Posted by Love him or hate him (and there are many on both sides of that divide), Scott Horton of Harper’s Weekly told us yesterday (Saturday) to watch for the Birmingham News story today critical of an aide to U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D – Birmingham).
According to Horton, “a certain editor and writer” at the News are “royally pissed off at Representative Artur Davis” for pushing for more investigation into the prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman.
Horton writes:
According to my source, the word went out: Slime Artur Davis. If you can’t hit him personally, at least slime some senior aide who works for him. Do it quickly.
I am told that the News will use one of its marquee writers for this, probably one who has been deep in the anti-Siegelman vendetta. Also, the News has been busily poring over the list of Davis’s staffers, family, and other associates to find someone it can land a blow against, hopefully in time for the Sunday edition.
Today, the News publishes Brett Blackledge’s story of Gina Bailey McKell, who was paid by Alabama two-year colleges while actually working “on loan” to the offices of governors Siegelman, Riley briefly, and later Rep. Davis. She now works for a financial services company.
The story tells of McKell’s efforts urging “friends, fellow Democrats and others” to challenge the conviction of Siegelman. A reader via email asks what that has to do with the substance of the story. And I concur on that question. What does that have to do with the story? The same paragraph says that “Davis is one of the few elected Alabama Democrats publicly joining Siegelman in questioning his prosecution and calling for a congressional review of the case.” So? How is that relevant to the story?
The story reaches for a connection between Artur Davis and McKell’s efforts on Siegelman’s behalf in the story, but can’t quite stretch far enough to complete it. For example, last month McKell sent email inviting recipients to attend a fundraiser for Siegelman’s legal expenses. Blackledge writes:
Some of Davis’ staff is listed on the e-mail, although Davis said he isn’t aware of all of McKell’s activities since she left his office.
“Gina McKell doesn’t work for me anymore, so the only thing I can account for is what Gina McKell did when she worked for me,” he said.
Huh? So what that some of McKell’s former co-workers are listed on the email? What point is Blackledge trying to make by saying that some of Davis’ co-workers received the email? He already said that McKell was in contact with “friends, fellow Democrats and others” about Siegelman. Would it be a surprise that she would contact the fellow Democrats who were her co-workers?
And I agree with the reader. What does this have to do with the substance of the article? What am I missing?
Thank you to the readers who brought this to my attention.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
You aren’t missing anything and that’s the point exactly. The NEWS article is nothing more than a ham handed attempt to intimidate Davis and others who might be thinking of cooperating in the Siegelman story. With each passing day we see this cover up for what it really is. Thanks to Blackledge and the NEWS for being so obvious in their showing their hand.
Actually here IS a point to the story. Why should state tax dollars be used to pay the salary of a congressional staffer? Do all of our representatives have this arrangement or is dAvis getting special treatment?
And in a highly ironic twist. A lawyer who claims she is a Republican (though she is unkown to most of the state Republicans) and who claims she worked on the Riley campaign (though is unknown to the Riley campaign staffers) says she overheard a call where an offhand reference was made about someone named Karl and Democrats are falling all over themselves calling for congressional investigation.
Yet, find out that one of the chief pot-stirrers has been on Davis’ payroll, at state expanse, and those same Dems will tell you “there’s no story here.”
Scott Horton and Terry’s hipocracy is wearing thin.
And then there is this odd statement by Davis…
“Davis declined in an interview last week to say whether he has discussed the Siegelman case with McKell.”
“I’m not going to discuss with you whether I’ve talked to any individual about the case,” Davis said. “I’m not going to discuss with you whether I’ve talked to my mother or my father or my best friend about the Siegelman case because you haven’t established why that question is relevant.”
The arrogance of this particular statement from Davis really bothers me:
“If it was permissible for a junior college employee to be loaned to the executive office to work for the governor, again, I’m struggling to see frankly what question would exist about her being loaned to this office,” Davis told The News.
The difference, of course, was that the Governor’s office is a state office and Davis’ office is a federal office. They aren’t interchangeable. Again, I ask: Why should
state dollars be used to pay staff salaries for a federal office?
[...] Birmingham News Story Foretold » Doc’s Political Parlor Posted Alabama Politics, Blogging on Monday, September 17th, 2007. [...]
Was this woman’s salary coming from the Education Trust Fund? If so, she shouldn’t have been working for the governors either.
Am I getting this right? A person who is the daughter of a two-year college president and the sister of a top Siegleman aide operative gets a generous paycheck from successive two-year colleges, but actually works for Governor Siegleman. She works briefly for Gov. Riley’s office in transition but (according to her) leaves because she doesn’t want to work for a Republican. She then remains on the state payroll and goes to work for a congressman. And Democrats are trying to say that the exposure of all this is just political posturing?
I know that some Democrats will say that this all coming to light is some sort of Republican ruse for political points, but I’m a bit embarrassed that this didn’t come to light long ago and that we Republicans haven’t screamed about it. In a two-party system, it is responsibility of opposition parties to keep excesses such as this in check. I believe that if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would have been more effective in pointing out our short-comings.
You Democrats really need to find a Republican scandal to get attention away from this.
I’m not sure how you missed the point to be honest. I know you are
sympathetic to Dems and your law firm was heavily involved with
Siegelman and maybe all of that has hurt your ability to clearly think
through issues like this. A Congressional staffer being paid by the 2-Yr
College system?? You have to be kidding me, why? What good reason would
a post secondary school have for putting a political operative and
fundraiser on a congressional payroll?
Susan, I agree with you that it is a good point to ask why the 2-year colleges are paying for a staffer to work for a U.S. Representative and, I would add, governors. I have sympathy for the board members in the article who “said they don’t want colleges paying salaries of people who don’t work at the campus.”
Mike Ball… :)
I get the most head-scratching from comment #8. Anonymous in #8, I am not sure who are you talking to. None of your comments apply to me. Not true that my “law firm was heavily involved with Siegelman,” and so I don’t know who you are addressing. I don’t think I missed the point of the article at all. I agree that it’s worth asking why a 2 year school would pay for a Congressional staffer. My post did not question the main point of the article.
My point is that the story goes beyond the question of why a 2 year college would pay for McKell to work for governors and a U.S. Rep, and tries to draw a connection to her private efforts on Siegelman’s behalf. That attempt to connect Davis to McKell’s personal effort on Siegelman’s behalf is not supported by any evidence in the story. That the weak attempt to make the connection is included in the story lends credence to Horton’s very specific account made in advance of the News story that the News would be trying to land a blow against Davis.
I guess the question being raised is how influential was McKell on Davis’ public statements calling for a congressional investigation. I think it is
worth asking who came up with the idea to put McKell in Davis’ office at state expense and whether that has any bearing on Davis’ stance.
What’s the big deal about Horton “being in the know”? McKell was obviously contacted by the News and she obviously told Horton to watch for a negative story coming out and gave him her spin on it so he would report it on his blog. Why the effort to make it sound like, “Hey, look! Horton knew this was coming and he was right!” Of course he knew this story was coming ahead of time. So did everyone else the reporter questioned.
I believe that if you are citing Scott Horton, then your bias is certain. What you missed was what
Susan references. McKell has been so very far out front regarding the Siegelman conspiracy
theory scenario AND because Artur Davis was so very much opposed to an investigation and then after
much pressure from his own base, did a 180 degree turn on the issue, one can easily assume there
was pressure from people like McKell. Also, his comments yesterday clearly tried to avoid that
issue. Also, anyone knows that Maynard Cooper is as close to Siegelman as anyone in Montgomery/Bham.
Um, Anonymous #12? Danny doesn’t work for Maynard Cooper.
Clearly she had no college degree, just a high school diploma. How many 2-year college employee’s have just a high school diploma? The only job’s that she was qualified to have in the 2-year system was cafeteria worker, or janitor. “She immediately began working for Davis, and was paid $76,883 a year by Shelton, records show.”
=====
McKell noted on her job application that her highest degree earned was a high school diploma.
Davis said he already had the 18 allowed staff members on his payroll, so he couldn’t offer to pay McKell. He said she told him she wanted to remain on Shelton’s payroll because she didn’t want to lose her state retirement.
“If we had hired her, she would have had to forfeit her state retirement in the system,” Davis said. “And Gina was a long-standing state employee.”
State retirement records show McKell was not eligible for benefits at the point she went to work for Davis.
Clearly McKell had no college degree, only a high school diploma. How many 2-year college employee’s have just a high school diploma? The only job’s that she was qualified to have in the 2-year system was cafeteria worker, or janitor. “She immediately began working for Davis, and was paid $76,883 a year by Shelton, records show.”
=====
McKell noted on her job application that her highest degree earned was a high school diploma.
Davis said he already had the 18 allowed staff members on his payroll, so he couldn’t offer to pay McKell. He said she told him she wanted to remain on Shelton’s payroll because she didn’t want to lose her state retirement.
“If we had hired her, she would have had to forfeit her state retirement in the system,” Davis said. “And Gina was a long-standing state employee.”
State retirement records show McKell was not eligible for benefits at the point she went to work for Davis.
Sorry for the double post! I left out McKell’s name in the first post…
Yeah, the Shelton State connection is the other suspicious piece of this puzzle. Shalton State has been soooooo careful with taxpayer money in the past–NOT!
It’s obvious that Gina McKell was nothing more then a political operative. Having only a high school diploma, yet holding a 2-year college position. I wonder how the “career” educators feel about that fact. They spend years earning their college degrees, and a political “hack” walks in with a high school diploma, and is racking up $76,883 “tax-payer” dollars a year. Not to speak of “no” bids going out for the “created” position.
I hear the Gina McKell story is far from over.
Davis is a disgrace. The real story about him is how he was coddled and pampered by former democrat chairman Redding Pitt and was completely unable to handle cases assigned to him. Davis is the Troy King of the Alabama Democrat Party.
Look at Gina McKell’s resume!
Gina McKell noted on her job application that her highest degree earned was a high school diploma.
She listed work experience as working part-time, temporary jobs with state employment offices in the Birmingham area for a little more than a year and working in her then-husband’s construction company for more than five years.
And for that resume, she was receiving $76,883 from a Alabama 2-year college. “I hear the Gina McKell story is far from over.” You are right Anonymous… it is FAR from over!
Danny, how easily fooled you are. It was actually Davis’ staff who contacted the Horton guy to do the blog piece before the article ran. And if you’d use your brain a little, you’d figure this one out. Horton apparently is not being very discreet about this. I had a call from a friend of mine who speaks to him regularly, and I’m told Horton acknowledged receiving a call from one of Davis’ staffers on Saturday about all of this. Don’t you think it’s interesting that he would say this privately, yet publicly say something else??? Hmmm, is he intentionally trying to mislead us?
I went back to read the article and re-read the blog entry, and it did appear to me to be interesting how Horton’s “advance” on this was skewed toward Davis, when in fact the article was less about him and much more about this McKell woman, and Siegelman and the colleges. But the blog piece reads like a Davis defensive. Now it makes sense.
When the reporter took the trouble to point out “Both Siegelman and Davis are Democrats” right before mentioning that Ms. McKell is Nick Bailey’s cousin (not his sister, Rep. Ball) and Nick Bailey is the guy who grassed on Don Siegelman, I started wondering if there was a political slant to the story. If it’s just about state colleges loaning an employee out, why does the political party even matter. The way it ran in the Huntsville Times, the fact that she also worked for Bob Riley under a loan arrangement was inside, in the continuation. So, the Democrats are mentioned prominently, but Riley is squirreled away inside.
Sorry, this story looks like an attempt to associate Davis with Bailey, Siegelman and the 2 year college scandal, maybe to convince him to stop pressing for the Dept. of Justice to turn over Siegelman documents. Or maybe to give him a taste of what would happen if he got uppity and ran for statewide office.
You may think I’m wearing a tin-foil hat if you wish. In return, I may think you haven’t been paying attention to the way some of the news media have worked hand in glove with Republican officials over the past decade or so. Sometimes journalists (Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, Maggie Gallagher, Michael McManus) were actually paid, sometimes they seemed to be after continued inside access. Who knows what is happening with the Alabama press, but it’s like the Bush DOJ, I don’t trust their motives any more. Once trust is gone there just isn’t much left, is there?
To me it looks like the problems with the 2-year college corruption is that it goes much further than legislators being employed and not doing no real work. Now it involves aides to Governor Siegelman an Congressman Davis being employed and doing no real work.
And in this specific case we have a person with no qualifications what so ever being employed as a 2-year college employee. How does a high school graduate manage to get a 2-year college job at $76,883? How many more of these type of arrangements are there in the 2-year college system? When you don’t like the message, attack the messenger!
You can tell this story really got under the liberals’ skin by their over-the-top response to it.
Wow… The comments are getting more and more interesting… :) I started typing a comment yesterday that I could not finish at the time… I’ll finish it now but it may responds more to some of the earlier comments…
1. Let me say that nothing in this post was meant to criticize or defend Siegelman, Riley, Artur Davis, Toby Roth, Gina Baily McKell, Republicans, Democrats, Pakistanis, left-handers, or Martians. If you read it differently, then please point out specifically what I wrote to give you a different impression so that I may polish my writing skills.
2. I think this is a really interesting story about two year colleges paying someone to work for governors and a U.S. Rep.
3. The interesting story makes an odd point that McKell has made personal efforts to aid Siegelman. And I simply ask what is the point of that? I don’t see it affecting the main point of the story.
4. Susan, I particularly appreciate you understanding and engaging with the point of the post.
5. Re your comment #10, Gina Bailey McKell left Artur Davis’s office a year and a half before the Siegelman sentencing (gone by January 2006 according to the article). I find it difficult to imagine that she had any bearing on Davis’s stance. But if she did or didn’t, I can’t see that either one would worsen or mitigate the details of the story. Nobody’s going to say, “Whew, two year colleges paid her salary to work in other offices, but at least she didn’t influence Rep. Davis’s position on Siegelman!”
6. Mike Ball, I smiled (in an earlier comment) in response to your comment 7 because the second paragraph was amusing, but did not mean to overlook the first paragraph. You asked rhetorically, “And Democrats are trying to say that the exposure of all this is just political posturing?” I had not seen anyone in the state of any stripe saying that the exposure of this is political posturing and would be glad to see reference to someone who has. I greatly wonder why 2 year colleges have paid for someone in this capacity, and, like Susan, would like to know if others Reps have had similar arrangements.
7. Anonymous #12, you said that “Artur Davis was so very much opposed to an investigation.” Do you have a link for a source that supports that? I would appreciate it. I can hardly imagine that Davis would bow to pressure from someone who left his employ a year and a half previous, but regardless, I question the relevance to the otherwise interesting article.
8. Jim in #22 wrote “in fact the article was less about [Davis] and much more about this McKell woman, and Siegelman and the colleges.” FWIW, I did a simple count and found that Davis’s name was mentioned more than Siegelman’s (24 v. 19, or thereabouts).
9. Anonymous in comment 25, can you point me toward some over-the-top responses to the article? Is it over-the-top to ask what McKell’s personal efforts for Siegelman or Davis’s call for congressional review have to do with the article? Out of all these comments only a couple have really engaged with the point of the post.
Thanks. Glad people are talking about this.
First of all, I stand corrected about the relationship between Ms McKell and Nick Bailey.
My comment about Democrats spin was not in response to the McKell issue specifically, but the two-year college situation generally and the Seigleman prosecution specifically. I guess I should have been more clear.
I think there is a clear attempt by Democrats to say the former Governor’s prosecution was political and instigated by Republicans. The call for congressional review is part of it. The Horton article seems to suggest that the McKell issue coming to light is an attempt to slime Rep. Davis in retaliation for his call for the hearings.
I believe the Democrats are in a damage-control mode over the whole situation.
Danny, you do not remember that back in June Artur Davis stated that he did not see the need for
congressional inquiry and then about 2 weeks later, he completely changed his tune? That was after
about 2 weeks of pressure from people like McKell who were sending out mass emails, working the
talk radio in Bham, having mass calls into his office – he decided he’d change his mind. Will try
to find the articles.
the average B’ham News reader is going to look at this article and think “another deomcrat getting paid by the two-year college system. why aren’t people going to jail for all this crap?”
Mike Ball, thank you for clarifying. You may be right that “Democrats are in a damage control mode over the whole situation,” but I’m not so sure that is the best way to describe it. Some Democrats are angry, upset, and doing what they can to keep the discussion alive – way beyond “damage control.” Some Democrats are ready to close the door on all that and move on.
Anonymous in 28, I do remember being some surprised in July when Artur Davis came out this summer calling for congressional inquiry into the Siegelman thing. At the time, I wondered if he was playing to the party faithful, getting ready for a campaign to come (perhaps governor?). But he has gone beyond that now. And no, I didn’t remember that he had been opposed to congressional inquiry before that, but I do miss things, so I would be interested in a link if you find one.
Actually, I did find a link or two (this one, for example) that mentioned surprise at Davis’s call for congressional inquiry. But they did not mention that he had been previously opposed.
Perhaps this is the article to which Anonymous 28 is referring:
Birmingham News (Alabama)
June 21, 2007 Thursday
Affidavit doesn’t prove politics sparked probe of Siegelman, Davis says
BYLINE: MARY ORNDORFF News Washington correspondent
SECTION: LOCAL NEWS; Pg. 1C Vol. 120 No. 100
LENGTH: 1054 words
WASHINGTON – An Alabama woman’s claim that the president’s top political adviser knew about a Justice Department investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman does not prove that the prosecution was politically motivated, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis said.
But the Birmingham Democrat who serves on the congressional committee investigating undue political influence on federal prosecutors said the statement raises questions about possible political considerations made in the investigation.
Jill Simpson, a lawyer in Rainsville, gave a sworn statement saying she witnessed a conversation between top aides to Gov. Bob Riley’s 2002 campaign about how White House adviser Karl Rove had discussed the federal investigation of Siegelman with one of them. Riley, a Republican, beat Siegelman, a Democrat, in the gubernatorial race that year.
Specifically, Simpson says that Riley advocate and longtime GOP operative Bill Canary said during a November 2002 phone call that ”Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman,” according to her written affidavit.
The Birmingham News had reported 10 months earlier that state and federal prosecutors were investigating Siegelman as part of their investigation into his administration.
‘Desperate act’
In a recent interview, Davis said Simpson’s statement, even if true, does not prove Rove ordered prosecutors to pursue Siegelman. Her written affidavit has not been filed in court.
”All Jill Simpson can testify to is what she says a bunch of people said during a phone conversation. Rove never came on the line,” said Davis, a former federal prosecutor. ”That’s why the affidavit doesn’t tell you that much. You’re not going to get to the bottom of what Rove did unless Rove is willing to come and sit before that committee and answer questions.”
Davis also vouched for the statements by Canary and his wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. Bill Canary has called Simpson’s statement a ”desperate act.” Leura Canary, appointed to the post by Bush, stepped down from the Siegelman investigation in May 2002 because of her husband’s ties to the Riley campaign.
The case was then handled by assistant Steve Feaga and acting U.S. attorney Louis Franklin, who have said that Leura Canary was not involved in the decision to indict Siegelman in 2005.
”If Billy Canary says he didn’t call Karl Rove, I believe that. If Leura Canary says she recused herself from the case, I believe that,” Davis said.
The White House so far has declined to let Rove testify publicly on Capitol Hill. A White House spokesman Wednesday declined to comment on the af-
fidavit because it is related to an ongoing criminal case.
Siegelman’s defense attorneys, who are preparing for his sentencing next week in Montgomery, have said Simpson’s affidavit could show the case against Siegelman was motivated by political considerations. A federal jury in Montgomery last summer convicted Siegelman on seven of 32 counts, including bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and honest services mail fraud. He had been under investigation for several years.
Questions raised
While Siegelman continues his battle in the courtroom, his case has not yet risen to the level of political scandal in other cases from around the country that has captured the attention of Congress. Congress has held multiple hearings on whether the Department of Justice under President Bush used political considerations in pursuing, or not pursuing, certain types of cases involving Democrats.
So far, the only member of Congress to publicly raise the Siegelman case in that context is Davis. He briefly questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about it in May, before the Simpson affidavit was reported by Time magazine and The New York Times.
Davis said the Simpson affidavit does raise questions in the context of the overall national investigation. Davis received a copy of the affidavit Wednesday and said he was forwarding it to the House Judiciary Committee, which had not yet seen it.
Siegelman, in an e-mailed response Tuesday, said he planned to provide Davis and the committee copies of the Simpson affidavit, which was dated May 21.
Davis said he would like to know who in Washington gave the go-ahead for federal prosecutors in Montgomery to indict a former governor; whether prosecutors fully investigated allegations of juror misconduct based on alleged e-mail conversations among them during deliberations; and why prosecutors are seeking a 30-year prison term, which he believes is exorbitant.
Feaga and Franklin have said Rove had no role in the Siegelman investigation, and that Department of Justice officials in Washington, after being initially reluctant to pursue the case, agreed to the indictments in 2005. Franklin, in a written statement June 6, said he consulted with career prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice but the final decision to continue the investigation was his.
Regarding the alleged e-mails among the jurors, the federal judge in the Siegelman case said he could not verify their authenticity and he did not agree to a new trial because of them, as defense attorneys had asked.
‘Very bizarre result’
As for the recommended sentence of 30 years, Davis said it was excessive for a case where the jurors acquitted Siegelman on more counts than they convicted.
”I try to make it a practice to not second-guess jury verdicts, so I won’t do that,” Davis said. ”It’s just my opinion as a former lawyer and prosecutor that to give a 30-year sentence when the jury rejected 90-some percent of the factual claims in the case, that would strike me as a very bizarre result.”
Franklin said the recommended sentence was based on federal sentencing guidelines.
Davis, who has asked for a noconfidence vote on Attorney General Gonzales, said he believed the House Judiciary Committee would at least consider looking at Siegelman’s case at some point.
”Certainly Congress has a legitimate oversight concern into whether the Department of Justice has become so politicized that it can no longer live up to its name,” Davis said. ”All these allegations floating around out there are part of that process.”
Susan’s article may be the one Anonymous #28 (this would be easier if you got a made-up name) was thinking of, but it doesn’t support his statement that “Artur Davis stated that he did not see the need for
congressional inquiry and then about 2 weeks later, he completely changed his tune?”
While Davis did not actually call for a Congressional investigation at that time, “Davis, who has asked for a noconfidence vote on Attorney General Gonzales, said he believed the House Judiciary Committee would at least consider looking at Siegelman’s case at some point” neither did he rule it out.
What he did say, and what is still true, is that Simpson’s affidavit doesn’t prove that the prosecution was politically motivated. That’s why the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed documents related to the case — to see if political considerations entered into things.
You must be kidding Mooncat. You ignore the paragraphs below — even one where he is quoted as saying he “believes” Mr.
and Mrs. Canary. The Siegelman spinsters worked Davis over hard to get him to change this tune…
‘’All Jill Simpson can testify to is what she says a bunch of people said during a phone conversation. Rove never came on the line,’’ said Davis, a former federal prosecutor. ‘’That’s why the affidavit doesn’t tell you that much. You’re not going to get to the bottom of what Rove did unless Rove is willing to come and sit before that committee and answer questions.’’
Davis also vouched for the statements by Canary and his wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. Bill Canary has called Simpson’s statement a ‘’desperate act.’’ Leura Canary, appointed to the post by Bush, stepped down from the Siegelman investigation in May 2002 because of her husband’s ties to the Riley campaign.
‘’If Billy Canary says he didn’t call Karl Rove, I believe that. If Leura Canary says she recused herself from the case, I believe that,’’ Davis said.
Danny, do you really not undertand what the article’s reference to McKell’s current political activities has to do with anything? It appears similiar to Davis’ current political interests, particularly relating to Siegelman. They share a common political effort on that front, it seems. And what motivation would someone have to raise that question in your mind, to contact you to attempt to question why that would seem unrelated and lead you to even submit this post?
What about Auburn lending Sherry Fulford to Governor Bob Riley???
Auburn paid her salary while she worked for the governor and then the
governor’s Finance Director tried to sneak a contract to pay her a
enormous lobbying feee for medicaid through a 3rf party (AUM)so she
could collect her retirement and the lobbying fee.. DUHHHH Can someone
explain to me why this has been reported on or is just the two year collehge
system that has flaws.. If anyone thinks the four year system is lily
white Ihave some good building sites for sale in the LA swamp.. This
is hypocrisy at it’s worst. Ask the Governor’s office or ask Aubrun how long they
paid Sherry Fulford’s salary to workj for the governor.. double dawg dare you and
then post the amswer back on this site.. If you got the courage………
apparently susan’s gay sister knows someone at The News. You’ll find your answer there today. Also, Fulford’s contract after she retired is apples and oranges on this issue, but Riley’s use of her as a lobbyist is mentioned today.
Quinn wrote:
Danny, do you really not undertand what the article’s reference to McKell’s current political activities has to do with anything? It appears similiar to Davis’ current political interests, particularly relating to Siegelman. They share a common political effort on that front.
Of course I understand that, Quinn.
My question remains, how is this relevant to the substance of the article? I didn’t ask, as you suggested I did, what this has to do with anything. I didn’t ask what they had to do with each other. (I am not surprised that people in politics who were co-workers have similar political interests. Are you?) I asked what that has to do with the substance of the article. Especially since they quit working together a year and a half prior to the Siegelman sentencing.
They have maintained contact, and it’s clear in Davis’ response to the article that he has continued to discuss with McKell party issues. Davis, as this post has pointed out, started with a very lukewarm response to questions about the Siegelman case, claiming he believed the Canarys and didn’t second guess juries and didn’t put faith in the Simpson affidavit. So what changed his mind? Those like this woman in the party, perhaps, who had a history with him and can change his mind. I get the idea from these posting here that many other people see this connection. Interesting you don’t.
I strive to be interesting, Quinn, so I’m glad I succeed on that point. Thanks!
Two people who worked in the same political office arrive at similar stances on a political issue. Maybe one influenced another. That’s a dog-bites-man story. It’s not unusual. It’s not unlikely. That’s the norm.
I wish all the cronyism, nepotism and unsavory political deals could be brought out into the light of day. We need some honest people to oversee and make sure our tax dollars are being well spent. I guess I have been pretty naive for a long time. Legal or not, someone being paid by the state and working for a federal office holder makes no sense to me. Like the old saying goes, it’s not only who you know, but who you nose. WDE
While my dog is not in this fight, there are a few points which I feel should be made:
1. Having a degree is not a prerequiste for intelligence. Guy Hunt did a pretty good job as Governor, I recall.
2. Colleges loan personnel to work in governmental offices in Montgomery and in Washington. Bob Riley had Sherri Fulford. Fob had Grover Jacobs and several of our representative and senators in Washington-past and present- have “borrowed staff” from our colleges and universities to assist on special needs. The Birmingham News is simply trying to create a tempest in the two-year college teapot.