A quick primer on the Don Siegelman fantasy
Posted by BrianAfter “60 Minutes” ran their segment on the prosecution of Don Siegelman the story caused a fair amount of virtual ink to be spilled. This was the hope of the Siegelman advocates, but it looks like the story is blowing up in CBS’s face. Powerline has an excellent post detailing just how bad the 60 Minutes segment was and what a loon the star witness, Jill Simpson, is.
Obviously most people nationally are not familiar with the story about Don Siegelman so I thought I would write a quick primer and list some posts I’ve written on the topic.
Don Siegelman was governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. He was a strident supporter of an education lottery. The measure was put to the Alabama voters and it was defeated in 1999. His tenure went downhill after that and there was a chronic air of corruption. He was defeated in a close election in 2002 by Bob Riley.
In 2006 he was tried and convicted on federal charges for taking a bribe from HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Siegelman took out a $500,000 loan for the education lottery campaign and he was personally responsible for paying it back. An investigation by a Mobile Press-Register reporter named Eddie Curran revealed that he took $500,000 from Richard Scrushy and in exchange appointed Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board. According to the prosecution great pains were taken to hide the transaction. In 2007, one year after the conviction, he was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.
Since his conviction and incarceration it has become apparent that Siegelman intends to secure his freedom by trying to hitch his wagon to the US Attorney kerfuffle. Over the last year his surrogates have spun an increasingly bizarre and unbelievable narrative about how the prosecution was orchestrated by Karl Rove and that approximately half the federal government was in on it.
Initially the conspiracy theories were peddled about by an “independent journalist” (read: too partisan and factually challenged for the NY Times!) named Glynn Wilson. You can read about Wilson and his wild stories here and here. He was the man responsible for giving us Jill Simpson, the rural attorney who claims to be Karl Rove’s personal secret spy. Wilson’s leanings towards the Democrats aren’t exactly a secret and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he is supported in large part by people affiliated with the party or even Siegelman and Scrushy.
The next individual to take the free-Don torch was Scott Horton who blogs at Harper’s. Horton brought a small modicum of additional credibility to the table, but his pieces have the same look and feel as one authored by Glynn Wilson. There is copious, seething hatred for all things Bush that clearly clouds their judgment. Horton is exclusively a Democrat contributor.
Here are links to posts I’ve written with some background reading :
Related content:
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m surprised you would bring up the powerline piece, when they admit to being relative newcomers to this case, and when it has been so thoroughly trashed by Larissa Alexandrovna: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/an-open-letter-to-powerli_b_89341.html did you read her post? It’s awesome.
Siegelman was defeated in a “close election” partially because of the stink raised by the prosecution in question. The other reason was the closed door, middle of the night “discovery” of 3000 votes that tilted the total to Riley. This “glitch” discovery occurred after all democratic poll watchers had gone home, and NO other counties were affected. Then the republican AG (who was later granted a judgeship) immediately sealed the ballots and denied all attempts at a recount.
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, you have admitted yourself that his conviction reeks of politics, and that his prosecution was indeed politicallly motivated. Even a large majority of citizens in Alabama agree with that. Polical prisoners should not be tolerated in this country, even if they are democrats. Let’s remove that STENCH and try him on evidence alone, and this time get and impartial judge as agreed to by BOTH sides, and don’t withhold ANY of the mounds of exculpatory evidence from the Jury.
As for the rank hypocrisy of his prosecutors, remember the first case that was thrown out with prejudice by Northern district judge UW Clemon? There was nothing there!!! Even so, the prosecutors screamed bloody murder to get Clemon recused from the case, because he was too unbiased, citing minor indirect involvement with Siegelman. They even took their recusal attempt all the way to a federal appeals court, who also tossed it out for lack of grounds.
Then they went evidence shopping (documented in sworn affadavits) and looked for a more friendly judge, Mark Fuller, who had a KNOWN and DOCUMENTED series of conflicts with Siegelman. This was a DIRECT conflict, with mounds of corroborating testimony and substantial allegations of bias. Not to mention any of his substantial contracts with the DOJ and the DOD, and the inquiry into corruption and ethics violations. Yet he REFUSED to recuse himself, and denied all such motions by the defense. Leura Canary, the Bush appointee who started the prosecution, was married to the GOP man behind Seigelman’s opponent, and was forced to recuse herself, but still ran the prosecution from her district and in her office despite the advice of her professional staff to drop it.
I’ve read everything you have posted to support the prosecution and guilt of Siegelman, and you have brought up some very interesting points regarding his guilt that are worthy of consideration. But have you raised any questions about the motives of 3 former governors who appointed Scrushy to the SAME position, or any of the 140+ Republicans who were awarded high governmental positions after receiving large contributions? You HAVE to agree that the political STENCH from this case has done some serious damage to the very notion of blind justice, and that will take a very long time to get back. Yet you continue to attack the motives or credibility of anyone who speaks out publicly against this seemingly grotesque injustice, and have very little to say about the serious nature of the evidence and allegations they raise.
I recall the comments you made when Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted:
“Decisions like this illustrate the fact that the GOP has abandoned their former platform of being the law and order party. Hell, maybe Bush should commute the sentences of Scrushy and Siegelman.”
No, all we want is the transcript so he can file his appeal, and his release pending appeal. That’s fairly par for the course for a white collar crime and a defendant who’s not a flight ristk. Then we can get rid of all the crap and have fair look at his case with an impartial Judge. Why is that so unacceptable to you? It’s fairlly routine in cases that are far less controversial. There are too many questions raised by both parties to claim that impartial justice was done, and to stand against another look is to deny fair treatment, and ultimately justice itself.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
jack - are you a 9/11 Troofer too?
According to Larissa Alexandrovna, the ‘Birmingham News’ is “Alabama’s premier propaganda outlet”.
OMG! Brett Blackledge and the Pulitzer Prize committee are part of the conspiracy to create a ‘Permanent Republican Majority’. Alabama Democrats are prosecuted by the ‘Reich Ministry of Justice’ and are ‘political prisoners’.
Alexandrovna claims to be neither left nor right - she’s beyond such bourgeois classifications, but she is definitely a looney Leftie (and a 9/11 Troofer).
[QUOTE]I have done some screen work, most notably on the documentary 911: Press For Truth[/QUOTE]
http://www.atlargely.com/about_me.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_Press_for_Truth
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
I read Alexandrovna’s post a day or two ago and found it uncompelling. I found her initial premise dismissing Powerline because they are newcomers to be absurd. She is a “relative newcomer” as well to this issue with regards to people like me and, to a much greater extent, local journalists who’ve been coving Siegelman for years. Should we dismiss her thoughts as well since she is a “relative newcomer?”
Siegelman’s attorneys were not babes in the woods. Of everything factual (key word) that is being discussed now, I would suggest that they knew most, if not all, of it at the time. They couldn’t win in a court of law so they’re trying the case in the court of public opinion after the fact.
Aside, I don’t personally care for Judge Fuller myself. You can read a comment I’ve left elsewhere explaining why. And not to get you conspiracy minded people going, but the document I link to in my comment is a journal for the Retirement System of Alabama. The document was hosted on an Alabama government server. The document, which was there at the time, no longer exists. There is a less informative article from a previous issue of the RSA Advisor here (see bottom of page 3). Basically, just before he left his job as DA Fuller gave big raises to some number of employees. The obvious intent was to skew their pay scale so that they would draw more from the retirement system. That left a bad taste in the mouths of many Enterprise residents. It does not, however, mean he is a corrupt judge.
My problem with the Bush administration as it pertains to this specific case is that I think Siegelman is guilty. The mere fact that there is a broad perception that the Bush administration has engaged in political prosecutions gives people like Siegelman, who I think is as guilty as the day is long, wiggle room to proclaim their prosecution was political. If I had any skepticism about Siegleman’s guilt I might be on the other side of the fence.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Now Reactionary, the deficiencies of Alexandrovna’a post are painfully apparent without prejudicing the readers by pointing out her mental defects!
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Of course he’s guilty!! There’s NO DOUBT about the donation AND the appointment AND the meager attempts to keep it out of public scrutiny! SO WHAT? If that’s a crime, then we should throw the entire administration in jail!!! But no, Siegelman’s a Dem, and he’s got to pay! Even if EVERYTHING you say about his guilt is true, it’s still FAR LESS of a crime than than the allegations surrounding the case!!! I want that investigated, DONT YOU???? Let’s have some SWORN TESTIMONY from the other side, and RELEASE ALL THE DOCUMENTS pertaining to this case!!! What are they hiding, and WHY? Get this shit out into the light of day!! At least then we can look at ALL the facts! Maybe it gets Siegelman off, maybe it doesn’t. But in the interests of justice and to repair the damage done to judicial impartiality, this MUST be done.
You keep saying, yeah yeah yeah BUT he’s guilty, basically admitting to and brushing off ALL of the other serious allegations in this case. How about we leave Siegelman where he is, then, and FULLY INVESTIGATE these MUCH MORE SERIOUS CRIMES, most of which you have already acknowledged. Since that will remove your most oft-stated objection, are you also against THAT pursuit of truth?
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
And regarding Larissa, I understand that her interest in TRUTH is considered a mental defect by you guys? It certainly is by all the “science haters” on your side. Go ahead and point to ONE lie that she has published, and I will take it up with her.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
jack - tell me more about the “science haters” and the TRUTH.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I understand blind and unquestioning faith in the unprovable is a highly regarded value…? Dick and Karl knew this well, and employed it brilliantly with their base. But you first, tell me how she has LIED
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
jack - come on troofer, tell me about science haters, tell me how fire can’t melt steel…
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
What the hell are you babbling about, reactionary? I never said anything about them, nor implied to endorse that crap in any way. How lame, how typical. All you have is sarcasm, denigration and misdirection, because you can’t answer the questions.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I pointed out that Alexandrovna is a 9/11 Truther. That furthers the discussion by showing her point of view and investigative reporting skills. I maintain that she has displayed the same type of skills (and lack of judgment) in reporting on Siegelman (D - Federal Detention Center Oakdale). Short on facts and long on conjecture and conspiracy…
Then there’s the inflammatory language that is ignored. Most rational people might look at statements like “Reich Ministry” and conclude that the writer is engaging in hyperbole, except that Alexandrovna seems to believe her BS.
I asked you to explain your comment about “science haters”. I took it as a defense of Alexandrovna and the Truthers…
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
At first I thought you meant the nuts at 9/11 loose change when you referred to “troofers”. I read all the information at the link you provided, and it’s basically families of victims who are asking questions about what happenned. What do you have against that form of free speech? There was one bit that could be regarded as dubious, when they questioned the way the buildings fell down. But at that time, the NIST was basically contradicting the FEMA report, and asking questions is wholly appropriate. You want us to swallow government explanations for everything without question? I swear, If Clinton was President when 9/11 happenned, YOU would be one of the “troofers”, and you know it.
So how does that in any way point to Alexandrovna being a liar? All you give me is innuendo, guilt by association, and that you don’t like her style. Give me something specific, like she has on this Siegelman case.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Press for Truth is a fairly straight up doc about the self-named Jersey Girls. IIRC, it basically traces the Jersey Girls involvement in the creation of the 9/11 Commission, their interest in and relationship to Paul Thompson, and then their criticism of the 9/11 Commission (much of which has been, over the years, taken up by members of the Commission themselves.) The Jersey Girls were instrumental in the creation of the commission and deeply involved in its activities. I’d say they deserve a small documentary. As 9/11 movies go, it’s somewhere between Flight 93 and Fahrenheit 9.11. I don’t remember any death ray beams or whatever in the movie but the Jersey Girls are very direct in their criticism of some aspects of the Commission and the administration. There are many reasons I don’t read Alexandrovna’s blog more than once a month but that movie is not one of them.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Explain the motorcycle.
And also tell me why no one is agitating for Scrushy’s release.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:47 am
No body cares about Scrushy because he wasn’t a politician with a “D” by his name. If all these folks were truly interested in “justice” they would be advocating vehemently for him as well. Instead they operate on the false premise that Democrats are incapable of corruption.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:39 am
From what I’ve read, Scrushy was already heavily suspect and very unpopular, and was a convenient way to bring Siegelman down. We all know that he was’nt the main target. Let the facts fall from the tree where they may, but don’t run around screaming foul just because it’s happenning. I never thought you would advocate for ignorance and obstruction.
“Instead they operate on the false premise that Democrats are incapable of corruption.”
Come on, Brian, you’re really reaching for turdblossoms now. You’re better than that, surely. No one is saying we should ignore his guilt, we just want the circumstances of his EXTREMELY selective and vindictive prosecution investigated, and a CHANCE to really see what happenned. Release the documents, and testify!! Jeez!!
March 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Free Richard Scrushy! Free Nick Bailey! Pardon Lanny Young!
March 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Has anyone else noticied that Seigelman was acquited on every charge except those involving Scrushy. Even though there appeared to be much more and better evidence on those other charges.While Seigelman may have been the target of the prosecution , Scrushy may have been the target of the jury
March 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Old Prosecutor, makes sense to me. Offered as a matter of pure speculation, a jury might find it improbable to convict a corrupter and acquit the corruptee. We’ll never know for sure.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Old Prosecutor, I agree that Scrushy didn’t help, to put it charitably. I’ll file it under “if you lie down with dogs don’t be surprised if you wake up with fleas.”
March 4th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Old Prosecutor - I didn’t realize that the Obstruction of Justice charge was related to Scrushy…
Count 17 (obstruction of justice) _Bailey $2,973 check as “balance due” on motorcycle. CONVICTED.
http://www.aptv.org/FTR/Other/SGVERDICT.asp
March 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Well, using that logic, then why did the jury let Hamrick off? He is as corrupt as Siegelman, Scrushy, Young, Blount and Bailey. I guess we will never know, but I do predict Nick and Don will move to Massachusetts and get married. Then we will see them on MSNBC starring in the Lock-Up reports, after a gay spat lands them back in the pokey.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
[...] Rove called Jill Simpson, his alleged secret spy, a “complete lunatic.” I happen to [...]
July 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
[...] such noted luminaries as Glynn Wilson (he’s got credentials!) - the man who brought us Dana Jill Simpson. Wilson is known to have a fleeting relationship with the truth and a political axe to grind. [...]