Posted by 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.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
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/
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.
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.
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.
The same stories were emailed to me by the Scrushy team. I didn’t even check them out.
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.
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.
Let’s get Troy King to investigate this one. But I forgot, Siegelman was acquitted on the count
Troy’s office was responsible for.
Siegelman was convicted on six counts relating to one act. We really don’t know about that jury now do we?
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.
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.
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…
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!
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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!
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?
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…
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
Respond to this, if you can…
Feaga Shows Political Bias
http://www.locustfork.net/blog/
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
BTW–Lovely story on storm gypsies:
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/COLUMNISTS17/701260395
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.
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!
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.
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…
“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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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
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).
Blah, blah, blah…another anonymous nitwit with no sense of humor.
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 http://www.locustfork.net: the fastest and bestest free journalism site for all you ‘Alabama dumbasses’.
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.
Brian, I think our work here is done. Glynn’s post at #43 pretty well makes our point for us.
Reactionary, I think your name says it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary