Rove discusses Siegelman prosecution
Breaking news: Karl Rove admits to orchestrating the Don Siegelman prosecution!!!
Judiciary Democrats asked little about Don Siegelman’s bribery conviction, despite overheated assertions by the Times, Scott Pelley of CBS’s “60 Minutes,” and various MSNBC talking heads that I was behind the prosecution of the former governor. Judiciary Democrats didn’t get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations. Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness. I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony.
Calling Dana Jill Simpson “eccentric” and “an unreliable witness” have got to be the understatements of the year.
Maybe Rove’s sworn testimony – in which he disavowed any role in the successful prosecution of former governor Siegelman – will placate the couple of dozen rabid far left “Free Don” advocates in Alabama. And maybe Packers fans will give Brett Favre a warm, standing ovation when he sets foot on Lambeau Field in a Vikings uniform.
regardless of how you feel about Rove-canary-canary-Riley-Abramoff connections in the Siegelman case, and regardless of how you see jill simson in this context, she did give sworn testimony — acres of it — to judiciary committee. rove had to know that but he has a political combat style that includes attack, attack, attack, facts and truth be damned, so he wrote that she didn’t testify under oath. did he testify under oath?
Ivan, my memory could be a bit fuzzy, but I believe Simpson gave a sworn statement or testimony to a judiciary committee in 2007 (previous Congress). Were there questions from members? Were both Republicans and democrats involved? I don’t believe so, but I could be wrong. Rove participated in a Q&A w/ the committee during this Congress under oath. As I understand it, Simpson was not included in this (she probably wasn’t asked to participate since they have rightly deemed her as unreliable).
Has Siegelman EVER spoke about his crimes under oath? No. Not in his trial and not to any Congressional committee. Everything he has said has been in emails, speeches, and so forth. All outside the confines of possible perjury. If he is innocent of the crimes that a jury of his peers convicted him of beyond a reasonable doubt then why not testify under oath?
Brain,
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one in the blogosphere, but according to my understanding of the American judicial system aka the rule of law aka juris prudence, defendants don’t have to prove their innocence, the burden of proof is on the government to prove defendents guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the accused aren’t required to testify under oath and juries are instructed not to consider it when they deliberate.
Governor Siegelmans’ defense attorney’s defended Governor Siegelman presented evidence though court documents and testimony, so so say Siegelman only presented his side via emails speeches and so forth is incorrect.
Redeye,
Of course you are not a lawyer.
The prosecutors did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He was found guilty and as Brian points out he is working through his appeals right now.
HE didn’t go on the stand under oath because his lawyer determined he had a better chance of getting off without him opening his mouth under oath.
The fact that Siegelman has shifted his attack from “Political Prosecution!” to “Fire these prosecutors!” shows how weak he feels his case is.
The best part about all of this, is that outside the liberal blogosphere nobody cares about Don Siegelman.
I bet you think OJ is innocent too.
You are absolutely correct inasmuch as defendants are not obliged to testify. Siegelman chose not to testify, obviously believing that doing so would only harm his case, and a jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. My point was that Siegelman runs around now saying that he is innocent and/or wrongly prosecuted everywhere except where he has to make such statements under oath.
I still maintain that it is a definite possibility that he was the target of a politically motivated prosecution AND turned out to be guilty. OR… he was the target of a prosecution with pure motives AND turned out to be guilty. There is a common theme between those two possibilities.
I don’t personally care for Rove. But here is my take on this situation. The Don is guilty. He knows it. But, like most people he wants to exhaust all options to get off. Having lost in court (including all appeals to date) he sees one last chance: harnessing the far left’s foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for Karl Rove and all things Bush. If he can use that vociferous, motley bunch to foment enough perceived indignation then maybe, just maybe, he can get a pardon or at least a scalp (misery loves company). He’ll probably appeal to the SCOTUS, but he seems to have effectively abandoned any hope that he will be acquitted by a court of law. On one level I don’t blame him for fighting so vigorously. But, at some point you have to admit and atone for what you have done and stop trying to fabricate grandiose stories of vast political conspiracies.
Brian,
The left doesn’t have a “foaming at the mouth hatred of all things Bush”, we have a passionate love for our country and the ideals and principles for which it stands. It’s not about Siegelman personally for us, it’s about liberty and justice for all. You say you believe Siegelman is guilty, but you don’t say what you believe he is guilty of doing. At some point you are going to have to put aside your foaming at the mouth hatred of all things Siegleman and look at the situation objectively.
Why would Brian have to say what he is guilty of? The courts already did… He was convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice .
I would think that most people don’t give a crap about Seigleman but are just amused by the lefts love of him.
Find a hero that is worthy of all your heartache.
I don’t have any particular hatred of Siegelman. I’m sure he’s a pretty nice guy, actually. But he did break the law and a jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not just saying that. It is a finding of fact. My only amusement is watching people so vocally defend a rightfully convicted felon.
step back for a minute in the siegelman case and put aside the jill simpson testimony, the indictment dropped in bham fed court after a judge said it was phony, and then revived in montgomery fed court, the whole background. look at the trial itself. the judge, fuller, who is also a full time defense contractor who used his fed building office as address for his company(s), is a bitter siegelman political enemy. it goes back to when fuller was a county da and got appointed fed judge. fuller phonied paperwork on an aide’s retirement and may still be in legal trouble over it. siegelman was gov then and fuller, a very political republican, had it in for the gov. he gets to sit on the case. nobody objectively can say the jury’s communications and e mails during the trial didnt taint the decision. appeals judges said it didnt taint it enough to throw it out. hard-line republican appeals court judges. one of the glaring highlights of the trial was siegelman immediately handcuffed and pulled out of the courtroom, into the maws of the federal prison system, when he was found guilty. almost always, after a public figure’s conviction, he or she is given a certain amount of time to settle affairs and/or file an appeal. actually, siegelman’s treatment resulted in a huge public outcry, a lot of notice in judicial circles, a huge number of state atty generals — democratic and republican — signing a letter saying he never should have been indicted and tried. republican political mistake — it backfired on them.