Comments on: Birmingham News Story Foretold

by: beachcomer

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:27:20 +0000

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.

by: TheoHawk

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:13:23 +0000

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

by: Danny

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:16:50 +0000

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.

by: Quinn

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:34:58 +0000

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.

by: Danny

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:22:51 +0000

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.

by: Quinn

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:34:49 +0000

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.

by: Susan's gay sister

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:59:01 +0000

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………

by: Quinn

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:45:40 +0000

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?

by: Anon #28

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:58:49 +0000

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.

by: mooncat

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:51:55 +0000

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.