That is a favorite quote of mine given by a spokesman for Bob Riley in response to asinine speculation on some blogs.

Today we have this headline on a Reuters story: Poll: Most Americans don’t read political blogs.

A majority of Americans do not read political blogs, the online commentaries that have proliferated in the race for the U.S. presidency, according to a poll released on Monday.

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

…

Unlike traditional, mainstream media, blogs often adopt a specific point of view. Critics complain they can contain unchecked facts, are poorly edited and use unreliable sources.

I’m not sure if that last sentence is directed towards blogs or the “traditional, mainstream media.”

You can read more about the study on the Harris Interactive website, although the actual questions used to form the poll are not included.

The study and accompanying headline over little insight into the meaning of the data, though.  I would suggest that most people in this country aren’t terribly interested in politics and therefore wouldn’t be inclined to read political blogs.  Political blogs are the domain of the politically active and the political junkies.  Harris Interactive should have asked how many of the respondents actually cared about politics and followed up by asking them to name their two U.S. senators as proof they are at least minimally knowledgeable about politics.  Some quick looking around the internets at other polls indicates that typically only about 30-35% of people can name both senators, which isn’t much more than regularly read political blogs.  The 65-70% that aren’t politically involved enough to name their senators should be excluded from the sample population.

One of the more interesting findings that the media reports conveniently omitted was that 30% of regular blog readers consider blogs more accurate than the mainstream media, while 22% consider them less accurate and 48% deemed them “about as accurate.”  Also, nearly twice as many respondents classified as regular blog readers consider political blogs more valuable than mainstream media.

The poll comes on the heels of another Harris Interactive poll in which 54% of all adults said they “tend not to trust” the press. Ouch.  Radio led both Republicans and Democrats (!) as the form of media they tend to trust.  “Internet news and information sites” (not sure if that includes “political blogs”) was second among all adults in the “tend to trust” ranking.

I’ll climb on my soap box now…

Personally I like political blogs (as you might expect).  I think they are a great way for politically interested individuals discuss what is happening in the halls of power.  You should approach them with the proper perspective, though.

Bloggers have agendas.  Deal with it and don’t forget it.  One could argue that traditional media has them as well, but they are filtered more finely through editorial processes.

You can learn from blogs, but don’t trust them to be accurate.  Do your own independent research to confirm or deny anything you read on a blog.

Commenters can be mean and ignorant (the two typically go hand in hand).  Don’t take it personally.  Ignore it if you can.

Some bloggers think they are junior journalists, but they aren’t.  It takes no formal training to operate a blog.  Theoretically our work doesn’t measure up to the standards employed by reputable news outlets.  Keep this in mind.  If you’ve been reading about something salacious on blogs for a while, but it hasn’t made it into the mainstream media there is probably a reason, namely a dearth of concrete details and credible witnesses.  Say what you will about corporate media ownership they are in business to make money and scandal sells.  If they can justify printing a story that will attract ears and eyeballs you can bet your house they will run it - if it meets their standards (and occasionally when it doesn’t).

I don’t pretend to be some type of reporter and I don’t put on airs that I am unbiased.  I try to be factual and I beg you to point out any errors I ever make.  You’re not going to hurt my feelings.  I choose not to have advertisements here; we are all exposed to enough of that.  I blog because I’m a political addict and this is my hobby, my outlet.  It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than golf.  I’m not a trained writer - and it shows.  I enjoy vigorous discussion and I try to be respectful to opposing viewpoints.  You’re always welcome to kick off your shoes, look around, and engage in a dialog.

After “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 :

• Obligatory pre-60 Minutes Siegelman post
• Comments on the Don Siegelman 60 Minutes report
• Red Alert! - Worth a read
• Eddie Curran’s letter to 60 Minutes - A must read
• Credit where credit is due - almost
• Cynthia Tucker chimes in on Siegelman

Lot’s of crazy conspiracy theorists are finding a bit of egg on their faces right now.  The list is long and sordid, including, but most certainly not limited to, the New York Times.

After WHNT’s broadcast of the Don Siegelman segment on 60 Minutes suffered technical problems that resulted in the bulk of the story not being seen many assumed that it was an intentional act by WHNT.  The ringleader was, as usual, Scott Horton of Harper’s.  The veracity with which Horton and his ilk - including the Alabama Democrat Party - presumed it was an intentional political hit job was astounding. 

Horton immediately made up his mind that the blackout was an intentional act.  He claimed that some unnamed person at CBS told him it was an “editorial decision” by the station.  [I would link to the particular column, but he has since removed this language.]  He went on to state that the station was owned by Oak Hill Partners, which “represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party.” [Again, he has removed this from his site as well.]

Fortunately the internets often lets our words live on long after we might otherwise desire.

It turns out that all of the wacky conspiracy talk about the blackout was bunk.  (I’m just shocked.)  WHNT has since offered sufficient description of the technical errors, including a timeline of events.  Better yet, it turns out that the particular member of the Bass family that runs Oak Hill Partners is predominantly a Democrat contributor and has never, I repeat, never given one thin dime to George Bush.  The New York Times issued a correction to their piece and published an additional article that is something of a mea culpa.  As for Horton, he was a big boy and wrote his own “oops” piece which was quite fair - right up until the end.  Here goes:

I have now gotten considerably more detail on the political campaign donations of the investors behind Oak Hill Capital Partners, the investor group that acquired WHNT from the New York Times Company in 2006. The key figure in the Oak Hill group is Robert M. Bass. His campaign donation profile shows that he has supported both Democrats and Republicans, but that his donations to Democrats far exceed those to Republicans. The complete five-year search can be examined here. Note specifically that he has never supported George W. Bush–either in his races for governor of Texas or president. Sid, Edward and Lee Bass, who have been heavy Bush supporters, do not appear to have any interest in Oak Hill Capital Partners. Consequently, the supposition that the blackout at WHNT was politically driven censorship on the part of the ultimate owners has no merit. The station continues to insist that the problems were purely technical.

He was doing so well and then had to toss in that last sentence.  Instead of saying something to the effect of, “Gee, it really does look like WHNT had technical problems,” he instead opts to say the equivalent of, “They’re still cowering behind their excuse, but I don’t believe them.”  He stubbornly writes that the station “continues to insist” as though it is some petulant child unwilling to fess up to its bad acts.  He would have done better to just leave that last sentence out.  Something tells me that his ego and myopia just wouldn’t let him do that, though.  No, he has to interject a hint of disbelief that there was no intent, although he does so by cowering behind the “I’m just telling you what they said,” tactic.

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.

As of 5:52 AM on 28 Feb., 2008 WHNT’s website is not up.  Obviously they knew I would be visiting their site this morning and have intentionally unplugged their routers to deny me access.  I demand an investigation!

I am joking of course, but there are still crazy people who think WHNT intentionally blacked out a portion of the “60 Minutes” special on Don Siegelman.  I haven’t dedicated a full post to the “blackout,” but you can read my thoughts in this comment thread if you are so inclined.  Here’s the synopsis:

If WHNT wanted to deny access to the segment, which would be the goal of a blackout, why turn it back on with a few minutes left?  Why rebroadcast it twice during convenient times?  Even if they did want to blackout the segment they had to know they effort was in vain.  Idiots have compared WHNT’ technical glitch to what happens in Russia.  This is ridiculous because the segment was available for public viewing on the internet, which means WHNT’s attempted blackout wouldn’t accomplish it’s goal.  I doubt that when Russia blacks out a media outlet for political reasons that they allow the same content to be widely available on a major website.

It was a technical problem.  They happen.  Was it a huge coincidence?  Yes.  When it happened I turned to my wife and commented on how all the free-Don nuts were going to be all over it.  Thank you for proving me right.

It’s 6:04 AM and the WHNT website is down.  Now I know something nefarious is happening.

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

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

As the prosecution put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you’ve been living under a rock here’s your notice.  The long awaited “60 Minutes” segment on the Siegelman prosecution airs tonight on CBS.  You can read the preview on the CBS website.

Based solely on the online teaser it doesn’t appear that the segment will offer any new revelations that their investigation has uncovered.  It does appear that “GOP operative” Jill Simpson has added new details, namely that Karl Rove asked her to do oppo research on Don Siegelman (which is legal, by the way), to her uncorroborated story that she has been peddling.  I don’t know about you, but if I issue a sworn affidavit and testify before Congress I don’t leave out details and then tell them to “60 Minutes.”

Interestingly, the legitimate reporter who has done the most work on the Siegelman corruption story, Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register, wrote a lengthy letter published in the Montgomery Independent.  Curran, who is on sabbatical while he works on a book, apparently had enough with the over the top “reporting” by some, primarily Scott Horton of Harper’s whose work has also been published in the Independent.  Curran’s piece is definitely worth a read.  It is pointed and biting.  And unlike the fluff writing by the pro-Siegelman advocates who seek to free their savior by tearing down anyone associated with the prosecution, Curran actually mentions why Siegelman has found himself behind bars.  You’ll also realize why the reputable news outlets in Alabama haven’t been slobbering over Simpson.  She claims to be the sole witness in a very large and elaborate cover up.  There is virtually no evidence to support her claims, which intuitively makes no sense given the scope of the operation she alleges.  Furthermore, one of her claims - that Siegelman conceded the 2002 election because of pictures from a KKK rally - just doesn’t even make sense, which I’ve pointed out before.  I personally think the funniest of her claims is that she asked Bob Riley to engage in an illegal kick back scheme, which doesn’t make me think too highly of Simpson, and Riley rebuffed her.

The radical element of the Left are bracing for a “swift-boat” operation by “paid shills” (where’s my check?!) against people like Horton after the “60 Minutes” segment airs.  I wouldn’t call whatever response they get a “swift-boating” as much as it will be a large number of people outside of Alabama looking into the matter for the first time and they will realize how crazy the columns written by Horton, Glynn Wilson, and others really are.

In one of the tastier bits of irony some of the Lefties are engaging in the very acts that made them view “Karl Rove” as a four letter word (two four letter words, actually).  When some on “Democratic Underground” (and I can see why they would want to stay underground) learned of Curran’s letter did they engage Curran based on the words he wrote?  No.  They went and dug up his property tax records and requests for zoning licenses - basically any document they could find with his name on it.  One of the other commenters responded, “My hero.”  Classy.  The phrase “politics of personal destruction” comes to mind.

I’ll try to offer my thoughts on the “60 Minutes” segment tonight if I have time.  Please feel free to offer yours in the comments.  Keep it civil.

Update: The Alabama Lefties have read the Curran piece and have carefully refuted his points childishly canceled at least one subscription to the Montgomery Independent for having the gall to publish columns representing both sides of a story.

In June of last year Brett Blackledge broke one of his many stories about the two-year college scandal in Alabama.  The story was about how an Auburn based contractor was engaged in a kick back scheme with then two year chancellor Roy Johnson.  The story involved the state board of education representative for the district I live in (Mary Jane Caylor), so I took particular notice.  My own research on the story pushed me deep into the murky waters of PAC-to-PAC transfers.  It has now taken me to the editor and publisher of an Alabama paper, The Montgomery Independent, and provides reasonable doubt about whether the owner is just an unbiased observer in the matter.

First some background…

Alabama Contract Sales was the Auburn contractor engaged in the kickback scheme.  It is (was?) owned by Tim Turnham, whose brother Joe is the Chairman of Alabama’s Democrat Party.  Turnham said in a plea deal that he “gave $7,500 to a political action committee, which then gave him checks written to Caylor’s campaign. Turnham said he gave the checks to Johnson so he could deliver them to Caylor.” 

I thought that it was a bit odd for an Auburn businessman to give money to a Huntsville mayoral candidate.  I thought it was downright suspicious that he would use PACs to obfuscate the source.  I set out to trace the money from Turnham to Caylor, which involved searching campaign finance documents from Madison county and the state.  I was able to determine how Turnham laundered the money (legally) through two PACs operated by a man named Jeffrey Archer Martin.  I also just recently learned that Martin is the son of Robert A. “Bob” Martin, the editor and publisher of the Montgomery Independent.

Jeff Martin, in addition to being a legal (for now) operator of multiple PACs, is also a Democrat activist in the state.  Martin was also the Executive Director of the Alabama League of Environmental Action Voters (AlaLEAVs) until about a year ago, although the group’s website still lists him as the ED.  Coincidentally Joe Turnham is the Founding Executive Director of AlaLEAVs.  One of Martin’s 21 PACs is the AlaLEAVs PAC.  It is the only one of his PACs that has been active within the last year.

The issue of why the money was given to Caylor hasn’t been solved.  Was Johnson just contributing to a friend and using Turnham as his personal ATM?  Or was this pay back for Caylor either supporting or turning a blind eye to Johnson’s antics?

Now is an appropriate time to briefly discuss PACs and how they operate.  A PAC is a Political Action Committee.  Virtually anyone can form one for any reason, as Dan showed us all last year, and they are great conduits for covertly contributing money.  The best analogy I have found is that PAC managers can be thought of as banks.  The numerous PACs that any one person might operate act as branches for the bank.  If you want to hide the source of money you might make two or three deposits in separate PACs.  You give your instructions to the PAC manager and he will make a withdrawal (or withdrawals) from whichever PAC he chooses and send the money to the intended recipient.  It doesn’t have to get passed directly through the same PAC because the manager can keep a ledger of who has made deposits and withdrawals over all the PACs he operates.  This is good for people engaged in unethical, illegal, or unpopular activities (like kickback schemes or gambling) as it allows candidates who receive the money to claim plausible deniability.  For voters, however, it makes it difficult to know where candidate’s loyalty lies.

Back to the story…

Surely Bob Martin is not oblivious to his son’s role in Roy Johnson’s efforts to defraud taxpayers, even if he was simply an unwitting participant.  As best I can tell with the blunt tool of a Google search Martin has written on the scandal directly three times in total, a rather paltry amount of ink dedicated to the biggest scandal this state has seen in quite a while.  Most recently he spent two paragraphs describing the participation of software company owner Winston Hayes in Johnson’s kickback scandal.  At the end of the second paragraph he writes:

[Johnson's driver] told prosecutors that he received cash from Hayes and an Auburn contractor, who has admitted paying kickbacks to Johnson and his family, and then gave the cash to Johnson or paid bills for the new house.

I wonder who that Auburn contractor could be and why Martin would pay them such cursory attention?

One might think that Jeff Martin’s role - even if he only served in the legal capacity of masking the money with his PACs - would be enough to cause his father to recuse himself from writing on the matter altogether.  Instead, Martin has chosen to go after the prosecutor (who is incidentally also named Martin) whose investigation could include questioning his his son to determine if he was aware that the money was tainted.  In a column published by the Randolph Leader Martin dredged up a 2003 allegation against U.S. Attorney Alice Martin for perjury that has not been resolved.  He insists that the situation would normally call for the dismissal of the prosecutor, but that Martin is well connected.  It should be noted that Bob Martin also publishes columns by Scott Horton, the rabid, semi-coherent, pro-Siegelman columnist for Harper’s, to run in his publication.  Horton has been doing his best to smear anyone and everyone associated with the prosecution and conviction of Don Siegelman.  If you’ve ever read one of Horton’s missives then you would certainly question Martin’s judgment or motives for running his slime - not to mention Horton’s sanity.

Now I am not defending Alice Martin on the issue of the perjury investigation.  I honestly don’t know enough about that particular accusation to ascertain whether it is legitimate or not.  I just question Bob Martin’s motives for bringing it up given his relationship to a person who could conceivably be questioned by Alice Martin to ascertain the extent of his role in the case.

Author’s Note: After I published the original post Jeff Martin and I corresponded offline.  He expressed concern that some of the language I originally used indicated that he was knowledgeable about Roy Johnson’s criminal endeavors at the time that Johnson and Tim Turnham sent the campaign contribution to Caylor through two of Martin’s PACs.  This was not the intent and there are no known facts that would support any such assertion.  I have modified parts of the original post to make this point clear.

A little less than a year ago the Huntsville Times ran an op-ed that cited a popular statistic claiming that China graduates 600,000 engineers as opposed to the U.S. total of 70,000.  The problem is that the numbers were shown to be bogus by a Duke University research team.  They found that the U.S. graduates 137,437 engineers with four year degrees as opposed to China’s total of 351,537.

For some reason, though, the Times is still using the statistic.  Here is the first question asked of Rex Geveden, a former deputy director of Marshall Space Flight Center:

Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson noted in a recent speech in Huntsville that China graduates 10 times more students with math and science degrees each year than the U.S. does. How do we get more high school and college students interested in science and engineering?

The Times could claim their hands are clean by hiding behind the fact that they were paraphrasing deGrasse Tyson, but that argument would be quite weak.  If deGrasse Tyson had asserted that the earth was flat surely the Times wouldn’t simply ask Geveden if one might inadvertently drive over the edge.

WVNN will be hosting a presidential forum on Feb. 5th during Dale Jackson’s morning show.  Representatives of each candidate - of which there seem to be fewer every day - will be taking part.  Dale was gracious enough to ask me to represent Ron Paul and I accepted.  I can’t wait to paint what is an increasingly stark contrast between the fiscal and small government conservatism that Paul represents versus the decidedly non-conservative positions of the remaining candidates.

So tune in to 92.5 FM or 770 AM from 6:00 to 9:00 AM on Feb. 5th.  The WVNN website also has a “listen live” feature.