Posted by 
I’ve been told that the Time.com story mentioned earlier will be in the hard copy of Time magazine that hits the stands tomorrow with a mention on the cover.
Another good source tells me “60 Minutes” is filming a segment on the Siegelman case.
And I hear that the House Judiciary Committee has committed to having a hearing (or hearings) on the matters of the prosecution of Siegelman, the overturned conviction of Wisconsin public official Georgia Thompson, and the prosecution of Pennsylvanian coronor Cyril Wecht. (Background on these three cases can be found here in this letter from the House Judiciary Committee to then U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.) The hearing may start as soon as October 11.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I just have a hard time believing Rove or anyone else for that matter framed Don. Why concern yourself with some little known Governor in Alabama? It just doesnt pass the smell test.
refuting dan t’s argument, but using his logic – why else would time magazine, 60 minutes, and the house judiciary committee concern themselves with a little known governor from alabama?
[...] ***Danny is also reporting that 60 Minutes is filming a Siegelman segment. Posted Alabama Politics on Thursday, October 4th, 2007. [...]
#2 — because it gives the national media another chance to go after Karl Robe, that’s why.
Hey, turns out Time “selectively” reported what Lanny Young said. According to Feaga in the AP report by Bob Johnson, Young also said he funneled money to Democrats other than Siegelman.
Gee, wonder why Time only focused on the alleged contributions to Republicans?
For dan t, Rove might have gone after Siegelman because he still posed a potential threat to Riley in 2006. On top of that, it was standard right wing strategy to smear the Democratic brand every chance they got, ala Swift Boat Veterans. By most accounts, as Bush’s chief political advisor, Rove was extremely aware of local politics nationwide. Doesn’t seem hard to believe he would be concerned with a popular Democrat in Alabama, especially given his previous campaign work here.
“Rove might have gone after Siegelman because he still posed a potential threat to Riley in 2006.”
What kind of statement is that? “Rove might have gone after Siegelman….” Ignoring the fact that investigations into Siegelman had begun well before the 2002 race, where is the refutation of the charges against Don Siegelman? I find it remarkable that the vast majority of those who defend the former Governor do so by arguing that he was unfairly prosecuted. Here’s the more important question: Is he guilty?
Anonymous in Comment 5,
You are mistaken to say that the Time.com article did not say that Lanny Young also gave money to Democrats. From the article:
I wonder if past Presidents said to their aides, “I see Thurston Lyon Covington III just
sent us a bundled $250,000 campaign donation. Did he suggest what country he wants to be
appointed ambassador to?”
Danny – don’t be absurd. Anon #5s point was simple: That the TIME story focuses on only the parts
of the Young doc’s they got from the Siegelman camp regarding the Pryor and Sessions contributions.
Yes, they mention that he talks about other Democrats, but they do not focus any on it. Your bias
comes through again.
Absurd, I was responding to Anon#5’s comment that the Time.com reporting was more selective in its reporting than the AP article. Anon#5 wrote, “According to Feaga in the AP report by Bob Johnson, Young also said he funneled money to Democrats other than Siegelman,” as if to say that the Time article did not say the same thing. I was merely pointing out that, despite what Anon#5 said, the AP article did not offer more “focus” on gifts to the Democrats than the Time article did. Both articles gave it a mention and only a mention.
To read any more into what I said is a mis-reading, at least of what I meant (which I hope is now clarified for anyone who missed it the first time.) :)
Almost every single ambassador of the United States under the Bush administration has been a major Bush donor. No way is talking about charging him with RICO violations. The Siegelman prosecution is what doesn’t pass the smell test.
Traditionally, both parties have rewarded big donors on the Social Register and party hacks with ambassador postings. I am sure the appointments in 2009 will be solely based on merit and of career State department employees.
Any one notice there seems to be little mention of whether Scrushy’s trial and conviction were politically motivated? I keep remembering Teapot Dome, where the briber was acquitted but the bribe taker was convicted.
yeah, it is kind of funny that Scrushy gets lost in all of this.