Eddie Curran’s letter to 60 Minutes
Published here without edits or commentary…
Subject: Substantial factual errors regarding the “vivid story” and virtually every other major assertion made in Sunday’s piece on Don Siegelman, as well as questions regarding journalistic integrity and work ethic by 60 Minutes staff in the preparation and presentation of the piece.
From: Eddie Curran
Attn: Jeff Fager, Joel Bach, David Gelber, Scott Pelley, Rich Kaplan
Producers, host, management, of 60 Minutes
Dear Sirs,
I am, as at least David knows, a reporter with the Mobile Press Register. I did the stories that prompted an investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration. I am on sabbatical from the paper, working on a book about the administration, the trial, and the aftermath, including the 60 Minutes show, and am no longer covering the matter for the paper.
I will be writing about the program, both in my book and, likely, in articles that I hope to publish prior to publication. I also intend to disseminate this letter because, frankly, I doubt it will ever reach you otherwise. I would like here to ask some questions, and point out some errors. I will begin with statements by Doug Jones.
First of all, you introduced him as one of Siegelman’s lawyers. Are you aware that he did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial? I believe that if you were to ask viewers, they would have assumed as much. I trust you knew this; and for whatever reason, you did not mention it. Possibly if Jones had been at trial, he wouldn’t have told you, and a national audience, the following, as pulled from the transcript (all of the following in italics is as it was pulled from your web-site):
“Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor’s office, just the two of them,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers.
“And then, as soon as Mr. Scrushy left, the governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have given him for the lottery foundation.”
“Had the check in his hand right then and there?” Pelley asks.
“Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.
“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.
“That’s right, showed it to Mr. Bailey. And Nick asked him, ‘Well, what does he want for it?’ And Governor Siegelman allegedly said, ‘A seat on the CON Board.’ Nick asked him, ‘Can we do that?’ And he said, ‘I think so,’” Jones says.
And later in the segment:
In this new investigation, prosecutors zeroed in on that vivid story told by Siegelman’s aide, Nick Bailey, who said he saw the governor with a check in his hand after meeting Richard Scrushy. Trouble was, Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it.
“They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand,” Jones explains.
“That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case,” Pelley remarks.
“It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy who’s credibility was going to be the lynch pin of that case. It was a huge problem,” Jones says.
First: Bailey was not the only one who “indicated” there was a meeting. Witnesses who testified included HealthSouth lawyer Lorree Skelton and company public relations officer (and also State Senator) Jabbo Waggoner. Both said (and I believe this was confirmed with company flight records) that they flew on the company helicopter with Scrushy, went to the capitol.
There, they met Siegelman and his aide Nick Bailey, and Siegelman asked that he and Scrushy be excused. The meeting, according to testimony, lasted about 30 minutes. Substantial testimony was given as to why this meeting occurred, and was considered necessary from HealthSouth/Scrushy’s point of view. I assume, given your months of work on this story, that you are familiar with this.
Second: Jones paraphrasing of Bailey’s testimony about his discussion with Siegelman following the meeting is not exact, not as strong as the actual testimony, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting (actually, as I assume you know, the check came from Maryland-based Integrated Health Services.) In fact, there was substantial testimony from a host of witnesses including former executives with Integrated Health, HealthSouth, and the New York-based investment banking firm that served HealthSouth and had a most interesting role in the $250,000 donation.
Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors nor witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting.
Doug Jones was flat wrong on this point which 60 Minutes thought so powerful that, out of what surely was a much longer interview, it used in the segment.
Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.
“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.
Bam! Killer proof that that the prosecution put on bogus evidence.
Only Jones was wrong, and it was 60 Minutes that put on the bogus evidence.
It is my understanding that 60 Minutes spent months on this story. That you did so and got so wrong this crucial element of the evidence presented to the jury is stunning.
I am sure that your sources on the defense teams have the transcript and if you asked, would provide it to you. If not, I will be glad to search my records for appeals briefs or could send you stories by me and other reporters from the trial.
The issue is simply not in dispute.
Your big witness – Doug Jones – was not at trial and he was totally wrong. I suggest you call him and ask him to provide the documentation to support what he told you with such an impressive degree of authority. Don’t rely on his memory – ask him to provide you with the documentation. This is what real reporters do and what an audience expects of 60 Minutes.
Dana Jill Simpson: I assume you are aware of her constantly expanding and evolving stories. That you even put her on television after reviewing these ever-evolving tales is incredible. Furthermore, you absolutely had to know of her association with the Siegelman and Scrushy legal teams that began, at the latest, in February of last year. Among other things, she has testified to doing what would appear to be an illegal credit check report on the judge who presided over the case.
We reporters in Alabama, no doubt because we’re dumb rednecks or being paid off by Republicans, have from the beginning seen Simpson for what she is: a very lonely person with a very – and this is your word – vivid imagination.
It would appear – or at least, CBS made it appear – that this particular Rove claim (there have already been several by her relating to her allegations that Rove was involved in the Siegelman administration)”) was new. This was suggested by Scott Pelley’s surprise, which I trust was not feigned.
As anyone who has ever worked in a newsroom knows, it is almost a daily occurrence for someone to come by or call and spin the most amazing stories. A few, a very few, are true. A decent reporter can usually tell the difference in about a minute.
The crazy ones are treated politely and ushered out the door as soon as possible. Considering her past stories — none corroborated by a single human being — 60 Minutes should never have interviewed her in the first place. However, after that mistake, once she started on the Rove tale, Pelley, the producers, the janitor, someone, should have pulled the switch.
This leads me to ask the following questions of the journalists at CBS:
After Simpson delivered these explosive and entirely uncorroborated accusations (again, all of her stories are uncorroborated) did 60 Minutes ask Simpson where she followed Siegelman, as in what cities and on what dates?
Having done so, did 60 Minutes conduct a simple Nexis search of stories during that period? After all, Siegelman’s trips and actions were covered almost daily by the press, especially the AP.
And also asked her:
Who funded this top-secret mission? She does not live anywhere near Montgomery and one assumes that while carrying out this top-secret assignment she incurred hotel, travel, and meal bills. Did you ask her if she had any records of these bills? Is there anyone alive who can corroborate this?
Did you ask her: How was a big redhead like you able to follow Alabama’s governor for months without being seen by the governor or his security?
Did you follow him by car? Hide in the bushes? Hover above in a helicopter? You claim that this was not the first “intelligence” assignment given you by Rove. What were the others?
You said you met him working on past campaigns. Which campaigns and can you provide us with a single person who also worked on these campaigns who can confirm that you worked on them and that, furthermore, you met Rove while doing so?
Pelley, with a wink and a nod, noted that Rove worked in some Alabama campaigns. This is widely known. They were judicial races in the mid-1990s. I was in Alabama at the same time and, remarkably, never ran into Rove. I doubt Simpson did either though. However, if we are to trust your broadcast, you made no effort to check this out. You simply tossed it out that Rove had been in Alabama, as if our state is the size of Mayberry.
I’m not sure what would be worse, for CBS not to have asked such questions or to have asked them but not shown or reported that it did so to the audience, and given her responses and the results of your verification.
Instead of actually doing some legwork to support such a serious to say nothing of unlikely claim on national TV, the network simply covered its ass with the old, obviously expected denial from Rove.
Is that characterization of your journalism correct or incorrect?
There is no question, such as with the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry, that Rove has done some exceedingly distasteful things. However – if I may opine – that would not be sufficient reason for 60 Minutes to put on Dana Jill Simpson stories without subjecting them through a level of verification that any decent reporter could do in an afternoon.
Grant Woods: Ten years ago, on a non-investigative story about the tobacco wars, I quoted Grant Woods saying he’d spent much time working with Siegelman. Woods, like Siegelman, supported those lawsuits. At least three times as governor, Siegelman used state funds to pay for him and his wife to fly and stay at resorts for the annual conferences of the Western Attorney General Association.
Did you ask Woods if he and Siegelman are old friends? Did you at all wonder why a former Arizona attorney general had taken such an interest in this case? Do you suppose Siegelman might have asked him to help, such as by putting together that petition signed by 52 former attorney generals? And would you suppose they are more familiar with Don Siegelman as a friend, or the facts and testimony put on at trial?
If you knew they were old friends and didn’t disclose this to viewers, why not? Were you afraid it might dilute the power of what he was saying?
Did you ask Woods specific questions about the evidence at the trial that he did not, to my knowledge, attend for one day? It is my guess that he couldn’t answer basic questions about the evidence. What you have is an old pal of the governor’s speaking in bold generalities about a case I doubt he knows much about.
Also, Woods asserts the following: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”
A reasonable follow-up question by Pelley might have been: But hadn’t he been defeated, “fair and square,” in the 2002 election?
In 2005, when he was indicted, Democrat Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley was all but the anointed party choice for the 2006 nomination, but you present Siegelman as if he was some vital force who Riley and the Republicans feared, and I dare you to locate a single political science professor in the state who would say as much. It’s not true, but for you, it was necessary. Without it, there would be no “motive basis” for the claim you assert with your opening sentence, which is more statement that question: “Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?”
I assert that you made up your mind as to the answer to this question even before your reporters/producers began their investigation into the Siegelman prosecution. However, I welcome your comments to the contrary.
The leaks: Viewers were told the following:
Details of some of those investigations leaked to the press. And Siegelman lost his 2002 re-election campaign narrowly to Republican Bob Riley.
Then viewers were at that point shown an article written by myself and a fellow reporter, Jeff Amy, apparently this serving as evidence of “the leaks.” First off, a careful read of the piece would show that our story cited the Birmingham News, which initially reported the grand jury meeting in its paper the day before.
No proof whatsoever is offered to support what is stated as fact that the News or myself or anyone else received leaks from prosecutors. None. Because you have none. Prove me wrong.
Also, and I could be wrong here as well, but I don’t recall many grand jury type stories in 2002. There were dozens of stories on other matters, such as Siegelman’s use of a straw man to sell his house for twice its value to Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines; the revelation of a $500,000 payment by Waste Management to his pal Lanny Young after Young secured a secret deal from Siegelman controlled revenue department slashing taxes at the company’s massive west Alabama landfill; the many stories required to unearth the undisclosed “campaign donations” presented as routine by you; and many more instead.
And that’s just a partial list.
Instead, contrary to any evidence or proof, you connected Siegelman’s loss in the 2002 election to prosecutorial leaks for which you have no proof even occurred.
I am aware that Siegelman and his lawyer routinely blamed Republican prosecutors for stories in the Birmingham News reporting that Siegelman’s financial records had been subpoenaed, including holding a press conference, but they, like you, offered no proof. For my book, I recently called the News’ reporter, Brett Blackledge, who wrote that story Without identifying specifically who told him about the subpoenas, I will just say that Brett assured me it was not prosecutors.
No proof. None. Nor did you have the decency to call and ask the reporters.
Bill Canary: The following is a direct quote from the program: “The prosecution was handled by the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, whose husband Bill Canary had run the campaign of Siegelman’s opponent, Gov. Riley.”
Bill Canary did not run Riley’s campaign. According to everything I’ve read, he was one of many unpaid advisors. What documentation do you have supporting that Canary ran Bob Riley’s campaign?
If you don’t have any such evidence, why not? As you know, you use this fact as a lead in to Grant Woods’ assertions that Leura Canary should therefore not only have recused herself, but brought in prosecutors from another district.
As with virtually your entire piece, you present false evidence to support assertions with no basis in fact.
Nick Bailey: You state, “And there was another problem with the prosecutor’s star witness: Nick Bailey was a crook. Unknown to Siegelman, Bailey had been extorting money from Alabama businessmen.”
Assuming that Bailey didn’t tell anything to Siegelman – and the evidence is that he told the governor about at least some of the money he was receiving — why did you neglect to inform viewers that Siegelman was also convicted of covering up a $9,200 payment from Lanny Young, the Waste Management lobbyist and G.H. Construction figure? As surely you must know, prosecutors presented substantial evidence, including bank records, showing that Siegelman and Bailey covered up the payment from Young to Siegelman by concocting a bogus “loan repayment” for an equally bogus motorcycle sale.
This was not even referred to. Nor were viewers told, even in a single summary sentence, that the Siegelman administration was beset by numerous serious scandals and that it was those, not leaks, that led to his electoral downfall. Did you ever think to consider, for example, calling any one of the half-dozen or so university professors who follow state politics and are quite familiar with such matters?
The Don Siegelman you presented was a squeaky clean victim of Republicans.
Should you wish to comment, I can be reached by the above phone numbers and e-mail address [withheld by me].
Sincerely,
Eddie Curran
P.S.: I had, for your information, read something in a publication called the Montgomery Independent indicating that the 60 Minutes program would broach allegations against jurors in the trial. I have records which I believe would prove the anonymously sent e-mails were frauds, and for pure humanitarian purposes wanted to call 60 Minutes to offer that evidence in the hope that, whatever was coming, that the jurors be spared.
I didn’t know any of your names, and, as I told David when he asked how I got his number, I got it from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as I assumed, correctly, that they had been contacted by you. I was treated with what I thought was astonishing rudeness by David for merely calling him. This suggested that I am or had presented as being “among the enemy” by your team’s sources. I can tell you that I have never treated a fellow journalist in that manner for the sin of merely calling me.
Eddie Curran is fighting for his credibility now that his past articles are being reviewed. I feel between now and the November elections that there will be many investigators looking real close at how, Rob Riley, Ralph Reid, Toby Roth, William Canary, Dan Gans, Dax Swatek, Willian Pryor and Karl Rove managed to smear Siegelman’s Education Lottery, and get Bob Riley elected twice all funded by millions of dollars from lobbyist Michael Scanlon’s and Jack Abramoff’s Mississipi Indian clients.
A lot of voters are wondering why John McCain didn’t expose Alabama’s corruption. McCain is the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee who headed up the investigation and wrote a very detailed June, 2006 report on how Scanlon and Abramoff used scare tactics as lobbyist to steal 84 million dollars of gambling money from six Indian tribes; however, E-Mails reveal that he covered up vital evidence when the money crossed over into Alabama to be used as bribe money for Riley to block and oppress the Alabama Poarch Indians and to stop Siegelman who the Choctaw Indians feared would create a lottery and allow the Al. Poarch Indians to be licensed to compete with the Choctaw Indians.
This is the only state where a large portion of the money flowed that U.S. attorneys never launched an investigation. No one was ever arrested, question or prosecuted. Where were you Eddie Curran when we needed an investigative reporter to blow this Abramoff and Scanlon rat hole wide open?
How can you claim this email was hidden until now? The Birmingham News reported on it back in Oct. 2006. Read the papers, not just those left-wing bloggers, my friend.
Curran implies that “an audience expects of 60 Minutes” something like facts.
Poor deluded man – I have no such expectation of 60 minutes – in fact, I expect them to lie…
For example, fake Jeep rollovers (using wheel weights), and fake exploding wheel rims (shaving the metal off), or fake Audi acceleration (drilling through the transmission and attached a compressed air tank controlled by the driver).
From National Review:
http://www.walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html
Presumably, Mr. Curran will join the calls for a special prosecutor in this case. If 60 Minutes and others lied, and various Congressional investigations are being mislead, then the truth should be heard in court to clear the names of the innocent and set the record straight.
…The Birmingham News reported on it back in Oct. 2006…
Tim, do you have a link to that BN article? I seem to remember that the BN ran the AP story on an Abramoff memo about Riley and Co. that was left out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee report but I don’t remember any BN reporting on the topic. I could be wrong. I read the Press-Register closely but only glance at the BN.
It’d be interesting to know if somebody at CBS has a vested interest in the Don Siegelman saga.
I agree that 60 Minutes on occasion has shot from the hip, and the facts concerning the “bribe” are foggy to say the least, but other facts revealed in the story are unarguably disturbing and should raise red flags in anyone’s estimation:
Excessive Sentence:
Siegelman was acquitted of 25 of 32 counts, yet he got seven years and four months. Much more than the norm.
Immediately Led Away in Shackles:
After the trial, the former Governor was manacled and taken to jail, like a violent offender. Didn’t get the usual 45 days to report to prison that would be the norm.
No Bail Pending Appeal:
No bail was allowed, even though an appeal for the non-violent crime is pending.
Transcript Delay:
The appeal is delayed because the court has yet to produce a trial transcript even though the trial was held more than a year and a half ago.
Is Don Siegelman squeaky clean? Probably not. Was he railroaded? Ask the 52 retired attorneys general of both parties who requested a congressional investigation what they think.
Siegelman was not “immediately led away in shackles.” He was convicted in June 2006 and was sentenced a full year later in June of 2007. He was “immediately led away in shackles” after one year of walking the streets as a convicted felon.
“Is Don Siegelman squeaky clean? Probably not.” Understatement of the year.
Great read Mr. Curran. I admit I watch 60 Minutes and have for years. I see it as entertainment as it is entertaining. It’s sad that CBS continues to give the illusion that the viewr it to take this as news or factual reporting and not as entertainment. In my view, 60 Minutes is not different than ET, Inside Edition or other such entertainment shows. The only difference is that they don’t advertise the show as entertainment.
It will be interesting to see how CBS responds to the criticism of their show. Will those involved in the piece get “Dan Rathered”, will they issue an apology, or just hope th econtroversy boosts the shows ratings?
Great article and I hope to see the book soon.
Brian, you obviously have it in for Siegelman. Your point is taken. Three left.
Very informative piece. Had 60 Minutes taken the time to tell the truth, it would have been a very interesting piece, but alas, it is an election year and if they can try and smear the Republicans, they feel a sense of triumph!
I only responded to one of your points because it was the low hanging fruit. I just don’t have time* to respond to all questions posed by all commenters.
IIRC Judge Fuller sentenced Siegelman & Scrushy to less than what the prosecutors recommended. I have no idea about whether bail should or should not have been allowed. I too would like to see the trial transcript.
I don’t “have it in for Siegelman” as much as I’m quite confident that he is guilty of corruption. There was just too much smoke while he was governor for there to have not been any fire. The details of this particular case were enough to convince me and a jury of his peers that he was guilty, too.
The dynamic that I’m seeing play out right now is that there are a lot of “outside people” who could care less about Don Siegelman who do care about the broader US Attorney issue. They are merely latching on to Don’s case because they think they can make it smell bad enough to advance their other cause. I’m more on the other side. I’m more concerned with whether or not Siegelman is guilty regardless of the motivation for the prosecution. And yes, I think he did it. Of course I think OJ did it too and he’s out golfing all the time.
*Initially omitted the word “time” from the sentence inadvertantly.
Well expressed, Brian. My point is that there is plenty of stink to go around on both sides of this issue. I’m sure there are many Alabamans who know the Siegelman saga inside out, and I certainly can’t blame them for wanting to see justice done. From a national standpoint, what has been done to the DOJ by this administration is truly frightening. The Siegelman case is obviously a showpiece for those who have been screaming for eight years about those who have been playing fast and loose with Constitution.
This isn’t a football game. There are only losers. I would love to see a shred of accountability demonstrated by any of the parties involved.
Iowbo wrote: “My point is that there is plenty of stink to go around on both sides of this issue.”
{sigh} If I had a dollar for every time a Democrat had used this disgusting, rotten, fallacious, vicious, dishonest excuse for slandering a fellow human being, I could retire.
Democrats do this regularly: they slander an enemy in the press, and then use their own slander as the evidence that there must be something wrong. This is a tactic of tyrants and demagogues, not of honest men. Iowbo, categorize yourself.
The “stink” on the Republican side is manufactured by Democrats for political advantage. Same with the “stink” you gratuitously name in your post, with the clear assumption that not only do we all know exactly what you mean, but we all know it’s true. This, too, is common for how Democrats carry out their slanders — repetition is substituted for evidence.
The truth is that the Bush administration has been scrupulous in its defense of the Constitution, that they had every right to handle the staffing of the US Attorney’s office as they did, that there is not the slightest evidence — not a single shred, nothing so large as a grain of rice — that there was the slightest mishandling of any case by the US Attorney’s office relative to partisan politics, and that the Democrats have been screeching like 3-year-olds with skinned knees for years simply in order to create the false appearance of wrongdoing in the public’s mind.
And the further truth is that what the Democrats are truly incensed about is the fact that the Justice Dept is guilty of Prosecuting While Republican. Judge Fuller, in this case, is guilty of the same. Sorry, that’s not a crime in my book, and whoever’s book contains this as a crime, is an enemy of liberty, and deserves ostracism.
If Curran wants the truth about the Siegelman case, and others affected by selective prosecution, he should join others in demanding that Bolten, Miers, and Rove be brought before a Federal Grand Jury to testify.
Congress should use its power to enforce the subpoenas delivered to these three people months ago.
If Congress cedes its subpoena power, where then do Americans turn for judicial oversight of the actions and character of our ELECTED officials???
Here is your book, Eddie Curran, if you have the courage to write it!
…there is not the slightest evidence — not a single shred, nothing so large as a grain of rice — that there was the slightest mishandling of any case by the US Attorney’s office relative to partisan politics…
Wow. I guess it depends on your definition of “slightest evidence” and “single shred” and “grain of rice” but, ya know, there is significant (legal and otherwise) evidence of political manipulation in the DoJ. Most of the 7 to 12 U.S. Attorneys who were fired testified under oath at some point that they believed they were fired for, in short, not towing a straight GOP line.
Bud Cummings, for example, testified that the deputy attorney general’s top aide threatened him with retaliation if he went public with his investigation of Gov. Matt Blunt. David Iglesias testified that Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici pressured him about pursing an investigation involving a Dem. prior to the 2006 midterm elections. Todd Graves testified that he was fired for refusing to sign off on bogus voter fraud cases. And so on and on. There is some gray area in some of these cases but for the most part the evidence of political manipulation is pretty clear. These are, obviously, all Republicans testifying under oath to significant political manipulation of the DoJ. Of course, many of the DoJ employees–nearly all of whom resigned–called to testify in various Congressional investigation denied political manipulation, however, what paperwork was released by the DoJ, and testimony by various U.S. attorneys, generally contradicted their testimony. (Which is why, doh, many of them, right up to the Attorney General, resigned.)
I don’t have time to recount all of the investigations and testimony but you can find summaries of the U.S. attorneys purge here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissed_U.S._attorneys_summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy_timeline
Yes, it’s true, no one has gone to jail yet over the DoJ purge and, yes, there’s still a lot of unreleased/missing evidence and, of course, many of the most important players have not testified and/or have ignored Congessional subpoenas. It’s also worth noting that the WH and the DoJ have yet to provide a clear explanation of why the attorneys were dismissed and that various investigations, including internal DoJ investigations, are on going. There’s not “a single shred” of evidence of political manipulation, there’s a whole cloth composed of numerous shreds of evidence.
This is exactly my point. When I was working for a major pharmaceutical company, if I attempted to pursue an agenda that was at odds with the stated goals of my immediate supervisors or their superiors, I would have been fired. The Democrats are incensed that they are being forced, forced, to work for Republicans, God forbid. They simply cannot accept that when Republicans are the boss, Republicans get to set the agenda, and that that agenda might just be different from what it would have been when the Democrats set the agenda. Particularly when the Democrats’ agenda included turning a blind eye toward any suggestion of Democratic voter fraud.
As I said, and you so ably supported, they’re guilty of “prosecuting while Republican.” Please forgive me if I don’t find that so outrageous as to warrant federal investigations.
Plumb Bob–A serious question, “What circumstances,in your opinion, would warrant federal investigations?” Leave the political BS out, and address specifics. Thank you.
Huh? As far as I know all of the fired U.S. attorneys were Republicans.
Yes, they were, apparently, fired for not adhering to the White House’s agenda. However, that agenda included bonus prosecutions of Dems and non-prosecution of some Republicans.
I think we have very different ideas about what we want out of our Department of Justice. I agree that the administration sets the tone, hires the prosecutors, appoints judges, etc. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect the administration to set an agenda and generally expect the DoJ to follow suit. However, I do not expect the DoJ to use prosecutorial powers to improperly influence elections, to pursue bonus charges, or attack political enemies. Yes, there were some incidents along these lines in the past, notably in the Nixon administration but also some smaller issues in nearly every administration. However, in the past, even under Nixon, political manipulation has been reasonably contained or dealt with during Congressional oversight and/or a result of localized corruption and/or incompetence. The current administration has not only broken down the usual firewall between political operations and the DoJ and done it’s best to avoid oversight, it has, apparently, directly pursued political prosecutions done not for reasons of justice but to take and hold onto political power. This is not what I expect in my Department of Justice. It’s deeply undemocratic, not to mention unethical and, at least in the past, illegal. I don’t expect the DoJ to be perfect but I do expect the DoJ to respect the rule of law, submit to oversight, and pursue justice.
If you find arguments by Dems unconvincing or self-interested or whatever, you might want to take a look at the long list of Republicans who are unhappy with political manipulation in the DoJ. It’s pretty easy to see that this is a bipartisan issue. Do you want President Obama to start going after, say, Bush pioneers who gave $100k to the campaign and then got a plumb job at a regulatory agency? Or, perhaps, opening up a Rico investigation related to the RNC e-mail system? Or the Obama DoJ Civil Rights Division staff helping out with Dem vote caging schemes run on elderly GOP voters in red states?
… When I was working for a major pharmaceutical company…
I’d also say that I have very different expectations about hiring and firing standards for corporations and the DoJ. Among other things, the DoJ has, by tradition and law, taken steps to make sure the appearance of justice, as well as justice, is respected.
You might want to take a look at the current DoJ Departmental Ethics Office site, esp. the rules concerning political activities:
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ethics/politica.htm
Or–if you have as much free time as Brian–dig through the current U.S. attorneys manual:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/
Which standards were very, very clearly violated during the Clinton years, about which the same sources who are today screeching like frightened chickens were silent as the dead; for which reason objective observers can infer that what’s being articulated, at least by those sources, is partisan opportunism rather than principled concern.
This is the part that I sincerely cannot see has been demonstrated by the facts. I repeat — refusing to comply with legitimate requests for investigation is proper grounds for dismissal IN ANY ORGANIZATION. The fact that this is the Dept of Justice affects this assessment not one whit.
The claim has been made that there was an attempt to prosecute along partisan lines; this part seems to be partly true, but manifestly because the Democrats failed to investigate their own, not because Republicans were pursuing partisan attacks. To insist on investigating the current administration without a corresponding effort to investigate the previous one is to identify oneself as a Democratic partisan: the only objective response would be to insist on investigating both. But that’s not what we’re hearing, is it? No.
So, having clearly identified this as a thoroughly partisan, Democrat effort to slur the Republican administration, my position is simply that if you want to cry foul, you’d better be prepared to prove something more relevant than that the Republicans investigated more Democrats than the Democrats did.
And while you’re attempting to produce that, explain at the same time why you’re not absolutely livid that a Democrat prosecutor in Texas shopped six different grand juries in order to find one that would return a ridiculous indictment against Tom Delay — just to take advantage of a Republican House rule and get him out of the House. And why a Democrat prosecutor in South Florida violated the law to harass Rush Limbaugh. Let me tell you plainly — if I saw a Republican behaving in the manner that either of those prosecutors behaved, I’d be writing scathing letters to the local Republican party demanding his head, because abusing the legal system destroys the nation.
That’s why I’m so terribly incensed by this cheap, partisan, vicious, morally offensive attempt to pretend that the Bush administration is engaged in the same sort of thing; I don’t take false accusation lightly, I don’t take abuse of the legal system lightly, and it looks to me as though the Democrats have decided to do both.
Brian, Which direction is this smoke blowing?
According to a 4/13/06 Birmingham News article (2):
“A Washington lobbyist who has been convicted of bribery gave $100,000 in 2002 to four Alabama political action committees that contributed heavily to Gov. Bob Riley’s campaign that year. Michael Scanlon, who had been Riley’s press secretary during part of his first term in Congress, gave four $25,000 checks to PACs run by Fine Geddie and Associates on June 6, 2002, two days after Riley won the Republican primary for governor, campaign disclosure reports show.
When Scanlon contributed the money to the four PACs, he was representing an Indian tribe in Mississippi that operated casinosAt the time of the Alabama donations to the Fine and Geddie PACs, Scanlon was running Capitol Campaign Strategies, a public relations firm that shared clients with Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist at the center of the federal investigation. One of the clients that Abramoff and Scanlon shared was the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, whose casino interests feared an expansion of gambling next door in Alabama.
Riley campaigned for office as a gambling opponent; Democratic candidate Don Siegelman backed a state lottery. Asked if his 2002 campaign received money from Scanlon, Riley said Wednesday, ‘I don’t know.’ He referred questions to his campaign staff.”
http://www.rense.com/general73/melt.htm
Plumb Bob says:
“— if I saw a Republican behaving in the manner that either of those prosecutors behaved, I’d be writing scathing letters to the local Republican party demanding his head, because abusing the legal system destroys the nation.”
My God, that’s our point exactly!!! Hope you’ve been busy calling the local GOP. Happy headhunting.
“That’s why I’m so terribly incensed by this cheap, partisan, vicious, morally offensive attempt to pretend that the Bush administration is engaged in the same sort of thing; I don’t take false accusation lightly, I don’t take abuse of the legal system lightly, and it looks to me as though the Democrats have decided to do both.”
Wow, that’s pretty unbalanced. Do you get ALL your news from Rush, Sean and the blowhard Bill O’reilly? At least I can trust Brian to present a logical supported argument, and make a good point, but you are just unhinged. It’s really quite comical.
Um, as far as I know, Ronnie Earle and James Martz–I assume that’s who you are referring to in 22 above–are not DoJ employees.
Gen, if you take a look around my site you’ll see that I have been one of the most vocal backers of a legitimate PAC-to-PAC transfer ban in the Alabama blogosphere. I’d bet a steak dinner that Riley knew the source of that PAC money. If you can find proof that he knew about the source of the money and engaged in a quid pro quo I’ll be the first to write it up.
OT but just for kicks, you could start with this Abramoff-Scanlon e-mail:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Scanlonemail.pdf
Brian, No, I can’t provide evidence of a pro quo between Riley and Scanlon any more than the prosecution, IMHO, provided one for Siegelman. But a few facts are clear.
The calendar turned today for former AL governor Siegelman and for his thousands of supporters. Though criminal procedure requires a transcript within 30 days of sentencing, eight months have passed since Siegelman was imprisoned. Judge Mark Fuller’s court has provided no trial transcript; therefore, no formal appeal can be filed. Therefore, Michael Mukasey, the new U.S.
Attorney General, feels “he cannot review the Siegelman case while it is being appealed.” Therefore, former AL governor Don Siegelman remains imprisoned without the most basic right of an American citizen, “the right to appeal.”
Well Gen, a jury of Don’s peers thought the prosecution made a sufficient case to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on seven counts. It wasn’t the prosecution’s job to convince you or anyone else who wasn’t on the jury.
I’ve stated before that I would also like to see the trial transcript.
You mean the jurors, who, before reaching a verdict, read outside materials, and expressed prejudice against public officials:
One e-mail reportedly read: “All public officials r scum; especially this 1. pastor is reall a piece of work……. also keep working on 30.” The 30 is thought to be a reference to another juror by his or her number. “ (Chandler, Birmingham News, Jan 26, 2008)
You judiciously omitted this line from the Chandler article you cited:
The emails were brought up in court and Judge Fuller effectively told the defense that they were bogus.
Oh, and the “pastor,” Richard Scrushy, is a “real piece of work” by the way. Just being associated with that slime ball probably hurt Siegelman’s case quite a bit.
Sure Brian, the jurors are going to happily admit to misconduct.
You keep going on and about the Jurors coming to a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, when we know that exculpatory evidence was clearly withheld from them by the prosecution, and attempts to coerce witnesses into false testimony have surfaced in sworn testimony AFTER the trial. If you ask me, that renders their verdict irrelevant. Once again, the DOJ is obstructing by not releasing documents, and the refusals to testify either to the media or to congress are telling enough.
You “know” there was exculpatory evidence because a chronic liar, Nick Bailey, said so (didn’t the defense once accuse him of being a liar as well?). Are you citing Jill Simpson (Karl Rove’s personal secret spy) as your “sworn testimony?” If so please excuse me while I heartily laugh.
What documents is the DOJ not releasing? We all want a transcript, but it isn’t DOJ’s job to do that.
No, Brian, I judiciously included the link to the original article to which I referred. In reaching his conclusion, Judge Fuller determines that it would not much matter if the emails were authentic:
“As to the defense not showing prejudice the government says: ‘Even if the latest purported emails could be established as genuine by further extraordinary inquiries and investigations, the brief colloquies at issue on their face cannot establish prejudice sufficient to warrant a new trial.’”
WSFA TV. (2007, Jan. 19) Government Files Response to Scrushy/Siegelman Motions; Scrushy Attorney Responds. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5963982 para 26-28.
Analytical comments regarding Judge Fuller’s refusal to subpoena the email records followed:
“Fuller refused to subpoena the email records in question, to question the jurors about the allegations of improper conduct, or to allow counsel to do the same. When the defendants sought to notify the Internet service providers so that the records could be preserved, the motion was summarily denied. Then Fuller, acting to protect the “sanctity of the jury,” adjourned the case for one year before sentencing—long enough for most Internet service providers to automatically dispose of emails maintained on their servers.”
Horton, S. (2007, August 3). Judge Fuller and the Trial of Don Siegelman. Harper’s , para. 13-17. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.harpers.org/archive /2007/08/hbc-90000714
Noted, you think this is all worth a good laugh.
Nick Bailey, the “chronic liar”, is credible when he makes claims for the prosecution, but not when it comes clearly exculpatory statements. That’s the rank hypocrisy this entire prosecution rests on, and your quickness to vociferously defend what you have admitted is polically motivated prosecution is telling.
The DOJ has so far only parrotted the prosecution’s claims, and has not denied any of these claims by the defense. They also have not complied with congressional demands to release any related documents or comply with FOIA requests, and refuse to address any of these allegations on camera.
The “sworn testimony” I refer to regards Jefferson County
Republican Commissioner Gary White, who was pressured by prosecutors to provide false evidence that backed up Nick Baileys testimony, since they knew it was not credible. When he refused, he was prosecuted himself. He was recently released and granted a new trial, and a federal judge in Birminham has ruled that this “established a prima facie case of impermissible conduct” by the prosecutors. That’s why they had to illegally withhold all of his notes from the defense.
To me, those are all credible claims of illegal prosecutorial conduct that have not been refuted. Glad you think this injustice is so amusing.
The Siegleman/Scrushy attorney had their chance to portray Bailey as a liar, which I imagine they did with great zeal. I was merely pointing out the irony that they now find him a bit more credible. You said that “we know” there was exculpatory evidence. No, that is inaccurate. We have heard allegations made by a convicted felon on a tabloid TV infotainment special. The claims were put through the same journalistic scrutiny as Jill Simpson’s ludicrous claims, which doesn’t bode well for the defense.
The DOJ is the prosecution. Why wouldn’t they parrot their own claims? I think they denied the defense’s claims sufficiently in a court of law. They do not have to, nor should they, retry the case in the media.
The Gary White connection you point out is so tangential that it scarcely merits a response. Why did his wife, or even Mr. White himself, wait until after he was convicted to issue such an affidavit? It seems to me that one might want to report attempts to coerce testimony at the time it happened. Mrs. White is effectively saying that her husband had evidence (or at least their word) that the government was trying to coerce his testimony and they sat silently while two ostensibly innocent men were convicted and sentenced. Give me a break.
Brian, “Are you citing Jill Simpson (Karl Rove’s personal secret spy) as your “sworn testimony?” If so please excuse me while I heartily laugh.”
Jill Simpson had the courage to appear before Congress. Rove, Miers, and Bolten, on the other hand, have ignored their subpoenas. Until someone else has the courage to stand before Congress, swear on the Bible, and answer questions of Republicans and Democrats as she did, Jill Simpson has demonstrated that she has more credibility than her critics.
Oh, please, gen. Democrats have been using this same demagoguery for the last 7 years. They demand cooperation they know is beyond their jurisdiction as Congress, and then when the Executive branch properly defends its autonomy (which has already been established in federal court how many times?) they declare that proper stance “evidence” of the Executive’s guilt. That’s not just poppycock, it’s grotesquely dishonest, and no honest observer will stand for it. So why are you?
If Curran’s legitimate questions about Simpson in the letter we’re discussing here is not enough basis for you to question Simpson’s testimony, as it ought to be, go over to PowerLine and read John Hinderaker’s evaluation, which is even more devastating.
From what I’m reading, Jack, above, has pretty seriously misrepresented the case of Gary White. I’m not familiar enough with the details of the Siegelman case to know why his testimony might have been solicited, although the fact that he did not testify and Seigelman was convicted anyhow suggests that his testimony was not important to the case.
However, Jack very clearly intimates that White was granted a new trial because of the misconduct of the Siegelman prosecutors. This is simply false; the new trial was granted because White was improperly refused a legitimate change of venue. Jack also intimates that White was indicted immediately after refusing to testify. This is also false; he was indicted almost 2 years later, and convicted, because he’d been accepting undocumented envelopes filled with cash from an engineering firm for his help in securing state bids.
There was an affidavit from White’s wife Judy attached to the new trial hearing on a separate count, a move to dismiss due to selective prosecution. The judge ruled in that instance that a mere affidavit was not sufficient to make out a case for selective prosecution, so that motion was denied.
I read the affidavit. At first, it reads like a wife complaining about the mistreatment of her husband by federal agents, and was based on personal observation. If accurate on all points in this regard (which seems unlikely to me, considering the nature of spousal claims) it does contain some disturbing elements. However, starting on page 3 it begins to read like one of Scott Horton’s diatribes about selective prosecution, based not on Judy White’s testimony but on general political gossip; this part was clearly added by an attorney, and was not Judy White’s personal experience.
I have to believe the purpose of the affidavit, which attorneys had to know was going to be insufficient to win a dismissal, was completely for the purpose of creating a talking campaign like the one Jack is waging here.
The simple fact is that Democrats have been masking their own corruption of the legal system for decades, they’re now being prosecuted by a new, unfriendly Justice Dept that does not play favorites, and they’re squealing like stuck pigs. The relevant question in all these cases is, WAS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CORRUPTION? In Siegelman’s and White’s cases, the answer is clearly “Yes.” So, why are Democrats so upset? Don’t they want the corrupt elements of their own party exposed and excised? Or is it the case, rather, that they rely on such corruption to maintain power, and cannot afford to have their house cleaned?
So you don’t agree that congress should exercise their oversight responsibility, or even that it exists? Bush can break the law and subvert the constitution as much as he pleases?
That powerline piece does a damn good job of beating Simpson around. I agree that she’s not the most credible witness, but who cares. The most devastating comments were delivered by the Republican AG who is also co-chair of the McCain for president committee and godfather to one of his children. Why no mention of that? Oh yeah, McCain’s your candidate.
Also, I like how the powerline piece only uses the facts that support their argument. They assert that Fuller is an honest and upstanding judge, and that the claims of conflict are ridiculous because it’s not confict just to be an “investor” in certain companies. How about admitting that the major conflict was in his history of DIRECT LEGAL CONFLICT with Siegelman, and that he was a controlling shareholder, not just a passive “investor” But of course, that wouldn’t support their argument, so they conveniently leave it out.
Some good points in 39 above, plumb bob, but you lost me when you indulge in clairvoyant speculation and that her testimony is faked by an attorney and not her own experience.
Jack, you’ve already convinced me that you’re a Dem activist or operative trying to sell a partisan line, so I’m not particularly moved by your demagogic nonsense about what I’m willing for Congress to do or not do. Every time Congress has taken the Bush admin to court over their rights vis-a-vis the Executive branch, they’ve lost. They know what they’re requesting is Constitutionally out of bounds. So, how you can assert that it’s the Bush administration that’s “subvert[ing] the Constitution,” when in fact it’s the Democrats in Congress, I can’t fathom.
What’s going on is what I described in #38. Go back and reread. I think you’ll understand why I’m not alarmed about Bush “breaking the law and subverting the Constitution.” That’s not what’s happening, and I think at some level you must know it.
The Republican AG is addressed in Curran’s letter, above. Why do I have to repeat what he said? Let’s verify that he actually knows the facts of the case, and that he’s something more relevant than a golfing buddy, before we jump to conclusions. Sound reasonable?
As to McCain being my candidate, that’s both irrelevant and false. Read my blog on the subject of McCain, you’ll find out just how much he’s my candidate.
I’ve been reading the argument over Judge Fuller’s alleged conflict of interest, and I have to confess I still don’t get it. You’re saying that because he invests in a company that does business with the government, he can’t properly judge any case the FBI investigates? Please tell me the argument amounts to more than that, ’cause that’s got to be the silliest complaint I’ve heard in the last 2 years. It would be a conflict if his company was doing business directly with one of the principles in a tort action, or if he was doing business with the defendant, or if he was in direct competition with the defendant and had a business interest in the outcome of the case. Show me that, or drop the issue, ’cause it sounds to me like you’re reaching, and it sounds to me like you’re slandering an honest man.
Finally, at the bottom of page 3, Judy White’s affidavit begins describing US Attorney Alice Martin’s and Jefferson County Committeewoman Bettye Collins’ inner personal goals for advancement, and proceeds to weave a tale of collusion between them to which she wasn’t even pretending to be party. To call this “hearsay” is to insult hearsay. You say I lost you when I indulged in clairvoyant speculation, but all it took to identify that it wasn’t her experience was to read the damn affidavit. I suggest you do so: “clairvoyant speculation” describes it much better than it describes my post.
I’ll say it again: despite 7 years of dust and thunder, I have yet to see a single, credible indictment against the Bush administration. They seem an unusually clean bunch, and the only evidence to the contrary is the nonstop howling of demented coyotes from the Left. The complaint about the trial of Don Siegelman looks like more of the same; all the evidence I’ve been reading suggests that the man was as guilty as Al Capone, and deserves his stretch in the clink. So I ask again: why aren’t you pleased that your house has been cleaned for you? ’cause let me assure you, that’s how I feel when a Republican office-holder gets taken down for real crimes; I don’t want ‘em in my party.
(While we’re at it, explain to me why, if the Bush Justice Dept is so intent on prosecuting Democrats and protecting their own, did they prosecute Enron, Worldcomm, and the Abramoff machinery? I’m really curious to hear how you wingnuts explain that.)
“I’ll say it again: despite 7 years of dust and thunder, I have yet to see a single, credible indictment against the Bush administration. They seem an unusually clean bunch, and the only evidence to the contrary is the nonstop howling of demented coyotes from the Left”
Now I don’t even know many Republicans who would make such a ludicrous statement. There you go, writing a very good rebuttal, then completely destroying your credibility by showing how far out you are in the rarified air of ultra right wing lala land…where evidence against Republicans is magically wiped clean and evil Dems are cast into the pool of fire…
As for Republican corruption, I’m glad you brought up Abramoff (very pertinant in discussing Riley and Siegelman) and Enron. Those are a few cases where the crimes were so blatant and egregious they couldn’t sweep them under the rug, no matter how hard they tried, and are still trying.
Now I don’t even know many Republicans who would make such a ludicrous statement. There you go, writing a very good rebuttal, then completely destroying your credibility by showing how far out you are in the rarified air of ultra right wing lala land…
You can be sure that my rebuttal on any indictment against the Bush admin that you bring will be of the same quality you’re seeing here. I would readily admit to any accusation for which there’s sufficient evidence. That there’s not a single instance of this in 7 years of wholehearted digging, including 300 Congressional investigations and more than a million documents, is truly remarkable; I would not have believed it possible. Yet it seems to be true. About the best you can do is poor Scooter Libby — and he simply failed to remember a conversation in the middle of an interview (kinda like what Hillary Clinton did in the hearings about Whitewater). In terms of dirty politics, that’s awfully tame stuff. Sorry, I say what the facts tell me, even if they seem unbelievable to you.
I bring up Abramoff because the fact that the “corrupt, partisan” Bush Justice Dept prosecuted him seems like pretty solid evidence that the Bush Justice Dept isn’t partisan.
Your attempt at a rebuttal was just silly: “They couldn’t sweep them under the rug.” The crimes were so obscure that you would never have noticed them. Abramoff was laundering campaign contributions and bribes through native American casinos. Are you telling me the public was watching those casinos and noticed unexpected sums of money coming out of them, and the outcry against it grew so great that despite years of stonewalling they could no longer ignore it (you know, like happened with Whitewater/Castle Grande)?
Pure horse hockey. The Justice Dept put in years of investigation and produced solid evidence. If they were what you say they are, they would have simply refused to investigate, and all that would have happened would be Democrat wonks screeching on the Daily Kos. You didn’t have to do that, though, because THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOBS.
I’d like to know if you think that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld actually believed the BS they spewed about Saddam and WMD, or are they all just amazingly stupid? Do you really believe that we weren’t lied into war when the blatant lies are captured on media for all to see?
If you do, then you are more pathetic than the spineless blowhard democrats who and always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time.
Do you really believe that we weren’t lied into war when the blatant lies are captured on media for all to see?
The torrid language makes me think an explanation is probably wasted. But I’ll make the attempt.
The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, both with the complete agreement of Congress, laid out a thorough and complex case against Saddam Hussein’s government, for which there is plenty of documentation in the public record. That case included:
1) Hussein was a destabilizing force in the region, having attacked two of his neighbors and keeping an inordinately large standing army.
2) Hussein was brutal to his own country, engaging in crimes against humanity and possibly genocide using banned weapons.
3) Hussein was funding and aiding terrorist organizations.
4) Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, which were banned by UN agreements after the 1991 Gulf War, and which could easily fall into the hands of international terrorists.
5) Hussein was flouting several UN resolutions, refusing to cooperate with inspectors, violating no-fly zones, and continuing to engage in behaviors he had agreed to cease after the 1991 Gulf War.
Each of those 5 indictments against Hussein, above, was supported by several individual data items. The only items in the entire case that are even remotely in doubt, even today, are two of the supporting clauses for #4: we’ve only found relative small caches of chemical weapons, and the aluminum tubes were not really for nuclear weapons (they were for medium-range missiles, also banned by UN resolution.) Every other aspect of the Bush admin’s case for war against Iraq was completely true. That’s actually a remarkably good performance, given the general ineffectiveness of the CIA. And there are reasons to think that some portion of the chemical weapons were transferred to other countries (like the Sarin gas incident in Jordan in 2004). So, yeah, I think they believed the BS they spewed. And I think history has borne them out.
I also note that the most glaring fact from the Left’s ongoing attempts to prove that the Bush admin cherry-picked the data and lobbied for a pre-determined outcome is how very badly they wanted for it to be true, indicated by the number of times they claimed they’d found the Golden Fleece of evidence, only to be proved wrong. There have been several books published by officials from inside the Bush admin, and several Congressional investigations, and they all come up with the same general conclusion: fallible human beings making a good-faith attempt at policy.
Plumb Bob, The people who should question Simpson are in Congress, and they did. They subpoenaed Simpson, and she appeared before them to answer their questions.
Again, Simpson’s testifying before Congress demonstrates more courage than her critics have displayed.
Thanks for referencing the blogs. I have a reference for you. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Read the part about checks and balances carefully.
Is courage what it takes to fabricate unlikely, unbelievable, and unsubstantiated stories in front of Congress?
Brain, I acknowledge your opinion in regard to Jill Simpson. However, it is not Congress’s job to conform to your opinion of what you think merit’s an investigation. What objection do you have to Congress’s requiring Miers, Bolten, and Rove to observe subpoenas from the United States Congress, or do you have an objection?
Did I suggest that was Congress’ job? No.
I realize you guys have this unhealthy hatred of Karl Rove. I don’t understand it, but I realize it. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t claim to understand the technicalities of whether he should or should not testify. If I were Rove I would testify. I can appreciate why he wouldn’t want to given the sheer scorn that all Democrats have for him. The “testimony” would be a useless spectacle with libs grandstanding for their acolytes.
Rove has about as much to do with Siegleman’s case as the prime minister of Mongolia. I’m sure Horton will tie him to the prosecution eventually as well – citing unnamed sources, of course. You guys just can’t help but interject him into everything you don’t like. It really is quite unhealthy. The only person who has tied him to Siegelman’s case is Simpson, who (as I’ve said repeatedly) is about as credible as a flat Earther.
Also, my position on Rove is that I don’t care for him either, but for a different reason. You hate him out of some kind of amplified sore loser frustration. I disapprove of him because I think the politics he employed were unhealthy for the GOP in the long term. He was fixated on winning the races in front of him by any (legal) means possible, most notably using absurd wedge issues. I think the party should focus on more serious issues and plainly explain why big government socialism doesn’t work. Gays and abortion are not issues that excite me at the polls.
#47- Ooooh, good one Gen! Unfortunately, I fear Simpson could be another “dan rather document” who will be used to undermine any and all valid claims in this case. Her credibility is surely taking a beating.
Plumb Bob!! Aaaaagh!! I was about to give up, but I’m just a sucker for punishment!
He who smelled it dealt it: pure horse hockey. At the very BEST, Bush & Co acted on wishful thinking, which is a disgraceful way to take a nation into and illegal, grossly immoral, pre-emptive war.
Those are really feeble Saddam arguments, all of which could easily apply to North Korea, who actually COMPLETED their NUCLEAR WEAPONS program while we were bogged down in the sand looking for sarin residue. But of course, they had no oil.
If I, in my humble role as a casual, yet well educated observer, knew from reading the reports of the weapons inspectors before they were yanked out so we could proceed with the bombing, that all those claims were BS, then you can bet your ass that they did too, and lied so they could proceed with the plan as outlined in the PNAC declaration.
And in your zeal to defend all things bush, I know your game. You claim that you will act impartially when presented with evidence of wrongdoing, but I don’t believe that for a second. Your’re having too much fun with this intellectual masturbatory exercise to even let it register in your frontal lobe. You just look for new ways to vehemently discredit anyone who dares to speak out in opposition, which is evident from your blind hatred of anything that comes from the “left”
I just listened to a LONG compilation of video clips showing blatant lie after blatant lie, which is easy enough to find. But I know that all you would think of is how to defend your brain from your lyin eyes, and to find the convoluted logic that somehow makes it all OK. Or maybe you actually believe the lies just because they’re coming from the “right”. That’s even scarier. Willful suspension of disbelief is quite an attribute in your camp, isn’t it.
Ok, ok, don’t start listing how N korea is different from Iraq, my point was that they DID exactly what we were accusing Saddam of, for real, while we were looking elsewhere.
Those are really feeble Saddam arguments, all of which could easily apply to North Korea…
Really? Let’s try:
1) Destabilizing force, attacking neighbors? Not in the last 50 years…
2) Crimes against humanity, genocide? Nope. Gross stupidity, but that’s unfortunately common…
3) Funding and aiding terrorists? Probably.
4) Developing WMDs? Yep.
5) Flouting UN resolutions? Not to the same degree.
Plus, offing North Korea does not influence a population of 1.6 billion potential terrorists the way a free, stable, prosperous Iraq does. Nor does a free Korea border the OTHER major destabilizing force in the region, Iran. Plus, we don’t have a 15-year history of trying to get them to cooperate. Plus, they didn’t try to off one of our ex-Presidents. Plus, as you say, there’s no oil there.
Not a great comparison, actually.
You claim that you will act impartially when presented with evidence of wrongdoing, but I don’t believe that for a second.
Well, I really am pretty impartial the first time I examine an argument. However, I’ve heard the Bush-deranged blather you’re offering so many times I can refute it while driving 70 miles an hour, listening to Chick Corea on the stereo, and eating a hamburger. You’re correct about your noise not reaching my frontal lobe, but that’s not because there’s anything wrong with my facts, just an indication of how trite you’re sounding. And yeah, I’ve seen the video clips you’re talking about — partisan horse shit taken 18 miles out of context, all easily refuted.
End of discussion. Bye.
gen wrote: “It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Read the part about checks and balances carefully.”
I’m apparently more familiar with the Constitution than you, and also more familiar with the relevant facts. Lefties keep testing their insane claims against the Bush admin in court. They keep losing. There really IS a separation of powers between Congress and the Executive — and it firmly establishes that how the Executive branch conducts its Constitutional mandate is NONE OF CONGRESS’ GOD DAMNED BUSINESS, so long as they obey the law — which, so far, they’ve demonstrated that they’re doing at every turn. This is truly not all that difficult to understand, if your goal is really about maintaining a proper balance between the branches of government.
On the other hand, if your goal is to bludgeon the Executive of the opposing party into doing your bidding and convince the gullible rank and file that you’re a bulldog going after those eeeeeeeevil Repubs, a nonstop brace of harassing investigations and ridiculous requests for documentation does the trick nicely.
We can’t stop you Democrats from behaving like demagogues; it’s in your nature. But we know the Constitution well enough to snort appropriately when you try to hide your demagoguery behind Constitutional claims. It’s all just political theater put on by the few for the unthinking many of the D party, and if you’re not aware of that, guess which group you belong to?
As to Ms. Simpson’s courage, my goal is actually to determine the truth, not to give out awards for the most courageous performance, so I won’t argue the point. Simpson’s testimony has not been corroborated by a single player in the affair. Not one, and plenty of folks have asked. It’s not even remotely credible. It doesn’t pass the laugh test, let alone the smell test. You believe it because you want to, not because it makes any sense. I can’t help that, but I don’t take you seriously because of it. Sorry, that’s just a fact.
Wow, that’s pretty ugly stuff plumby, I’m really glad you’re in such a small, shrinking minority in this country. No wonder you feel you have to yell so loud.
Plumb Bob, So you think that it is in the best interests of America that we have a permanent Rublican majority?
Brian, maybe part of the interest regarding Karl Rove fits generally under the application of folk wisdom that you referenced earlier in discussing Don Siegelman—that there was been just too much smoke for there to have not been any fire. But more specific issues exist to account for the American public’s interest in Rove.
In regard to those issues, Congress has determined that ample reason exists to subpoena Karl Rove to appear and to answer their questions. The subpoena seems to be more of an action that is taken in a “healthy” democracy than the vague charge that was made of “unhealthy” hate applied indiscriminately to American citizens who simply want answers to the questions that Congress plans to ask. Can you defend Rove’s, Miers’s, and Bolten’s ignoring their congressional subpoenas?
Your attempt to downplay or dismiss Democrats’ visceral loathing of all things Rovian is beyond amusing. You make it sound as though you’re simply disappointed in him for not testifying before Congress. I smell BS.
Brian, Look on your soles of your shoes!
I’m not sure whether to be flattered, insulted, or just amused by Plumb Bob’s statement that any part of my affidavit “was clearly added by an attorney, and was not Judy White’s personal experience.” My affidavit was written entirely and exclusively by me, then printed, executed, and notarized before being submitted to anyone, including any attorney. And, while there are endless questions and speculation, please keep in mind that speculation is not fact-based, so speculating that someone “sat silently” is meaningless. There has been no indication that the affidavit was the first telling of the events. The affidavit is my statement UNDER OATH, of my own experiences and knowledge, for the purpose stated in the affidavit. That does not mean that other discussions did not occur, including discussions as the events occurred. Please keep in mind also that no affidavit can include everything from 1999 through 2008.
Judy, Thanks for your rational response to Plumb Bob’s irrational accusations based on his ill-tempered ranting. The only “facts” that he can envision are spawned from his conception of a reality, where only he and his species deserve to speak or to question events, such as those pertaining to the imprisonment of former governor Don Siegelman.
Many questions have been raised that remain unanswered. For one, “Why has Siegelman been denied the most basic right of an American citizen—that is, to appeal his case?”
Don Siegelman’s prosecution is the result of Alice-in-Wonderland-Martin’s humiliation and vindictiveness over losing the first Scrushy trial.
Judy, I appreciate you responding to defend your sworn affadavit. Plumb Bob is living in a fantasy world where justice is truly blind to the misdeeds of all Republicans, EXCEPT for those who don’t walk in lockstep with the great leader who is above the laws of man.
Could you respond also to Brian’s statement:
“The Gary White connection you point out is so tangential that it scarcely merits a response. Why did his wife, or even Mr. White himself, wait until after he was convicted to issue such an affidavit? It seems to me that one might want to report attempts to coerce testimony at the time it happened. Mrs. White is effectively saying that her husband had evidence (or at least their word) that the government was trying to coerce his testimony and they sat silently while two ostensibly innocent men were convicted and sentenced. Give me a break.”
It seems like the Judge certainly felt it was worthy of a response.
It was in the earlier response: “speculating that someone “sat silently” is meaningless. There has been no indication that the affidavit was the first telling of the events. The affidavit is my statement UNDER OATH, of my own experiences and knowledge, for the purpose stated in the affidavit. That does not mean that other discussions did not occur, including discussions as the events occurred. Please keep in mind also that no affidavit can include everything from 1999 through 2008.” In other words, there is no statement or indication that the misconduct we experienced was not reported at the time it occurred. And please understand that I am not free to fully and completely disclose everything due to on-going activities.
I’m coming to this months later, only just now realizing that Judy White commented on my analysis. So, here’s my response.
Obviously, I can’t dispute that it’s Ms. White’s affidavit. However, I note that while the first three pages of the affidavit are clearly her personal experience, beginning at the bottom of page three, the affidavit leaves the clear personal narrative and launches into a discussion of state politics that begins like this:
Now, here, I’m intrigued. The first three pages were clearly her experience. This clearly is not; it’s political analysis. Ms. White has no special knowledge of Alice Martin’s motives, career aspirations, or political machinations; this is speculation on her part. If I were a judge reading your affidavit, I would take the first three pages as meaningful testimony, and what follows as her opinion about political matters, which is of no interest to the court. That was the point of my criticism.
I’m a writer; I noticed not only a clear break in the narrative at that point, but a clear change in the tone, style, and vocabulary of the writing. I don’t know if my analysis would stand up in court, but I doubt that the author of the first 3 pages was the author of the rest. The second author is crisp and precise, and uses words like “intermingled,” “evocative,” and “coerced.” The first author rambles, makes errors in sentence structure, and uses simpler words. How that gets done legally, with Judy White’s signature on the entire, notarized document, we can only speculate — but that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
Ms. White also says:
She brought this up twice, and I have no idea what she’s talking about. The speculation I’m talking about is the speculation about Alice White’s political aspirations, collusion with Republican operatives, and plan to corrupt justice — none of which can properly be said to be things that she “experienced” or “know,” except as hearsay or analysis.
Plumb Bob, your analyses, speculation, and opinions are just that — and meaningless, as you are wrong about all of them. As for my experiences, I have been an active participant in Alabama politics for more than 20 years, and am writing a book about those experiences. Anyone can call himself a writer! If you read your own posting, surely you will notice enough errors to apologize for shaming the profession you claim, if, in fact, you are a writer. You shift from referring to me as “her” to “your” within the same sentence, leading a reader to confusion as to whom you are writing. And there is no Bettye Find Collins and there is no Alice White of whom I am aware.
Judy,
The person shift you pointed out was an artifact of editing on the fly. This forum is ad hoc discussion, not publication, and the best writers make the sorts of errors you’re pointing out. If the best you can come up with is to nit-pick typographical errors, then you clearly have no defense for the absolute CRAP in your dishonest affidavit.
Thanks for playing, and come on back when you’re actually capable of defending yourself.
Look, Judy,
This is all silly. I have no idea whether you’re telling the truth or not, as what you’d say would be the same in either case. But there’s also no reason why you should care what I think. I’m 2000 miles away and not connected in any way to the case. And there’s no reason why I should care what you think about my writing; I’m confident enough that I don’t need your imprimatur.
I apologize for my rudeness in the last post. Go your way, and make sense of your life in peace, and I’ll do the same with mine.
Plumb Bob,
You are correct that you are silly and rude. And, after all, I’m not the one hiding behind anonymity — you are, even while singing your own praises and skills as a writer and analyst of my writing. Your errors are not typographical, and your writing is, by definition and legal precedent, publication, as you have posted on the World Wide Web.