I plan to vote for Ron Paul when our primaries come around. Heh indeed.
Oh Fieger just drives the freaking conservatives batshitcrazy. He is not only an arrogant loud mouth Democrat, he was Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s (who was a poster boy of hate for the wingers) lawyer for years and years and kept him out of the clink. I would hazard a guess that if Kevorkian had not have been separated from Fieger, he may never have gone to prison.
Ron Paul? Have you lost your ability to judge?
Loo Hoo, he’s itching for a fight, best to turn and look away. First sentence gave it away.
Sooo…how ’bout them Buckeyes?
Thanks. I’m too trusting.
I judge him to be the craziest, weakest, most unelectable Republican running (although that’s a really close call), but more importantly the choice most likely to send an antiwar, antiestablisment message. Do you disagree with that? Or do you disagree with my judgement in trying to influence the enemy’s primary?
Anti-war is right on. Crazy fits the bill. Unelectable seems really centered.
Who is the enemy you are trying to influence?
we should act as if we had an honorable OPPONENT, even though we don’t
I’ve spent too many elections voting for Dems who run away from their base and try to placate their ENEMIES. Maybe when the Dems try to win my vote instead of the votes of implacable Republicans, I’ll try kicking that football again, Miss Lucy van Pelt.
Can’t tell if it’s a reproduction of Manet’s Bar at Folies Bergere, or Dogs Playing Poker in the background…somehow, either seems fitting.
heh I see what you are saying there, and can’t tell what is. With Fieger, it literally really could be either one of those though.
I’m trying to get one more Texas Paultard at the Republican Convention. The Dem choice will be sealed long before Texans vote. But win or lose, Paultards will definitely be making delicious trouble at their convention. Wouldn’t it be great if their convention turned into something like Chicago in ‘68?
No.
off topic, trash talk
told ya ohio state sucks
and thus ends a great football bender
OT – In today’s SCOTUS oral arguments on lethal injection, Scalia seemed to be staking out a position that had to do with the question of whether the execution method was or was not — wait for it! — torture. If I understood correctly, he seemed to be arguing that even though a given execution method might cause excruciating pain, the method could not legally be torture if the pain was merely incidental to the purpose of execution. Whereas (in Scalia’s argument) in order to be torture, that pain would have had to be the primary purpose. (BTW: Can I just say these people make me literally sick to my stomach?)
This parsing is just too close to the “The US does not torture” meme not to notice. It makes me wonder whether the secret rationale behind the endless chanting that “The US does not torture” might be that any excruciating pain “extended interrogation techniques” may cause is (in their argument) merely incidental to their purpose of obtaining information, and therefore those techniques cannot be defined as torture. I mean, that would be utter crap, but the logic might conceivably work — or, more to the point, we now see it would likely work with Scalia, and therefore likely with Scalito + Roberts.
Which I guess in the end is who would matter.
Wonder whether that dogwhistle might be part of why they took the case.
I cannot envision how, even if that ruling were made with regard to lethal injection execution (and it should not be), that would not be distinguishable from any interrogation situation because the purpose of one is murder (legal murder, but murder), while even Cheneyistas cannot admit or consider murder to be a goal, or even forseeable consequence, of interrogation (even though, as Mary has pointed out so well, that may indeed be the case).
But Scalia’s analysis cuts on a different plane, doesn’t it? I think to him, the similarity would be that the harm inflicted is not the interrogators’ goal. I’m probably too tired to be doing this now, so I’m probably missing something obvious in reading you… but from the Scalia POV, how does your murder issue enter into it?
It it would be, I think, the discriminating factor on any interrogation case that you contemplate the lethal injection case being applied to. Simply put, murder is the goal in lethal injection; but is prohibited from even being considered in the interrogation setting.
EW – I think Spence has Borman tied in knots on the recusal issue somehow; but I can’t figure out how. I have to believe there is something a little more complex than what is described in the linked article? Any clue what is going on currently? I also wonder if Spence is maybe tying in his discovery attempts with the examination of Hillman in the other case, Beam?
O/T Thanks bmaz for the cheers…I did not get to really watch the game. Our daughter is sick and needed our care. We head to the hospital for more tests Tues. So,many prayers needed…Thanks for keeping your promise. I’ll catch up with the threads sometime…After we know she is healthy again. Thanks to EW too.
Klynn – You would not have liked much past the first quarter anyway. My thoughts are with your daughter and you. Best wishes.
Spence is technically uninvolved from the other case–though DOJ is being really snotty about that, claiming that the guy from Microsoft they want to subpoena is the same as the government and therefore Beam can’t subpoena him. Huh–funny, but the judge there made a distinction between govt and non-govt.
As to the recusals–Borman had decided that the reason for the recusals was unrelated, and said so in a hearing. But then he figured out that when DOJ went and subpoenaed information that had JUST (literally, minutes earlier) been denied the state case, and when he realized that Murphy et al were still not recused from the case, he appeared to have changed his mind. You see, Murphy et al were technically overseeing hte investigation for about 6 months before they recused (though they recused before the 80-agent raid of the firm).
I suspect the reason they recused is that Murphy et al have real conflicts with the folks who were involved in the State case, and they realized that they wanted to pretend this didn’t come from the State. But that they had already made case decisions that pretty transparently coordinated with the state. So because they were coordinating with Republican operatives who CLEARLY had a political reason to try to prosecute Fieger (if not the personal one that Cox was embarrassed that his sex-in-the-jury-box affair was publicized) at a critical period ofthe investigation, which taints the case (at least by appearance) with the state-level issues.
Right. This is probably goofy; and i am not sure I understand the facts fully or correctly, but here is what I was trying to get at. It is my understanding that Borman has done all this in camera and hidden any of the basis from Fieger/Spence. If I am Spence, I might start probing why Borman is affording such secrecy from my client and asking to access Hillman and other current/former main DOJ types same as the other case, and quietly positing that Borman himself might be serving an additional master above and beyond impartial justice. But, unlike some lawyers we know, you would want to be very quiet about anything like this. I dunno, I just get the feeling there is something more than we see going on.
No, Fieger’s team objected explicitly in a motion. They found out the govt was meeting secretly in addition to Borman’s initial attempt to see if there was any good reason to give discovery, and Fieger’s team raised an objection that, in the past, has gotten cases thrown out. And then the govt said, “never mind. Pretend we never gave you that information, Judge Borman, now we’d like you to just overturn defendant’s request for discovery.” And that was when Borman, now knowing the reason for the recusal, at first decided it was unrelated, but then, when the chronology of the investigation became clear, he realized that it was, in fact, pertinent. Incidentally, the less than brilliant AUSA proescuting this case as much as ceded that in an hearing, saying something like, “there might be somethign that might be imagined would be grounds.”
Well, then, why not turn it over.
And that’s all before their pathetic attempts to pretend Hillman wasn’t involved.
Hi, new user here. I wanted to reply yesterday but could not. I read somewhere, perhaps the motion to dismiss, that in an email to Harriet Myers by Kyle Sampson, that identified USAs to be put on the firing list, he also identified Murphy as one of the “must retain” attorneys. Those identified thusly were described as good managers, good prosecutors and loyal to the president and AG. The suspicious aspect of this email is that it predated his taking his position. I guess only loyalty applied.
I have followed this matter closely. I like your analysis EW and bmaz.
“Implacable Republicans”, I like the sound of that! From now on I will always modify the word “republican” with the word “implacable”, the same way they always modify “feminist”, “homosexual” and “gay rights movement” with the word “militant”. Any objections? Of course there are, there’s just no pleasing some people.
Make-up sex for the DOJ?
Not really.
I’d add two — release Fitzy’s documents as an olive leaf to Congress
and please give us an update on the Gonzo investigation…
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/c…..obias.html
klynn, best wishes for your daughter.
I appreciate the work Feiger has done on exposing innocent victims of U.S executions. Those who sit on death row and are innocent as well as those that they were able to prove in retrospect with DNA were not guilty. Bush’s rath might also be fueled by Feigers’ unveiling of the huge disparity of innocent minorities who have been killed and who are on death row. If you think about Bush’s texas reign, Feiger and his gang must also cause an incredibly delectable cognitive dissonance for Bush. Shame galore. And when in shame…attack, attack and attack some more.
Klynn, I have very much enjoyed your posts and will say prayers for your daughter. Keep us “posted”.
katie
Well, that kind of takes Borman out of my equation. I guess. There ought to be some kind of sanction against the government for this hanky panky though. dismissal is the one I would want; maybe Borman is just struggling to fashion one that is short of dismissal. Maybe he is calculating how much flak he will take by taking no action and letting them keep playing fast and loose ethically while persecuting Fieger. Maybe I am just batty.
testing
test w no bt
test again no bt
last test
Last test w bt
success!
What the hell are you doing RFW??
Hi bmaz, I hope you don’t mind me testing a device in EPU-ville, but I’ve hacked an old internet tablet with a new browser that includes javascript support and flash, and added bluetooth connectivity for a portable keyboard and stereo headphones. It took a while to stabilize the concoction, but my test was ”Could I post at EW’s place?”
The bluetooth kept crashing the browser, but it appears good to go, for now – I’m typing this comment on the bt keyboard.
I really didn’t like carrying around my laptop last year – now I have the same functionality in my pocket.
And, it didn’t cost me a penny, either.
Oh, no; wouldn’t be my place to mind anyway. I was just curious; could tell you were testing something and couldn’t for the life of me figure out what in the world it could be. I know the feeling on the carting the laptop around bit. I have one of the new MacBooks, so it is not too bad and I often need it for my real work anyway; but a lot of the time I really don’t. I intend to get an iPhone the second they come out with their 3G version, which I am told will be in somewhere around 3 months. I am also hoping there will be some type of roll up or small collapsible bluetooth keyboard that works with it; although the couple of friends I know that have the iPhones already say that once you get used to the virtual keyboard, it is far more usable for emailing/commenting than you would think. Your plan sounds more economical than mine; but I don’t have the talents of digital invention you do…
bmaz – you’ll be cadillacing with that iPhone! It’s gotta be the greatest gadget of all time!