15 Comments

• 1. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  This is getting to be a very weird story, and I hope to heaven none of it is true. But boy, it’s starting to look like it (apart from Matt’s ridiculous spin about Jefferson and Rezko). I heard that something like 40 USAs are requesting that the Siegelman affair be looked into. Is that true? If so, this has the potential to be very, very bad.

• 2. SEW  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm

  I think Rove also advised Sandy Burglar to find the incriminating classified info on Slick’s 9/11 knowledge and to simply stuff in his pants and socks. Evil Karl and Halliburton.

• 3. SteaM  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  Yeah, and Karl Rove hid all of the WMDs in the sand real good so no one could find them.

• 4. LiberalMind  |  December 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  There is enough malfeasance on the part of the Turdblossom already.

  No need to go making things up, like the Rovester did about Democrats.

• 5. KCJ  |  December 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

  How old you LiberalMind? 10 years old? Can’t you at least try to sound like you even know what you’re talking about?

• 6. plainjane  |  December 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

  Currently the Karl Rove vetted nest of neocons in the Justice Department are investigating Democrats vs Republicans at a 6 to 1 rate; purely the politicization of our once honored justice system. For those Neocons who always ask me to type slower so you can understand, this is equivalent of the Justice Department investigating 600 Democrats for every 100 Republicans. In most cases there is nothing there. They just want the headlines “Democrat under Investigation” and corporate media is in on it.

  Just when you think the good Bushies could not out do their damage to our government Repugs easily out sleaze themselves . Rove should lawyer up before 2009. Many Repugs in congress see the writing on the wall and are quitting in record numbers.

• 7. Christian Wright  |  December 18th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  Rove politicalized the Attorney Generals Office. Fired those that would not play ball and rewarded those that did.

  The unjust political prosecution of Siegelman cost tax payers 75m.

  Too bad the jury could not see through this and the judge’s instructions.

• 8. Matt Margolis  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

  So, prosecuting a corrupt Democrat is unjust?

• 9. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm

  Its clear you liberals haven’t picked up your copy of “Caucus of Corruption” - had you done that, you’d find that the allegations against Siegalman go back to 1999…there was a different President in office then. Additionally, the investigation of Siegalman, Scrushy and HealthSouth was precipitated by reports in the media. The prosecutors who handled the case are career prosecutors, not political appointees. But here you lefties go again - just automatically believing anything, as long as it reflects badly on President Bush and those associated with him. Do you guys on the left ever THINK at all? Siegalman is a crook - he stole money from the people to line his pockets and advance his career…and you’re defending him!

• 10. Ricorun  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:18 pm

  Mark: Its clear you liberals haven’t picked up your copy of “Caucus of Corruption” - had you done that, you’d find that the allegations against Siegalman go back to 1999…there was a different President in office then. Additionally, the investigation of Siegalman, Scrushy and HealthSouth was precipitated by reports in the media…

  I really don’t know what to think at this point. But if you were inclined to honesty you would also report that the allegations leveled in 1999 were investigated, and then dropped in 2002. Why didn’t you point that part of the narative in your book — or now? And why didn’t you mention that there were very similar allegations against a couple of Republicans that weren’t investigated? If you were trying to be honest, wouldn’t those factoids figure into your narative somewhere?

• 11. Mark Noonan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 11:40 pm

  Ricorun,

  It is in the book - I’m not about to quote large sections. Haven’t you purchased a copy? And, yes, the charges were dropped in 2002 - for lack of evidence…but then more evidence was found. And now convictions have been brought.

  Siegalman has been trying every dodge in the book to save his skin - once he even claimed that he deserved a new trial becaue there weren’t enough black Americans on the jury. It was nauseating when Cochran (a black man) played the race card for OJ (a black man), but its just farce when a while man (Siegalman) tries to play the race card.

  Now, prosecutors do sometimes bring spurious charges and juries some times convict the innocent - but such incidents are rare, and so the normal, rational presumption is not “I don’t know what to think” but “he’s a crook until some rock-solid proof otherwise surfaces”…and “other people got away with it” isn’t proof, even if true. And, at any rate, it wasn’t just Siegalman - it was Scrushy and HealthSouth…did Rove have it in for HealthSouth, too? Also, why keep it up when Siegalman had already been defeated and disgraced? He was long out of office when the jury brought the guilty verdicts…

  This is paranoid ravings of the worst order - and its carried on by the left because they’ve driven themselves insane over the past 7 years.

• 12. Ricorun  |  December 19th, 2007 at 12:54 am

  Mark: It is in the book - I’m not about to quote large sections. Haven’t you purchased a copy?

  Actually, I have. But I still can’t find the passage in question. Can you help?

• 13. Ron Hoff  |  December 19th, 2007 at 1:10 am

  “WHY ARE “NEWHOUSE NEWPAPERS” DISTORTING THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS?”

  The three largest newspapers plus the Internet site al.com in Alabama are owned by Advance Publications Inc. Newhouse Newspapers is the newspaper publishing division. Advance Publications is owned by billionaires Samuel Irving Newhouse Jr. and his brother Donald Newhouse.

  These three newspapers instruct their writers to start every article that they write about Siegelman with this statement, “Our newspapers endorsed Riley and we believe Siegelman to be a crook.” Then instead of being impartial they twist every sentence to sound negative.

  It has taken a few months, but most Alabamians now know that these newspapers were a major part of the conspiracy to remove a popular Democrat in Alabama by distorting the truth about ex governor Don Siegelman, by not accurately reporting how his elections were taken from him, by not reporting how millions of dollars of Choctaw Indian Casino money flowed into Alabama to get Riley Elected and to kill Siegelman’s education Lottery.

• 14. Christian Wright  |  December 19th, 2007 at 6:28 am

  Political prosecutin of an innocent man is unjust, especially when the prosecutor knows he is innocent.

• 15. neocon  |  December 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am

  Ron,

  What is the difference then of when the NYT openly endorses Democrats and at the same time calls of the prosecution and conviction of all Bush administration officials in the Plame case, except of course for the real perpetrator Armitage?

  Christian,

  Do you have proof of his innocence? You might note the following:

  According to Bailey’s testimony a Siegelman aide, Siegelman “wanted $500,000 from former HealthSouth Chairman Richard Scrushy, who wanted a position on a state health panel in return.”