Seeing 60 Minutes, Or Not
The 60 Minutes piece on the prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman, from what I gather, has not changed opinions of people who already had them.
Viewers in the northern part of the state were frustrated that CBS affiliate WHNT out of Huntsville had a blank screen for most of the segment. At first, WHNT said, “It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.” They have since acknowledged that the problem was not out of New York.
NewsChannel 19 lost our program feed from CBS. Upon investigation, WHNT has learned that the satellite receiver that allows us to receive programming from CBS failed. The problem was on our end, not the network’s.
WHNT re-broadcast the entire Siegelman segment during the 10 o’clock news and has made it available via the internet. All you can do is all you can do, but broadcasting it during the 10 o’clock news while the Oscars are on won’t give it near the audience it would have had on 60 Minutes, one of the networks top-rated shows (for example, 60 Minutes was the top-rated show for the network the week of Feb. 11).
Remember… conspiracy is one of the premises of those who believe Siegelman was unjustly targeted, and of the piece. So you know it raises eyebrows among some that WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, an outfit whose roots are in the business partnership of four Bass brothers, at least one of whom, Lee M. Bass, is a “Bush Pioneer.” Bush Pioneers raised $100,000 for George W. Bush’s election campaigns.
Regarding the piece, did it change any minds?
Related Articles:
Yes, it changed my mind. I was on the fence and now believe something was actually flawed with Siegleman’s prosecution.
Thanks.
Comment by Questioning my GOP credentials — February 25, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
In the overnight ratings, 60 Minutes had a much lighter viewership than normal. In the 7pm time slot Barbara Walter’s Pre-Oscar Special pulled a 9.9 rating and a 16 share. 60 Minutes pulled a 7.9 rating and a 12 share.
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings022408,0,1073799.story
Interestingly, for the season, 60 Minutes has a 9.0 rating and a 15 share. I guess if you had a story your really wanted the world to see, you wouldn’t program it on Oscar night.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||season,00.html
Oh yes, It didn’t change my mind at all.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 25, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
I was not sure if this was a purely political prosecution before, and am still not sure, so I guess it did not change my mind. You will notice I said “not a PURELY political prosecution” since I think all prosecutions of this sort have some degree od party politics involved.
I would have been more ready to believe Siegelman’s defenders if I had found their primary witness - Jill Simpson - to be believable. I did not.
I do think there was a deal of overreaching in the case, however.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
It was an excellent piece. Especially the former AZ AG and also the information about the dates on the check not matching Nick Bailey’s story. I am glad they mentioned that Scrushy served on this board under three other governors.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
The fact that Scrushy served on the board under three other governors means nothing. He paid the $500,000 to Siegelman so he could STAY on the CON Board. Siegelman could easily have chosen not to reappoint him if Scrushy didn’t pay up.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Glyn Wilson is calling for a “Special Prosecutor”! Now for the funny part - Glyn Wilson is calling himself a “news organization”!!
Comment by Funny — February 25, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
“60 Minutes Done A Great Job”
The Bush’s elete group of corrupt GOP’ers are scared to death that Don Siegelman may be on the streets before the election. Slick Bob is so nervous that he is combing his hair and spraying his mouth and under arms every five minutes for two reasons: He’s hoping that the next president will be John McCain a republican and that Riley will be asked to be McCain’s running mate. If the next president is a Democrat he/she will probally appoint new U.S. Attorneys in Alabama. Riley along with most of the top GOP operatives could get Federal charges filed against them for taking millions of dollars from Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff. This money was used to defeat Siegelman’s lottery and to fund Riley’s two campaigns for governor.
Comment by T. Andress — February 25, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
How long before someone files suit against Wilson and Horton? I wonder if Horton will have his brother Bill, former general counsel for Healthsouth and now attorney for Milton and Stan Pate defend him?
Comment by The Facts — February 25, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Politics in any form tends to be corrupt at some level. But the fact that people are going so far out of the way to try to prove that Don did not deserve his fate. He had a very blessed life, he had won 4 offices, why would he choose to fail all of us that put faith in him? He could have done so much for our State, yet he and his entourage choose to party with special interest, to be tempted with home purchases, mortorcycles,and such. His staff- which he blames for his woes, had tickets fixed, got perks/dinners/tickets/ and so much more. Their arrogance was their downfall. Still, today- those who stand to make money -yes-its always about money, fight to either let him out our use his name and story so they can be elected and regain power and money for thier own “aides”.
Comment by The Facts — February 25, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Did the story change my mind? No. For all of my life, Alabama has been the butt of national jokes; charactitured as ignorant, corrupt, and racist with a populace who consistently votes against its own interests. The Seigelmann travesty is a metaphor for Alabama’s historical record of the above.
Comment by nlacey — February 25, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
How does the Seigelman “travesty” show we are racist?
Comment by Margaret — February 25, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
The fact that Richard Scrushy served on the CON Board under three past governors says a lot (and its naive to pretend it does not). The fact that Scrushy recused himself on Healthsouth matters also says a lot. The fact that Nick couldn’t get his story right says even more. Don Siegelman may not have been a perfect governor, but he is no criminal. I am glad to see people are standing up for him and this is gaining national attention. The corrupt AL GOP establishment (and their prosecutor friends)are being exposed . . . and the whole country is watching. This case is not over. It is only just beginning, and there will be blood on the hands of the GOP when it is done.
Comment by Anonymous — February 25, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
The only evidence against Siegelman was a felon who got a lighter sentence as a result of his testimony. Testimony which has yet to be released after, what, TWO YEARS? Tell me how commonplace that is, legal experts? Fer christs sake people, as I’ve previously mentioned (banging head against keyboard repeatedly) I’m a registered Republican and I’m begging my fellow R’s who are defending this to consider that these idiots are consigning our party to either a permanent wasteland. That both parties will engage in political abuse of justice is no reason to defend it. If both parties start using justice to prosecute the opposing party at a rate SEVEN TIMES their own something has gone horribly wrong. The current Justice dept has done just that and god save the republic if Dems try the same nonsense. If those defending the Justice dept’s current actions are doing so because they don’t think the dems will do the same then please leave my party. We’re sewing the seeds of our own destruction and when I say “our” I mean both party and country.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 26, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Doc, Danny, Preacher man,
Are you going to allow the right-wing nut job defamation to continue?
Comment by Anonymous — February 26, 2008 @ 1:39 am
George Washington’s warning concerning political parties holds true. ‘{Political Parties}…serve to organize faction…to put in place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party…to usurp for themselves the reins of government.” What is the purpose of conducting a “kangaroo court” style of trial by media rather than in a Court of Law? The Democrat Party is pandering deceit to citizens on this issue. Garry Morgan
Comment by arklite — February 26, 2008 @ 1:57 am
What is the purpose of conducting a “kangaroo court” style of trial by media rather than in a Court of Law? - Garry “Fool” Morgan
Garry, they’d love to appeal the case but the Judge refuses to release the transcript after TWO DAMNED YEARS. Quit “helping” our side by defending this crap.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 26, 2008 @ 4:12 am
Susan in comment 2,
Thanks for the ratings #’s. In the quick search I did in the little time I had available for this post, I could not find it. Would be interesting also to have a sense of what WHNT’s #’s are for their 10 o’clock Sunday broadcasts.
The Facts in comment 8,
I am confident that the two Hortons you reference are not brothers. I have heard people claim they are cousins, and I am skeptical of that also. I would be glad to hear from somebody who knew a definitive word on this.
Glynn in comment 14,
I do not see any comments that rise to a level of defamation beyond what you consider acceptable (e.g., you accuse others here of lying and cheating). Though I don’t like to do it, I have deleted inappropriate comments before. You have said that there are libelous and slanderous comments here, and I have consistently said that if you point out comments that rise (or sink) to the level of libel and slander, I am glad to address them as appropriate.
Postmodernprimate in comments 13 & 16,
Siegelman’s inability to appeal because there is still no transcript available after all this time does seem egregious.
Comment by Danny — February 26, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Interesting to note a call for censorship instead of reason and the playing out of talking points between the two sides.
However, at this point, I think the “who drugged Big Jim” in the TV debate, maybe displaced as the top Alabama political conspiracy by this, no matter what its ultimate outcome.
Comment by waltm — February 26, 2008 @ 8:39 am
I think your right about “Big Jim” Walt. The feds also made a masterful move when they tried Don with Scrushy. Scrushy is the most despised man in the recent history of Alabama and most people feel he should rot in prison.
Comment by dan t — February 26, 2008 @ 10:22 am
The judge is not “refusing to release the transcript.” The judge has no control over the completion of the transcript, which has been understandably delayed by the death of the court reporter, as well as several delays requested by the new court reporter. The judge has ordered the new court reporter to complete the transcript as soon as she possibly can, but she has indicated that her workload will not allow it to be completed until the end of March. Look for your conspiracy some place else.
Comment by Roy — February 26, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Roy- yes, the court reporter did, sadly, die. But Judge Fuller is the presiding judge for the Middle District, who had responsibility for filling that vacancy in a timely fashion, as well as filling the other vacant court reporter position. I can assure you that qualified court reporters exist who applied for positions with the federal government. Instead, for over a year, the entire Middle District subsisted with one court reporter. Seems to me mismanagement at the least, if you put aside all the other claims of conspiracy on the part of the Judge. However, if you are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, why not fill the positions quickly so that the transcript could be completed in a timely fashion, particularly if you had taken the somewhat unusual, although perfectly legal, step of beginning the incarceration in a timely fashion? That would certainly seem more judicious and even-handed.
Comment by Anonymous — February 26, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Roy, you either do not work in the legal field or are less than competent in this regard. The judge has all the control and RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the trial transcript is completed in a timely manner.
If the court reporter dies, it is the JUDGE’s responsibility to find someone else. If the replacement cannot meet his time requirements, then it is the JUDGE’s responsibility to find someone who can TO ENSURE THAT THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IN COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER. This is not a soft rule that you choose to follow when it suits you. People languish in prison unnecessarily when this rule is not complied with and people drag their feet.
Consider what the judicial system would devolve into if court reporters and clerks dictated to judges when they will have things ready and JUDGES adjusted deadlines to suit their needs. That is what’s commonly called the inmates running the asylum.
The JUDGE is either one, lazy and does not have his foot up someone’s rear for taking their sweet time here, or two, incompetent and totally unaware of his judicial responsibilities, which I don’t think is the case being that the 11th Circuit has felt the need to remind of them several times recently, or three, he is complicit with the intentional delaying of the completion of this transcript.
Personally I hope that he is simply lazy and it is none of the other alternatives.
Comment by Nixon — February 26, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Like #3, I didn’t find Jill Simpson particularly convincing. The former AG from Arizona did sway me, though. I wouldn’t say this particular show pushed me over the edge, but when cries of unfairness first hit the media, I thought it was just a bunch of whining and posturing. After learning more, including via the 60 minutes show, I agree that things look very peculiar.
Comment by Del — February 26, 2008 @ 11:19 am
That’s funny Nixon. I work extensively in the courts, particularly the federal courts. I am willing to bet you don’t. Before you spout off about the effect of a delay in producing a trial transcript, you need to read Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) and Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). Most federal appellate courts have said that a delay of less than 2 years does not even trigger an analysis of any due process considerations. More importantly, what exactly is a judge to do when the replacement court reporter tells him that she cannot possibly finish the transcript until the end of March? Make her drop her other work in cases for equally deserving defendants? Throw her in jail for not working all-nighters? The notion that it is the judge’s fault that the original court reporter died or that the replacement is overworked is just silly.
Comment by Roy — February 26, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Roy, you seem to have missed the point. The point is that it is the Judge’s responsibility to ensure that a transcript is completed fairly. Excuses are immaterial. It is his responsibility to identify any problems and fix them.
Specifically, Cannon 3 of the United States Code of Judicial Conduct which outlines among other things how a Federal Judge should perform the duties of the office. More specifically, (A)(5) states that “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.” This includes the prompt completion of a trial transcript for appeal. The comments under this Canon Section read “In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs.”
And by the way, the cases you cited stand for a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The issue that affects defendants in relation to delays in the completion of a trial transcript is called the denial of the right to a speedy appeal.
But thanks for blogging on the government’s dime.
Comment by Nixon — February 26, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
That’s even funnier: “The government’s dime”? Boy, are you a bad guesser. And I love the notion that excuses –including, presumably, death — are immaterial. But take some time and let me know what the judge is supposed to do to make somebody produce a transcript faster than is humanly possible. He has written to both her and her employer (the AOC) requesting that her work be shifted to someone else so that she can devote more time to this case and his request was denied. Perhaps the AOC believes that Scrushy is not entitled to any special treatment on this point and that his transcript is no more important than one for an indigent defendant convicted.
Comment by Roy — February 26, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
My misunderstanding entirely. From my reading of your statement, “I work extensively in the courts, particularly the federal courts,” I assumed you were an employee there. Especially given your apparent insider access to what is going on with the the court reporter. Guess not.
However, I am all ears to anything else you care to share on this topic.
Yes, even death as an excuse is immaterial. Find another court reporter. Humanly possible? Heck I don’t know. How many months would you deem necessary to be humanly possible to prepare this trial transcript? Keep in mind the time that has already transpired.
Comment by Nixon — February 26, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Roy, how do you feel about the fact that the prosecution withheld documentation from their 60 plus attempts to get their only witness (a felon seeking a lighter sentence) to implicate Siegelman? The entire case rests on a FELON who received a lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony and the prosecution didn’t share materials with the defense that they are required to by law. Are you really a lawyer? How can you defend this?
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 26, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
PMP:
1. The prosecution denies that there were any notes. If there are no notes, there is no documentation to withhold.
2. Nick Bailey was not the only witness to offer testimony that the donation from Scrushy was in return for a seat on the CON board. There were wintesses from Health South, USB, the MD company that actually made the donation and Siegelman’s own campaign fundraiser.
So how do you feel about that?
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 26, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
PMP:
If that’s true, then Gov. Siegelman gets a new trial and that would make me very happy. As I have said many times before, there are legitimate legal issues that will be raised on appeal that could very well lead to Gov. Siegelman’s conviction being overturned. Problems with the transcript being delayed and the judge’s alleged conflict of interest are not among those legitimate legal issues.
Comment by Roy — February 26, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Lets concede that it is beyond the capacity of Judge Fuller to speed up the transcript process and neither he nor the court reporter is to blame for the delay. On the other hand it is certainly not Seigelman’s fault either. So why not allow an appeal bond in the “interest of justice and fairness?”
Comment by Old Prosecutor — February 26, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
it’s siegelman’s fault he’s in there in the first place
Comment by Anonymous — February 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Old Prosecutor, you seem to ignore the fact that the convicted felon has not provided sufficient grounds to show that he has a reasonable basis to succeed on appeal, which in itself is argument not to release. He was convicted; not imprisoned before trial. The burden is on the felon to show he likely will succeed, and therefore deserves release. Short of that, he remains in prison to serve the sentence received for the conviction. He lost any other rights at the point the jury of his peers found him guilty. Let’s not offer special privileges to someone because he has partisans throwing around wild, unproven accusations about his case made by people who have no credibility.
Comment by New Prosecutor — February 26, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
The man was taken away in LEG IRONS as if he was hannibal lecter people. This was personal.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 27, 2008 @ 12:37 am
“…wild, unproven accusations about his case made by people who have no credibility.”
Jill Simpson has sworn under oath her accusations. Her castigators have refused to do the same and instead use friendly media to hurl accusations. She’s put her freedom and law license on the table with her accusations. Will her accusers do the same?
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 27, 2008 @ 12:43 am
Simpson wants so badly to show that she DID speak with Rove, but the phones were “disposable”, riiight…just gets better:
“A lawyer for Simpson said Tuesday that Simpson and Rove had telephone conversations, although those calls could be difficult to prove because campaigns often use “throw-away” cell phones.” (bham news)
Comment by anonymous — February 27, 2008 @ 9:17 am
Roy-
Since you seem to have a good deal of information about the court reporter’s overload, why was there such a delay in filling the two vacancies at the Middle District (out of three court reporting positions), leaving only the one court reporter to subsist? Surely, the presiding judge could have done something to ensure that positions were filled in a more rapid time frame than a year?
Comment by Anonymous #21 — February 27, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
To the individual who likes to throw the name “fool” around. The only fools in this situation are the folks that believe the deciet of the massive amount of propaganda being generated in the Siegelman affair. The reason there have been no trial transcripts is due to the death of the Court Reporter. Although I certainly agree, it would be much better to expedite the publication of these documents. It has been stated in news releases that it is expected that the transcripts will be out by Mar 31, 2008. Facts and the justice system will determine the truth or innocence in the matter of Don Siegelman, hopefully, not some foolish group of Attorney Generals or flamers within making off the wall comments about being foolish or making allegations which have not one shred of evidence in support of the “great right wing conspiracy” or the guilt or innocense of Don Siegelman. Garry Morgan
Comment by arklite — February 27, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Garry, the simple fact is that what Siegelman did is no different than what Bush did each time when he appointed 146 contributors who gave or collected $100,000 or more to the Bush-Cheney campaign to positions in federal gov’t and will be no different than the administration that follows this one. I would love for political patronage to die a slow painful death as much as the next guy but defending the egregious manipulation of Justice in the name of fighting gov’t corruption is a rather funny way to go about cleaning up the system.
Comment by postmodernprimate — February 27, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Postmodernprimate:
Was it really just a simple campaign contribution? Aren’t campaign contributions usually disclosed to state or federal campaign authorities (depending on the type of campaign) and to the IRS? Just saying …
It’s a good talking point, but I’m not sure if the facts hold up. If it really was so cut and dry and a simple donation done through the proper channels, I’d be right there with you.
Comment by Anonymous — February 27, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
To “new prosecutor” - you ignore a “Catch 22″ situation. One of the things you need to show a reasonable chance of success on appeal is the transcript - therefore your position seems to be - the defendant needs the transcript to show he should be released on appeal and since the Court can’t furnish a transcript he must remain in jail.
If you are really a “new prosecutor” take a piece of advice from someone who was a prosecutor for decades. The prime function of a prosecutor is not to enforce technical procedural rules, it is not even to get convictions - it is to do justice.
To deny a trancript for 2 years regardless of the reason is not justice
Comment by Old Prosecutor — February 27, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I have no “inside information” about the hiring of court reporters in the Middle District. It is my understanding, however, that the court reporters are hired by the U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, not by Judge Fuller. In addition, the record reflects that Gov. Siegelman filed his notice of appeal on June 29, 2007. Any “delay” in producing the transcript should be measured from that date, not the date of the jury verdict, since there is no reason to complete a transcript of the trial unless there is an appeal. I don’t believe that the year that passed between trial and sentencing (during which, of course, the defendants remained free) can entirely be blamed on the judge. Finally, if you will check the court’s record, the court reporter has been gradually completing and filing parts of the massive transcript. The latest entry shows that she just completed Volume XXXIX (39).
Comment by Roy — February 28, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I believe we are being subjected to somewhat circular reasoning on both sides, to be honest. First, Siegelman was found guilty, and it is not unprecedented for him to be immediately incarcerated upon sentencing. Secondly, after an examination of the evidence, there is at least a question in my mind of why he was not found guilty on the counts he was acquitted on - in other words, I found his guilt more clearly established on those counts than on those, with fewer legal questions, than on those counts for which the jury found him guilty. The difference was that, on those counts, Scrushy was not involved, which may have been enough in the eyes of the jury. However, to say that there was no reason to complete a transcript until the notice of appeal is filed is similarly circular reasoning. Yes, the notice of appeal was not filed until after sentencing - but just as you say Judge Fuller should not be blamed for the delay until sentencing, then the lawyers should not be blamed for the delay in preparing the notice of appeal, since you cannot file one until sentencing has been completed. But there was always, after the verdict, an expectation in the eyes and minds of every rational person that an appeal was forthcoming. The only way not starting on a transcript until the notice of appeal is filed in an instance such as this makes sense is if the Jill Simpson’s of the world are right and there is a vast conspiracy, and I, for one, pray that there are simpler explanations for all of this. I just keep waiting for them.
Comment by Anonymous #21 — February 28, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Anonymous # 21–you make sense, up to a point. But the delay in Siegelman’s sentencing was caused by his defense team because they requested so many continuations. So they have more than a little responsibility in the fact that they couldn’t file notice of an appeal until more than a year after the verdict.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 28, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Susan F- I think you are right on that point. But with the delays, that only points back to the question that, once there was a conviction, EVERYONE knew there would be an appeal, even Louis Franklin. So someone somewhere somehow should have been working on a transcript. Then they could get an appeal filed, the 11th Circuit could do whatever they are eventually going to do with this, and we could get beyond this sooner rather than later, because we really need to be able to focus on something else other than Don Siegelman. If there were errors, we need to determine that; if there were not, he needs to get on with serving the rest of his sentence. But until there is a final determination of all of these issues, all we are sentenced to is Jill Simpson and Dan Abrams and on and on.
Comment by Anonymous #21 — February 28, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Anonymous # 21–As I understand it transcripts are expensive and time consuming to produce. The court reported passed away two months after the sentencing, therefore another reporter had to be engaged. It is the new reporter who requested an extension until March 31.
I agree, the sooner the transcript is produced, the better. But I think there are some issues here that are beyond Judge Fuller’s control.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 28, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Frankly, now that Susan is agreeing with me, I’m inclined to change my position.
Comment by Roy — February 28, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
I have been known to move mountains from time to time. ;-)
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 28, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Susan- you are right - transcripts are expensive and time consuming to produce. But there was no need to “engage” another court reporter. There are three court reporting positions in the Middle District. The court reporter who transcribed the trial passed away, and another one left federal service. The difficulty in the transcription of this trial, and where I fault someone - maybe not Judge Fuller, but someone in a position of authority, and the presiding judge is a good place to start - is that those two vacancies left one court reporter to cover the entire courthouse and complete the transcript of a very long trial. The question remains “why did it take so long to fill those vacancies?”
Comment by Anonymous #21 — February 28, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
I think that is a perfectly legitimate question.
Comment by Susan Fillippeli — February 28, 2008 @ 5:04 pm