Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Feds Bully ‘Die Hard’ Filmmaker McTiernan Into False Statement Plea

July 14, 2010

Rollerball Poster

A noted Hollywood filmmaker faces prison after a conditional guilty plea July 12 in a wiretapping case so interesting that it deserves two alternative news accounts.

Here’s the version provided to the vast majority of Americans by Reuters, via such conduits as ABC Entertainment:

Die Hard film director John McTiernan pleaded guilty to lying to law enforcement officials in connection with the racketeering case of a private detective who represented many Hollywood stars.

A trial for McTiernan had been expected to begin on Tuesday in Los Angeles on two counts of making false statements to federal agents and one count of perjury. McTiernan, 59, originally pleaded guilty in 2006 to a charge of knowingly lying to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the criminal case against private detective Anthony Pellicano, who has since been jailed.

But the film director later withdrew his plea, saying he had received poor legal advice, had been drinking and was jet-lagged from traveling when FBI agents questioned him. Federal officials again charged McTiernan with crimes in 2009, leading to Monday’s guilty plea. A judge set a sentencing date of Oct. 4….

I’ve written at least a hundred variants of this kind of traditional guilty plea story while covering federal courts fulltime from 1976 to 1980 for the Hartford Courant. But times have changed, and IMO the essence of McTiernan’s case is better conveyed this way:

Yet again, federal authorities abused their vast powers for their greater glory by manufacturing a crime and ruining a defendant’s career ─ at needless expense to federal taxpayers.

Too tough a verdict? You be the judge. First, kindly note that McTiernan’s plea was “conditional” on his appeal, a fact totally omitted by the Reuters story and thus by such headlines around the nation as that by the July 13 Washington Post, which blares: “John McTiernan is headed to jail.”

Wiretappers Unmasked
In 2002, a federal investigative team led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Saunders and FBI agent Stanley Ornellas exposed a scheme whereby the famous LA private eye Pellicano systematically broke wiretapping laws to help his clients in big-dollar entertainment industry battles.

In 2004, Howard Blum and John Connolly authored an in-depth overview for Vanity Fair entitled, “The Pellicano Brief.” It described Pellicano’s “A-list” clients and a pivotal raid of the detective’s offices by the feds, who seized guns, $200,000 in cash, plastic explosives and hand grenades on their way to winning a 15-year prison term for the PI.

The article didn’t mention McTiernan among the detective’s many famous clients. But we now know that McTiernan by then had sampled Pellicano’s services in 2000 by paying him $50,000 for a two-week investigation of fellow moviemaker Charles Rovan as the two struggled for creative control over their film, Rollerball, which was destined to be a box office flop.

Fast forward to early 2006. More than three years after the big raid on Pellicano’s office, none of the “A-list” Hollywood stars, managers, producers and lawyers had been jailed.

As sometimes happens in such situations, authorities sprang a perjury trap on McTiernan, who was famous for directing such action films as Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October. In a perjury trap, authorities can create a crime by inducing a target in an unguarded moment to forgo the right to silence and give a false statement about an embarrassing matter that might otherwise not provide a basis for a criminal charge.

The concept became notorious after Independent Counsel Ken Starr relied on it to try to save his otherwise failed Watergate investigation of Bill Clinton by surprising the president at a grand jury with unrelated questions about Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky case illustrated how reporters and readers alike tend to focus, understandably enough, on the sensational specifics of a scandal without reflecting that a perjury trap is often unfair. Why? Almost anyone has done something embarrassing. So, it’s just not right for authorities to use all-out tactics to create a crime by trapping some miscreants instead of focusing on whether the underlying activity is criminal.

Unfair or not, these kinds of traps are generally legal under the vast discretion that we provide to authorities. Here’s how the one against McTiernan unfolded, according to court records:

After returning ill from a film shoot in Thailand and after drinking McTiernan received an evening phone call at home from Ornellas, the FBI’s lead agent in the Pellicano case. Towards the end of a brief conversation, McTiernan falsely denied that he’d engaged Pellicano for illegal services.

McTiernan was promptly indicted, pleaded guilty to false statement, and received four months in prison and $100,000 fine as the first big-name Hollywood defendant nailed in the case. U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer, a 2003 appointee of President Bush, denounced McTiernan at sentencing for what she called his arrogance.

The defendant changed lawyers, and won a 2008 federal appeals court decision that enabled him to withdraw his guilty plea. Authorities responded with a new indictment that increased the defendant’s liabilities by reconfiguring the original false statement into two separate felonies, plus a perjury charge arising from his pursuit of his appeal.

These maneuvers increased McTiernan’s potential prison sentence to multiple years if he dares offend authorities further by proceeding to trial. I’ve reviewed the jury instructions approved by the judge, which almost guarantee a guilty verdict by limiting the defendant’s ability to argue that he wasn’t in a position to know if the person asking him questions by phone really was an FBI agent. McTiernan’s work inevitably brings calls from imposter “reporters” and others seeking details about such stars as Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone.

McTiernan doubtless didn’t ingratiate himself with authorities by helping found a non-profit, Project Save Justice, which filmed a 2009 documentary entitled, The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove. The film, available for free use in schools and for other free viewing on the project’s website, powerfully documents the travails of U.S. victims of political prosecutions. The movie and a congressional report have helped publicize academic studies showing that local Democrats were investigated at a nearly 5:1 ratio during 1,200 DOJ official corruption probes during the Bush administration around the nation

McTiernan describes his background as being a moderate Republican. But the director, like many in the civil rights field, including at my bipartisan Justice Integrity Project, has come to see since 2008 that the Obama DOJ is permeated also by a win-at-any-cost mentality that transcends traditional party divisions.

After Monday’s hearing McTiernan’s attorney, Oliver E. Diaz, noted that his client’s conditional guilty plea maintains his right to appeal numerous per-trial motions filed by the government and granted by the judge. Diaz, a Republican former Mississippi Supreme Court justice, himself had been one of the Bush DOJ’s political prosecution targets before twice being acquitted of federal corruption charges. The Diaz story is described in the Project Save Justice documentary, at his subsite at the Justice Integrity Project, and in a Harper’s article by Scott Horton.

Last month, McTiernan failed in his attempt to recuse the judge, a Republican whose courtroom comments suggest that she despises the defendant. Part of the issue seems to be that some federal authorities become personally offended if defendants use up courtroom time by failing to plead guilty, as do 95 percent of those accused.

I saw something similar up earlier this year in covering the sentencing of Republican former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.

His Democratic federal judge seemed to become almost unhinged in denouncing the defendant, citing such factors as Kerik’s making more money than the judge and prolonging proceedings by not pleading guilty. The judge has now quit the federal bench to join a law firm with an annual per-partner compensation of $2.1 million. The hypocrisy has inflamed Kerik’s supporters around the country, as illustrated by this Oklahoma criminal justice site.

Solutions?
The good news is that solutions shouldn’t be hard to devise. My three suggestions are:

First, authorities should focus on underlying crimes, not creating new ones to save face. If we as a society hate illegal surveillance let’s focus directly on that and its perpetrators, who are far more numerous and effective than John McTiernan’s two-week foray into those dark arts in 2000.

Second and much more important, lots of these trial problems would go away if judges would encourage both sides to proceed with proportion. For authorities to insist, as they did, that McTiernan spend at least a year in prison if he pleads guilty inevitability stretches out the proceedings at vast cost to everyone. To what purpose? Do taxpayers really have unlimited funds for these kinds of selective prosecution jihads?

This spring, authors Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell cited my recent article about Dr. Cyril Wecht in their best-selling book American Conspiracies. Until a Pennsylvania judge threw out the case last year, the feds forced Wecht , in his late 70s and in the twilight of his distinguished career, to spend $8.6 million in legal fees. This was largely to defend himself from 43 federal felony charges that on 43 occasions when he’d sent personal faxes costing his county a total of $3.86 — yes, that’s less than $4 — during his 20 years as a county coroner. Even after all the charges were dismissed the federal prosecutor had the gall to run for Congress last fall. But the public seems to be getting wise, and she was defeated.

Finally, we’ve got to find new ways of providing oversight. The U.S. Senate rubber-stamps most federal prosecution and judicial appointments. The Senate provided unanimous approval, for example, for the judges overseeing both the McTiernan and Kerik cases. Congress rarely enforces subpoenas on sensitive oversight matters anymore if DOJ doesn’t want to comply. And the traditional courthouse news reporter that I used to know in olden days have disappeared for cost reasons, replaced by visiting stenographers from wire services who primarily amplify whatever information federal authorities want to emphasize.

But if the public must be burdened with multiple information sources at least they should be entertaining. In that spirit, we’ve presented above, Rashomon-style, two different accounts of the same crime story. The first is the one that went out on the wires, and the second is my opinion-style commentary.

Even more on target than Rashomon is a telling comment by the Sally Field character in Absence of Malice, the 1981 film about the interplay of federal prosecutors and reporters. My perspective on it has changed. Upon its release, I denounced it to my friends as an unwarranted slur on the news and legal professions. Live and learn, and I’ve highly recommended it for the past two decades.

At the end, Field’s character comments about a news story that omits vital context in describing her: “It’s accurate,” she says. “But it isn’t true.”

Advertisements

Air Force Delay In Tanker Bidding Extends Political Intrigues

April 3, 2010

Let’s hope the Obama administration this week delayed its deadline for picking the next generation of Air Force tankers for good reason, as claimed ─ not as a cave-in to those who want U.S. taxpayers to fund European jobs.

To kowtow to Europe’s EADS and their mostly Republican U.S. allies for the wrong reasons would only hurt the U.S. economy and encourage scandalous conduct that’s been occurring on both sides of the nearly decade-long EADS rivalry with Boeing over tanker contracts.

Talks this week between President Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy resulted in a Pentagon announcement March 31 that it would delay its deadline for bids 60 days until July 9 if desired by EADS, the acronym for European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

Obama said during a joint press conference March 30 in Washington that he promised Sarkozy that Defense Department decision-making would be “free and fair” because the U.S. wants to hold a transparent bidding process.

The contract’s value officially is estimated at $35 billion, one of the largest in American history.  But the value could be vastly higher because the contract winner gets vital momentum for similar deals with other nations around the world.

Political, financial and military leaders of five world powers are active at their highest levels. In addition to France’s leader, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Germany’s Angela Merkel and the United Kingdom’s Gordon Brown are also interested in securing jobs from the U.S. contracts.  

Boeing issued a statement April 1 denying any legitimate reason to extend the bidding past DOD’s previous deadline May 10 to accommodate the Europeans.  EADS has been pushing for a longer bidding process that might push final decision-making past mid-term U.S. elections.

In jockeying for an EADS victory that would create a large assembly factory in Alabama, the state’s senior Republican Sen. Richard Shelby in February put a blanket hold on 70 top-level Obama federal appointments. 

Shelby disrupted the Obama administration as it entered a critical phase of its second year after numerous delays in appointments during the first year that are keeping holdovers in many key slots throughout government.  In Alabama’s middle district, for example, Leura Canary remains as U.S. attorney despite being one of the nation’s most controversial “loyal Bushies” (the term comes from a former Bush DOJ chief of staff) targeting such key Democrats as Alabama’s former Gov. Don Siegelman.    

Later, Shelby backed off in blocking all Obama appointments after flexing his Senate muscle.  As a countermeasure, the Obama administration just made 15 recess appointments to try to secure control of federal bureaucracy before too much more time passes. 

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby

But the political clock is ticking in other ways if EADS and its backers can nudge final Pentagon decision-making on July bids a few more weeks into the period after November’s U.S. elections.   Republicans are expected to gain far more congressional clout.  At that point, the Republican mastery of Senate rules even when they’re in the minority, combined with European financial muscle could threaten Boeing, which is no slouch itself in power politics in the United States and internationally.

Ensuring an award to EADS was a factor, according to my sources, behind two of the past decade’s most notable federal corruption prosecutions, those of Siegelman and former Air Force Assistant Secretary Darleen Druyun.  An independent review is the primary focus of my work with the start-up Justice Integrity Project.   Prosecutors dispute any political motive in either investigation.

In 2006, federal authorities working through Canary’s office convicted Siegelman, regarded by my political sources as less adept than his Republican rival Bob Riley in the congressional and international clout needed to ensure an EADS victory and an Alabama reassembly plant. 

Riley had been a leader in House military appropriations before narrowly defeating Siegelman in 2002 gubernatorial election. As a congressman and then as governor, Riley cultivated contacts with Russian raw material suppliers and France-based manufacturers who are major advocates of EADS.   

Also, the federal authorities won a corruption conviction against Druyun, building on initial investigative work by Boeing’s opponents in the competitive intelligence community.  Earlier, Druyun had helped Boeing obtain highly favorable terms on Air Force tanker leases.  She then received a $250,000 per year job at Boeing in 2003 after her retirement from the Air Force.

Her conviction helped overturn the initial Air Force award and reopen bidding, which is still continuing with this week’s extension.

This kind of intense interest in building airplanes is, of course, well-understood among Washington’s lobbyists and those whom they fund for elective office.  Closely following such contract awards also are national security proponents and business leaders in localities hosting proposed factories. 

Mobile County, for example, maintains an advocacy website called Save Our Tanker, where I’ve signed up as a “supporter” to receive news updates.   Another major advocate for EADS is the Business Council of Alabama, whose CEO/president is the prosecutor Canary’s husband William Canary.  He’s also the former campaign manager for Riley in his 2002 victory against Siegelman and a former Republican National Committee chief of staff.  

Boeing and its supporters foster similar efforts, including plans to apportion the tanker jobs around the U.S. to gather strong bipartisan support among congressional delegations.  Boeing’s claims that more U.S. manufacturing jobs will come from an award to a U.S. based company.  But traditional “Buy American” procedures have been eroded over the long term as both parties seek the financial rewards of globalization, as well as compliance with fair trade rules.

Boeing’s advocates include Republican Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas, which has an estimated 3,000 Boeing employees, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They were among the senators who wrote Obama March 31 to urge the president “to move forward on the Air Force tanker competition without delay.”  Their letter noted a March 23 final decision by a World Trade Organization panel that European governments had illegally subsidized the EADS subsidiary Airbus.

Who’s Who Backgrounder

On this spring weekend, U.S. taxpayers trying to make ends meet in a troubled economy and preoccupied during religious holidays deserve a backgrounder.  Here goes:

The current fleet of tankers used for mid-air refueling was built by Boeing in contracts dating back five decades.  In 2001, Boeing was awarded a renewal of the contract.   

Riley, as a member of the House, undertook discussions with French and other European interests to secure their support for an assembly plant in Mobile.  Riley also won Alabama’s 2002 election with the help 6,000 votes stricken from Siegelman’s election machine totals after polls closed on election night in Baldwin County, which adjoins Mobile on the Florida border.

Throughout the early part of this decade, Siegelman was targeted for investigation on corruption charges via what became a massive federal-state probe that Republican administrations headquartered at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force base.  Siegelman’s lead prosecutor was a powerful colonel in the Air Force reserves who supervised the case, including prospective witnesses brought to the base for pre-trial questioning.  In 2005, Siegelman was indicted and a year later convicted in his second trial on corruption charges as he planned to run for re-election. His main convictions were for seeking donations from a businessman for a non-profit advocating for better school funding and then reappointing the donor to a board. 

Siegelman’s judge, Middle District Chief U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, meanwhile was being enriched by the Air Force as the principal stockholder of closely held Doss Aviation.  Siegelman’s judge held between 32 and 44% of Doss shares while the company was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in Air Force contracts to refuel Air Force planes and train Air Force pilots.

Chief U.S. Judge Mark Fuller

All individuals mentioned above and both the Bush and Obama Justice Department have denied any special political or Air Force motivations in the Siegelman prosecution, despite claims of misconduct by whistleblowers and a witness interrogated at the Air Force base.

Also, Fuller has declined to recuse himself for conflict of interest, saying not one reasonable person in the U.S. would think it necessary. Former White House strategist Karl Rove’s best-selling new memoir Courage and Consequence defends Fuller stock-holdings during Siegelman’s prosecution, and denies any Rove involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

The Justice Department has agreed with the judge, and is seeking 20 additional years in prison for Siegelman.  The Obama administration seeks to prevent any Supreme Court review.   Meanwhile, the Air Force’s contract award via Druyun’s office was overturned in 2005 after Sen. John McCain of Arizona led the Senate Armed Services Committee investigation exposing Boeing’s corruption with Druyun. 

EADS (via its North American subsidiary) and its then-partner Northrop Grumman then won the tanker contract.  The award vindicated the high hopes of those advocating what had once been a long-shot bid. Benefits extended beyond Mobile to the economies of the nearby Florida Panhandle and Mississippi, and of course to European interests performing much of the work.

In 2008, the Associated Press documented that McCain’s Presidential campaign was being supported by a number of EADS backers, including McCain’s co-chairman and key financial supporter Tom Loeffler, a former Texas congressman whose firm lobbied for EADS.  Federal contractors and foreign citizens are forbidden to contribute, but not their allies.

McCain’s investigation originally received mostly positive reviews.  “It’s the best example of congressional oversight that we’ve seen in a decade,” Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told the Washington Independent.  “It was before the completely bone-headed decision to bring on all those EADS lobbyists.”

Last June, the Government Accounting Office overturned the EADS/Northrop Grumman award, saying that the Bush administration’s criteria had been slanted to favor their planes. 

Northrop Grumman dropped out of the bidding this year, saying the bidding process was too expensive and its bid with EADS was unlikely to succeed under Air Force specifications.  That left Boeing’s opponents scrambling for credible partners and strategies.

Last month, a Los Angeles lawyer said his client United Aircraft, a holding company for several Russian aircraft companies, would soon announce a joint venture with an unnamed U.S. defense contractor to seek the contracts.  But the company itself denied interest, and Russia’s prime minister edged away from advocacy of that proposal.

EADS has kept up its momentum via the direct talks between the French and U.S. presidents this week on a variety of world issues.  Among other topics, the leaders agreed on what they described as a fair process for the tanker bidding.

“It’s in the interest of American taxpayers,” said Obama, “and it’s also in the interest of our young men and woman who rely on this equipment in order to protect this nation.”

Sarkozy responded that he trusts Obama.  “If you say to me that the request for proposals, the call for tenders, will be free, fair and transparent,” said the French president, “then we say EADS will bid and we trust you.”

Behind those benign words looms the titanic struggle for jobs and power among nations.  The stakes were portrayed in a March 19, 2008 column by Washington-based commentator Wayne Madsen, a former National Security Agency analyst, Fox News contributor and active volunteer leader for McCain during his 2000 presidential campaign in Northern Virginia.

Madsen, now a TV commentator for the Russia Today cable program, wrote two years ago about McCain’s 2008 efforts: “Tomorrow, McCain will be feted at a campaign luncheon at London’s swank Spencer House at St. James Place by Lord Jacob Rothschild and Nathan Rothschild.”  Madsen went on to describe at length ties between U.S., EADS, Russian, Alabama and other leaders supported by such influential players as the Rothschild family and the Carlyle Group.

Boeing, of course, has its own stable of powerful advocates, who drum up political funding for their candidates and argue that tanker construction is overdue.  “It’s wrong to slow down this critical procurement process,” said the Kansas Republican Brownback about the Pentagon’s bidding extension for EADS.  “Our entire military relies on refueling tankers, which were built in the 1950s.”

For the moment, however, most are downplaying tensions publicly.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said this week that the deadline change is the only modification that the Defense Department will make to specifications for the 179 refueling tankers.  Even the 60-day delay is 30 days short of what EADS has requested to make a viable bid.  The Pentagon then needs months to review the bids, aiming for a decision just before the November elections.

“We have been and continue to make decisions on this critical program based solely on the law of the land and the needs of our war-fighters,” Morrell said.  “Politics are not a part of this process –– never have been, never will be.”

Federal Political Prosecutions Probed At March 25 Forum By Amerian University In DC

March 25, 2010

Citizen action to reform abuses in political and other arbitrary prosecutions is the topic of an American University forum that I’ll join March 25, entitled: “Just Justice: Political Actions by the Department of Justice.”

The two-hour session beginning at 5:30 p.m. features victims and independent experts describing how the public is hurt by politically motivated prosecutions against public officials on the local, state and national levels.  The forum is located in Ward Hall 2.  It’s free and open to the public.

I’ll describe why the public needs to energize their media surrogates to provide more oversight on Justice Department (DOJ) decision-making because of failures of courts and Congress.  I’m summarizing government misconduct in DOJ prosecutions of Republican former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and Democratic former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that I documented in Harvard University’s Nieman Watchdog:

Prof. Donald C. Shields, Ph.D.

Another speaker will be University of Missouri Professor Donald C. Shields, who undertook the pioneering research that indicated the Bush Justice Department prosecuted Democrats at a 7:1 ratio in official corruption investigations during its first seven years. 

He’ll provide an update on his more recent research covering the full eight years of the administration, including that regarding racial patterns. 

His research includes 2007 testimony (below) before the House Judiciary Committee illustrating problems revealed by hundreds of cases across the nation.  Their targets had scant understanding of the parallels to their cases elsewhere until his research and a documentary film released last year by Project Save Justice, which was researched by its Vice President Gail Sistrunk and noted filmmaker John McTiernan, whose credits include Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October.  A sample of the Shields research is:

Here’s some additional background from a press release.  We need more events like this around the country, and this is a good start!  Contact me if you have ideas for a similar program in your area, and can help make it happen. 

About Prof. Donald C. Shields

Donald C. Shields (Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1974) is Professor Emeritus, Department of Communication, University of Missouri—St. Louis. He currently serves as a Lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Missouri—Kansas City. His primary line of research has investigated symbolic convergence theory and communication.  He has authored or co-authored 10 books and more than 35 book chapters, and more than a dozen of his studies have been reprinted in other books and journals.  

About Andrew Kreig and Justice Integrity Project

Andrew Kreig is an attorney, author and commentator listed in Who’s Who in the World since the mid-1990s. As president of the Wireless Communications Association International for 12 years, he helped lead the advance of the broadband wireless industry worldwide.  He founded the Justice Integrity Project as a non-partisan organization to examine misconduct by federal prosecutors and judges and the consequences for the public.  Details.  # # #    

Karl Rove’s Deal To Provide House Testimony Slammed & Praised By His Alabama Opponents

March 5, 2009

The new agreement by former Bush Presidential advisor Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee was attacked today by a whistleblower’s attorney as an inadequate way to ascertain the truth, even as the deal was praised as a good start by former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a leading alleged victim of Rove. Siegelman’s comments are below.

Priscilla Black Duncan of Montgomery, Alabama, who represents the former Republican political volunteer Dana Jill Simpson, attacked the deal today in an interview on My Technology Lawyer Radio. Duncan said that Rove will probably receive only light scrutiny if he answers questions in private with unsworn responses to committee staff, as opposed to questions under oath by a full committee with adequate staff able to discuss nationwide patterns.

A witness in 2007 before Judiciary Committee staff herself, Simpson filed an affidavit nearly two years ago suggesting that Rove was improperly involved in the federal prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Siegelman, who is now free on appeal following conviction of federal charges involving a ballot referendum. Rove has denied in interviews any improper conduct, but has also claimed “executive privilege” to refuse testimony despite an adverse federal court ruling on his status. The deal was announced Wednesday by the Judiciary Committee after input from the White House.

Duncan was a guest today on a special edition of the radio show co-hosted by legal commentators Scott Draughon and Andrew Kreig focusing on Congressional oversight of the U.S. legal system and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Kreig published an opinion column Wednesday on the Huffington Post entitled, “Probe the Past To Protect the Future.” It argued that Congress needs to be far more vigorous in overseeing federal spending and the justice system, particularly in ensuring that oversight hearings are thorough enough to restore battered public confidence in the economy, justice system and communications industry regulation.

Another guest today was George Mason University School of Law Professor Thomas W. Hazlett, director of the law school’s Information Economy Project and previously the FCC’s first chief economist. Asked about the federal stimulus spending for broadband, he said he doubted results would meet expectations, especially in funds allocated to what he described as “gold-plated” rural telecom incumbents.

The show began with a news round-up of major developments this week. These included President Obama’s nomination of former FCC chief legal advisor and high-ranking Obama campaign volunteer Julius Genachowski to become the next FCC chairman, plus speculation about other high-level technology and commerce appointments.

Kreig discussed his column, which documented why much more vigorous oversight is needed in such areas as politically-motivated federal prosecutions and flawed oversight last year of such institutions as the FCC. Hazlett provided his view on what kinds of federal initiatives would best work economically in the telecom and wireless industries.

In the final segment, Duncan described her client’s concern that the White House had a conflict of interest in helping broker a testimony deal between the Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who has also been accused of involvement in a nationwide plan to politicize the Justice Department. Duncan said that she wrote White House Counsel Gregory Craig calling for his recusal or resignation because he previously worked for the prominent Washington law firm Williams and Connolly that has important relationships with Rove and his then-White House colleagues that allegedly weren’t disclosed to Simpson when she sought legal advice from Craig in 2007. Her letter was reported this week by Locust-Fork News-Journal editor Glynn Wilson, who has closely followed the Siegelman case. A White House press aide did not respond to a request for comment.

A Listen Live! link connects to the March 5 radio stream, plus archived past shows.

Later, Rove said in a Fox News interview that he expected to be devoured by Democrats when he testifies. “I’m the main course. Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued.”

Meanwhile, Siegelman sent a statement to Kreig this afternoon saying in part, “I am all for it. John Conyers is to be commended for his strength and determination in getting at the truth. I spent nine months in prison because Karl Rove and his Alabama friends wanted me ‘taken care of’ according to the sworn testimony of a Republican whistleblower. This process will not be easy, it will not be pretty and the American people will not be proud of what they see when the truth comes out. But just like an infected wound, our country cannot be healed until the wound caused by Karl Rove has been cleaned out.”

“Just as in my case, there are a dozen potential witnesses who need to be put under oath and asked about their relationship with Rove and the conspiracy to selectively prosecute me for partisan reasons.”

About Andrew Kreig
Andrew Kreig draws on work in business, law, government and journalism. Former president of the Wireless Communications Association International from 1996 to last summer, he is Senior Fellow with Brandeis University’s Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism and an affiliated Research Fellow with George Mason University’s Information Economy Project.

About My Technology Lawyer Radio Show
Richard Scott Draughon is host and producer of the My Technology Lawyer Radio Show, which is affiliated with MyTechnologyLawyer.com — an on-demand legal service. For details, visit: http://www.mytechnologylawyer.com. Among other projects, he will be organizing cutting-edge sessions at the Technosium on March 26 in San Francisco.

Agenda & News Coverage of Feb. 19 Broadband Stimulus Forum

February 24, 2009

$6 billion or more of the overall economic stimulus package will be allocated towards the deployment and use of broadband communications services. The bill, directed the FCC, NTIA, and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) to adopt quickly the rules and regulations that will govern how the money will be spent.

U.S. Broadband Stimulus Spending & Benefits To Be Debated Feb. 19 on Radio

February 18, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC (Feb. 18, 2009) – Three experts will provide diverse perspectives Thursday to a nationwide radio audience about specifics in $787 billion in controversial new U.S. stimulus spending. The discussion focusing especially on $6 billion in broadband spending will be on the weekly wireless edition of the Internet radio program My Technology Lawyer Radio at 1 p.m. (Eastern) co-hosted by show producer Scott Draughon and Capital-based commentator Andrew Kreig.

Stimulus Spending Debated Feb. 12 on Tech Radio Show

February 12, 2009

Broadband Subsidies May Test Obama Savvy On Ethics & Public Patience

February 10, 2009

http://www.rcrwireless.com/section/reality_check/

Disaster Communications & Obama Planning To Be Featured Jan. 29 On Tech Radio Show

January 28, 2009

Disaster Communications and Obama Planning
To Be Featured Jan. 29 On Tech Radio Show

Why the President ‘Stepped Out’ During His Inaugural Parade

January 21, 2009

Obama Inaugural Parade

Obama Inaugural Parade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/why-the-president-stepped_b_159875.html