I finally was able to watch the “60 Minutes” segment about the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman in its entirety online after “technical difficulties” caused me to miss much of it on the boob tube. The segment certainly painted a stark picture, but it had a number of flaws.

CBS gave short shrift to the details about why Siegelman was prosecuted. They made it sound as though Scrushy just gave him a little campaign contribution and that, as the AZ AG put it, Siegelman “never put one penny in his pocket.” Siegelman (allegedly) used the money to pay off a loan that he personally guaranteed (i.e. he would have to pay). I don’t know about you, but if someone pays off a debt that I owe that money might not make it into my pocket, but it might as well have.

As the prosecution put it:

Rather than direct payment from Defendant Scrushy to Defendant Siegelman’s AELF campaign, properly and timely reported under Alabama law, rather even than a payment from Defendant Scrushy to the institution holding the note guaranteed by Defendant Siegelman, or even from Defendant Scrushy to the AEF nominally liable for the note, this transaction was elaborately and coercively laundered through third parties for the express purpose of concealment, it was held for long periods until applied for Defendant Siegelman’s personal benefit as a loan guarantor, and, despite its massive size, it was not reported as campaign related until several months after the criminal investigation in this case had begun and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office had contacted Defendant Siegelman’s office….there was no “campaign contribution” meriting any protection or concern under McCormick.

CBS didn’t mention that Siegelman would have been $500,000 in the hole if Scrushy hadn’t given him the money. CBS also didn’t ask – or at least didn’t air – any explanation about why the money was hidden until well after the prosecution was initiated.

Also, the segment was rather one sided with no one associated with the prosecution nor any political figures fingered by Jill Simpson appearing.  It was neither surprising nor compelling to hear Siegelman’s lawyer state that his client was innocent and the victim of a political hit job.  Isn’t that what they’re paid to do?  I’m not sure what to make of the silence of the other parties tied to the story.  Did Riley, Rove, etc. not appear because they have something to hide or simply because Simpson’s allegations are so silly that they don’t merit refutation?

As for Jill Simpson, you can read her original affidavit here. Read it carefully. Look for any mentions of Karl Rove. You’ll find the name Karl (presumably Rove) stated twice in paragraph sixteen. The context was her alleging that someone else talked to him. That’s it.

The affidavit indicates that her involvement in some KKK photographs (which conveniently don’t exist of course) was something of happenstance. She claims she was simply asked – by who she didn’t say – to find out why Bob Riley’s signs were disappearing in north Alabama. She happened to find out, she claims, that an unnamed Jackson County attorney who she says is a Democrat was placing Riley signs in the area of a KKK rally. She claims to have placed a call to Bob Riley’s son and others then low and behold Don Siegelman conceded the election just hours later. Simpson alleges that he did so to prevent public release of these photos.

Aside: I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why Siegelman, a successful, battle hardened politician, would concede a razor thin election over photos of some lawyer in sparsely populated Jackson County independently trying to associate Riley with the Klan. It makes absolutely no sense.

Simpson didn’t issue the affidavit as an afterthought. She knew the magnitude of what she was doing and even left the state to give her sworn statement. One might think she would be quite meticulous in her details.  One would be wrong though.

Note that she didn’t mention being some kind of covert Republican operative tracking Siegelman with the express orders to photograph him cheating on his wife. I don’t think that would have slipped my mind.

Note that Simpson didn’t mention that Karl Rove – Turd Blossom himself – personally gave her orders to do oppo research on Siegelman. If I were giving a sworn statement with the intent of showing that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated I think I would have mentioned being contacted directly by the person who, at the time the statement was given, was the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of the United States of America. It just seems like kind of a big deal.

Furthermore, just why would Rove entrust a lawyer with tailing Siegelman for months to get compromising pictures of him? For being such a smart guy he must be a real idiot. I would have called, I don’t know, a private investigator or someone with actual experience at trying to obtain such evidence. Hell, if Rove had the ability to orchestrate political prosecutions he surely could have had some CIA lackey with an SLR sent down to Alabama to get the job done right.

But remember, Simpson didn’t mention knowing Rove in her affidavit. Now she is claiming that not only did she know him, but that they spoke numerous times. I guess she didn’t think it was important before.

Anyone who objectively follows the trajectory of Simpson’s allegations will find them quite unbelievable for two reasons. One, they are almost wholly unsubstantiated. Two, the story keeps changing. It’s like she’s playing poker and she just keeps upping her bet every time her turn comes up. The clock is ticking on her fifteen minutes, though.

All in all, the segment wasn’t an investigative report as much as it was a regurgitation of claims that have been floating around in the ether for months. It will likely embolden the pro-Siegelman guys and probably stimulate a fair number of calls and emails from Democrats across the country to their Congressmen. In the end though, it will come back down to the facts that landed Siegelman where he is today. Whether he was targeted for political reasons or not – and I don’t like it one bit if he was – he was still found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on multiple counts by a jury of his peers. Karl Rove wasn’t responsible for that unpleasant reality.

At least there was a decent piece on “colony collapse disorder” that is affecting bee populations later in the show to make it a bit more worthwhile.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Sunday, February 24th, 2008 at 9:24 pm and is filed under Alabama, Media, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.