CBS News: Siegelman Piece On for Sunday
The CBS News site confirms what people have been emailing for two days: “60 Minutes” is scheduled to air the Siegelman piece on Sunday, which is Siegelman’s 62nd birthday.
February 21, 2008
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Jill Simpson’s story changes yet again. . .
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-34/1203635644182140.xml&storylist=alabamanews
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 21, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Ok here’s what I cant get over. Why in the world would the top aide in the White House concern himself with some unknown Governor that no one outside of Alabama gives a hoot about? It just doesnt make any sense. The notion that Don Siegelman was set up/framed by top GOPers in Washington is just laughable in my opinion.
Comment by dan t — February 21, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
This is laughable but what’s so sad is some actually believe this crap.
Comment by Anonymous — February 21, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
They have a clip of her on the 60Mins website. She says that she was asked by Karl Rove many times in the past (before 2001) to do this type of opposition research. The key question is why she just forgot to mention this to Congress when she testified under oath? She failed to mention that she had all along been a secret operative of the White House? Scott Horton and Glyn Wilson have staked their already pathetic reputations on this woman. Now it is all unmasked as the lies and absurdity that it has always been.
Comment by DanaJillANut — February 21, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Even the AP has picked this up. I suppose ole LocoBoy will say it is a conspiracy by the AP, but here is what they say in paragraph 3:
“Simpson initially said last year that she heard conversations as a Riley campaign worker in 2002 suggesting that Rove had a hand in the Siegelman prosecution. But she has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity — in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters.”
Comment by DanaJillANut2 — February 21, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
It will be interesting to see if she offers any proof on 60 minutes. She hasn’t so far.
Comment by Anonymous — February 21, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
#5,
Has a complete transcript of Simpsons’ Congressional testimony been released and published?
Comment by bhmhomeboy — February 21, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
A .pdf can be downloaded here, apparently: http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=833
No mention of Rove asking her to take pictures of Don doing the Tijuana Tango with Nick, as far as I can see.
Comment by Anonymous — February 21, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
I met Jill in ‘83 at U of A. Haven’t spoken with her since 2001, but I really should call her.
Can’t speak to what proof she might have, but I can tell you this: she doesn’t forget anything. She can still recite Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, in Middle English, which she learned at age 7 or something.
I know, what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? It’s just to make this point: her mind is sharp, and she’s highly unlikely to misremember.
And I don’t believe she’d make all this up outta thin air.
Comment by Jeff (no, the other one) — February 21, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
I’m a former Democrat worker, in 2002 Seigelman asked me to dig up dirt on Bob Riley and his childern.
Can I be on 60 minutes?
Comment by Matrix — February 21, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
“I’m a former Democrat worker” - Matrix
‘Democrat’ worker? Nice try wolf in sheep duds. 50+ former attorneys general have publicly questioned this case. This case stinks to high heaven and this Sunday a national audience will be introduced to the stench.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 21, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Nice try #11. On Sunday Dana Jill is going to say that she was a secret agent for Karl Rove. I wonder if the Judiciary Committee will want to ask her why she never mentioned that fact to them in a 4 hour sworn testimony. I wonder if they might consider her to have perjured herself.
Comment by TryAgain — February 21, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
In her deposition, the reference to “Karl Rove” comes up over 30 times and she somehow forgot to tell them that in 2001 she met with Rove and had for “many times” been an opposition researcher on his behalf gathering “intelligence”.
Comment by DanaJillLies — February 21, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
fyi - glynn wilson’s email to me after i posted a simple thought regarding his stronghold on the blog world:
I guess it’s not such a fun game to know no one will see your bullshit.
Not sure where you think you learned about blog comment standards or ethics or the First Amendment, but you better go back to school…
Gee
Comment by bryan — February 21, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Try Again, try again. I’m a registered Republican who is sick of where my party has been taken. You can do your best character assassination in defense of this depravity, but you and I and 50+ former attorneys general know this stinks. If she did work illegally for Rove in the past and is finally coming clean then she should be punished for it all along with those she helped. You do our party no help by defending this crap.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 21, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
since this will be immediately deleted, wanted some impartial folks to see the email Glynn Wilson sent me after he deleted my post outlining the contradictions between the conspiracy theorists saying that “52 AG’s signed a petition on big Don, vs most stories saying that it was more like 42. email from the bird watcher:
I guess it’s not such a fun game to know no one will see your bullshit.
Not sure where you think you learned about blog comment standards or ethics or the First Amendment, but you better go back to school…
Gee
Comment by bryan — February 21, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Prediction: Those on the left will see this story as a triumph in the campaign to free Don Siegelman while those on the right will see it as further proof that the charges of impropriety in this case are coming from ideologues with no evidence to back up their claims.
In the end, the decisions in this case will come from a federal court that really does not care how many editorials are written on one side or the other or how many television segments CBS produces. They will decide based upon the law and prior precedent. It makes me wonder, in many ways, what those pushing the issue are hoping to accomplish. It really is irrelevant what the majority of people in this or any state think. What does matter, however, is what the court will think.
I personally think that Siegelman and Scrushy are crooks with whom justice finally caught up. You are free to disagree with me in that way, as I know many do. Understand, though, that the appeal on this case will have absolutely nothing to do with Dana Simpson and will almost certainly have nothing to do with the politics that have been inserted into this case. Instead, it will deal with questions regarding jury communication and whether not that had an impact on the jury’s ruling, among other matters of law. It will have very little to do with the facts of the case. In other words, those of you arguing that the prosecution never proved its case are wasting your time. Courts only sparingly overturn jury convictions based upon the facts presented in trial.
I will be watching 60 Minutes this weekend, though I get the feeling that some of the charges I am going to hear will fall under the category of inane. What I will find most entertaining, however, is the posturing that will follow, posturing that, ultimately, will have very little bearing on the outcome of Don Siegelman’s appeal.
Comment by Will — February 21, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
I’m no expert on the facts of this case, but the motive is easy. Siegelman was the most gifted southern politician around at the time. He was not a candidate whose appeal was limited to Alabama (such as Bob Riley or Jim Folsom Jr). Siegelman was a pretty darn good political talent; as a Roman Catholic with a Jewish family and a law degree from Georgetown, his potential appeal went far beyond Dixie.
I’m not saying that Siegelman was going to be the next president; I’m not even saying that he was going to be a candidate. I’m saying he was a Democrat with the ability to become a formidable DC candidate in the right circumstances. Of course, getting defeated in his re-election attempt threw out any thoughts like that. If politics were influencing the actions of US attorney’s office, an ambitious and gifted southern governor with potential national appeal would be quite the prize.
Comment by SamfordDem — February 21, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
I’m just skeptical. I mean, even though simpson gave congress phone records to support her affidavit to judiciary doesn’t matter. Also, just because 60 minutes will show proof of her financial relationshp with Rove doesn’t matter.
It’s not like they have interviews with key witnesses who were coached and threatened. And that wouldn’t matter either.
Come on, they got Don and that’s all that matters isn’t it? By any means necessary I say.
Comment by WaitNsee — February 22, 2008 @ 3:13 am
SamfordDem, I thought Zell Miller, from whom Siegleman freely copied was the most gifted one of the bunch then.
After the lottery collapsed, he issued the usual call to lower taxes and planned for his next run. Siegleman’s real talent was campaigning.
Comment by walt moffett — February 22, 2008 @ 8:02 am
WaitNsee,
The constitution of the United States cannot survive “By any means necessary…”
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Susan Fillippeli,
Adding more detail is indeed a change but it does not contradict anything she said before. This is a typical propaganda device. generalize “more detail” in to “change” and imply “contradiction” which is also a change. This is as dishonest and deceptive as Rob Riley’s denial by “I don’t remember”.
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Why would anyone be skeptical that Rove got involved? To think his White House strategies only focused on the naive and ignored little things (like taking out popular Democratic governors) is absurd and naive. Rove ran Supreme Court races in Alabama for many years. He knew the state well. Had good friends in the state, like Bill Canary. Rove’s hands were all over this. He was trying to take down Siegelman from day one (as he tried with other politicians throughout the country. The grounds Siegelman was convicted on are a joke. It was a compromise verdict because most of the jury wanted Richard Scrushy. It’s a tragedy that Don Siegelman is in jail and I suspect the conviction will eventually be overturned by the 11th Circuit if Fuller can ever get a transcript produced.
Comment by ptclearer — February 22, 2008 @ 8:17 am
TYPO: Why would anyone be skeptical that Rove got involved? To think his White House strategies only focused on the macro and ignored little things (like taking out popular Democratic governors) is absurd and naive.
Comment by ptclearer — February 22, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Don Siegelman’s prosecution was purely political. They went after him because he was a popular Democrat. They could not make anything stick until they got Richard Scrushy involved. 60 minutes should be applauded, and America’s judicial system should be ashamed.
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Hey Anonymous #22. This might not fit the addition of change as you define it, but it is fishy, that in all her statements, including those before Congress, that she never even mentions this. It seems to me that this would have been important enough to bring up then or in any of those interviews she did with Horton or Blackledge. This just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Comment by Margaret — February 22, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Maybe 60 minutes will offer testimony beyond Dana Jill’s testimony. Maybe there will be corroborating evidence?
I don’t know. Fortunately, the piece will air Sunday and people can view and judge for themselves.
At which time, blogger wars can recommence and the different factions can spin the story for their own benefit.
Comment by Dunce — February 22, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Anonymous #22 It makes a huge difference in aperson’s credibility when the story she tells does not remain consistent. We had one story for the affidavit. We had another for the Congressional testimony and yet another, apparently, for 60 Minutes. It is as if she feels the need to further embellish in order to get new media attention.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 22, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Exactly right, #28. This is an old PR stunt. When they start losing interest, embellish your story with a new “nugget.” Apparently to get 60 Minutes involved, they had to promise a new angle no TV show can resist: sex.
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Not just sex, gay sex!!
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Walt,
Zell was about 1000 years old at the time, and he had already shifted in his political leanings if not his party ID by then. I should have said “most gifted young southern politician at the time.”
Comment by SamfordDem — February 22, 2008 @ 11:33 am
The story has never changed. Never.
But your contender for number one nut job here is, of course, GOP Girl hirself, Susan Fillippeli, who claims to be an Auburn professor, even though she is not listed on their Website in that capacity. So much for veracity…
fillise@earthlink.net
Because of the increasing amount of spam I receive, I’ve had to set my filters to the highest levels. If I have asked you to communicate with me via email, please use the auto-response to ask that you be added to my contact list and I will do so as quickly as possible. Any spammers that make the request will be added to my blocked senders list and reported to my ISP.
I’m sorry for any inconvience,
Susan
https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=fillise@earthlink.net=1jsB1S4xi3Nl34j1
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 11:37 am
The story has never changed? You can’t be serious. Just read this excerpt from the current AP story about the 60 Minutes piece:
“Simpson initially said last year that she heard conversations as a Riley campaign worker in 2002 suggesting that Rove had a hand in the Siegelman prosecution. But she has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity — in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters.”
Comment by Voice of Reason — February 22, 2008 @ 11:46 am
All - Glyn, Scott H and Bill H are never going to believe anything other than that black helicopters are circling overhead - piloted by Karl Rove. One can read on posts on this blog how (literally) insanely obsessed they truly are. They have opened themselves to libel and slander many times, but that will be for another day. On this day, Dana Jill has destroyed her already diminished credibility. The Rove secret agent!!
Comment by DanaJillANut2 — February 22, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I do not claim to be an Auburn Professor. I was on the faculty, but left in 2001. I do, from time to time, teach a class at Auburn. But why does Glyn feel the need to publish my email address and the message from my spam filter? Let’s note that I am the one using my real name on this board, not Glyn. Who is the coward now?
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 22, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
ps–Glynn Wilson posts email addresses despite the fact that there is a very clear promise on the comments section of his website (similar to the one that Danny has–and honors) that email addresses won’t be published. I guess that makes Glynn a liar as well.
And I know it is Glynn because he sent a email to me this morning that, in fact, did get caught in my spam filters.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 22, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Susan all anyone has to do is google your name if they want your email address.
Not trying to defend locust nut, but this is the risk you ran when you used your name.
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
SamfordDem, aren’t these quibbles over definitions a part of the net.experience :)
Have fun
Comment by walt moffett — February 22, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
There seems to be a concerted effort to make a big point of Simpson not mentioning the Rove request for sexually compromising pictures if Siegelman in the congressional testimony. I think it would have appeared rather unseemly and disrespectful of Congress to have done so. In addition it does not logically flow from the history behind the Congressional testimony. Why now? This is CBS, the second most conservative network, behind FOX, and the more conservative the network, the more sex they use to attract viewers. It does not surprise me at all that they are using this line as one of the teasers for the show.
Comment by Anonymous — February 22, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Susan Fillippeli is and has been a teacher within the communications department at Auburn. She is a great teacher, and no she didn’t ask me to write this. I have friends from Auburn that were in her classes. I took a glance at the LF blog a couple of times today and the comment count continues to lower every time, due to the journalistic legend’s propensity to delete comments that he doesn’t like. With the exception of Glynn’s eloquent post telling Susan “you don’t know what the F$*ck you are talking about.” First that is about as classy as it gets, second you are pitiful to speak like that to a woman. It also seems as if Glynn’s comment totals are higher than ever, only occurred when he started posting here (shows that danny has a great many more readers), so i encourage each of you to stay off of the bird watcher’s website, the increased traffic will only make him think you are there for his writings - although i know it is because everyone loves a train wreck. I am only responding because you have overstepped your bounds by posting Susan’s email address and are out of line with your tone towards a female. You are a non-issue in politics, or any other field. You telling people that you do have any clout doesn’t hold either, so please keep that to yourself. Enjoy your hummingbirds and your conspiracy. I bet it will be like a superbowl party at your house on Sunday night (except most superbowl parties generally have more than one attendee) Adios -
Comment by cooper — February 22, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Anonymous #37–My email address is widely available. It’s not that. It is the fact that he published it when he expressly said he wouldn’t. THAT is the issue.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 22, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
I have no idea who Cooper is, but his (her) compliment is very nice.
Just to be clear though, I left the Auburn faculty as a full time member in May, 2001. I still teach a course here and there, but I am not a full-time member of the faculty.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 22, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
He says something on his little blog about a follow up in “The Nation” - I assume The Nation Magazine. Last time he made a bunch of hype and the Nation did put a column of his on the WEBSITE. Anyway, he got a major fact wrong and it had to be corrected and was a mess. Ole Glyn claims to be a journalist, but when he gets one bite at the apple, he fails miserably.
Comment by GlynGetsItWrong — February 22, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Comment from #39 reads: There seems to be a concerted effort to make a big point of Simpson not mentioning the Rove request for sexually compromising pictures if Siegelman in the congressional testimony. I think it would have appeared rather unseemly and disrespectful of Congress to have done so.
Oh, really. Didn’t Congress conduct hearings into Monica Lewinsky’s oral maneuvers with Billy Clinton and ask very detailed questions about it? Didn’t Howell Heflin ask Fawn Hall about taking government documents out of a government building in her “panties and brassiere” during Iran Contra? It seems to me that Congress doesn’t find anything too unseemly and disrespectful to ask about.
Gimme a break you freakin’ Siegelman/Simpson apologist!
Comment by Do what? — February 22, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
They are burying the 60 Minutes story and running it opposite The Oscars. So it will be Horton (Bill and Scott), Glyn loco Wilson + benefactors Milton and Stan Pate. Nice group, but probably all that will be watching.
Comment by Buried — February 22, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
The Oscars start after 60 Minutes is over.
Comment by TV Guide — February 23, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Check out the American Spectator’s take on the 60 Minutes story. “The False and the Absurd”: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12789
Comment by Voice of Reason — February 23, 2008 @ 8:03 am
A nice spin job by the Newhouse boys and their friends. Probably tough for Eddie Curran to see things clearly when he’s been stuck in Sessions’ hip pocket for so many years.
Comment by Newhouse Hater — February 23, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Oh, I see. Now Sessions is in on it. I look forward to seeing how McCain and Huckabee get tied. And maybe Britnery Spears and Raul Castro, too!
Comment by Voice of Reason — February 23, 2008 @ 10:23 am
A comment was deleted because the writer represented himself as being someone that he clearly is not.
Comment by Danny — February 23, 2008 @ 10:37 am
http://www.al.com/news/independent/index.ssf?/base/news/1203797709157730.xml&coll=4
little different story than you’ll hear from the lib media
Comment by bryan — February 23, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
just a little insight from loserville, email thread from glynn “the birdwatcher” wilson…hell, he banned me!
On 2/23/08 8:23 PM, “Glynn Wilson”
Jack off into your Jim Beam, Bush boy…
- Hide quoted text -
On 2/23/08 8:21 PM, “AL STATE NEWS” wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
golly, gee. what will i do.
On 2/24/08, Glynn Wilson wrote:
Now you are banned. Plenty of precedent for that. Ever read Jay Rosen at NYU’s Press Think? I thought not…
On 2/23/08 8:11 PM, “AL STATE NEWS” wrote:
I have enough degrees to figure out how insecure you are, that is a fact. If you would just try, a little, to not come off as abrasive and defensive, you might have a chance to gain respect. right now, you have zero. there is no one in the blog world that respects you, and there is no way you can prove otherwise - that is a fact and you know it (even if you won’t admit it). you have an opportunity to gain some, but it would take putting your ego and lack of recognition aside. not sure that you can do that, but everyone comes to a point when they realize that they are only great in their own minds.
Comment by bryan — February 23, 2008 @ 10:30 pm