|
||||
Birmingham News Call for Rove to Testify Posted by Danny, on May 20th, 2008, at 10:44 amIt’s a new day when the Birmingham News joins the call of Siegelman, Simpson and others for Karl Rove to testify before Congress under oath about any role he had in the Siegelman prosecution.
Related Articles: 9 comments to Birmingham News Call for Rove to Testify |
ChangeI wish my friend Hinton Mitchem godspeed and good luck after his retirement from public service. Hinton, on Monday, announced what many had suspected — he will not seek re-election. I remember meeting Hinton for the first time while I was a student at Auburn University. He served the people of his [...] Ten Minutes in the House, Senate Moves On Here is a quick preview of the upcoming week in Montgomery. This week will be a standard legislative schedule for the House. We will be in session on Tuesday and Thursday with committee meetings scheduled for Wednesday. Back in the Day... Union Avenue in Ozark in the 1920s |
The Alabama Line is being updated and will return perhaps as soon as the first week of February. The Alabama Line and its contents are the creation of Doc’s Political Parlor, reflect consensus from insiders and well-connected folks on both sides of the aisle, and will be updated as conditions change. These odds are meant to inform, entertain, and provoke, not to serve as actual means for losing money. Permission granted to use this material if PoliticalParlor.net is cited as the source. |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Doc's Political Parlor - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Siegelman should also testify. Why is Siegelman so scared? He refused to testify in his own trial and now before Congress. What is the problem?
Strange days, indeed.
SamfordDem, the B’ham news editorial board is a very good one. No one in this state is better than Bob Blalock about seeing all sides of an issue AND giving all sides a fair hearing. So I take issue with the idea that it is “strange” that they would call for Rove to testify.
They also called for Siegelman to testify in the same editorial. Is that “strange” or just a good idea? Sounds like a good idea to me.
The News has been given off a strong appearance of bias on this issue, moreso in the highly selective way they covered this race than in their editorials. Of course that’s not surprising. An African-American winning one of the most important special elections in Alabama history in one of the whitest counties in the South is a front page story in the New York Times but gets buried in the local section of the Birmingham News a week later.
I’ve always been a huge News fan and their editorial page has usually left me very impressed, but their news coverage of both the Siegelman case and the two-year college case has raised some questions for me. I’m glad to see that they’ve come around at least far enought to acknowledge there are some legitimate questions about the Siegelman case.
Samford, I don’t know that they are “acknowledg(ing)” any “legitimate” questions about the Siegelman case; I know some of these people and I think they are highly skeptical of Jill Simpson in particular (I know for a fact that they interviewed her before most of this story broke and found her -in the words of someone who was there – “not credible”) and a lot of the people pushing this for Siegelman in general. I think, however, that they believe it to be important to get the whole story out, and that Rove should testify to avoid the appearance of the conspiracy that Siegelman is loudly claiming.
The core problem here remains that The News and other media are content in acknowledging “another side” exists on this story, when in fact that “other side” is nothing more than unproven claims by Siegelman’s supporters designed to distract people with an orchestrated political campaign. No one has evidence of any of these claims to support the whispers and innnuendo and speculation, and so they continue to be repeated as if they are themselves becoming fact. The real brave statement would be for someone to call out the politics of this issue and point out, in what would be a very unpopular move, that Rove shouldn’t have to testify and the rest of the country can laugh in amusement at this made-up issue until real proof is offered that politics is behind the prosecution. Let the political sleaze balls get back to studying the grassy knoll and the fact that Rove was behind Kennedy’s assasination.
I’m not sure that Siegelman is innocent, but I am sure that there are questions about possible political involvement in this case that need to be answered. I don’t know that Jill Simpson is telling the truth, but that is why we need to get Karl Rove (or Canary or several others) under oath so that we can find out for sure. Unimpressed, you have to admit that Rove’s consistent refusal to get under oath about anything raises some red flags.
If Rove is not at all involved in the case, why should he be afraid to testify?
Rove’s refusal raises huge red flags? Really? How so?
Simpson has told one story with 100 different patterns, then told another story with comfortable assertions. All without proof, except for her own rantings, and what John Conyers gave her credit for. Even Dems on the Committee realized when her hearing was over, that she was incredible. Lest I forget, other loons have raved over her rants… Scott Horton, Dan Abrams among others. Both are lawyers I think so I am surprised they jumped into the wading pool head first. Samford Dem, tell Jill Simpson to provide proof, any proof; then there might be an issue. In the meantime, Siegelman is still a felon, will always be a felon and will soon return to jail for his just desserts. The big story is how far the 2 year college corruption will reach and how many more democrats will get indicted. I guess Rove metaphysically instructed Jill Simpson to bust up this saga as well. Alabama Democrats have no message, not that Alabama Republicans have one either, but at least the Alabama Republicans have not pulled up a Falwell cadaver for inspiration. Alabama Democrats? well, they plucked a nut, watered it, and now will reap the paranoid fruits of their labor.