Posted by The transcript of the Jill Simpson interview with the House Judiciary Committee on September 14 is available online now as a pdf file.
From today’s Birmingham News story on her testimony:
The statement by Simpson, included in a transcript of her Sept. 14 testimony, is a significant addition to an earlier sworn affidavit of hers that [former governor Don] Siegelman supporters used to demand a congressional investigation of his prosecution.
Haven’t had opportunity to look at it myself yet.
(Via Birmingham News site)
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Tommy Gallion, Stan Pate, Chip Hill (works for Folsom), John Aaron (Siegelman/Folsom) — this
entire saga is all beginning to take shape. Faces to go with the anonymous actions up until
now. Who will emerge next?
Danny – this is the thing I don’t get: does this actually HELP Don Siegelman? What are his lawyers telling him? I could see how this could damage GOP types and possibly help the Democrats, but NONE of it comes anywhere close to exonerating Siegelman. If anything, it reinforcers Lanny Young as a crook and makes the link between him, Siegelman, and illegal activities stronger.
So why would Don take this path? Is he being hoodwinked as well?
Seems to be a lot of “he said that he (the other he) said”. She seems to have little direct knowledge of what transpired. On the flip side, she does not whine about her situation nor does she play the martyr for the truth card.
THEPLAYERS = Dax Swatek, he must be getting nervous, worried his name will start to come up and will distract him from his current practice of losing election.
I haven’t heard anything from Simpson that doesn’t sound like typical scuttlebutt spread
among political hacks anywhere beer is consumed. I don’t even see a lead worth pursuing;
however, if they are intent on chasing smoke, instead of relying upon hearsay, why doesn’t the committee subpoeana Rob Riley and Bill Canary and get the other side of the story on record. I think the effect of these
allegations of so-called tampering by the justice department is not so much to exonerate
Siegleman as to make prosecutors reluctant to indict other democrat officials. And its
probably working.
Danny – did you catch the little bit in the transcript that shows the initial motivation – according to Simpson – for her speaking out? She was approached by someone to do some dirty work on Lowell Barron -and she repsponded by immediately calling Lowell’s brother.
Write this down: Lifelong Republicans don’t have the Barrons on speed dial. She is putting on a front here.
Oh – one other thing i noticed. When this “lifelong Republican’ was asked about all the GOP campaigns she had worked in, she named Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 and Riley’s in 2002.
Wrong. What happened in the intervening two decades? Where is all the work in legislative/county/city races?
She is a front.
She says that Siegelman put her in touch with his “political researcher” (John Aaron) who
wrote the affidavit for her! Why is she saying things that completely undermine her
credibility?
There are a LOT of holes in Simpson’s affidavit and testimony. It is interesting that the House Judiciary Committee has not been subpoenaing other players. It is also clear that Simpson has been the source for much of Scott Horton’s work. So once Simpson is revealed to be a front, then this story will unravel as much ado about nothing.
I think the selective prosecution thing is a big deal and it is proper for there to be an investigation, but the national media has been duped by someone (Simpson, Siegelman’s defense team … not sure who it was) into thinking that Siegelman was a saint. Reasonable people can disagree about how bad Siegelman’s actions really were, but there was certainly a lot more going on than how Horton describes it.
So, I’m reading the Simpson transscript and I see where she is now claiming that Siegelman conceded the 2002 election as apart of a deal to keep the Klan stuff out of the public eye and to avoid prosecution. So I’m thinking, Hmmmm Siegelman has already publicly refuted the Klan connection to his concession. And, knowing Don Siegelman, if he indeed had a deal to avoid prosecution by staying out of politics, don’t we think he’d have been screaming about that since 1. His indictment in the Middle District, 2. His conviction, and 3. His sentencing? Plus, I can’t imagine Don Siegelman EVER agreeing to stay out of politics. I mean the man ran for governor while he was on trial. He is not easily scared away from the political process. There is no way Siegelman would have ever agreed to that.
So now I’m thinking that Simpson is just embellishing to tell the Dems what they want to hear. When one story has run its course she tosses something else out there to get some more attention.
The thing that jumps off the page is the immediate phone call to Lowell Barron’s brother and the complete lack of any real involvement in GOP politics. This is NOT a “lifelong Republican.” That insults the intelligence of anyone listening to her testimony, and if she is dishonest on that point . . .
All these inconsistencies would come to light if Congress did more than simply rely on Simpson’s testimony and actually performed an investigation. No one really wants to dig too deeply because they won’t like what they find.
Here’s some unpleasant collateral damage for you: at some point – she makes a point of NOT telling during her testimony – whatever the “dirt” on barron that she found so offensive will come out.
Think only Riley is upset about this stuff? Think again. This whole deal -which will tar people on both sides of the ailse all over this state – is a result of the obsessive selfishness of Don Siegelman. This doesn’t clear him – it just tars other peole. And that is all that angry, selfish, egotist cares about- getting even.
I cannot speak for the veracity of Jill Simpson. (Though it looks like there are enough details here and there that she has opened herself up for a world of grief if she has perjured herself.)
But I don’t see the details that Hmmm mentions as discrediting her testimony.
Lowell Barron and Jill Simpson are from the same area, small towns. If she knew Barron’s brother personally, I don’t see it as a big deal that she called him. I don’t know that she knows him personally, but I would not make a big deal out of that point until I knew more about it – especially given that they are from the same area.
And Simpson worked on “only” two political campaigns? I know plenty of lifelong Republicans and Democrats who have not worked on any campaigns, so Simpson is two ahead of all of them.
I am not trying to bolster her credibility, and I have no way of knowing the facts of the matter. But those two points she makes don’t seem outlandish to me.
Danny, it wasn’t just that she stated that she had worked on two campaigns. If you read her testimony, she clearly seems to be REACHING to come up with any credentials as a “Republican activist” for lack of a better term. I think she never actually did any work for Reagan; that is an easy claim to make and difficult to completely discredit. The only real connection I see – ever- for her to GOP politics is in this 2002 campaign. I would be willing to bet she has never registered as a Republicn; never attended a GOP party meeting; never done any of the little things that would clearly define party loyalty. I think she was a relatively blank slate as far as traceable party affiliation – and therefore useful . . .
You ever hear of the term “political spy?” Just a thought – but Jill Simpson would be a perfect case study. She does fit the mold. Old friends with a campaign insider, no traceable obvious connections to the opposition . . .and the first thing she does when given damaging info on an opponent is call that opponent up . . .
It’s just speculation. But I have seen stranger things by far . . .
I talked with several Republican leaders in DeKalb county, including the county chairman and the Dekalb chairman for the 2002 Riley campaign. None of them knew Simpson to be involved in Republican politics in any way shape or form. She had no involvement in the Dekalb campaign for 2002. She never called for signs, literature or offered to help. That’s a direct quote. They also told me that not a single reporter covering the story had called to check out Simpson’s story of being a Republican activist.
Danny, it’s one thing to claim to be a Republican in your heart. But over the last few months Simpson has claimed to have been a long-time Republican activist and insider. Well, activists and insiders work on campaigns and publicly support candidates. No one I have talked to from Dekalb county remembers her being involved at all.
Good pont Susan – and in the article on “Locust Fork” it mentions that George Wallace himself pulled strings to get Jill into law school at Alabama. That was usually done for political cronies – and Jill has acknowledged that her dad was a long-time Democrat. So maybe she has a few more – and stronger – ties to the Democrats than her claimed – without any proof – ties to the GOP.
I’d say an entry into law school due to the action of a prominent Democratic politician is far stronger evidence of an inclination that way than anything she has PROVEN connects her to the GOP.
I wonder where the term “activist” comes from. Does anyone know where it was first applied to her? Does she ever apply that term to herself? I would be interested in any info available on that. She doesn’t in the House Judiciary Committee interview that I can find.
And Hmmm, how does one “register as a Republican” in Alabama?
BTW, there were several other campaigns (more than two) that she mentioned in the interview that she had worked on in varying degrees. I have only scanned it, but it looks like there is a name mentioned here or there that could verify some of what she is saying.
Danny -I saw two articles today where she was identified as “Republican lawyer.” It is in the first sentence of both articles – in “Time” and “The New York Times.” However, no one connected to the party in that area – and I checked – has ever heard of her. She was in NO GOP orgnizations at law school – I just talked to one of her classmates who knows. It is interesting to me how she is being identified – in every piece – as a “Republican” lawyer. Pretty much the only thing that says she is a Republican are her own two lips.
I think it is inaccurate to make the major adjective to her “Republican” on such sketchy credentials. She WANTS people to think of her as a “Republican Lawyer” NOW. Has she ever identified herself as such in her entire life previously?
I highly doubt it.
I would like to know what local/state/county campaigns she claims involvement in. I only saw Reagan and Riley with a very casual mention of Bush. Anything besides those?
Danny – I just re-read her testimony, and the ONLY other campaign she mentions other than Riley and Reagan and the first Bush is the Perry Hooper campaign of 1994. That made me smile. I am very famliar with that one. I did work on it – a lot. And I have never heard of her until this thing.
That says a lot about her actual “involvement”.
If she claims any other campaign involvement in her statement I’d like to know about it. I see only what I stated before, and NOT involvement “in several campaigns.”
She also mentions working on two campaigns for Roy Moore. Riley, Reagan, Bush, Hooper, Moore, some of them multiple campaigns… that’s why I used the word “several,” though as you have pointed out she did not do a lot in some of them.
Danny -I now see that she also mentions Roy Moore – but that doesn’t always mean GOP – I know many Democratic trial lawyers who backed Moore against Riley. In fact, her involvement against Riley with Moore in the 2006 primary – BEFORE she made her allegations – may be very telling.
I think that it is for campaign claims by Simpson.
She didn’t do anything for Hooper. I don’t believe that statement. If she did anything – which I doubt – it was way way down the line at the behest of someone who was working for Hooper.
How could she possibly leave out the part about the Riley’s promising to call off the inquiry if Don conceded the race in here first statements? That seems more serious than some fake Klan rally. Also, I emailed the author of the NY Times article that called her an “operative.” He answered my first email that discussed politics in Alabama in general, but he didn’t reply to my second email. In it I asked him what he knew of Simpson’s Republican activities. I pointed out that people in DeKalb county were surprised at her being described as a Republican and wondered what he knew about her that would merit the term “operative.” He did not respond to that email. I suspect that he knows nothing of her Republican activities and had no real basis for the term.
That’s very interesting, but not suprising. Much of the journalism that I’ve seen on this topic has been inaccurate or misleading. Scott Horton is a prime example. If you followed the trial, it is pretty clear that Horton’s analysis is one-sided and, often, wrong. The N.Y. Times has been no better. Horton, however, has been hailed by people who know no better as a journalistic hero.
Danny, I’m curious. You say you’ve read the transcript. And you still think this is credible? She drops this bomb now that it wasn’t just a Klan rally with signs that scared Siegelman off. It was the promise of not being prosecuted. And then she changes her memory of the phone call with Rob where Rove is mentioned. Now someone actually said on the phone that Rove went to the Justice Department and talked about the case. Now she says Bob Riley even talked to Rove. And she has all these friends of Siegelman, and Siegelman himself, helping her with her affidavit. I mean, c’mon, do you really believe all of this? She’s asked why she never came forward, as a lawyer, to disclose a planned prosecution to get Siegelman by the Rileys and Rove, and her answers are 1) it’s hearsay 2) she thought they might have evidence of a crime. What’s her May affidavit if not hearsay? And when did she start thinking they didn’t prove a crime with the Scrushy lottery money? And whenever that was, why didn’t she immediately report it to the bar? C’mon, Danny, really, how much longer are you gonna carry this water?
Anonymous in 26,
Wow… I am not sure what you are reading here.
I did not say I’ve read the transcript. In fact, I specifically said I had not read the transcript. (Later, when talk in the comments turned to what campaigns she said she had worked on, I did a few searches for mentions of campaigns, but still only scanned it on that matter.)
I did not say she was credible. In fact, I specifically said (in comments) that I cannot speak for her veracity.
I do think the matter is of great interest to many readers, and so I am glad to offer the transcript.
And it crosses my mind to wonder how much weight I should give someone’s comments about a transcript I have not read when I see that they are not clear about a blog post I have read.
:)
Thanks for weighing in!
And I’ve got to wonder, Danny, about a guy who posts a blog and doesn’t have the guts to stand up for what he writes, or worse, tries to parse words to backoff his earlier defense of this. But hey, that’s your style. :)
Here’s your statement (although admittedly you sort of try to qualify it by this weak cannot stand by veracity refernce. and then of course, you go on to stand by her veracity).
“But I don’t see the details that Hmmm mentions as discrediting her testimony.” Well if you’re saying you are not fully informed and have not read the transcript, why are you bothering offering this statement? How can you make it if you haven’t read the material to see if you fully agree with his point?
And then you say: “I know plenty of lifelong Republicans and Democrats who have not worked on any campaigns, so Simpson is two ahead of all of them. I am not trying to bolster her credibility, and I have no way of knowing the facts of the matter. But those two points she makes don’t seem outlandish to me.”
Now really Danny, why would you make your only statement about this issue based on your assumptions, and not having read all the material to be informed here, and those only comments are essentially a defense of her statements? That is nothing but your efforts to defend this transcript as truthful, under the guise of somehow being more objective than that by adding the obligatory qualifier.
:)
Thanks for your insight!
Anonymous in 28,
I guess you came to the conversation in the comments kinda late.
A commenter named “Hmmmm” made the point that he/she did not see how Simpson could be a lifelong Republican if
a) she called Lowell Barron’s brother about a matter, and
b) she worked on only two campaigns.
I had not read the transcript and did not need to read the transcript to believe that
a) being from the same area, Simpson and Barron’s brother may have known each other, and I don’t see it as proof that she’s not a Republican if she called him if she knew him. (I did search the transcript for “Barron” to see if there was some context that that was not being communicated in the comment by Hmmmm.)
b) Plenty of lifelong party members work on zero campaigns, so the observation by Hmmmm that she worked on only two did not seem like a strong challenge to one’s credentials.
Those points by Hmmmm seemed like an odd kind of piling on. Perhaps they were not worthy of a response, but I did not need to read the transcript (as indeed I had not) for a response.
If someone says you are a Communist or not a baseball fan or whatever because you said you like eggs for breakfast, I don’t need to hear/read the orginal context of your remarks to suggest that the person’s inference doesn’t sound necessarily true to me.
I don’t know if what she said was true, just as I wouldn’t know if a second-hand comment that you like eggs is true. But I believed on those points that Hmmmm was drawing a conclusion that was not fully supported if what Hmmmm said she said was true, as Hmmmm seemed to believe it was.
And indeed, I think it’s clear from my comment that I had not read the transcript, or I would not go along with Hmmmm’s comment that she only had worked on two campaigns. As I was searching the transcript later for something, I saw mention of several more campaigns. If I had read it, I would have known at the time that two was not correct.
I am not sure why it so important to you to try to show that I had read something that I had not, or to try to attribute things to me that I did not assert, but hey, that’s your style. :)
But I’m not backing off anything. I said what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
Despite the fact that we have miscommunicated or misunderstood a bit, glad to have you here.
:)
And you’re welcome!
Danny – here is my problem in a nutshell, and I’ll try to shut up afterward on this issue; I would tend to agree with you about “piling on” here . . .
In every major media story on this, Jill Simpson has been descibed as a “Republican lawyer.” Big R Republican, the first modifier used, in the FIRST sentence. In the lead, as they say.
That approaches journalistic deceit. If Joe Blow down here makes a complaint about something, and we make a definite concerted effort – in the lead of the story – to refer to him as “Republican Joe Blow” then there is absolutlely an inferrance that this guy is defined by partisan politics. By this reporter’s deliberate choice of words, Joe Blow is not just a guy who tends to vote GOP. This guy – by the inferrance of him being called “Republican Joe Blow” IN THE LEAD is implied by the reporter to be on the level of an activist party insider.
There is no way – given Jill Simpson’s own statement under oath – that she is in the realm of “party insider.” The description of her as “Republican lawyer ” – the way the reporters DEFINE her in their lead (and the fact that almost identical leads are used in “Time” and in “The New York Times” shows that SOMEONE is “pushing” the concept of Simpson as a “republican” lawyer – is misleading at best.
OK Danny I’ll stop and shut up. And this is the best blog on Alabama politics because you do let all factions have a voice.
Danny _-I AM going to shut up, but here is a prime example of major media oversteppinng in describibng Jill Simpson:
Adam Zagorin, Time Magazine – October 10, 2007
A Republican lawyer claims she was told that Karl Rove — while serving as President Bush’s top political advisor — had intervened in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Alabama’s most prominent Democrat. Longtime Alabama GOP activist Dana Jill Simpson first made the allegation in June, but has now provided new details in a lengthy sworn statement to the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee is expected to hold public hearings on the Alabama case next week as part of its investigation of possible political interference by the Bush Administration in the activities of the Department of Justice.
Note howthis guy – a reporter for “Time’ of all people – describes Simpson as “longtime Alabama GOP activist.”
That is either shoddy or ACTIVIST journalism. The facts do not support saying Simpson is a “longtime GOP activist.”
OK – I’ll quit talking now.
I am trying to keep up with the players… I see Aaron, Gallion, and Pate’s names mentioned. Is there a reason that Chip Hill’s name got mentioned in comment #1? Is there some source that cites his involvement?
FYI–a link to audio clips of Simpson and Brett Blackledge.
http://blog.al.com/bn/2007/10/in_her_own_words_audio_files_o.html
There are some interesting things on those clips. Says a lot.
Thanks, Susan, for the link!
ReaderNprattville, good question, and I don’t know the answer to that.
Hmmmmm, to your comments in 30 & 31, it’s not just that she’s described as a Republican. She’s described as a Repubican activist so many times. I wonder where that came from. Did she use that term? Did someone apply it to her? That’s what I was getting at in comment #18.
And thank you for your kind comment about the blog.