Comments on: More Media Attention on Siegelman

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:04:38 +0000

yeah, it is kind of funny that Scrushy gets lost in all of this.

By: walt moffett

walt moffett — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:18:12 +0000

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.

By: samforddem

samforddem — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:00:42 +0000

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.

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:43:16 +0000

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.) :)

By: Absurd

Absurd — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:42:21 +0000

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.

By: Willie

Willie — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:10:07 +0000

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?”

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:05:45 +0000

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:

Several people involved in the Siegelman case who spoke to TIME say prosecutors were so focused on going after Siegelman that they showed almost no interest in tracking down what Young said about apparently illegal contributions to Sessions, Pryor, other well-known figures in the Alabama G.O.P. and even a few of the state's Democrats. "It just didn't seem like that was ever going to happen," said an individual present during key parts of the investigation. "Sessions and Pryor were on the home team."

By: Will

Will — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:43:02 +0000

“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?

By: mooncat

mooncat — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:10:31 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:43:13 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:24:14 +0000

#2 — because it gives the national media another chance to go after Karl Robe, that’s why.

By: The World Around You » Blog Archive » TIME Breaks Big Siegelman Story - Sessions and Pryor Implicated in Illegal Behavior

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:41:07 +0000

[...] ***Danny is also reporting that 60 Minutes is filming a Siegelman segment. Posted Alabama Politics on Thursday, October 4th, 2007. [...]

By: not important

not important — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:34:53 +0000

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?

By: dan t

dan t — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:39:30 +0000

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.