60 Minutes: Siegelman, Simpson and Rove
60 Minutes tonight tackles the tale of Don Siegelman, Jill Simpson, Karl Rove and Bob Riley. Associated Press has its story here.
Many interested folks are also buzzing about the article from Eddie Curran (reporter on leave from the Press-Register) in the Montgomery Independent.
Having prior obligations, I will be unable to watch 60 Minutes tonight when it is aired. I look forward to seeing it later.
In the meantime, feel free to use the comments to tell what you think of the articles or the show.
And do remember, free speech is enhanced by civility.
Related Articles:
Partisan differences are expected, and passions are a bit higher than normal. Here’s a reminder that, as in the past, insults or ad hominem attacks may be deleted.
I hope I’ll feel silly by being shown that this comment was unnecessary.
Comment by Danny — February 24, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Simply put, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. That’s what was said during the whole hunt for Siegelman. Now we’ll see if that’s applicable on a bi-partisan basis.
The simple fact that none of the prosecutors, the Justice Department, nor Judge Mark Fuller will comply with any outside requests for information stinks to high heaven.
If the prosecution was innocent, then there should be no need to hide anything.
Those photos of Laura were actually rather flattering. Good for her.
Comment by Gunney Highway — February 24, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Impressive, the former Attorney General of Arizona was the star of the piece. Overall, I think this will help Siegelman’s case. And, he looks great, like he has been pumping the weights.
Comment by Willie — February 24, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
The AG from Arizona (a Republican) was a surprise. Simpson was less than impressive, but maybe that’s because we already knew what she was going to say.
Now, the Nick Bailey part was very revealing. I haven’t heard that stuff before. The prosecution basically forced him to make up his testimony.
Comment by robar — February 24, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Move over McCain! Yet another hatchet job from the left wing media. Jill Simpson is the most unbelievable character I have seen in some time, and she taints this whole allegation. Curran hits the nail on the head, as did the recent American Spectator article — http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12789.
Comment by Voice of Reason — February 24, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Notice that Rob Riley’s “denial” was not an actual denial of the facts of the case. He said he had not discussed this matter with her when the discussion was on a conference call and Bill Canary was the one making the comment. Just like his earlier deposition was not a denial of alleged facts but rather an assertion that he did not remember. He clearly has been taking lessons from Alberto Gonzales.
Comment by Anonymous — February 24, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Yeah, Voice of Reason. That Republican Attorney General from Arizona and that Republican operative from Dekalb County really put a left wing spin on that 60 minutes segment.
Comment by robar — February 24, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Here is the full statement by Mike Hubbard. He is correct, the New York Times and their shoddy journalism of late must be thrilled that they have now been overshadowed by 60 Minutes and Mr. Pelley.
Statement by Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard on the Dana Jill Simpson Accusations Aired by CBS’ 60 Minutes
CBS News and 60 Minutes’ disdain for the Republican Party brought them
embarrassment when they ran a bogus and fraudulent story about President
Bush and his National Guard record in the fall of 2004 – ultimately
admitting to not having followed “basic journalistic principles”. It
appears that same revulsion for the GOP is bringing them embarrassment once
again as they air yet another fiction. Today, the staff of the New York
Times must be relieved they are not alone in having their liberal political
bias examined on the national stage.”
It is becoming apparent that Dana Jill Simpson will fabricate any claim in
order to extend her 15 minutes in the public spotlight. As the Associated
Press pointed out this week, she has never before mentioned her most recent
accusations about Karl Rove ‘…in spite of testifying to congressional
lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking
extensively with reporters’. This is not the first time someone has noticed
that her story has changed (see attached). I am sure it will not be the
last.
“Our staff has done an exhaustive search of Alabama Republican Party
records going back several years, and we can find not one instance of Dana
Jill Simpson volunteering or working on behalf of the Alabama Republican
Party – as stated by 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley. Nor can we find
anyone within the Republican Party leadership in Alabama who has ever so
much as heard of Dana Jill Simpson until she made her first wave of
accusations last summer in an affidavit originally released only to the New
York Times.
Comment by NYTimes & 60 Minutes — February 24, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Weak, weak, weak. The Republicans are losing their touch when it comes to spinning bad news.
Comment by Poor GOP — February 24, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Hey Poor GOP, I wish you would point out the weaknesses you are talking about.
Comment by Margaret — February 24, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Blather, rinse, repeat, distance themselves, obfuscate.
Shorter Repub. response: “LIES! ALL LIES!”
I’ve volunteered for lots of different events, charity and whatnot, over many years — hardly any records or lists of names are ever taken, and certainly not archived. Why would they be?
It still will come down to who said what to whom and when. But any facts will get shouted down and smeared with whatever comes handy until… the next scandal comes along. And so it goes.
Comment by Jeff (no, the other one) — February 24, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
There are several things disturbing about this without even considering the allegations made by Simpson (which I agree sound incredible)
1 - The prosecution by Alice Martin which was thrown out by the Federal Judge in B’Ham (a very unsual step for any Judge)
2 - Why did Laura Canary handle the prosecution for 8 months before realizing that she had a conflict which a 1st year law student would have recognized
3 - Once she recused herself why did DOJ permit the prosecution to be handled by attys under her direct control instead of bringing in outside prosecutors
4 - If Bailey wrote out several conflicting versions of his testimony failure to give those to the defense may be a Brady violation.
5 - Since the delay in the appeal is due to the death of the court reporter doing the transcript it would only seem fair to let Seigelman out on bond - does anybody really thinks he is going to flee the country?
Note I am not taking sides but as an old prosecutor the above is troubling
Comment by Old prosecutor — February 24, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Sad that Simpson is so unhappy with her life. I am not the smartest person, but I can see through her story
Karen
Comment by NYTimes & 60 Minutes — February 24, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Interesting to note that WHNT did not run the Siegelman piece. The station chalked it up to a “transmission” problem, but CBS in New York said that WHNT made an editorial call not to run the piece. I think no matter where you fall on Governor Siegelman, you’d have to agree that, in this country, censorship of that sort has no place.
Comment by Ignorance is Strength? — February 24, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
The lead investor in the company that owns WHNT is Robert M. Bass, a Bush Pioneer!
Comment by Anonymous — February 24, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
I’ll give WHNT the benefit of the doubt. They posted this on their website:
http://www.whnt.com/global/story.asp?s=7918345
I’ll be curious as to what kind of treatment they give the story on the newscast. Anyone from North Alabama know?
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Hope the media outlets will follow some of the mistakes CBS made in reporting
http://www.algop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=7169
Comment by cooper — February 24, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Siegelman is going to “Nifong” these guys. Once prosecutorial misconduct is proven, the individual prosecutors can be sued. How sweet that will be !
Comment by WaitNsee — February 24, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Not one shred of evidence to back up the latest allegations of Simpson. None. And we’re supposed to take this seriously?
Comment by Anonymous — February 24, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=11702
60 Minutes Sinks Even Lower - Sunday, February 24, 2008 @ 9:32:59 PM
The 60 Minutes report tonight was even worse than I expected – and I expected it to be awful. In fact, it was execrable: easily the worst journalistic ethics I have ever seen in my life.
First, the “expert” given the most air time to allege that Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, now serving time for bribery, should never have been prosecuted in the first place was “Republican” former Arizona AG Grant Woods. Two points. First, how the heck would Woods know? He was in Arizona, not Alabama. Second, despite 60 Minutes going to great lengths to stress that Woods is credible specifically because he is a Republican criticizing other Republicans, the truth is that Woods is hardly a GOP stalwart. As long ago as October of 2002, he was publicly threatening to bolt the GOP and become a Democrat. A quick Google search seems to show that he takes the “liberal” side in most of his law cases (I will gladly correct myself if proved wrong on this); for instance, he most recently was in the news for agreeing to prosecute a border patrol agent who shot an illegal immigrant. And in 2006 he publicly supported Democrat Harry Mitchell in his bid to unseat conservative Republican U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Some Republican Woods is! And again, he is in Arizona, not Alabama. What a joke.
But as a journalistic sin, the prominent attention given to Woods is child’s play compared to the airing of the utterly bizarre allegation by ditzy-sounding Alabama attorney (and supposed one-time Republican “operative”) Dana Jill Simpson that Karl Rove “approached” her at a 2001 “meeting” and asked her to try to photograph Siegelman in sexual acts with an aide. On air at least, though, 60 Minutes did not even bother to ask her the most obvious of follow-up questions to test her story. Such as: Exactly where did this supposed meeting take place? Exactly when in 2001? Was anybody else present? What was the meeting about? Why did Rove have any reason to think she, of all people, could find Siegelman in flagrante, much less photograph him? Did Rove ever follow-up with her to find out if she had been successful? Did she tell anybody else at the time about Rove’s supposed request? And so on….
As I noted in my earlier column, there is absolutely no reason to believe the woman, and not even any logic that would explain Rove’s interest in such a project in Alabama while he was busy getting settled into his first year at the White House, a full year before the Alabama governor’s race.
I mean, the entire story is ludicrous on its face. And 60 Minutes now has good reason to look up to the National Enquirer as a exemplar of journalistic ethics and accuracy to which 60 Minutes can only hope to aspire IF 60 Minutes would spend years improving its product.
Comment by Anonymous — February 24, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Former AG Woods sounds “principled,” not “Liberal,” for prosecuting the border patrol agent–accused of shooting a man from behind while pushing him to the ground, and for not supporting Abramoff-tainted J.D. Hayworth.
Siegelman was a disappointment as governor–I thought about taping two pennies to a card in response to a fundraising appeal; however, the more I learn about this prosecution, the more concerned I become about politics trumping the law and as the prosecution of people rather than lawbreaking.
Comment by Helen — February 25, 2008 @ 12:22 am
This is in response to old prosecutor — first, the two prosecutions of which you speak are unrelated. The first, done by northern district, related to the Medicaid case in Tuscaloosa with Dr. Phillip Bobo. That case was gutted intentionally by U.S. District Court Judge U.W. Clemon, after the jury was selected to allow jeopardy to attach. His actions were condemned later by the 11th Circuit, and he was taken off the Bobo case as a result. Whether Siegelman was innocent or guilty in the Medicaid case, we will never know because of Clemon’s bizarre, and reprimanded, actions that you did not hear about on CBS.
Second, I’m not sure if you have a law degree, but if you do you should know that Canary did not have an actual conflict in the case. Her role was reviewed by DoJ and approved as not having an actual conflict. The perception of conflict became the issue, to which she responded and indeed did remove herself from the case. The difference here is the suggestion you made that the actual conflict existed,which requires you to believe that her husband and every other GOP operative in the country was pursuing Siegelman as part of a political strategy, for which there remains no proof. There is the unbelievable statements, embarrassingly made by Simpson. But again, no proof.
Third, it is a curious question you raise, as to why career prosecutors in Canary’s office would be allowed to continue the investigation. That assumes they do not work independently. They physically moved every file out of her building, took the entire operation to a separate area across town and prohibited any access to materials except to those prosecutors and investigators authorized to entire the special office. Also, there were Washington prosecutors from DoJ working the case as well, to ensure proper treatment. This, of course, has been mischaracterized by Democrats as both a) proof of Washington’s push for the case and b) proof that Washington prosecutors didn’t want the case. I’ll allow the facts to speak for themselves here, because the inherently contradictory arguments speak volumes about the absurdity of their claims.
Fourth, how are we to believe, in the face of a series of unbelievable and contradicted claims already made, the new and explosive charge that Bailey produced these statements in writing? With all of the discovery, all of the other claims that have come out, and all of the appeals work done on this case, are we to believe that this issue that Bailey has raised has never before come out? Bailey has been freely talking to Siegelman lawyers, and to his boss Stan Pate who is helping to fund the effort to promote Siegelman’s current propaganda. And we are to believe such a compelling appeals argument that surely would help the cause for re-trial would not have come out? This claims crumbles under its own weight much like those made by Simpson. I suggest it will fizzle into obscurity along with her and the other lies that Siegelman and his fans have generated.
Finally, I am struck by the favoritism many would offer Siegelman, as a felon who would receive better treatment than anyone else. He remained out of jail after his conviction for more than a year, delays that he caused and sought becuase he didn’t want to go to prison. By the time he appeared for sentencing, he had had plenty more time than any other felon to report for his sentence. I wonder if you and others would be so worked up if you stood in federal court with another felon, who was not widely known, who too was immediately jailed as part of their sentence. I suspect you wouldn’t be worked up if the felon were a black, young male unknown to the voters who received his sentence for drug possession. Your outrage, and that of others, is dishonest on this point.
Comment by New Prosecutor — February 25, 2008 @ 8:02 am
Now Simpson claims to have aranged fundraisers for the Republican Party. Is she an “Operative” or a Fundraiser A lot of difference in access. She’s an unknow in the campaign planning cicles.
As for the Rep AG from Ariz, he has endorsed more Democrats for office than Rep in Arizona, kind of a free sprit
Comment by JD — February 25, 2008 @ 8:15 am
New Prosecutor,
While I certainly agree that some of the information may appear a little hokie and that Dana Jill may even sound a little like a hokie, the simple fact remains that the Justice Department and Judge Foley will not comply with Congressional requests for information.
If there is nothing there, then why not release the transcripts and the other information sought by the House Judiciary Committee? There shouldn’t be anything to hide.
On a hunch, I’ll bet they’re not released untill after November.
Generally speaking: smoke = fire
Comment by Gunney Highway — February 25, 2008 @ 8:56 am
To new Prosecutor, in response to the third point you attempt to rebut of Old Prosecutor’s earlier points, does or does not Leura Canary continue to provide annual evaluations on the career prosecutors who conducted the Siegelman prosecution? If so, does that not help erase any assumption of “independence”, at least partially? Would it have not been better if the case had been handed off to someone over whom the “voluntarily recused” Canary had no perception of influence, such as a prosecutor from the Southern District? as to the “favoritism” many would offer Siegelman, I would prefer the perception of equal treatment - speedy processing of a transcript so that an appeal may be pursued to put this matter to a close, one way or the other. It strikes me as strange that, even given the death of the court reporter, that, this far after a major criminal conviction, no official transcript exists. That seems a deprivation of the right to appeal - and I believe you should have a right to a speedy appeal, just as you have a right to a speedy trial.
Comment by Montgomery — February 25, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Quin Hillyer’s piece above is amusing. Perhaps he should mention that he was the P-R editorial page editor during the Siegelman prosecutions? Come to think of it, even if it’s just the AmSpec, shouldn’t he mention he flacks for Citizens United? Not to mention that his points amount to “Woods isn’t a pure Republican” and “the entire story is ludicrous on its face”. Silly stuff.
Comment by numbertwopencil — February 25, 2008 @ 9:21 am
The Republican AG from Arizona put it best when he responded to the question about why as a Republican he was willing to criticize the prosecution of Siegelman by stating words to the effect of he’s an American first.
There couldn’t be a more appropriate response in my opinion.
Of course partisan hacks will deride this and scour his record now in effort to discredit him, but the fact remains unchanged.
52 former state attorney generals [Republican and Democrat] have requested an investigation of the Siegelman prosecution.
How do you spin that with a straight face?
Comment by Nixon — February 25, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Danny - here is a quick take on this:
1) This issue will not go away soon for the GOP. There are a lot of people who thought Siegelman got a lot more punishment than was merited, and also Siegelman’s ruthless and effective political machine is in full operation to get him out of jail. Unfortunately, I think that Don believes he has a political future. The answer to that is NO.
2) A person whose name you would recognize (and respect) had heard an early version of Jill Simpson’s story from Simpson herself. He told me she was flatly “not credible” (his words). On watching last night I concur.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Simpson sounded like some sweet soft spoken naive elementary school teacher in that piece. I would assume she’s not like that in court? As far as Woods goes, him and Siegelman are old pals from their days as State Attorneys General…so it shouldnt shock anyone that he would stand up for his old pal. Also it was funny what happened in Huntsville. I wonder how many calls channel 19 got accusing them of caving into Karl Rove?
Comment by dan t — February 25, 2008 @ 10:26 am
1. Jill Simpson’t story continues to change with little to no edidence to corroborate her story. She is simply not credible.
2. Prosecutors had ample opportunity to cross examine Nick Bailey and his claims during the trial. He was, in fact, cross examined about the issue of the date of the check. The 60 Minutes story never addresses this and presents it as if it is an entirely new issue.
3. Nowhere is it mentioned in the story that there was a significant effort to hide Shrushy’s $500,000 donation and that it was part of a pattern of Siegelman’s “pay for play” schemes.
4. Republicans in Alabama don’t care two hoots what Grant Woods thinks. He likely only knows what the Siegelman forces have told him about the case. He was also reprimanded for some questionable finance dealings while in office.
5. The identification of Nick Baily as a crook (to cast doubt on his credibility) without mentioning that Baily was a crook in Siegelman’s service. Nothing was mentioned of Siegelman’s conviction on hiding $9,200 worth of contributions (in the form of a motorcycle)and Bailey’s very active role in covering it up. It was clear that Siegelman relied of Baily to handle things for him.
Far from raising questions about “political” justice, I think this piece raises far more questions about “political” reporting.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 25, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Dan T - I would wager Simpson never sounds like that in court - or when she is telling a credible story either. Anyone else notice the darting eyes when she was asked about her “meeting” with Rove? Why didn’t the reporter ask her when and where that meeting took place????? That would have been the first folow-up for a cub reporter with the Fort Payne High School paper . . .it would be very easy to verify wheteher that meeting could have taken place . . . .
I am not saying she is NOT teling the truth - just that her appearance confirmed what someone told me about her not appearing to be credible.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Re: Comment 30: “4. Republicans in Alabama don’t care two hoots what Grant Woods thinks. He likely only knows what the Siegelman forces have told him about the case. He was also reprimanded for some questionable finance dealings while in office.”
Well, apparently Grant Woods also falls in lockstep with YOUR party’s nominee for President, who must not mind the “questionable finance dealings.” Please see below:
January 6, 2008 From the McCain campaign blog
Manchester, N.H. — Sen. John McCain embarks on his final bus tour of New Hampshire early Monday morning, with the latest polls giving him a commanding lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney in the first-in-the-nation primary.
The Arizona senator will be accompanied on the bus by longtime friend and former attorney general Grant Woods. “I told him I’d do anything he wants,” Woods said.
Oh, and additionally, Grant Woods is John McCain’s former chief of staff. I’ve also been told that John McCain is the godfather of one of Grant Woods’s children. So I guess my question is this, Susan: Don’t you judge people by the company that they keep?
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Anonymous # 32, I don’t care who Grant Woods hangs out with, I just don’t care what he thinks about this case. In the lead up to the 60 Minutes story, we were promised that Alabama Republicans would be shaken up by the interview of a “high ranking” Republican and I’m here to tell you that we are not. No one I have spoken with cares what Grant Woods thinks about Don Siegelman or this case. End of story.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 25, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Good research work #32, and you hooked a big one!! Now I’m thinking Siegelman might be getting a pardon no matter who wins next November. And Susan, you might want to start sending your CV to Bob Jones University and Liberty U.
Comment by Willie — February 25, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Call me crazy but I would define a person who pals around with the Republican nominee for President somewhat of a “high ranking” Republican.
Silly me.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 11:03 am
To # 35
Your Crazy
Comment by JD — February 25, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Bottom lines here:
1) As long as Don Siegelman has breath in his body he will pursue this and he has enough supporters that it will be alive for awhile, regardless of its merits.
And that is NOT good news for Alabana Demos - I don’t know if they have realized that yet or not . . . I think this case is more dangerous to the Alabama Democratic Party than to the GOP. Remember voters here still LIKE George Bush and attacking him will not make you a lot of friends or win you a lot of votes in the hinterlands.
2) This prosecution certainly has political overtones. But don’t forget, DS is not exactly Mr. Clean - remember the false bill of sale for the motorcycle? Don is no choirboy, but the over-the-top penalties and zealous prosecution work his way.
3) Dana Jill Simpson is totally unbelievable. I wouldn’t put it past het to claim that Rove met with her on a spaceship with Aliens and Elvis in attendance.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Correct me if I am wrong. Hadn’t Don taken out a loan for the lottery campaign and the money Scrushy gave him was to help him repay the load?
Comment by Margaret — February 25, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Yes, he did take out a loan; much like what many politicians do, and the loan is paid back with contributions to the campaign.
Comment by Willie — February 25, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Hey - just like Jay Love - take out loans to finance your campaign, then sell the influence . . . .Don Siegelman and Jay Love: two of a kind!
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Susan, when did you get authorization to start speaking on behalf of Alabama Republicans?
And Anonymous #37, exactly where do you find the folks that still support Bush?
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
So, the money would have benefited Don because it would have paid off his debt?
Comment by Margaret — February 25, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
It’s good to see this discussion nosedive into partisan hate.
When you look through the above posts, you notice that people on both sides look for minute instances to discredit the other side’s opinion.
Here are few observations on this case that take extreme mental exercises to dispute. Dems have a problem in that Simpson (changing/neverending story) appears to have credibility issues and Siegleman (Contributions and Nick Bailey) has some questions to answer. GOPers have the credibility of Nick Bailey (crook working for Siegleman doesn’t make him a reliable witness for or against anything), the entire DoJ (Gonzales’ memory), a large number of Senators and Representatives (Craig, Delay, et al), and the President (WMD’s in Iraq).
So where does this all get us? Well, in my opinion we spend more time and energy worrying about who gets power and influence by which to self-gratiate and add to their bank account than planning for a sustainable economic future and helping our fellow man.
But, as always, what do I know?
Comment by Trvld — February 25, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Margaret- the testimony at the trial was that there was a second guarantor of the loan, who was also a member of the board of the bank and, by chance, a multimillionaire. According to the banker who testified, the bank was always planning to collect from that guarantor rather than Siegelman, since they knew DS had no money to pay the loan, and the bank required the second guarantor before making the loan.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Thank, anon #44.
Comment by Margaret — February 25, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Susan, you and the rest of the GOP activists on here make me want to puke and seriously make me question whether or not I’m Republican enough to stay in the party.
I have a question for you,
Is it okay to be a Republican and have grave concerns that the Siegelman prosecution was flawed and seriously tainted?
Serious question. It appears as though your answer would be no, which me leaves me utterly dumbfounded as to whether or not I belong to a party that discourages free thought and independent thinking.
The same goes for the GOP thought police who are on here trying to do damage control and spin this story.
make that two questions:
1. is it permissible as a registered republican voter for the last 6 presidential election cycles [last 24 years] to have grave concerns about the siegelman prosecution?
2. do i now belong to a party which is incapable of objective analysis and one that discourages free thought and independent thinking among its members?
Comment by Questioning my GOP credentials — February 25, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
1. No
2. Yes
Comment by Answers — February 25, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Dear Questioning # 46–I never said that all Republicans have to think alike. All I reported is that the Republicans I’ve spoken with are not, in the least, rattled because of Grant Woods. You are free to think whatever you wish, though I hope you will take the time to read up on the case and the evidence and not swallow the Scott Horton and Glynn Wilson garbage hook, line, and sinker.
Oh and ps–if you are registered in Alabama, you are not a registered Republican. We don’t register by party in this state. If you are not from Alabama, I think it is highly probable that you have only heard one side of this story and it’s not the truth–not by a longshot.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 25, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
As someone who has consistently voted with the national GOP for years, I would say a lot of us have concerns about the Siegelman prosecution. However, as someone who has worked in Montgomery and know Don Siegelman, Nick Bailey, Lanny Young, and others involved in this case, I think DS has been involved in a number of very questionable endeavors in his career. Quite frankly, he (Don) is dirty. Does that mean he should have an unfair proescution? NO. But I also know I would expect him IF CONVICTED FAIR AND SQUARE to carry on the exact same PR war he is currently waging - it is his personality. So I would say I want to observe this whole situation for awhile before making a final decision. I do know this much - I don’t buy what Jill Simpson is selling. But that doesn’t mean I think that the entire prosecution was kosher either.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
#46-
As a Republican, I can tell you that I have no problem with a person having concerns about the Siegelman case if they do so after an objective review of the facts and circumstances. I just don’t think that very many objective people, who truly take the time to review everything in this case really, in their heart of hearts, believe that Siegelman is innocent. My own review convinces me that there’s just too much credible evidence against him, and there is just too little credible evidence supporting the idea that he was unfairly convicted.
With that said, the problem that both sides have is that, if you’re a Republican, you have a tendency to want to believe that Siegelman is guilty; Likewise, if you are a Democrat, you have a tendency to believe that this is a huge government conspiracy. Objectiveness gets checked at the door.
In this respect, I am reminded of the Clinton impeachment trial. Republicans tended to the view that Clinton’s lying under oath was an impeachable offense, while Democrats tended to the view that it was not an impeachable offense. Objectivity was in short supply as the battle was pitched, and everyone was expected to believe a certain way based on their party affiliation.
With all of this said, I think that your charge that the Republican Party does not allow free thought is completely unfair. My own experience with the Republican Party demonstrates a party full of free thinkers who seldom sing from the same hymnal. My guess is that Democrats and the Democrat Party are the same way.
Comment by Lou — February 25, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
“With all of this said, I think that your charge that the Republican Party does not allow free thought is completely unfair. My own experience with the Republican Party demonstrates a party full of free thinkers who seldom sing from the same hymnal. My guess is that Democrats and the Democrat Party are the same way.”
Does the Qoran have hymns in it?
Comment by JD — February 25, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Why does Doss Aviation have as its registered address the Federal Courthouse in Montgomery?
Are Billy Canary and Karl Rove good friends or not?
If a “pioneer” raises over a $1M for a presidential candidate and obtains an ambassadorship why is he not in jail?
If Judge Fuller served on the Republican Executive Committee and sued the State of Alabama while Siegelman was Governor why did he not conflict himself out of the case? Same question for Billy Canary’s wife, Leura.
What are the official reasons the Justice Dept. and Karl Rove refuse to comply with Congressional Subpoenas?
Who thinks that if/when Obama is elected the Dems don’t fast-track this?
Comment by Al Czervik — February 25, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Perhaps if Obama is elected, he will take a page out of the Republican playbook and pardon DS.
Al, you should know the answer to your question regarding Karl Rove and congressional subpoenas. Only baseball players have to abide by them, they don’t apply to policos.
Can someone remind me how much prison time Guy Hunt served for putting campaign funds in is pocket?
Comment by Fo-fiver — February 25, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
To “new prosecutor” - I do not think you are naive enough to believe it is pure coincidence that both DS and Schrushy were both prosecuted and acquitted in the Northern District, then a moribund investigation in the MDAL suddenly springs to life against the same two
Secondly wasn’t the conviction of Dr Bobo overturned by the 11th Circuit?
Thirdly prosecutors and Judges must avoid the appearance of impropiety. Leura canary is a smart lawyer - too smart to belive she could prosecute the political opponent of someone her husband was aiding with out the appearance of impropiety
Fourth, excuse me if I do not accept Alberto Gonzales and the BUSH DOJ as the defenitive ariter of ethics
Fifth, those “career prosecutors” still worked for Canary. Who do you think filled out their job evaluations?
Also note dummy I said “if” Bailey wrote out several versions of the testimony there “may be” a Brady Violation
Finally all defendants (even capital murder ones) are entitled to a timely appeal (its in a little old document called the United States Constitution (that pesky due process of law thing)
Comment by Old Prosecutor — February 25, 2008 @ 6:39 pm