The Karl Rove / Bob Riley Conspiracy

June 21, 2007

Filed under: Campaign & Election, Misc. AL Politics, AL Executive Branch — Danny @ 2:57 pm

Confession: I have never been much one for conspiracy. Oh, I am sure there must be some that run as deep and wide as anything I could imagine, but for the most part, I am the doubting Thomas.

However, if conspiracies are your thing, The Locust Fork Journal has one that involves Karl Rove, Gov. Bob Riley, a stolen election, rumors of a legislator murdering a lover’s husband, a compromised judge, and more.

After you read it, get back to me on why Governor Siegelman would be expected to concede an election because of photos of a Jackson County Democrat putting up Bob Riley signs at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

134 Comments »

Did you see the part about her house being burned and her vehicle forced off the road
and totaled in the wake of the affidavit? Think someone is trying to shut her up?

Scary stuff.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/

Comment by Roger Shuler — June 21, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Danny this story reminds me of something that Al Gore was accused
of back in 2000 by some conspiracy theorists. Some guy named Tony
Hays wrote a bunch of columns for World Net Daily. In these columns
he said that he had sources that told him that Gore would fly into
Florence, Al. from DC on Friday nights and meet up with drug kingpins
in Savannah, Tn on the river and they would share their drug profits
at these meetings in Savannah. Hays also accused Gore of having FBI agents
in Jackson and Memphis, Tn reassigned because he knew they were on
his tail. One of the alledged drug kingpins who is a prominate car dealer
in Savannah and Florence sued Hays for slander and eventually won.

I think thats whats going on here in a round about way with this story.
Most of it is sheer nonsense. The ideal that Karl Rove would conspire
to frame some Governor that no one has ever heard of outside of Alabama is just as
ridiculous as the notion that Vice President Gore would fly into
Florence, Al every Friday night to meet up with drug dealers on the Tennessee riverthat he’s known since college.

Comment by mr turnbow — June 21, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Missing from the tale are the lizard men of Sand Mountain, Illuminati-Masonic influences (maybe why Siegelman dropped his vote protest?) and Spetnaz with blue helmets.

Comment by walt moffett — June 21, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
This is not that far-fetched. Is it really that surprising that one of the gubernatorial candidates would attempt to rig the vote in his favor? That has been part and parcell of the Alabama political scene forever. Also, I don’t find it difficult to believe that the Rileys would enlist the aid of the Washington Establishment to prosecute Siegelman and thus insulate themselves from any charges of voter fraud that the Siegelman crew could have thrown at them in a potential 2008 rematch.

Comment by SamfordDem — June 21, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
The same stories were emailed to me by the Scrushy team. I didn’t even check them out.

Comment by Dan — June 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Damn right ! Dont’t check them out ! Let’s keep the blinders on until they slam the cell doors on these criminals who gave donations and got appointed to something. I’m with the prosecutors - take a donation and then appoint someone…you should get what they are seeking for Siegelman - LIFE !!! And I’m sick and tired of people saying it’s the same thing because Swaid Swaid gave Riley a bunch of money and then chaired the CON board as it approved his own product. It si soosoo different. Riley is a republican.

Comment by Bill T — June 21, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Any person who “respects” Lowell Barron can’t be all that credible.

All of that tin foil hat business doesn’t change the fact that he was convicted on not one, not two, not even three, but TEN counts. And the convictions were handed down by a unanimous jury of his peers without any ties to Karl Rove or Bob Riley.

Comment by Brian — June 21, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Let’s get Troy King to investigate this one. But I forgot, Siegelman was acquitted on the count
Troy’s office was responsible for.

Comment by Henry — June 21, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Siegelman was convicted on six counts relating to one act. We really don’t know about that jury now do we?

Comment by Bill T — June 22, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Did you take a bath after posting this garbage? My word . . .I know it is “just a blog” but responsibility must be shown somewhere, and I think you just shirked it.

Comment by Incredulous — June 22, 2007 @ 8:11 am
What a bunch of bull! Let’s take the 2002 election for example. It is more likely that Siegelman’s team did something to try to steal the election than:

1. Baldwin County, easily one of the strgonest Republican Counties in the entire state voted for Siegelman.

2. In order for Siegelman to have actually gotten the higher total of votes, some 6,000 more people would have had to signed the voter roles than actually did (there is triple reduedancy in the optical scan system Alabama uses–voter signature log, poll worker log, and the ballot count by the optical scan machines (not the mention the paper ballots in the machine itself). The AP did a story at the time where they verified the fact that the final tally was the one consistent with the logs and the machine ballot count. Here is an exceprt from a news story at the time–I’m searching for the AP story:

“Also, an Associated Press analysis of disputed election returns show that if Siegelman received 19,070 votes in Baldwin County, the county’s vote totals would be far out of line with voting patterns in Alabama’s other 66 counties. But if Siegelman received the lower figure of 12,736 votes, the total would be in keeping with the trend in other counties. The AP analysis was based on a comparison of vote totals for governor and for senator in each county.”

Siegelman and Scrushy are so desperate that they will tell any lie–no matter how ridiculous, to save themselves. Sheesh.

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 8:58 am
It ain’t a “conspiracy theory” if it’s true, now is it?

Oh, but this is Alabama, where Darwin’s “Origin of Species and Natural Selection” is “just a theory.”

Wake up people…

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 9:05 am
One more “laugh out loud” from the tin foil folks over at Locust Fork:

“So according to Ms. Simpson, the Riley campaign was able to take the high road in the primary campaign “and float above all that muck.”

She figured out that Riley only needed to take 13 North Alabama counties to win the primary. And the strategy worked. Riley won.

“We beat Karl Rove and Bill Canary in the primary, with almost no money,” she says with a touch of glee in her voice.”

Does anyone remember that Riley wom the Primary campaign with 72% of the voter–over a sitting Lieutenant Governor and carried every single county in the state doing it????? Oh yes–Riley also outraised Windom in the primary–not by much, so it’s not like he did it on “almost no money either.” Riley had 3.2 million for the primary, Windom had 2.5 million.

Thanks Danny–this has been my laugh for the morning!

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 9:29 am
You laugh at injustice? No wonder the world laughs at Alabama. There can be no doubt that the pursuit of Siegelman by the Bush Justice Department was a political prosecution. As I told a local New York Times reporter this morning, who is woking on a followup and had already covered the judge’s conflict story.

The Justice Department has been politicized before, just not to the extent it has been under Bush-Gonzales.

If you haven’t read this book, or at least this book review, you should check it out - if you are interested in facts, not rumor, myth and superstition:

http://www.southerner.net/fast/burnham.html

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Locust Fork, I laugh at -you-. But I am sorry you’re not taking your Haldol.

And thanks for the link to YOUR review of the Burnham book, sock puppet.

Comment by Reactionary — June 22, 2007 @ 10:46 am
“We really don’t know about that jury now do we?”

Are you serious??? So you think that every single person on the jury was in on the conspiracy? Just one juror could have caused a hung jury.

The easiest way to dismiss (or disprove) a conspiracy theory is to look at how many people have to be involved. The more people, the more likely that someone would spill the beans. For the conspiracy theory in this case to be true then all of the aforementioned people as well as an entire jury of randomly selected individuals (unless the theorist posits that the jury pool was rigged - another goofy conspiracy itself) would have to be in on it. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Same logic applies to the fools who think Bush was responsible for 9/11. Those same people call him grossly incompetent (no argument there, by the way). Those people think that the incompetent Bush could mastermind a coordinated attack on our on soil and that not one of the easily dozens, if not hundreds, that would have to be in on it with him would speak up either before or after the fact out of shame. I don’t think so.

Comment by Brian — June 22, 2007 @ 11:05 am
To Brian LeCompte:

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

- Mark Twain

That’s your favorite quote. Too bad you don’t live by it.

I’m not just some liberal blogger. I have more journalism credentials than anyone working in this state.

http://www.locustfork.net/bio.html

And you have to remember, Jill Simpson is not a liberal or a Democrat, but a life-long Republican who did dirty tricks for the Riley’s. She just realized the error of her ways and as a lawyer, decided to do the right thing. Spin all you want. It just doesn’t change the facts.

George Bush likes to talk about what he “believes.” I talk about what I “know.” Maybe in your engineering education at that cow college you forgot to take philosophy 101. There are matters of fact, and matters of opinion. I deal in facts, not opinions.

And objectivity is not just about economics. It’s about science. The journalism historians have gotten this wrong for 100 years, as does Fox News with its “Fair and Balanced” slogan.

If you want to know the facts, come on over to the Locust Fork News and Journal, where the river runs cold and true, the great blue herons dance like Elvis and the people like to shoot the breeze (and they are usually right).

Looks like Doc’s Political Parlor is full of a bunch of political spinners who have never seen a fact.

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Glynn, you seem to be the one that has a problem with facts. I see you’ve chosen not to deal with the obvious errors I pointed out above. I cannot even begin to guess Ms. Simpson’s motivations, but yours are quite obvious.

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Looks like Doc’s Political Parlor is full of a bunch of political spinners who have never seen a fact.

Hey now… hey now… I’m standing up for my readers. No need to disparage a whole group of people from all over the state, from the far right of the political spectrum to the far left, simply because some of them don’t see eye to eye with you. Good, good folks come through here.

:)

You don’t want to be read only by people who are in lock-step with you, do you?

If you want to know the facts, come on over to the Locust Fork News and Journal, where the river runs cold and true, the great blue herons dance like Elvis and the people like to shoot the breeze (and they are usually right).

Ok, I’ll grant you… that’s a good line. :)

Comment by Danny — June 22, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
I deal with facts, Susan, under my name on my Website, not anonymously in a blog comment window.

You are trying to spin it and dismiss the facts I provided.

Believe it … or not!

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Since we don’t have party registration in Alabama, how do you know if someone is a “life long Republican?”
I checked the GOP websites and was referred to a website for republican lawyers. There is no Simpson on the list.
All of the Riley children lawyers are members, but not a Simpson. In fact most of the Republican lawyers in
the news are listed, but no Simpson. Perhaps her registration expired?

Comment by Henry — June 22, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Danny:

I would reserve the “lock-step” quote for the right wingers. I’m a liberaltarian journalist who will defend people’s right to say what they believe - even if they are stupid and wrong. But I will not hesitate to set the record straight when a bunch of anonymous little spinners are attacking me personally. That’s Karl Rove’s modis operandi, isn’t it? Who here is on the Bush payroll? Not me. And certainly not Jill Simpson, anymore…

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Again, Henry, read the story. Jill Simpson is telling the truth. I grilled her for 8 hours. I document her Republicanism from one end to the other. Finding facts through journalism is not the same as a Google search and a blog comment. If you are not willing to identify yourself and your own party affiliation and whose payroll you are on, you have no credibility in the real world of journalism. In the faith-based world where reality doesn’t matter, well, reality doesn’t matter. Credentials don’t matter, apparently. Only who can post the most blog comments. In that case, I win…

The other GW

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Respond to this, if you can…

Feaga Shows Political Bias

http://www.locustfork.net/blog/

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
fast2write:

Susan took some of the most glaring examples of outright falsehood and showed them for what they are. That Riley won the 2002 primary by winning a handful of N. Alabama counties with no campaign money against a giant like Windom (best known for peeing in a jug) is laughable. Riley was the establishment favorite from the beginning, raised more money than Windom, won without a run-off with 73.5% of the vote and carried every county in the state except Butler (196-232). Your contention that Riley’s people messed with vote totals in Baldwin is also laughable. As Susan pointed out, the AP (I’m sure their journalistic credentials are nothing compared to yours; or are they on the Bush/Rove payroll?) investigated this and their conclusion was that the “extra” 6,000 votes for Siggy couldn’t be right b/c it would have meant 6,000 more votes than voters.

Now, if the easily checkable “facts” in your lengthy diatribe are so easily debunked, you can understand why people would be skeptical of your more outlandish claims, right? I think the burden is on you to put up something other than bald assertions that you are a JOURNALIST who has uncovered the TRUTH and the rest of us just have our snively opinions. Is it a fact or an opinion that Riley won 73.5% of the vote in the ‘02 primary?

Finally, does anyone understand why pictures of a Jackson County judge hanging Riley signs at a clan rally would have Siggy scared like a vampire in a mirror factory? Me neither. Considering there was proof that Siggy’s trial lawyer buddy paid a hooker to make false allegations about Windom in 1998, I don’t see how pictures of a Demo judge would be fatal to the guy.

Comment by JD Hogg — June 22, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
fast2write? More like slow2think.

“I’m not just some liberal blogger.”

Do you mean that you aren’t “some liberal” (i.e. a special liberal) who happens to blog, or you aren’t “some blogger” (i.e. a special blogger) who happens to be liberal, or are you actually a special liberal blogger?

“I have more journalism credentials than anyone working in this state.”

Modesty is overrated. Where do you keep your Pulitzers?

“I deal in facts, not opinions.”

That’s funny, I presented the FACT that Siegelman was convicted by a jury of his peers as credible evidence that your story, while entertaining, doesn’t prove his innocence. You respond by mocking my alma mater and lecturing me on facts and opinions. I bet you’re a real hoot at those tin foil hat conventions.

You’re preaching to the choir about Bush, by the way.

Comment by Brian — June 22, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
JD doesn’t debunk any facts. It wasn’t reported that Riley ONLY won those counties in the end. That’s spinning it. The press coverage and polling data early in the primary race shows Windom up. So you don’t counter that with any FACTS either.

The AP in this state is not the best bureau in the country, to say the least. The national AP, New York, D.C. and New Orleans especially are excellent. I have’t found that to be true here since returning to Alabama from D.C. and New Orleans myself. Sorry. That doesn’t “get me” either.

The Klan dirtry trick story shows how political operatives on both sides sometimes think, whether those plans turn out to be the determining factor in the race or not later on.

You show you are not above it passing this garbage around yourself with the “hooker” comment. No credibility, buddy. Keep it up with the blog comments. I can win this contest any day.

BTW: You didn’t answer my question about Feaga.

Comment by Anonymous — June 22, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Yes, we all know that Siegelman was convicted, but not by a jury and certainly not by his peers. Anyone who knows anything about the law and politics knows juries can easily be manipulated, in this case by a corrupt judge and prosecutor, who care more about politics and their careers then they do in real justice.

If all you care about is “winning” the political wars for your side, I can see how you would like to see someone accused falsely go to jail for the rest of their lives. I suppose you support the death penalty for black people too, even if they are innocent.

If you agree with me on Bush, and if the Bush administration is capable of politicizing justice, then why do you find it so hard to believe that this is a political prosecution and should be short-circuited before real harm is done to some real people’s lives?

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
More insanity:

“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.

But the contract was never paid. Why? Because once President George W. Bush heard about Riley’s situation, she says, he agreed to make a fund raising visit to Alabama. That visit raised roughly $2 million for the Riley for governor campaign and gave Rob Riley the budget he needed to run a real campaign for his dad.”

So Simpson tried to get the Rileys to go along in a kickback scheme to get money from the federal government (for “storm gypsies” or people who tend to show up and gouge residents after a natural disaster) and the Congressman wouldn’t do it. Makes me admire Governor Riley all the more. BTW–Dekalb county was not one of Riley’s counties so Simpson was not one of his constituents. Sorry, another one of those “facts” you seem to like.

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
BTW–Lovely story on storm gypsies:

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/COLUMNISTS17/701260395

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
LOL!!! I can’t figure out if you are completely native or are just a partisan rube.

She was trying to raise money for “your man” Riley. They couldn’t collect it, because they didn’t do their jobs. They asked HER for money. She suggested a way to get it. Now that’s a fact!

As for storm gypsies being gouging residents, blame that on the Bush Republicans now running the Department of Homeland Security. They are the one’s who have privatized everything. All this work is contracted through FEMA, which actually worked pretty well - when Bill Clinton was president.

Calling it a kickback scheme is not only not a fact, it is potentially libelous.

Comment by Anonymous — June 22, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Here’s more fun:

“Amazingly, Justice Fuller received a $178 million contract through a privately held company to train pilots and navigators for the U.S. government DURING THE SIEGELMAN, SCRUSY TRIAL. The company is called Doss Aviation of Alabama.

For another company called Aureus International that is listed as a division of Doss Aviation on the company’s Website, Fuller is also listed as the majority owner, according to Ms. Simpson’s research. The company does a comparable amount of business making uniforms for the U.S. military and the FBI, which played a major role in the investigation and prosecution of Siegelman and Scrushy.”

Doss Aviation is actually headquartered in Colorado Springs, Co. And Doss Aviation (of which Fuller is an investor) received a contract with a potential worth of $178 million in 2006. Glynn claims that fuller personally received a $178 million contract. . . ” which is not factual. Moreover, so what? The Air Force had nothing to do with the trial. I had to laugh when I read that Fega is an officer in the Air Force reserve–like he would be making decisions on Air Force Academy contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Anynymous 31–I went through hurricanes Opal, Fran and Floyd during the Clinton administration. Storm gypsies were prevalent trying to rip people off by charging outrageous prices to do work, demanding cash up front and disappearing. And FEMA was as ineffective then as it ever was. People waited for YEARS to get their money from FEMA. The notion that FEMA was EVER effective is as wrong as wrong can be! I think you must be the partisan rube–rube!

Comment by Susan — June 22, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
fast2write,

I’ve often stated - and I can point you to comments I’ve left elsewhere before - that Bush/Rove’s pursuit of politically motivated prosecutions is abhorrent. You can fact check that if you like.

Most of those cases have been exposed as laughable at best and are quickly dismissed, although the political damage may have already been exacted. I’m not even asserting that this prosecution wasn’t politically motivated. But even politically motivated prosecutions could occasionally have merit. The fact (or supposed fact) that this case was initiated for political reasons does not necessarily mean that Siegelman was innocent.

“Anyone who knows anything about the law and politics knows juries can easily be manipulated…”

I thought you only dealt in facts. Anything is possible, but you absolutely no evidence to suggest that even one member of the jury was crooked, let alone every single one. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the jury was rigged, rather than on me or anyone else to prove that they were honest.

Oh, and do you have any proof that Siegeleman is actually innocent, or should we just believe you when you say that he was not only falsely convicted, but “falsely accused?”

“I suppose you support the death penalty for black people too, even if they are innocent.”

Here’s a comment I left just yesterday on another blog:
“Although I would not complain about more liberally executing known murderers, there is that little guarantee of LIFE, liberty, …
The most valuable treasure that the government can take from a private citizen is their life and extreme care must be taken to ensure that every person executed is, in fact, guilty.”
Yep, I’m a regular old ravenous hate monger. Oh, I also support drug sentencing equalization so that equal amounts of crack (commonly perceived as a black drug) and cocaine (viewed as a white drug) because I consider the current arrangement racially biased. But, it is refreshing to see that your intellectual strength is limited to leveling not-so-transparent charges of racism without any merit whatsoever.
For such an intelligent person who is so steeped in facts you sure do make some ridiculous statements.

Comment by Brian — June 22, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Just wrong, wrong, eh?

Wrong, wrong … wrong, wrong, etc.

No, I’m not wrong, wrong.

I just don’t think y’all have read any of the stories … or documents. The AP story talked about the Air Force. My story talked about the FBI, which did have a MAJOR role in the case, as I descirbed.

I didn’t say the jury was fixed. When a DA or AG or U.S. Attorney makes an argument to a grand jury or trial jury, they are manipulating the facts to make a case. Presenting a certain picture of the facts, just like you are doing here.

And I said I deal in facts when I am writing a story on my Website. I was just asking a question in the way of following your “throw them all in jail” mentality to its logical conclusion.

I find that most people who make closed-minded arguments by clinging onto one number they don’t understand tend to be racists - and vote for Republicans like Bush. The Republicans don’t even have to play the race card anymore. Everyone knows its the racist party. They just play the gay card now, which I’m told was quite the rage on the “get Siegelman” circuit back during the 2002 campaign.

I guess I could have written all about that. But I didn’t. I did, however, write about a plot to frame up a big name Democrat for murder. Does that make you admire Bob Riley more?

I think some of you are mixing up 2002 and 2006 numbers. I don’t have time to sort it all out for you here. My story is a broad brush big picture story with some interesting details that demonstrate what those campaigns were like, behind the scenes.

I would think that ANY true fan of literary, investigative journalism could appreciate that. And hey, I talked about how great the Sand Mountain tomatoes are.

Show me your journalism and I’ll show you mine…

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to pay for it . . . oh, it’s free anyway. The fastest, free independent news site in the land. Even the reporters I sometimes criticize use the site for the fast news links.

It ain’t just a blog at all…

Comment by Anonymous — June 22, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
“When a DA or AG or U.S. Attorney makes an argument to a grand jury or trial jury, they are manipulating the facts to make a case.”

Please define “manipulating the facts.” That sounds an awful lot like lying, which is illegal for any prosecutor to do. You made a very specific, blanket statement that a DA, AG, or USA’s argument before any jury is inherently misleading. I’d like you to prove that one. Simultaneously, if your claim is true then I would argue that the exact same logic applies to defense attorneys.

“And I said I deal in facts when I am writing a story on my Website.”

No, you actually said simply, “I deal in facts, not opinions.” You’re adding that last part after the fact. And why wouldn’t you deal in facts all the time, rather than wanton conjecture? That doesn’t sound very fitting of the man with “more journalism credentials than anyone working in this state.”

“Everyone knows its [referring to the GOP] the racist party”

Good thing you changed your tune about dealing in facts because I think you’d have a hard time proving that one.

It’s actually kind of sad to see how fast you devolved into ad hominem attacks. Instead of directly responding to my points you essentially call me a racist –without any merit whatsoever.

This wasn’t a case of Seigelman being convicted on one odd charge, nor was it a case of a jury exacting some type of coordinated attack on Seigelman. They convicted him on some charges and acquitted him on others. That is much more in keeping with a deliberative group doing their civic duty than a GOP conspiracy. Just because you disagree with their decision doesn’t mean they were wrong.

Furthermore, you’ve offered no proof that Seigelman is innocent, just speculation that the genesis of his prosecution was political in nature.

Hey, why don’t you call me sexist next? No, just go straight to Nazi. It beats having to respond to my actual points.

Comment by Brian — June 22, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Man, you still don’t get it, do you? Have you ever been to a trial in a courtroom? Or do you get all your information from blog posts? If you want to come on over to the blog where the real reporting is done and try and argue with me there, come on over to the big time.

Y’all don’t want to talk about factual reporting. You just want to try and be cute by attacking it. Quite frankly, no one cares about your little blog arguments anyway. Do you think the House and Senate Judiciary committees are going to read your blog posts as part of the record?

I guess I should have just destroyed the premise of the original post here, which in fact I think I did. It is not a “conspiracy theory” if it happened.

Everything in my story happened. Now, if I had said in the story that someone should be looking at those Saudi pilots Fuller trained to see if they can be connected to the 9/11 hijackers, you might could have some fun with that.

Hey, now there’s a subject for another story. Do you know the one about all the Alabama boys who were there for the Bay of Pigs invasion? Nah, guess you are too young to remember that one…

Comment by fast2write — June 22, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Okay Mr. Actual Factual, I fact checked your blog entries - you know, the ones that are certified factual by you. Here’s my findings after exerting minimal effort (some are mentioned or alluded to above).

“She figured out that Riley only needed to take 13 North Alabama counties to win the primary. And the strategy worked.”

Riley won every county in the state in that primary according to the AL SOS website. It hardly seems as if her North Alabama strategy was the deciding factor.

“”We beat Karl Rove and Bill Canary in the primary, with almost no money,” she says with a touch of glee in her voice.”

According to the AL SOS website, Riley and Windom started out 2002 with roulghy the same amount of cash on hand. Windom had $1,3 million and Riley had $1.4 million. Riley raised about $1.7 million by the 6/4/02 filing deadline, while Windom raised just less than $900k. Windom took out some loans, but still had less cash than Riley for the primary. I know you’re quoting Ms. Simpson, but why publish something that is so easily proven wrong in a couple of minutes.

“That visit raised roughly $2 million for the Riley for governor campaign and gave Rob Riley the budget he needed to run a real campaign for his dad.”

If you’re referring to his fund raiser on 7/15/02 (just after the primary) then the event actually raised closer to $4 million for Riley.

“All along, the Bush Justice Department kept up the pressure on Siegelman, trying to get him out of the way in any future election.”

That last part isn’t a fact; that is your opinion. It could be that they wanted to convict a criminal.

“Amazingly, Justice Fuller received a $178 million contract through a privately held company to train pilots and navigators for the U.S. government DURING THE SIEGELMAN, SCRUSY TRIAL. The company is called Doss Aviation of Alabama.”

According to FedSpending.org Doss Aviation received contracts totaling $8 million in FY2002 and $11 million in FY2003. Less than $100 k of that was not competed. FY2006 has been their biggest year with contracts totaling $25 million (nearly all competed). All of that is much less than your purported $178 million contract, which you implied that Fuller received personally. There were no contracts listed for Aureus International.

“…Rep. Terry Everett, who basically acts as Fuller’s paid lobbyist in Washington to obtain federal contracts for his defense-related companies.”

Opinion, not a fact.

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 1:06 am
Oops, I retract the part about Doss Aviation. In my haste I neglected to remember that the trial occurred during FY2007. Doss did receive a one year contract that could be extended up to 10 years, with an expected cost of $178 million after that time. While I’m sure Fuller will profit handsomely (not a crime), that full amount most certainly doesn’t go into his pocket. I sincerely doubt that Fuller was “the richest man” in the courtroom. That is another one of your opinions.

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Oops, indeed. You are still not seeing the forest for the trees. Maybe the engineer in you, not the journalis. I never said Riley only won 13 counties. That’s a tree. She was talking about the early campaign strategy, well before the filing deadlines you are looking at. There are deadlines when they have to report. You don’t pick it up until after that.

No, in fact, the Bush Justice Department continued investigating. That’s a fact.

You are boring, dude…

I said come on over to the big time, where the big dogs eat. You ain’t got it in you…

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Your ‘reporting” clearly implies that Simpson is taking credit for Riley’s primary victory because of her “13 county strategy” and because of her fundraising. That has been proved, by citable FACTS, not to be the case. Brian is right and I demonstrated it in a post earlier. Riley, in fact, raised more money than Windom in the primary. Polls began to show pretty early on that Riley was pulling ahead. When it got to primary day the polls showed Riley so far ahead that the campaign was afraid their supporters woundn’t turn out bacause they didn’t have to. Since Riley won with 73.5% of the vote, I guess they turned their votes out. These are 2002 numbers easily verifiable in the Secretary of State’s website. FACTS!

You are also not factual when you claim that Judge Fuller “personally” received a contract worth $178 million during the trial. If that’s the case then the companies I’m invested in owe me a lot of money because apparenly to be an investor in your world means you get all the money! I daresay a reporter for the NY Times would be fired for making such a statement.

I also spent a great deal of time on Glynn’s “independent journalist” site and see that it is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party. Look at the stories about the 2006 election, they all espouse the Democrat party line.

More importantly, when challenged on his “facts,” Glynn resorts to name calling rather than to substantive and factual response.

I suspect that he is an “independent” journalist because he can’t or won’t subscribe to journalism standards requireing adequate sourcing and objectivity.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 6:51 am
Susan, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. More over, I would suspect that his being a total ass hurts his employment with a reputable news agency. If you have such thin skin that you automatically call someone who rightfully questions your facts a racist then you might want to find a less public profession.

Fast2think, at least I’m big enough to admit when I’m wrong. Contrasting your editorialism with facts probably is boring. It’s much more fun to add snarky comments like, “trying to get him out of the way in any future election,” without any evidence beyond an affidavit, which, as someone as smart as you must know, is not given under oath. I could issue a sworn affidavit saying that I am the King of Prussia.

Why would I come to your site to open a dialog with you when your manner of conversation is limited to ad hominem attacks? Is that how the big dogs communicate?

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Here’s the ugly truth - if we all will only face it.

The whoe situation was summarized by the father of one of my young daughter’s friends. He said, “I’ve been reading a lot lately about the Siegelman case. You know, I don’t think what they did was a crime - But, I’m glad they are going to jail anyway.”

The questions are so many that no objective person can say they don’t deserve a new trial. I mean come on! Who among us would go quietly to jail with emails from jurors - still uninvestigate - that said things like “Gov and pastor up SH_T creek” and “they missed before but we won’t”.

Like them or not, believe them or not, it’s our choice. But let’s not try logical legal arguments to justify our lust to see them get nailed. Will someone have the guts - as my daughter’s friends dad did - to say “Honestly, I really don’t care if they did it or not. I’m just glad they are going to jail because I hate them.”

Comment by YouBetCha — June 23, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Let’s just get something straight for you Alabama dumbasses who can’t see the forest for the trees. The Bush Justice Department has corrupted justice from one end of this country to the other. That is not a partison statement. Bush’s poll numbers are down to an approval rating of about 26 percent in part because Republicans, Democrats and Independents already know this. Anyone who watches even a little Fox News would know that.

Slandering me does not change the facts. You don’t seem to understand much of anything about journalism or objectivity or anything else, and I can’t give you a college education in a blog post. Y’all started the attacks on me. Now I’m going to ask Danny to end it.

Isn’t about time to shut this thread down and start a new one?

I think the last post says it all. Y’all are haters who want people to go to jail whether they deserve it or not. That’s a perversion of the idea of justice. I reported that Jill Simpson believes in justice. I never said I did. I don’t think there is anything resembling an objective justice left in this country.

If you had bothered to read the book review I linked early on, or better yet the book itself, it demonsrates how justice has been perverted for a long time by Republicans and Democrats.

Somehow you think by slandering me you can win some blog post political war and all will be right with the world. It ain’t so. The world is screwed up because of corrupt non-leadership and this story clearly demonstrates that.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 10:01 am
The corruption of justice started long before Bush-Gonzales-Rove-Canara made it much worse. Maybe y’all will take the time to read it if I put it in the blog comment window. You can still check this book out in the Alabama library system. Remember, this was written on March 10, 1996.

Above the Law: Secret Deals, Political Fixes and Other Misadventures of the U.S. Department of Justice

The U.S. Department of Justice has been the subject of much public scorn in recent years, most notoriously for the FBI raid on Ruby Ridge and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ illfated attack of the Branch Dividian’s compound at Waco, Texas.

Now comes an authoritative missive from investigative reporter and author David Burnham, who’s latest book, “Above the Law,” tells a tale of political woe that will confirm your worst fears about this largest of federal bureaucracies.

Do not expect the fast, page-turning pace of a Ludlum or Grissham thriller. This book is chock full of facts. But if you want to read a definitive account of how politics and chaos has largely dominated this supposedly just department of the federal government, Burnham’s work is a must read.

Burnham does not pander to the conservative critics who focus their sights on attacks by the feds against right-wing groups. This is a more objective effort, equally critical of presidents and attorney’s general from both parties, from democrats Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton to republicans Nixon, Reagan and Bush.

In addition to proving that justice is often manipulated for partisan political considerations, as we all suspected, Burnham concludes that no real priorities are set and enforced by any of the hundreds of U.S. Attorneys General around the country, which has resulted in the squandering of public resources on an ill-conceived “big, bad, dumb” war on drugs, for example.

His statistical analysis shows how one-fourth of the cases occupying the time of Justice Department agents and half the agency’s budget are devoted to drug cases, while less than one-percent is devoted to prosecutions of the nation’s worst polluters and corporations whose violations of health and safety laws take far more lives than drug related homicides.

“The very idea of a coherent national effort to protect the environment is largely an illusion,” he concludes.

From illegal eavesdropping, search, seizure and forfeiture to failure to prosecute powerful white-collar criminals, Burnham indicts the agency for misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance, “the failure to do what duty requires.” No component of the Justice Department escapes Burnham’s brutal analysis and acid pen, from the solicitor general, the 93 U.S. attorneys scattered throughout the country, the FBI, the anti-trust division, the DEA, the INS, the U.S. Marshals Service to the Bureau of Prisons.

While the Civil Rights Division created in the 1960s is given credit for furthering the voting rights of the nation’s African-American citizens, Burnham documents case after case in which those same voting rights were purposely diluted in the 1980s. During the Reagan-Bush era, the statistics and the facts in those cases show that the department targeted black Democrats for prosecution and harassment, while U.S. Attorneys and investigators looked the other way when it came to the reported crimes of white, male Republicans.

Burnham shows how federal prosecutions of state and local political figures under Republican administrations, and the lack of prosecutions of corrupt federal politicians, actually undermined one of the main objectives of the Founding Fathers: “the maintenance of strong local and state governments as a bulwark against national tyranny.” This exposes another contradiction between Republican rhetoric and action. While Reagan and Bush preached about returning power to state and local governments, some of their policies exercised through the Justice Department counteracted the stated goal.

“To a surprising extent,” Burnham writes, “analysis of federal enforcement data and follow-up interviews strongly suggest that the Justice Department has largely ignored Congress’s mandates. The evidence demonstrates that (the agency) is a chaotic, slipshod, almost medieval institution which has largely failed to coordinate federal enforcement and regulation efforts.”

A former New York Times reporter himself, Burnham also takes the press to task for too often cozying up to powerful law enforcement officials in the interest of scoops.

Implicit in the First Amendment’s command that Congress make no law abridging the freedom of the press, he writes, “is the notion that aggressive and skeptical reporting is essential to the maintenance of freedom.” While he shows how the press and the electronic media have largely been willing accomplices in manipulation by the Justice Department, Burnham’s book does the job that the press often does not do.

This book is a major example of how the press should inform the public in a democratic society. More than ever in our fast-paced society, we need far more of this kind of reporting in America.

Aided by Syracuse University researcher Susan Long, Burnham combines historical research, traditional investigative reporting, and social science research methods, with cutting edge computer assisted reporting techniques. The result is exactly what Walter Lippmann and Thomas Dewey called on journalists to do in the 1920s for the sake of an informed public in a democratic society.

Too bad is it’s taken us three-quarters of a century to get there. The good news is we are there, at least in book form. Perhaps if journalists would learn to utilize these same techniques on a more frequent basis, Americans could make more informed choices and this democracy, at least, would be the healthier for it.

At the time of this writing, Glynn Wilson was a journalism instructor at Georgia College. (Now an instructor in the Department of Communications at Loyola University New Orleans

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 10:21 am
One ‘fact’ that is obvious from this exchange is that Glynn BigDog LocustFork is a self-aggrandizing tinfoil hat-wearing nitwit. I shudder for the fourth estate if his writings pass for journalism. And I go straight for the ad hominem attack because I’ve read his scribblings and IMO he deserves no more than that. He’s shown that he can’t respond to logical arguments here without shilling for his website (the repository of all troof) or changing the subject (’Bay of Pigs’? - yes the Air Guard was there but what does that have to do with… oh yeah, mmm, Haldol).

Comment by Reactionary — June 23, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Blah, blah, blah…another anonymous nitwit with no sense of humor.

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Heehee, I get it now; you’re a satirist and therefore don’t need to rely on facts, just your biting wit.

Folks, that’s www.locustfork.net: the fastest and bestest free journalism site for all you ‘Alabama dumbasses’.

Comment by Reactionary — June 23, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Here’s another little related history lesson.

I was somewhat amazed while covering the Scushy trial in Birmingham that even most of the people who work in the Hugo Black federal courthouse had no idea who Hugo Black was.

The point here is that - in case you’ve never had the opportunity to study the history on this - President Franklin Roosevelt took a lot of heat in his second term for trying to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with loyalist judges. Roosevelt was a Democrat.

One of the people who ended up on the Supreme Court during that time was Hugo Black. He was a Senator from Alabama who went on to become one of the greatest U.S. Supreme Court justices in American history.

You can find out about him in this online encyclopedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black

That is if you are interested in facts.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Brian, I think our work here is done. Glynn’s post at #43 pretty well makes our point for us.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Reactionary, I think your name says it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Really, when you sit down and think about it, this conspiracy theory makes sense.

Lanny Young, the lobbyist who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy.

Nick Bailey, the former Siegelman aide who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy.

Curtis Kirsch, the Montgomery architect who pled guilty, testified against former Governor Siegelman, and was sent to jail? In on the conspiracy

The twelve jurors who found Siegelman guilty? Too stupid to understand the evidence presented to them as manipulated by prosecutors. Obviously in on the conspiracy.

The defense attorneys hired by former Governor Siegelman who helped choose this deficient jury? Once again, obviously in on the conspiracy.

The case offered by Jill Simpson truly does make sense. Three men plead guilty and serve jail time in order to serve the needs of their party on a regular basis. Wait. I forgot. All three are Democrats. Better add the Alabama Democratic Party to the list of conspirators.

Jill Simpson should be seen for the patriot she is. Who needs tangible evidence when one has an elaborate tale to tell?

All kidding aside, the case presented proves patently absurd. First, Steve “the Jug” Windom was not the Republican favorite for Governor. The state Republican Party insiders were backing Bob Riley as they knew that Steve Windom was a buffoon who Don Siegelman would have eaten for breakfast.

“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

Illegal. Illegal. Illegal. Let me repeat that for all of those who missed the important line in this statement.

“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

So, let me see if I can get this straight: Jill Simpson asked Bob Riley to use his office to speed up the federal bureaucracy in order to collect on a $4 million dollar contract. In return, “SHE PROMISED TO SPLIT THE MONEY WITH THE RILEYS (Emphasis added).”

So, our lead witness in the case for this conspiracy admits to attempting to bribe a public official. Interesting.

“Siegelman said in a recent interview that he conceded because his team figured the Alabama Supreme Court was stacked with a Republican majority and would side with Riley, so there was little point in insisting on a recount.”

Now, this is where the story gets interesting, as if attempted bribery were not interesting enough. Don Siegelman himself goes on record as offering the Republican Alabama Supreme Court as why he dropped out of the race. For Jill Simpson’s story to be true, then, Don Siegelman lied when he offered the Supreme Court as his reason for conceding defeat. The story goes on to state, though, that Siegelman believes everything in Simpson’s affidavit. Thus, Don Siegelman admits to originally lying about the reason he conceded defeat.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume Simpson’s story is true, despite that fact that, conveniently, she kept no copies of the pictures she has claimed to have taken. Obviously any rational individual, certainly one who is as politically astute as Simpson claims to be, would have kept copies. Set that aside for one moment. If these pictures even existed, does anyone actually believe that they would have caused Don Siegelman to concede defeat? One dirty trick by one attorney who has no direct ties to Don Siegelman caused him to concede. Really? A man like Don Siegelman, who has spent his entire adult life trying to be Governor, conceded defeat because of pictures of Bob Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally? What’s more likely? That Don Siegelman conceded because the Alabama Supreme Court was dominated by Republicans leaving little hope for victory, as Don Siegelman originally claimed? Or that pictures of Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally caused him to concede? Don Siegelman did not want to go to an Alabama Supreme Court stacked against him, lose, and forever be labeled a “sore loser,” hurting his political future in the process.

I will not go into the false claims made against Judge Mark Fuller which have already been debunked by previous posters, only to reiterate that the article posted misrepresents the $178 million contract that went to a company in which Fuller owns stock. While making these accusations, Simpson fails to provide one in trial example of bias by Fuller, only stating that he was biased. Fine then. Show the bias. Which ruling did he make that showed bias during the trial? Please enlighten us. Remember, merely saying “his refusing to recuse himself shows he was biased” does not show bias. Like any bad lawyer, you are asking for a conviction while failing to offer a crime committed. You must show an actual example of in trial bias to even begin to make such a claim.

I must confess, when I first read of the charges made regarding the conference call in question, I wondered whether the charges had some merit. Having read Jill Simpson’s story, however, I now hope that the Democratic Congress calls her before a committee. I hope every newspaper in the state of Alabama interviews her and puts the story on the front page. I hope the Alabama Democratic Party makes her its poster child.

Why? They will get the product they deserve. A person who attempted to bribe a Congressman making wild accusations of a grand conspiracy that fifteen minutes of reading can disprove. I actually want to thank Danny for linking this article. We are truly able to see the difference between solid blogging and nuts who give blogs a bad name.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 11:44 am
You are still not getting it. She was a Republican ON YOUR SIDE doing business the way the Bush Republicans do it. The way I see it, at least some Alabama red necks got some of the work instead of it all going to Haliburton.

Congressmen are asked all the time to help people from their state on crap like this. Fuller certainly didn’t hesitate to ask his buddy Terry Everitt for it. Nothing in the report deals with whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. That’s how this crap works, for better or worse.

If it was up to me, I would make the government do the job and be held accountable for it. Look at the billions of dollars that have been lost to waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq - much of it to private contracters.

Do you like that? Are you OK with your tax money being wasted like that?

OK. They say ignorance is bliss. Y’all must be happy as clams : )

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Ah. I see. I “just don’t get it.” No offense, but that is the last excuse of fools and liars.

Let me repeat that line from the article you wrote:

“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

You are right in saying that Congressmen are asked to help their constituents with such matters all the time. Nothing wrong with that. What does not happen all the time is that constituents offer to split money with their Congressmen on federal contracts the constituent asks the Congressmen to see fulfilled. That’s called bribery.

Quick question, and it really is an easy one: Is what Jill Simpson asked Bob Riley to do illegal? A yes or no will do. Is offering to split the proceeds of a federal contract with a Congressmen if he sees it fulfilled illegal?

The answer of course is yes.

It seems as if the facts I presented bother you. Otherwise, you would spend less time talking about Haliburton and the Iraq War (the last bastion of conspiracy theorists) and more time answering the concerns I have raised. Instead, you have only undercut the case you and Simpson have tried, very poorly I might add, to make.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
If it illegal as you claim, and I take it you are no lawyer and have never had a federal contract with FEMA or served in Congress, theni how does The Judge get away with it? In fact, according to Alabama law, none of this is illegal. The Feds used the Rico Statutes in this case, which were designed to catch The Mafia.

And why is all of your outrage directed at Ms. Simpson and me?

Are you really concerned with the law and your tax money, or are you just here to spin things for “he’s the man” Bob Riley?

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Will, don’t waste your breath. I raised the ’storm gypsy” issue in post 29. But I think it is a perfect illustration of where Glynn is coming from.

Siegleman and his cronies don’t see anything wrong with taking a bribe or kickback for securing contracts. If Siegelman had been the Congressman, I’m sure he and Ms. Simpson would have split the $4 million (Ok, here’s another pause–a $4 million federal contract for storm gypsies–those “rednecks” that load up the trailers and rip people off after a storm? That alone doesn’t pass the smell test). So Siegleman didn’t see anything wrong with demanding Scrushy pony up $500 thousand to retire the debt from the lottery campaign (oh Glynn, Siegleman guaranteed the loads for that account personally, so that’s the personal benefit. When he got Scrushy to cough up the money Siegelman got to keep a half million that he would otherwise have had to use to pay off the loan). I actually believe Siegelman when he says he doesn’t believe he did anything wrong. He doesn’t have any fundamental understanding of the concept of right and wrong.

As I said earlier, my admiration for Riley is strengthened in that he didn’t participate in Ms. Simpson’s illegal kickback scheme.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
And no, you are wrong again, since you have trouble reading, apparently.

Rob Riley asked Ms. Simpson to help the Riley’s raise money early on. She DID NOT go to them with this proposal. For the record, FEMA never did pay those Alabama boys for all that work cleaning up after the ice-storm in Arkansas. So no, they did not “gouge” any citizens, as some earlier posters claimed. It was contract work through the Bush adminstration with FEMA.

How can it possibly be illegal if no money ever changed hands?

Again, you seem to be a partisan spinner and not interested in justice.

As for all of those witnesses you mention, anyone who has ever covered any kind of a trial knows that witnesses who are willing to testify to save their own hides have very little credibility.

I guess you give them credence, why, because they are Democrats? Give us all a break and tell us who you are and how much money you’ve taken from Rob Riley to spend all this time spinning it for them?

If you haven’t been paid, you should be. Why waste all this time trying to discredit me and this story for free?

Meanwhile, I have to go now and do the national version of the story for another publication, so you will excuse me if I stop wasting words in a blah, blah, blog comment thread for free.

Comment by fast2write@charter.net — June 23, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
There is an obvious difference with what you describe Judge Fuller doing, of which you provide no evidence, and what Ms. Simpson admits to doing.

Judge Fuller owns stock in companies that do business with the federal government. He has made contributions to those in federal office, including Terry Everett. That’s all that we know in that regard, all that you have provided, and hardly any evidence of a crime.

On the other hand, Ms. Simpson freely admits to offering to split the proceeds of a federal contract with Bob Riley if he saw it fulfilled. That is an admission of attempting to bribe a public official, an offer, by the way, which was turned down.

There are two things with which I am currently concerned:

One, Ms. Simpson has admitted to trying to bribe a public official.

Two, you still have not responded to my original post. Instead, you are ignoring it, hoping I will stop asking you to comment.

Perhaps you can ease my mind by addressing these concerns. Remember, addressing concerns does not mean criticizing the President or Judge Fuller. It means explaining why Ms. Simpson tried to bribe a public official and responding fully to my original post.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Anonymous 54–It is not illegal to bid on a federal contract and win it. Judge Fuller did not receive a contract. A company in which he is an investor received a contract–THAT WAS BID! And guess what, that contract had nothing to do with the case or the individuals trying the case.

It is illegal to offer an elected official a bribe (quid pro quo) to obtain funds for you. Ms. Simpson’s own description indicates that she wanted him to greaee the wheels for her clients in return for half the proceeds. THAT’S A BRIBE! That’s not constituent services (and as I pointed out earlier, Dekalb county was not in Congressman Riley’s district anyway, she was not his constituent).

The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with this fits very well with your Democratic Party leanings. That’s apparently why none of the Democrats thought it unethical or unlawful for legislators to be paid by two-year colleges to secure higher appropriations from the legislature. Or Roy Johnson to pass out jobs to family, friends, egislators, and family of legislators to keep the two-year system in their good graces. Or the company owned by the Democratic Party Chariman’s family to overbill the state to pay for work on Roy Johnson’s personal property. Or taking state money from a two-year college foundation so that a legislator could pay off his personal gambling debts.

Yeah–this is all crystle clear now, and goes a long way toward explaining why the Democratic controlled legislature is such a cesspool of corruption.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Why should I respond when you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law and what happened?

Again, I challenge you to come out of the closet and let people here know who you are and what your own fiduciary interests are. Otherwise, you have no credibility to challenge anybody’s journalism.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Glynn, I join Will in asking you to explain why Ms. Simpson was trying to bribe a public official. From your own words, she is the one who offered to split the proceeds from FEMA–she is the one that offered the bribe or the kickback. So what if Rob Riley asked her to help raise money? Plenty of candidates have asked me to help them raise money and I did not respond by offering a kickback scheme, I helped organize a fundraiser, or wrote letter or made phone calls.

I will guarantee that any credible national news organization that published this drivel will be discredited so fast they won’t know what hit them. I’m betting you are just putting it on another blog.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Susan, you just continue to show your own partisanship. If you were concerned with justice, you might also mention Tom Delay, Jack Abromoff and maybe Riley’s shenanigans with the Indian tribe money.

Please, for once, demonstrate that you care about justice, not just the corrupt governor you support. As far as I’m concerned, there’s plenty of corruption to go around. I’ve been covering politics since George Wallace was governor here and exposed plenty of corruption back in those days when Alabama was a one-party state.

I editorialized for making Alabama a two-party state in the early 1980s. I never said any of it was OK. I only pointed out, what anybody who actually follows the news on this knows, that the political money situation in Alabama is corrupt. The Birmingham paper has editorialized until they are blue in the face about this, but nothing has come of it.

Riley has done nothing to clean it up. In fact, just the other day, he vetoed an ethics bill that was unanimously passed in the Legislature - by Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

Your words, not mine.

You’re right, Glynn, no money changed hands. Why? Because Bob Riley did not take part in Ms. Simpson’s plan. Attempting to bribe a public official, however, is still a crime.

“As for all of those witnesses you mention, anyone who has ever covered any kind of a trial knows that witnesses who are willing to testify to save their own hides have very little credibility.”

The three men you speak of are currently in prison for corruption they committed with Don Siegelman. What that means is this: If what you say is true, and they were saving their own hides as you put it, Don Siegelman is guilty, as all three went to jail for committing a criminal conspiracy with Don Siegelman. The only way Don Siegelman could be innocent is if these men pled guilty to crimes they did not committ. Your argument, then, is this: These three men hated Don Siegelman so much that they were willing to lie and claim they broke the law, knowing full well they would go to prison, in order to harm Don Siegelman. Not exactly a strong argument.

“Meanwhile, I have to go now and do the national version of the story for another publication, so you will excuse me if I stop wasting words in a blah, blah, blog comment thread for free.”

Sounds as if someone is taking his ball and going home. Pray tell, for which publication are you writing the “national version” of this story?

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
“Why should I respond when you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law and what happened?”

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because if the story were true and I truly do not understand what happened, responding would be easy. That, of course, assumes the story is true.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Oh, and actually the ice storm you are mentioning happened in December of 2000. Bush wasn’t in office yet and I’m betting those “storm gypsies” couldn’t prove that they did the work they were claiming. You got a contract that signed with FEMA? You got invoices for the work they did? Otherwise they were trying to rip off the feds and I think FEMA was probably smart not to pay them (and that may be the last time I ever use the words “FEMA” and “smart” in the same sentence). But, again, it tells us everything we need to know that you see nothing wrong anything about this story.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
From the Associated Press you so love:

Alabama governor vetoes ethics bill that passed unanimously

By PHILLIP RAWLS
The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - The state Senate’s Democratic majority leader said Republican Gov. Bob Riley was trying to shield his own children when he killed government ethics legislation that passed the Legislature with unanimous bipartisan support.

The statement by Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, brought quick responses from the governor and his family.

“It’s absolutely untrue. I don’t know where they make up this stuff,” said Minda Riley Campbell of Birmingham, the governor’s daughter.

Riley called the criticism from Little and other Senate Democrats “another attempt to cover up their dismalfailure to pass” any of the ethics legislation he proposed in the recently completed legislative session.

In the session that ended June 7, Rep. Marcel Black, D-Muscle Shoals, sponsored a bill that that would have expanded the definition of lobbyists who must register with the State Ethics Commission and file quarterly reports with the commission about their activities.

For years, the law has only covered people who regularly try to influence the Legislature. Black’s bill would have expanded it to include people who attempt to influence the awarding of state contracts that are not competitively bid.

…

The House passed the bill 101-0 and the Senate approved it 30-0. Riley had until Sunday night to sign it into law, but he killed it by not signing it.

Black, the bill’s sponsor, said he was “extremely disappointed by the governor’s decision to kill it.

“I thought this fit right in with his stance on transparency and openness in government,” he said.

Senate Democrats were stronger in their criticism.

“It is widely held in Montgomery that Gov. Riley’s children lobby their father on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts,” Senate Majority Leader Zeb Little, D-Cullman, said.

“This legislation would have further shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family, but Gov. Riley vetoed the bill,” Little said in a statement Tuesday.

Senate budget committee Chairman Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, recalled that when Riley first took office in 2003, he gave his department heads signs for their desks that said, “If you buy it, bid it.”

“His veto shows Gov. Riley is not serious about no-bid contracts involving his own administration. He ran on the issue and now he’s running from it,” Bedford said.

Campbell and Riley’s son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, were singled out by Democrats in their statement.

The governor’s children have been actively involved in his campaigns, and sometimes stand in for him, as Campbell did Friday night at a Republican Party dinner in Birmingham. But Campbell said her role doesn’t extend to lobbying her father, and Democrats couldn’t cite any examples because she hasn’t done it.
…
The governor, who was in France on an industry-hunting trip, blah, blah, blah…

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
I love it when someone uses “…” in an article. It tends to cover the most revealing portion. Let’s see what Glynn used “…” to ignore in this article:

“Jim Sumner, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, said Tuesday legislators developed the bill without consulting the commission. If they had, he said he would have explained that it was ‘far broader than they realized’ and could have affected thousands of people doing business with the state.”

And:

“Rob Riley agreed with his sister, saying, ‘That has never happened.’

“The governor, who was in France on an industry-hunting trip, said in a statement, ‘In four and a half years, not one single time has any family member ever lobbied me about a contract. If these legislators are serious about this proposal, then just limit it to my family and I will be happy to sign it.’

“Riley’s communications director, Jeff Emerson, said Black’s bill was redundant because the existing process for the Legislature’s Contract Review Committee to review state contracts calls for the disclosure of anyone lobbying on behalf of the contracts.

“Sumner said that if the bill had become law, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and many others getting routine state contracts would have had to register with the Ethics Commission. Sumner estimated the impact would have been in the thousands.

“‘It was extremely broad,’ he said.”

So, what did Glynn….oh, sorry, “Anonymous” overlook in the article? Nothing important. Just the executive director of the State Ethics Commission saying the bill would have affected thousands of individuals and the explanation that the Legislature’s Contract Review Committee already requires the disclosure of anyone lobbying on behalf of a state contract. Other than that, nothing really.

Of course, it still fails to respond to the concerns raised about Glynn’s article. At this point, though, is anyone surprised?

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Not to mention the Tuscaloosa News and Dacatur Daily (hardly concervative papers) both having editorials praising Riley for vetoing the bill. Which, BTW, has WHAT to do with the subject at hand? Unless Glynn is trying to shift away from an argument he is losing badly.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Everyone here already has seen you are an anonymous partisan, Susan, so why continue an argument I’ve already won? Your man Riley is not interested in ethics, truth or justice … and neither are you, obviously.

Come on over to my blog, reveal your true identity, and I will engage you. Otherwise, you have NO credibility.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Can’t answer Susan’s or my questions, Glynn?

And SHE’S the one with no credibility. Well, at least she didn’t try to bribe a public official.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Glynn ‘Blah, Blah, Big Time’ LocustFork should have brought his lunch and maybe a a second helping of lithium. Nice job Will (don’t get it) and Susan (don’t care about justice). Maybe you’ve noticed by now that Glynn has some cognitive defects that make rational discussion difficult.

Comment by Reactionary — June 23, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Don’t you mean Reactionary discourse?

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
71 - :-)

Comment by Reactionary — June 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
All,

Glynn is quite the character. First, Danny is kind enough to provide a link from a popular, reputable blog to his conspiracy theory story. Commenters question some of Glynn’s facts and logical conclusions. Glynn responds by calling me a racist, insulting this blog and all who frequent it, denigrating a university that has been in U.S. News’ top 50 colleges for a decade and a half (best in the state), and to top it all off calling Alabamians dumbasses. All the while he boasts about his factual accuracy, while ignoring proof of inaccuracies, and constantly demanding that we come to his blog.

Instead of responding to our points Glynn cowers behind the belief that the anonymity of some automatically absolves them of all credibility. It beats having to respond to their reasonable claims. Well Glynn, you know who I am and I assure you that I am not on the payroll of anyone even remotely associated with our state government. Respond to my claims. If you like, I can echo the claims of others so that you might feel more comfortable responding to them as well.

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
You’ve not successfully challenged any facts or conclusions. It’s has already been shown that the few people in on this discussion are anonymous partisans. None of the lurkers have disparaged. They must think you are the idiots, in part because you can’t read.

So no, I’m done responding to you - unless you want to engage on my blog. It’s pretty clear to me that this blog is biased, so why bother to attempt to educate you?

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Go to the Alabama Secretary of State’s website. Click on corporations. Click on search for officer, director, incorporators. Type Fuller, Mark E.

You will see that Mark E. Fuller is listed as President of Doss Aviation. Now, some - without going to look at this document - will immediately say that is a 2002 filing reflecting data from the year BEFORE he became a judge. The only problem is that you will at the bottom of the document that it was last updated in 2006.

Fuller said in his order refusing to recuse that he divested himself of Doss BEFORE he became a judge. Now, go to the form and look at the address he uses. One Church Street, Montgomery, AL. Does anyone know what is at that address? The Frank M. Johnson Federal Courthouse.

Comment by Terry — June 23, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
“It’s has already been shown that the few people in on this discussion are anonymous partisans.”

Ironic, Glynn, that the post this comment was made is posted by Anonymous.

Further, how has that been shown? Just because you make a statement does not mean it is fact. You must first prove what you say is true before it is taken as fact.

Lost in all this, I am still waiting for a response to my original post.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Terry, do you know why that has been updated? Because since it was filed Mark Fuller became a federal judge. Consequently, his home address is concealed to prevent individuals who wish him harm from knowing where he lives. This is a fairly common practice for federal judges, actually.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
How does that explain the fact that it is against the canon of judicial ethics for a federal judge to an officer or director of a for profit corporation?

Comment by Terry — June 23, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
(1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should not serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of any business other than a business closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family.

http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html

Comment by Terry — June 23, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
This blog software, whatever it is, does not remember personal information, at least in this browser. It’s too much trouble to keep pasting it in there. With Moveable Type, which is what is used at the Locust Fork News and Journal at LocustFork.Net, you don’t have to keep doing this. Maybe it’s a PC thang.

And again, to keep repeating this because apparently you couldn’t read it the first time, anonymity is not any way to come across as credible. Even the Constitution provides for being able to face one’s accusers. I publish real journalism on a Website under my real name. You just argue incessantly in a blog comment window, and no one is allowed to verify your veracity. They are just utterly bored by your incessantness.

Keep filling it up. It will just drive away any reasonable people who just might want to learn more about the real subject of how the Bush Justice Department has been corrupted by politics. That’s the subject of the story. My story was one example, which has now made national news and created just another embarrassment for Alabama.

But no, I have no obligation to respond to you point by point here, when your point is no point at all. Do you really think a blog comment section is like Hannity and Colmes, where a partisan slugfest is political theater?

Maybe it is over here, although it seems to be pretty one-sided. Not sure how that could be fun for long. At least even Hannity and Colmes has a liberal on the show. The parties responsible for the vast majority of the posts here clearly have no objectivity, and don’t even know the definition of objectivity.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Good points Terry. Keep it up. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State’s Website now seems to be down…

Thanks for the judicial ethics link though. Good stuff…

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Well my name IS Susan which is more identifying than “fast2write” and I’ve provided as much information as “Terry” and far more than all the anonymous posters (one of whom is Glynn himself).

And, having read the Constitution, one is guaranteed the right to face his accusers in a court of law. This is just a blog and we are having a debate–which is, I’m pretty sure, covered under the first amendment. I’m thinking someone is taking himself WAY too seriously.

Comment by Susan — June 23, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
I’m having the same problem as Glynn with the SOS web site, but there is one site that is working: DossAviation.com. On the front page, one sees that Frank G. Hunter is the President of Doss Aviation.

Glynn, I now see why you would like people to come to your page to debate the matter: No one has responded on your blog. I am not trying to be insincere when I say this: I am sorry no one has responded on your web site. I know that you put a lot of work into it and to see the comments regarding your work appearing on another web site can be disheartening. I truly mean that.

With that said, however, you cannot honestly say that you are publishing real journalism when you refuse to respond to legitimate criticism of your work. I’m not asking you to agree with what I say. All I ask is that you respond to my original post. Your refusing to respond only weakens your argument, as it implies you cannot. For all I know, you could tear my comments to shreds. Until you respond, though, all you are doing is showing people that my criticism of your article has touched a nerve in you and that you are unable to respond, as my criticism is accurate.

So, all I am asking is this: If I am wrong, ignorant, and do not understand the situation, as you claim to be the case, show me up. Prove me to be the imbecile you say. Otherwise, claiming that you are the only objective individual posting here only shows your own inability to defend your statements.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
2002 Annual Report
© 2007, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Alabama
Reporting
Address…: DOSS AVIATION INC
3320 W CAREFREE CIR
COLORADO SPGS, CO 80917-2805
Agent As
Reported..: FULLER, MARK J
10 INDIGO PL
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330-8110
President
Of Corp…: FULLER, MARK E
ONE CHURCH STREET
MONTGOMERY, AL 36104
Secretary
Of Corp…: CASSADY, JOE C
306 WILLOW DR
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330-3425
Alabama
Business..: GOVT CONTRACTING
124 COMMERCE DR
ENTERPRISE, AL 36330
General
Business..: GOVT CONTRACTING
PO BOX 1393 HWY 59 N
SHEPHERD, TX 77371
Telephone
Number….: 719-570-9804
Processed
By Revenue: 05-19-2006

Comment by Terry — June 23, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I really appreciate the freaking sympathy, Will, but in fact, there are thousands of comments on blog posts on the site. Just not like this, where I don’t really care, because I would not allow a bunch of anonymous posters to go on and on commenting like this on my site. The substantive discussions are much more educated and reasoned. I know some people are into the blogity, blog business, although they are WAY in the minority. I have one friend lurking here now from New Orleans who gets a kick out of seeing little blog commenters go on and on about nothing.

Publishing journalism has nothing to do with responding to you in a blog comment window. If you actually think you have legitimate criticism, post it where it belongs, by the story itself, so the whole world can see it. They aren’t here, obviously, although my traffic numbers show they are over there…

If you want anyone in the world who matters to see it, other than a few partisans in this state, you will have to try it over there. Otherwise, it’s just like Jim Croce sang, “pissing in the wind…”

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
Glynn,

One correction that needs to be made is that Doc’s Political Parlor actually gets more hits than LocustFork. Google gives Docs a 5/10 and LocustFork a 4/10. Both sites are serious places of discussion for Alabama politics, but there is no reason to besmirch Doc’s Parlor because you don’t like some of the posters.

Comment by ZM — June 23, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Susan,

Are you really that dense? My name is a link to my Website, where I post a full resume with many links to articles I have written over the past 30 years. The way the Web works, putting Susan as your name proves nothing, not even that you are a woman. In fact, since the early days of AOL, it has been common practice for people to post under fake names and even fake gender names. So sorry, that doesn’t cut it…

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Terry, if you visit Doss Aviation’s web site, you will see what I mean. Not even Richard Scrushy, in his motion to have Mark Fuller removed from the trial, suggests that he is still President of Doss Aviation.

Fuller’s Steamroller Full Speed Ahead

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Feaga Shows Political Bias

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Appeals Court Refuses to Remove Judge from Siegelman, Scrushy Sentencing

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Jill Simpson’s Affidavit May Help Justice Prevail in the Siegelman, Scrushy Case

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thousands. Literally thousands.

Please, just respond to my post, Glynn. It isn’t very difficult.

In fact, here’s what I’m going to do: I will repost my original comments on your web site. If I do so, however, you must agree to respond to my comments. How does that sound?

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
You think they are in the process of wiping that Secretary of State’s Website : ) ???

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Glynn, how can we miss you if you won’t go away? It is amusing how you repeatedly threaten to stop commenting here and you deride people who do comment here - and then you come right back and leave a bunch of comments.

“…because I would not allow a bunch of anonymous posters to go on and on commenting like this on my site.”

In other words, the reason Glynn wants to shift the debate to his site is so that he can delete comments that justifiably challenge his supposed facts and logic. He doesn’t control Doc’s and it must be killing him to see people challenge him and he is powerless to delete their comments! I would like to remind you Glynn that I have made my identify clear and you still refuse to respond directly.

“The AP in this state is not the best bureau in the country, to say the least.”

Then in comment 65 you used an AP story, well the part of the story that jived with your opinion, by Phillip Rawls of the Alabama AP Bureau that you think so highly of. Are they only right when they agree with you?

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
That’s how the partison blog game is played, right? The purpose is misdirection and innuendo of inauthenticity, etc. Hoisting you on your own petard, so to speak, a Bush-Cheney Republican perfected ploy : )

On a blog with real investigative journalism, as opposed to an all comments all the time links site, that is not the game.

Y’all like this game, so keep on playing it. I’m into having an effect. The more you post, the more you drive off a seriously interested audience.

So hey. Fill it up, baby…

Comment by Anonymous — June 23, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Glynn, if you visit your site, I have reposted my original comment from this page. Having done what you asked, I eagerly await your response.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
It’s on the way, Will…

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
OK, Will, you’ve got an answer, although I suspect it won’t help you much, since you don’t seem to be really interested in truly understanding this story or why it would be done.

As for the traffic business, I was talking about a wider audience of people from New York, D.C., Oregon, Louisiana, Cuba, Europe, places like that. I have no idea what kind of traffic this site gets, but I will say I guess I understand why people comment on it. It may be easier and faster in that respect than Moveable Type. And allowing quickly updated anonymous comments is a way to get traffic. But we’ve been hit by the spammers before, so it’s not as easy, I guess. We chose it two and a half years ago because the folks at Press Think used it, and at that time, it was the best software we could find.

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Glynn, I was going to let your first swipe at Danny’s chosen blog software go, but now you’ve accused him of selecting WordPress simply so that he can generate traffic by allowing anonymous comments. The problem is on your end. Every time I visit Danny’s site my browser remembers my info and dutifully enters it automatically. Same thing on my blog. Just because your personal computer settings do not cache your data (on your own hard drive) does not mean that Danny is trying to attract traffic in some underhanded manner.

Comment by Brian — June 23, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Here, finally, is Glynn’s response with mine to follow:

The list of witnesses is impressive, but as any one knows who has ever covered a trial, been in on a trial, sat in on a trial, watched a legal TV show about trials knows, witnesses who give testimony to save their own hides are suspect.
It is my understanding Windom was the early favorite, maybe well before the polling picks up. Although I wasn’t here covering that story. I’m sure some online research would pluck it out, but that was not the focus of the story. Since Ms. Simpson was involved in the Riley campaign from the start, I’m sure what she remembers is as accurate if not more so than what you remember. She is a more trusted source, so to speak.

I fully reported, from an interview with Don Siegelman, why he says he conceded. Your leap to conclusions doesn’t make any sense, except in a hyperactive partisan sense.

The Klan story in this case serves to show the reader how dirty tricks politics is played in this state, where it apparently originated and where Bush and Rove went to school to learn how to do it from the masters from the 1960s - Sandy Trammel and George Wallace. It really matters not whether that particular dirty trick DID the trick. Obviously it didn’t, and that’s clear in the story. But that particular story was ignored by all the other press who found out about it, and the purpose of my story was to tell as much of Jill Simpson’s story as possible, so you, the reader, could get more aquainted with her and the facts than you could have before in the previous coverage.

There are copies of the photos somewhere, and at one time, they were on the Web. Perhaps Rob Riley could produce them? He’s the one who paid for them : )

I’m no lawyer, but as it was reported, there’s nothing illegal about raising money for candidates in this state and hiding it in Pacs and all kinds of places. I know for a fact the paper companies gave Guy Hunt money in “love offerings” at Sundy church, where Hunt used to fly in a state plane. He was never busted for that by the Feds, who at that time were also Republicans.

And it is no crime to lobby a Congressman to help “grease the skids” for progress in collecting federal contracts. What is puzzling is your defense of a $178 million contract to the judge who presided in the case, but you seem to have a problem with a small town lawyer representing bona fide Alabama workers getting them paid for legitimate work.

Plus, the Rileys approached her about raising money for them. This was a way to facilitate that, I suppose, although again, I’m no lawyer and not making any judgments about that. I just reported what she told me, which illustrates some interesting things about how Alabama politics is played, wouldn’t you say?

If you are of a mind, check out the
Code of Conduct for United States Judges and you will find the line: “…a judge … should not serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of any business other than a business closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family.”

Unless the E. in Fuller stands for Everitt and they are related, and I’m told they are not by a reporter in Montgomery, this would raise some eyebrows about the dude sitting in judgement while doing business with the Justice Department (the FBI) sitting at the table in front of him. I’ve interviewed several people since first reporting that, and to a person they all said it would definitely give them a queasy feeling have the judge in business with the feds while sitting in judgement. Whether the appeals court will rule on that issue on appeal, or a higher court, is not for me to judge. But it is worth raising in the story before the 11th Circuit ruled.
No one said he showed bias during the trial. That’s out of left field and has nothing to do with the subject or substance of the story, which is an example of how the Bush administration has injected politics into the judicial process. Any basic government text book will show you that the judicial branch is supposed to be as removed from politics as possible. Of course it is not totally removed from politics ever, especially in Alabama where state judges are elected. Federal judges are appointed for life, so they have a higher obligation to remove themselves from potentially embarrassing business relationships. It has already been reported, and I think there will be more in the Sunday papers, about the judge divesting himself to some extent over the years of both Doss and Aureus. But the research I saw in Rainsville showed he was still not just a stockholder, but a majority, controlling owner, at least during the trial.

Your last comments show you either didn’t read the story, or you didn’t get the point. And you didn’t disprove anything. This is a classic example of misdirection and attacking the messenger to attempt to confuse things for partisan political advantage.
As for you final comments, it is too bad you didn’t have the patience to do an original comment tha would be understandable to the general readership here.

FYI: Everybody: This is Will, an anonymous partisan Riley supportin’ commenter from Doc’s Political Parlor blog.

There’s a massively deceptive thread going on over there all about how this story is a “conspiracy,” with engineers and dog knows who trying their level best to convince the local blogosphere that they have credible information over there, but that everything over here is a bunch of lefty nonsense.

As my regular readers already know, we can’t even get admitted to the Liberal Blog Hive at BlogAds.com, since we are “a news site.”
I hope that answers your questions, Will, but I suspect it will somehow be inadequate.

Did I get to all your most profound points : ) ?

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Man, you guys will stop at nothing to be deceptive. I never implied anything of the sort.

I was talking about blogs where the comments are the content, which is what this site seems to be. There’s a digest of news links from Alabama, then people comment on it. There’s no original content here. Nothing wrong with that. A lot of blogs work that way. Mine doesn’t, that’s all. Not interested in that. In fact, my news page gets as much if not more traffic than the blog, which I just partially updated for Sunday, btw.

The Tuscaloosa News stuff will not be up until sometime in the morning. They update at 4 a.m..

Also, we can link to original stories from the news page to the blog, which makes it quite interesting, for the truly interested.

LocustFork.Net/News

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Let me begin by explaining the situation to those not reading from Doc’s Political Parlor. On said web site, Glynn’s story regarding Jill Simpson was linked, which caused quite a bit of discussion on that web site’s comment section. Most of the comments were negative and critical of Glynn’s story and Ms. Simpson’s account in general. Many had shown what were in their opinion holes in the story, to which Glynn found one reason or another not respond to the bulk. Thus, I agreed to post my original comment on this web site if Glynn would at long last respond to it.

Now, on to business. Glynn feels that anyone who engages in a plea deal with the government is suspect. We have actually had this conversation already, so I will repost my comments from that exchange: “The three men you speak of are currently in prison for corruption they committed with Don Siegelman. What that means is this: If what you say is true, and they were saving their own hides as you put it, Don Siegelman is guilty, as all three went to jail for committing a criminal conspiracy with Don Siegelman. The only way Don Siegelman could be innocent is if these men pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. Your argument, then, is this: These three men hated Don Siegelman so much that they were willing to lie and claim they broke the law, knowing full well they would go to prison, in order to harm Don Siegelman. Not exactly a strong argument.”

Glynn is also trying to change the facts as presented in the story. Ms. Simpson describes Steve Windom as the favorite of Republican insiders during the 2002 primaries. This was not and has never been the case. It may be true that Windom led in the polls in the early days of the race. With that said, however, Steve Windom was never the favorite of Republican leaders in the state. This is important to remember, as Ms. Simpson uses this idea, that she helped defeat the Republican leadership by working for Governor Riley, to cement her credentials as someone who is both politically astute and connected.

As to the Klan story, Ms. Simpson uses it to suggest that those pictures caused Governor Siegelman to concede the race. As has been noted at some detail, such charges are ludicrous, as Siegelman himself stated that he dropped out because of an Alabama Supreme Court dominated by Republicans. Ms. Simpson argues that it was her pictures of Riley campaign signs put up at a Klan rally by a Democratic operative that made Siegelman drop out, as opposed to an unfriendly court. For a political animal such as Don Siegelman, the latter reason seems far more likely. No one familiar with the situation can honestly believe that the actions of a single lawyer with no ties to the Siegelman campaign would cause him to concede.

Further, as I have stated before, there is no proof that the story Ms. Simpson offers is even true. If these pictures were so important to the Riley cause, wouldn’t she have kept at least one copy? We are expected to believe that Ms. Simpson is a politically astute individual with connections in the highest level of Republican politics, yet she did not even bother to keep a single copy of evidence to corroborate her story?

True, there is nothing illegal about raising money for a candidate. What Ms. Simpson describes is not campaign fundraising, though. Here, in Glynn’s own words, is what Ms. Simpson attempted:

“Along the way, in their effort to raise money, Ms. Simpson tried to get the Rileys to help her collect on a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for one of her storm gypsy clients. It was a $4 million deal for cleaning up after an ice storm in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a contract that was tied up in the federal bureaucracy in Washington. What’s a Congressman for but to help a constituent collect legally earned money being held up in Washington? She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”
Repeat:

“She promised to split the money with the Rileys if they would help free it up in the bureaucracy.”

What Ms. Simpson did was attempt to bribe a public official. Had she hosted a fundraiser or called political friends in order to raise funds, there would be no problem. Instead, she offered a sitting Congressman half the proceeds of a federal contract if he would expedite the matter for her. That, simply stated, is bribery. Thus, the source of this conspiracy theory admits that she attempted to bribe Bob Riley, who turned her down. Had she just asked for help expediting the contract, there would be no crime committed. Instead, however, Ms. Simpson is guilty of attempting to bribe a public official with public funds no less, a serious offense to say the least.

On the other hand, Glynn offers the case of Judge Mark Fuller to condone Ms. Simpson’s attempted bribery. Granted, it is an attempt to change the subject when the facts do not suit his needs, but let us examine Judge Fuller. Judge Fuller owned stock in a company that does business with the federal government. He is not, as Glynn implies, an officer in that company. He was, at one time, its president, but he gave up that position upon becoming a federal judge and divested himself of stock in that company. He did not receive a $176 million contract. The company did. With that established, Glynn still refuses to offer any example of in trial bias against Governor Siegelman. Saying that he did not recuse himself is not bias against Siegelman, as the judge would have actually had to commit some sort of act against Siegelman to have harmed him. I ask, once again, for any example of in trial bias by Judge Fuller. If there was no in trial bias, what does Siegelman have to complain about?

In closing, let me say, I am in no way tied to Governor Riley, as Glynn suggests with no evidence to back such a claim. I am merely a follower of Alabama politics who sees an individual attempting to besmirch the intelligence of the people of Alabama. We are supposed to believe that a woman who admits to attempting to bribe a public official has come forward with evidence that exonerates Don Siegelman, a woman who offers no attack upon the actual charges against Siegelman but, instead, has created an account that any sort of investigation shows to be filled with inaccuracies. I ask Glynn, once again, why he is willing to overlook Ms. Simpson’s admission of attempting to bribe then-Congressman Riley? Why does he not provide an example of how Judge Fuller showed in trial bias against Governor Siegelman? Why is it that Ms. Simpson claims that supposed pictures of Riley campaign signs at a Klan rally caused Siegelman to concede in 2002, yet not one copy of any of those pictures exists? Until he can fully answer those questions, the article offered shows nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Classic misdirection and a waste of bandwidth and a waste of anymore of anyone’s time who is seriously trying to get to the bottom of it.

I will say again, to anyone who wants to read some journalism that enlightens the situation, come on over the LocustFork.Net. Clearly this is a propaganda site only, where people who do not identify themselves and have no real expertise falsely accuse other people of crimes without any regard for the consequences of those accuations.

Sayonara

Comment by fast2write — June 23, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
People who “have no real expertise falsely accuse other people of crimes without any regard for the consequences of those accuations.”

….What’s that saying about the pot and the kettle?

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Oh, and for those following this saga, Glynn already deleted my second response on his web site which I have had to repost. Journalism at its finest.

Comment by Will — June 23, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Will, my prophecy in comment #90 has been fulfilled. Its interesting for a man of his estimable journalistic credentials to have to respond to your initial post by, in part, labeling you as a Riley partisan.

Alabama Politics in Doc’s Political Parlor & Home of Lawn Mower Repair

June 21, 2007

The Karl Rove / Bob Riley Conspiracy

134 Comments »

Alabama Politics in
Doc’s Political Parlor
& Home of Lawn Mower Repair