Comments on: Siegelman released pending appeal; Scrushy deemed a flight risk

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:33:56 +0000

BOYCHIMP bush (aka lots of other pseudonyms), I’ll tell you this one time (I’m in the process of crafting formal standards for commenting). Habitual off topic comments will not be allowed. This blog is open to comments by anyone with few restrictions, but it is not a sounding board for saying whatever you feel on whatever topic you choose. Make sure your comments are somewhat germane to the topic in the post. Also, further comments like #9, which are both irrelevant and egregiously ignorant, will not be allowed. Start your own blog if you so choose. I’ll even add you to my blog roll.

By: BOYCHIMP bush

BOYCHIMP bush — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:08:16 +0000

Artur DAVIS would make and excellent Governor!

8 years and then an extended stay in the US Senate would be most welcome.

By: BOYCHIMP bush

BOYCHIMP bush — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:06:26 +0000

Brian…. would you mind …. posting your age and the number of years of formal education you have completed.. also… if you are under the age of 42 why are you a REPUBLICAN…. not in IRAQ keeping me SAFE?

By: gen

gen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:44:10 +0000

Brian,”The fact is that there is plenty of dirt on Siegelman (contrary to popular opinion he was convicted for a reason).”

What part of the dirt specifically was it that got Siegelman convicted–the crimes or the noncrimes?

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:21:55 +0000

Davis is both an attorney and an overall sharp guy. I think he made his point quite delicately. The fact is that there is plenty of dirt on Siegelman (contrary to popular opinion he was convicted for a reason). As I indicated, Siegelman was initially enthused because he thought it would be a friendly atmosphere, but Davis tossed a bucket full of reality on him.

By: gen

gen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:05:00 +0000

Thanks, Brian. I stand corrected on the point. I have read the reasoning behind Davis’s suggestion. Seems sound to me. What do you think?

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:46:26 +0000

gen, just to clarify - the sour grapes quote you used were my words, not those of the B’ham News.

Artur Davis has since suggested Siegelman might not want to testify because his own statements might be used against him.

By: gen

gen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:29:15 +0000

Hi Jack and numbertwopencil, How wonderful to think of the Siegelman family together in their home and Don, accessible to his lawyers!

Wow, what sour grapes on the part of the Birmingham News: “I can’t blame for wanting to testify in front of a committee led by fellow Democrats eager to cast stones at the Bush administration.”

These people remain oblivious to the fact that the Judiciary Committee has both reason and authority to subpoena Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten–and anyone else that they have good reason to think are subverting justice and undermining the rights of American citizens, such as being able to expect that the laws of our country will be applied to everyone in an equitable manner.

Jack, maybe the second domino will be the actual enforcement of the subpoenas!!!

By: jack

jack — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:17:06 +0000

Hallelujah!!

The first of many dominoes has fallen.

Turdblossom has already said something like: “I fully expect to be indicted by the end of the year.”

By: numbertwopencil

numbertwopencil — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:15:02 +0000

Compare Siegelman’s delays to the the speedy justice handed out to Brent Wilkes–out after 5 weeks on an appeal based on leaks to the media. (Ahem, Mr. Curran, you haven’t heard of any leaks that might have impacted the Siegelman jury have you?)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080329-9999-1m29wilkes.html

Of course, it’s a somewhat different case, involving different court and so on but, wow, I guess the resources at the DoJ are there for some cases and just not there for others.