Alabama GOP to “60 Minutes”: Put Up, or Shut Up
February 28th, 2008 at 05:57am Mark Noonan
In the MSM’s desperate desire to smear all things GOP, 60 Minutes recently ran a hit piece on Karl Rove, somehow trying to blame Mr. Rove for the downfall of Alabama’s corrupt, former Democratic governor Don Siegelman - the Alabama GOP has responded to the smear:
Dear Mr. Pelley,
Last Sunday, you aired a piece on 60 Minutes that I consider a broad, frontal and unfair attack on our Republican president, his one-time top advisor, Alabama’s Republican Governor and our party, in general. The report included an interview with a small town attorney, Dana Jill Simpson, who outrageously claimed that Karl Rove asked her to take explicit photos of Don Siegelman having improper extra-marital relations with “an aide” in 2001. Her interview with 60 Minutes was the first time her newest charge appeared, despite her having testified for several hours before a committee of the U.S. Congress, and was the first time she claimed having met with Mr. Rove.
Most importantly, neither Dana Jill Simpson, nor your story or your network provided one shred of evidence that her charges had any merit or kernel of truth.
In contrast, the Wednesday, February 27, edition of the Birmingham News printed an interview with Mr. Rove in which he vehemently denies Simpson’s charges and expresses deep frustration in 60 Minutes’ failure to obtain evidence of any relationship between them before airing such an explosive story. He further denies knowing Simpson, meeting or speaking with her or even having knowledge of the Siegelman prosecution beyond what he learned from traditional media coverage…
Given the serious nature of the charges, and the fact that 60 Minutes’ reputation as a reliable news source is once again at stake, I am asking that you publicly produce any evidence that was provided to you which substantiates Simpson’s claims…
If you are unable to publicly produce hard and convincing evidence that backs the outrageous charges you aired to millions of viewers across the nation, I ask that you publicly retract the story on your next broadcast. The most basic journalistic ethics would demand as much.
I find it difficult to believe that Karl Rove, in his first year of White House service in 2001 and dealing with the aftereffects of September 11, could find time to concentrate his attention on an Alabama governor’s race more than one year away. Even more difficult to believe is that Rove knew Simpson, would meet with her or send her on the absurd assignments that she claims. Only the most committed anti-Rove/Bush activist could swallow such a tale.
60 Minutes’ disdain for the Republican Party brought you embarrassment when you ran a bogus and fraudulent story in the fall of 2004 about President Bush and his National Guard record, and your organization ultimately admitted to not having followed “basic journalistic principles”. I fear that unless you are able to provide the hard evidence requested, it is apparent that 60 Minutes did not learn anything from that embarrassing event in your history.
I eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely,
Rep. Mike Hubbard
Chairman, Alabama Republican Party
It is high time we brought the MSM to account for their grossly irresponsible lies - even if it requires reform of our libel laws to allow public figures a real opportunity to counter-attack against false media stories. This story about Rove is not just absurd - its stupidly absurd. You’d have to be a monumental idiot to lend it any credibility at all - or, failing that, an anti-Rove/Bush fanatic, as Mr. Hubbard observes. A person is free to be an anti-Rove fanatic if they desire, but the MSM should not be producing news stories written by such - at least not without a disclaimer, “Warning, the story you are about to see is false, but fanatic lefties will love it”.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more…
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Democrats, Kook Left, Media
69 Comments
1. Christian Wright | February 28th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Siegelman’s supporters (which includes 52 former states’ attorneys general from both political parties) have been working with 60 Minutes for months to get this story aired in hopes that it will bring renewed interest in the case. Given that the show is going to air opposite the Academy Awards, that seems unlikely.
In fact, one television station that was in favor of the prosecution of Siegelman purposely refused the air the first half of the show that explained how the AG office was used as a political tool to take down Siegelman.
2. Christian Wright | February 28th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I found a timeline that explains the mechanics behind Siegleman’s prosecution.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/timeline_don_siegelman_1126.htm
It is perfectly consistent with the story 60 minutes ran. This is the reason the White House is missing thousands of e-mail around the time the AG scandal was first being investigated.
3. plainjane | February 28th, 2008 at 8:29 am
This could all be settled rather quickly. Remove any type of executive privildege that does directly relate to conversations with the President and have these civil servants Rove and Myers testify under oath before Congress.
Ms. Simpson, a Republican, did look like a jilted lover, but she was not the only source for the story.
4. Brian G. | February 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Sorry…but when did Karl Rove become the “good guy?”
5. FoolYouTwice | February 28th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Be careful what you wish for. This would affect you as well.
6. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
What ever happened to McCain’s affair with the lobbyist?
Oh right, wasn’t true. But at the least the MSM had their fun with it. That’s what matters after all, not the truth.
The empty heads that call themselves journalists these days is embarrassing.
7. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
What are the Academy Awards?
8. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Dana Simpson made a simple and perfectly reasonable request of Karl Rove, who has responded to her story be simply telling other horrible-terrible-lying-GOP-hating MSM outlets that what she said isn’t true. Karl, if you think you’ve been smeared, respond to the long-outstanding Congressional subpoenas, get sworn in as a witness and tell Congress that Dana Simpson committed perjury. If she’s lying then she not only risks being prosecuted for perjury, but she could be disbarred and lose her professional livelihood. Are you going to lose your sweet deals at Newsweek and the Fox News Channel? I rather don’t think so.
9. jackson | February 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Ms Simpson testified under oath, and has documents to support her claims that are sealed and dated. She’s waiting for any ONE of the cowards associated with this scandalous injustice to have the courage to do the same, and testify under oath. But no, all the cockroaches have scurried for cover, hurling turdblossom lies through their toady mouthpieces in an attempt to discredit anyone who has raised questions in an attempt to find the truth. But, I have yet to find a neocon who’s even remotely interested in the truth. Their admitted quest for a “permanent republican majority” has done more damage to the public’s confidence in an unbiased justice system than any other event in our country’s proud history. Shame on you all.
10. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Diana honey,
In America, people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Ms Simpson lacks any credible evidence of her assertion, yet you want Rove to prove it wrong?
What part of the first sentence do you not understand?
11. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
jackson,
When did you read those sealed documents?
12. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
neocon sweetie,
Breaking news for you, Congress isn’t a court and witnesses are not sworn in as part of a criminal prosecution. It’s called oversight. So, the presumption of innocence doesn’t attach. However, don’t worry, we can all quite reasonably assume that Mr. Rove’s giving the middle finger to Congressional subpoenas is “clear evidence” that he has nothing to hide. Stick with the safety of the media, Karl, they can’t hold you in contempt or request a prosecution for perjury.
13. “60 Minutes” &hellip | February 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
[...] letter to ‘60 Minutes’ was posted today at Blogs For Victory.Via LGF Quick Links: Dear Mr. [...]
14. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Witnesses testifying before Congress are sworn in, testify under oath and are subject to criminal prosecution for giving deliberately false or misleading testimony. You don’t seem to have any knowledge of how Congress works, do you simply write to see your name in print?
And before you toss your brother’s expertise out, I’ve testified before Congress.
15. 60 Minutes To Be S&hellip | February 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
[...] disgraced, and convicted, former Alabama governor Don Siegleman (Democrat) (via Gateway Pundit thru Blogs For Victory) Full letter below the [...]
16. William Teach | February 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Hmmm, apparently, Liberals have no problem when someone on their side of the political aisle is a major scumbag.
17. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,
The point, which you seemingly want to ignore, is that Congressional oversight hearings are not criminal trials in courts. There are no findings of guilt or innocence, so any talk of “innocent until proven guilty” is specious. As I said, the easy inference is there, Karl Rove gives the middle finger to Congress’ subpoenas because he doesn’t want to be sworn to tell the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” under penalty of having Congress ask the Bush Justice Department to potentially prosecute him for perjury should he be caught lying. What have you got to hide, Karl?
William Teach,
I assume you’re referring to Don Siegelman. Then what’s your theory for Republicans asking Congress to look into the circumstances of the prosecution? GOP traitors?
18. SteaM | February 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Karl Rove, what a weasel.
If anyone isn’t convinced by now that he is King Weasel then they are probably also weasels who are King Weasel wanna bes.
Good post Mark! This one actually proves that liberals really do need to be round up and shot. And they are fat.
19. TiredofLibBullShit | February 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Breaking news for you, Congress isn’t a court and witnesses are not sworn in as part of a criminal prosecution.”
Can anyone say Scooter Libby???
Anyone?
Anyone?
Haven’t people gone to jail for “lying to Congress”?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Oversight my ass!
20. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
TiredofLibBullShit
Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to a Grand Jury, not congress.
21. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Haven’t people gone to jail for “lying to Congress”?
Here’s an easy solution. Don’t lie.
22. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Lying to Congress is a crime. This does not make congress a court…
Thats like saying “haven’t people gone to jail from stealing chips from a corner store?”
23. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Diana,
The point (among many) you seem to be misdirecting is that Rove was accused without evidence. Since most cops think their half-assed lawyers anyway perhaps you can explain who is the injured party and to whom the presumption of innocence is “attached”?
Mr. Rove is not under any obligation to testify before Congress on the matter to prove his innocence; 60 Minutes and Simpson are or will be required to prove their specious claims. Rove isn’t required to be giving statements on the Attorney matter to exonerate himself on this matter.
neocon is correct.
And, again, you don’t understand Congress; making false statements to Congress or any branch of the government is a criminal offense; Martha Stewart?
24. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Casper,
You don’t have to be “sworn in” or “under oath” to be prosecuted. Lying to Congress criminal prosecutions hasn’t happened much since the 1950’s.
25. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,
No. Karl Rove was the subject of a news report. He hasn’t been accused by a prosecuting body of a crime in this matter. Karl Rove has also for many months been the subject of subpoenas to testify before Congress about the politicization of the Department of Justice. Karl Rove has given the middle finger to those subpoenas. If Karl Rove says that Dana Simpson is a liar and she is then the obvious course of action is do what she did. Appear on Capitol Hill. Take the oath to tell the truth. Tell your story. What are you hiding, Karl?
Karl Rove, “injured party”, now that’s a hoot.
26. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
What’s even more of a hoot is the fantastical notion that the current Department of Justice would prosecute Karl Rove for anything at the request of Congress. Tell me the one about the Easter Bunny, too, please.
27. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Obsessed with a middle finger, are we?
“ If Karl Rove says that Dana Simpson is a liar and she is then the obvious course of action is do what she did. Appear on Capitol Hill. Take the oath to tell the truth. Tell your story. ”
Maybe in your Socialist Utopia a person accused must appear before a government body to proclaim innocence; but in this country we require the accuser to qualify the claim.
Tell me, with this kind of attitude did you often beat confessions out of the accused, or only rarely, when the bastard deserved it?
What’s really “fantastical” is that you liberals expect the Justice Department to carry on criminal prosecutions for political motives.
28. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Maybe in your Socialist Utopia a person accused must appear before a government body to proclaim innocence; but in this country we require the accuser to qualify the claim.
No… in this country the Congress has the right to perform oversight. That involves talking to those involved about something that happened. That is not assuming someone is guilty or innocent. That is trying to figure out the background leading up to a result.
They have the right to question people to get to the bottom of something. They want someone to answer questions, that person should do it.
This has nothing to do with innocent or guilty. If, in the process of questioning, something illegal comes up, then they ask the Justice Dept to investigate.
So it is simple. Come in, swear to tell the truth and answer the questions.
29. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,
No, in the United States, which is allegedly a nation of laws and not of men, persons who have been served with a subpoena from Congress respond to the subpoena. We’re all aware of the fact that Karl has been lawyered-up for some time. But, I know, it’s that whole pesky obey-the-law thing, it’s extremely inconvenient for someone who’s busy making money being on television and writing columns in major newsmagazines.
30. SteaM | February 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I think this is pretty funny. The conservatives here are whining about stuff that they would be insisting people be impeached and thrown in jail if the roles reversed in terms of political party.
I’ve never seen so many people who are unable to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and see things from the other side.
Please spare me the “well steam, you never see it our way!” crap. I can see it your way and understand your perspective. I grew up around people like you and they tried to shape me to be like you guys. So not only can I see your perspective I have had that perspective before and lived it.
Can’t fool me nor can you tell me I don’t understand.
Clinton was impeached for a blowjob because he lied in court. That bar has been set. Can’t really whine if your guy is in trouble for politicizing the entire Justice Department when you impeached our guy for a lie about a blowjob which is completely not anywhere in the same solar system with the severity of what Bush and Rove and Cheney and Rummy and all the Republcians in the 109th congress have done.
31. SteaM | February 28th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
And, besides, lately you guys have been assuming that news reports are all simply false and political “smears”.
Yet, have you really looked into it to see if there’s any merit? Because if there were good reasons for these stories to come out and reveal wrong-doing, and they were found to be correct, would you all apologize to those journalists and media outlets? Nope. You’d insist on some conspiracy.
You do realize that without a Free Press we really are screwed and our goverment will become so corrupt it will become dangerous to it’s citizens.
32. jackson | February 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Maybe in your Socialist Utopia a person accused must appear before a government body to proclaim innocence; but in this country we require the accuser to qualify the claim. ”
Wouldn’t you consider sworn testimony before congress a qualification of her claim? It was certainly enough to get good ‘ol boy Roger Clemens before congress, and about to be charged……
And right about now a “socialist utopia” sounds a lot better than what we have: a Supreme Court appointed Junta cabal shredding our constitution, a staggeringly hypocritically jingoistic neo-facist bunch of theocratic morons who rule by fear as they plunder our treasury to line the pockets of the ungodly trio of Haliburton, Blackwater, and Exxon Mobil, not to mention their oily Saudi Prince boyfriends.
33. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Diana,
Very good, you manage to change subjects with such aplomb I congratulate you. You even manage to bring the weak-minded Comrade Joe to your defense. I don’t know what the hell steam is rambling about; Clinton wasn’t in Court.
But, you misdirect all the same.
Mr. Rove has not been issued a subpoena on this issue, therefore Congress is not the proper forum; as the injured party in this matter, Mr. Rove and the Alabama Republican Party are the ones that get to chose the forum.
Thank God I don’t live in a place where you are the agent to enforce the law. Because Rove is immune to testimony on one subject you believe he can be wronged on any subject. Nice, Comrade Lenin would be proud; pay careful attention to Jackson; he speaks to the truth of your position.
34. SteaM | February 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Herkimer,
Don’t worry if you don’t know what i am talking about.
I’m just saying you guys are a bunch of blind partisan idiots and I wish you would come to the reality party and stop whining because your guys are crooks and might get in trouble for it.
35. jackson | February 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“What’s really “fantastical” is that you liberals expect the Justice Department to carry on criminal prosecutions for political motives.”
HA!!!!! Now that’s REALLY funny!! At first I thought you were serious, but you could’nt possibly be that stupid…. could you?
36. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,
Actually, Rove has been subpoenaed on this issue, albeit indirectly, because of his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice. That would be the same Department of Justice which is alleged to have engaged in a partisan prosecution of Don Siegelman with Karl Rove having some part of it. In any case, the fact is that Karl Rove was subpoenaed last year, he lawyered-up and he’s refused to honor legal process. The question’s not going away. Karl, what have you got to hide?
Again, as I said, the whole idea of Karl Rove as “injured party” is pure comedy. Perhaps he could pose for some painter in a new vision of St. Sebastian. Speaking of comedy, the whole “socialist” and “Comrade so-and-so” schtick is really lame.
37. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually, there is no connection to the subpoenas and the claims by Simpson; not in a legal sense, not in a moral sense and not in an indirect sense. Without a substantive argument from you there’s no point in continuing.
38. jackson | February 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Ok, that didn’t sound so good… I have to admit that a socialist utopia is not something I would wish for… I’d MUCH rather have the free and just society that our founders envisioned. But this administration has done much to thwart that vision, and the chief architect has been Karl- how much more Stalinistic/Soviet can you get than his dream of a “permanent republican majority”?
It’s really sad that otherwise good americans like Herkimer are so blinded by party loyalty and indoctrination as to ignore and even disdain the pursuit of truth and justice. That’s just unamerican.
39. Mark Noonan | February 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
What is really amazing is that you lefties are essentially defendig Siegelman, a man convicted of corruption, by trying to say that the only reason he was caught was due to machinations by Karl Rove…
Siegelman is a crook - and he’s cooked up this bogus story to try and get himself off the hook; its not the first time - once he tried to claim that he was unfairly convicted because there weren’t “enough” black people on the jury…just what “enough” would be isn’t defined, and as Siegelman is white, its a very strange defense, to say the least.
40. jackson | February 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Mark,
I’ve already allowed for the possibility of his guilt, but there’s no harm to allowing an appeal bond while this is investigated. If he is guilty, he can go straight back to his mop buckets and bunk mates for all I care.
But IF he’s not guilty, then he will have served a LOT of time and punishment for no reason, and that in itself is a crime. With all the irregularities, questions and bipartisan concern about this case, why would you be so adamantly against another look? Unless you don’t really care about justice, you just want to keep the other side down. Come on.
A majority of the population in Alabama believes there were political reasons behind this prosecution. That makes him a political prisoner in this country, and that’s just fine with you? And you’re the ones barking about comrades and socialism?
41. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I note with interest the disinterest from Karl Rove’s defenders here in even speculating on why Republicans are among the 44 former state attorneys general who have signed a petition that states, in part:
Of course, the cherry on top of the sundae was the “technical problem” that caused WHNT-TV in Huntsville to mysteriously be unable to broadcast during almost all of the 60 Minutes segment on Don Siegelman only. Very subtle.
42. sleepygene | February 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
What is very interesting about this case is that going on almost two years an official transcript has not been produced so an appeal can be filed. Scott Horton of Harpers has been following this case for a while and has interesting things to say about, the Alabama GOP, the Alabama press, conflicts of interest etc..
http://www.harpers.org/subjects/ScottHorton/WriterOf/BlogEntry
If you are interested you have to scroll down all the way to the bottom to get the latest entries. Really stupid. But he has several interesting things to say about the case.
43. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Mark.
“Siegelman is a crook - and he’s cooked up this bogus story to try and get himself off the hook”
If that’s the case then Rove should sue. He should be willing to stand up in a court of law and give his side of the story. He should be willing to testify that Dana Simpson committed perjury. Why isn’t he willing to say anything under oath?
44. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Karl has been lawyered-up for some while now so it’s not like he would be testifying without counsel to advise him to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights should it seem prudent to do so.
45. plainjane | February 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Rove must defend his honor and take the stand under oath. Just telling a group of reporters Simpson lied under oath is not good enough to clear his name. Come on Karl you can do it.
46. The Krile Files&hellip | February 28th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Almost There
We’ve almost cleared another full week! I sincerely hope that yours is a productive one. We’ve been trying to get an extra hour or so of sleep each night, in an effort to “catch up” and not wake up exhausted. Doesn’t seem …
47. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Jackson,
The prosecutor of the case responded to these stories back in 2007 - quoting the meat of the matter:
And then there is this brilliant summation of the case:
He’s a crook, Jackson - He was trying to get himself off by various strategems, and only recently hit upon the idea of blaming Rove - and like a bunch of Pavlov’s dogs, the left fell for it hook, line and sinker.
48. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Diana, Plain;
The accusations against Rove are stupidly absurd - a cursory examination of the facts shows that its just not possible that Rove was in any way, shape or form involved in the prosecution.
What is most amazing is how you’ve fallen for this - the desperate ploy of a felon, and you fell for it!
49. Yakki.PsD | February 29th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Mark,you DO realize that little C&P of yours came from the DOJ,the very branch that is the center of claims of being “politicized”.
And do you think the prosecutor is going to say anything reverse of what he’s “won”? That would be tantamount to political suicide,besides opening oneself up to prosecution.
If Rove’s done nothing wrong,he’s got nothing to fear,right? He can go testify before congress like the rest of America has to.
Under Oath.
50. Yakki.PsD | February 29th, 2008 at 4:08 am
BTW,link for Mark’s C&P:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/alm/Press/MDAL_press_release.html
51. Yakki.PsD | February 29th, 2008 at 4:10 am
I especially like point number 2 in that list,where they use two newspaper reports to “rebut” the phone conversations,lol.
Real depositions,eh?
52. jackson | February 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Wow, that’s a really convincing list, if you only have a passing interest in the case and not much of a penchant for investigative journalism. Most of it has been made irrelevant due to information discovered AFTER that was printed. A few examples:
#1 & #5. Canary HAD to recuse herself, but the investigation and prosecution was still run from HER district, with HER involvement, even though her professional staff urged against it!!
There’s no mention of judge Fullers REFUSAL to recuse himself EVEN THOUGH there was DIRECT EVIDENCE of significant conflict and opposition to Siegelman. Judge Fuller REFUSES to allow ANY impartial review of this DIRECT CONFLICT. Interesting, when you know that the first case was tossed out with prejudice by judge U W Clemon, whom the prosecutors tried desperately to get off the case for scant evidence of INDIRECT ties to Siegelman. This lame attempt to remove an impartial judge even goes before a FEDERAL APPEALS COURT, where it is tossed out for lack of grounds for recusal!!!!! That is disgustingly hypocritical by ANY standards.
I really like #8, which typifies the misleading content of that rebuttal:
“8. That Ms. Simpson’s affidavit has not been filed by Mr. Siegelman or Mr. Scrushy in the actual court case, the allegations of selective prosecution having been raised by Mr. Siegelman solely in the media.”
Of course it wasn’t filed in the actual court case! The case was OVER when her testimony came out, based on her disgust over the partisan prosecution of the former governor!! And since then, it has been pursued by most legal avenues available, except by an official case appeal since your buddies have made sure the transcript remains unavailable.
And for that “brilliant” closing statement, it’s ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL, except for the first two sentences.
Nice try, but not even close. Can’t you find anything that’s more recent or anything that hasn’t already been thoroughly discredited?
53. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Mark also failed to offer any theory as to why 44 former state attorneys general, including Republicans, are so incredibly naive and simple-minded that they “fell for” a “desperate ploy” that is so “stupidly absurd” that they have signed a petition asking Congress to investigate the prosecution of Don Siegelman. The issue is so patently without merit that the Universe conspired to have KHNT-TV in Alabama stop broadcasting during the segment on the case on 60 Minutes. No, instead he cut and pasted (a practice Kahn loves to chastise me over) from an entity that potentially stands accused of improper conduct.
The question remains. What does Karl Rove have to hide behind all those expensive lawyers?
54. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Jackson,
None of it has been thoroughly discredited - and, once again, I find it amazing that you on the left are defending a man who stole health care funds from the people of Alabama! He was lining his pockets with money which was supposed to go to people’s health care, and all you dimwits can latch on to is the absurd accusation that Rove had something to do with it…you do realise that the origins of this case go back to 1999, aren’t you? I do believe that Rove was in Texas at the time…
Diana,
How many GOPers, exactly?
55. jackson | February 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Hey, look, all of a sudden they pretend to care about health care for the people!
And for your education, here’s a great timeline for the sequence of events in this whole sordid saga, outlining Karl’s Konnections starting in 1994. It begins with: “Karl Rove is hired by the Business Council of Alabama to work with veteran GOP operative Bill Canary…”
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/timeline_don_siegelman_1126.htm
Check it out.
56. jackson | February 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Another Republican with a conscience!!
Posted by Scott Horton:
“Former Reagan Administration Treasury official and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts weighs in:
Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush Administration. ”
ouch!!!
57. Pain | February 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
jackson,
What is that whistling sound?
58. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
The Republicans I can identify are Robert T. Stephan, Ken Eikenberry, Chris Gorman, Michael Lilly and Grant Woods, former attorney general of Arizona who was on-camera in the 60 Minutes piece saying, “I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done.” He added, “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 this was the one Democrat that they could never get rid of.”
59. Pain | February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Could that be the last shread of credibility of the Bush administration falling precipitously from its lofty heights to the jagged crags of scrutiny in the bright light of Justice?
60. jackson | February 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Woods is also co-chair of the McCain for President committee!
61. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Jackson,
This Paul Craig Roberts?
That he was once in the Reagan Administration and/or is registered as a Republican doesn’t mean he isn’t a kook…and Roberts is a kook. If this is the level of GOPers who are backing a felons ploy to get out of jail, then you guys are just digging yourself a deeper hole.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/170707falseflag.htm
62. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Diana,
See my response to Jackson.
Really, you guys are making complete fools of yourselves on this.
63. jackson | February 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Mark, I’ve been wondering why you’re so adamant about keeping someone in jail in light of all this new evidence that points to prosecutorial misconduct? WHY are you so against an investigation that will lead to the truth, regardless of it’s outcome? Is it because Republicans can never be wrong? Jeez, you’re acting like the prosecutors are preaching gospel, to be taken on faith and party alone, and never, ever questioned. Oh, I get it….
It’s like you’re scared that if you look behind the curtain your entire belief system will come crumbling down. It IS a scary thing, I know. But have courage Mark, I’m prayin for you….
64. Almiranta | February 29th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“…making false statements to Congress or any branch of the government is a criminal offense; Martha Stewart?”
John Kerry? (Jehn-jiss Kahn—still love it…)
A woman made an accusation without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up, and you Libs are sharpening the pitchforks and lpreparing the torches because the accused DARED to deny the accusation.
What the hell is WRONG with you people? A television show spreads gossip—which is what the accusation is, till proven—-and because the target is Karl Rove, with the possiblity of corollary damage to the Bush administration, somehow, some way, then who gives a flip about innocent till proven guilty, who cares about fact or fairness?
You radical Lefties have a long and despicable history of smearing people to try to gain traction, and your passionate defense of the indefensible here, and your gleeful trotting out of absolutely anything you can find, invent, or distort to support your glee, is just more of the same old same old.
Yet you call a discussion of a FACT, like finding tens of thousands of dollars hidden in a freezer, a “witch hunt”.
Shameless.
65. Almiranta | February 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Consistent with” = weasel words
I note that no proof has been forthcoming. Put up or shut up is right…..
66. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
It’s really only made complicated by those who want to pretend it is. The still-outstanding subpoenas for Karl Rove, which process he is in defiance of and has responded to by lawyering-up, are over the politicization of a part of the Executive Branch which is intended to be absolutely apolitical - the Department of Justice. The bogus “U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President” line is the perfect example of a misdirection. The President was plainly within his authority to fire anyone he wanted to at the DOJ, including the U.S. Attorneys at the heart of that scandal.
However, if he fired people because the U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t use the power of their office to further the goals of a political party then that is an abuse that Congress has oversight authority over. The Congress has been petitioned by 52 former state attorneys general from both parties to investigate the prosecution of Don Siegelman by the Department of Justice for partisan political reasons. Karl Rove doesn’t need to be subpoenaed again to answer questions about the Siegelman case. He already has been.
The 60 Minutes report is just additional fuel for an already burning fire. The burning question is - what does Karl Rove have to hide? He can always invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment in front of the committee he’s testifying before should his attorneys advise him to do so. Quit hiding, Karl.
67. jackson | March 1st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
If you have any interest in this story, here’s an incredible piece by Larisa Alexandrovna, a remarkably intelligent, articulate, respected journalist, who absolutely slam dunks the boys at Powerline for their admitted ignorance. Try this one on for size. Here’s an excerpt:
“Consider this too: Mr. Rove has not honored his subpoena, something you and I would end up in jail for. How is that possible? Is Mr. Rove above the law? If Mr. Rove is telling the truth, then why not tell it to the public and under oath in defense of himself? Surely Mr. Rove is not above the law? Surely, if he feels so strongly about his side of the story, he would want to clear his name? People who are telling the truth are willing to clear their name in the public sphere. In fact, they demand it. Mr. Rove hides and uses friendly-reporters as proxy attack dogs. It does not look good, does it? It does not look like the way an innocent person would behave, does it?
So I ask that instead of attacking CBS, you consider the questions I want answered and perhaps, because you are an American first - before your politics - you will also ask these questions and demand answers too:
1. Was Mr. Canary (a consultant for Bob Riley, Don Siegelman’s opponent during the 2002 election) involved in a conversation on November 18, 2002 in which he said that “his girls” (allegedly in reference to his wife, US Attorney Leura Canary and their friend, US Attorney Alice Martin) would “take care of” Mr. Siegelman? Who else was on that call? Is it appropriate for a US Attorney to be investigating the opponent of her husband’s client? Is that not a conflict of interest?
2. Mrs. Canary claims to have recused herself from the Siegelman case. Where is the evidence of this from the DOJ?
3. Did Mr. Canary and Mr. Rove discuss how to “take care” of Mr. Siegelman at any point while Mr. Rove was working at the White House?
3. Did Mr. Rove meet with operatives for Bob Riley (Siegelman’s opponent during the 2002 election) and discuss how to “take care” of Mr. Siegelman? Did Mr. Rove have these alleged meetings on street corners in DC, cafes, and at lobbying firms on K street throughout 2002 and later?
4. Did Mr. Rove ask William Pryor to seal the 2002 ballots before Siegelman’s requested hand-recount could happen? Mr. Pryor’s campaign for Alabama state Attorney General was run by Karl Rove in 1998. In 2002, Pryor sealed the ballots of the Riley-Siegelman campaign after a late-night glitch suddenly made Riley the winner. The following April, Pryor was installed on a recess appointment to the 11 Circuit Court of Appeals.
5. Why did Pryor seal those ballots?
6. Did Mr. Rove suggest that Mr. Pryor be appointed to the 11th Circuit? What were Mr. Pryor’s qualifications and why was he installed on a recess appointment? Was he being rewarded for sealing the ballots.
7. Did Mr. Rove have any relationship with Mark Fuller, the judge who was appointed by President Bush and later, somehow, got the Siegelman case?
8. Did Mr. Canary ever say that Judge Fuller “would hang Siegelman,” before Fuller had gotten the case? How about after?
9. Where is the court transcript of the trial, which is needed for Siegelman to file his appeal? It has been 30 months, already. How long does a court transcript take?
10. Why did Judge Fuller not let Siegelman report after he was indicted, instead having him shackled and brought in like a violent offender? The charges, after all, were bribery.
11. Why is Siegelman not allowed to be out of prison while he appeals his case? What is the reason for this?
12. Did Mr. Rove discuss the Siegelman case in 2002 or at any point after with then chief of the department’s Office of Public Integrity at the DOJ, Noel Hillman? If so, what was the subjects of that/those discussion(s)?
13. Did Mr. Hillman’s appointment to a federal judgeship have anything to do with the Siegelman case?
14. Did Mr. Hillman bury any evidence in the Jack Abramoff case connecting Mr. Rove and Jack Abramoff and/or Bob Riley and Jack Abramoff?
15. Michael Scanlon, the team-Abramoff member who bribed Republican members of Congress and laundered money for the GOP, was both an employee of indicted House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-TX) and then-Congressman Bob Riley (R-AL), who later went on to become Siegelman’s opponent. He also did work for Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH).
Delay was indicted on money laundering charges and was forced to resign from Congress. Ney plead guilty to bribery and corruption and is now serving time in prison. The other two members of Congress involved with Scanlon - disgraced Montana Congressman Conrad Burns, and scandal-ridden California Congressman John Do0little - are or have been under investigation. How then is it possible that Bob Riley - Scanlon’s one-time boss - was the only one of Scanlon’s associates to never have been investigated for his ties to both Scanlon and Abramoff?
16. Did Mr. Rove have any contact with Hillman regarding Bob Riley, Tom Delay, Conrad Burns, and John Doolittle and their ties to Abramoff and Scanlon?
17. Did the US prosecutors on Siegelman’s case threaten the brother of witness Nick Bailey if Bailey did not cooperate with the prosecution?
18. Why was the other prosecution witness in the Siegelman case - Lanny Young - seen as credible with regard to Siegelman, but dismissed as not credible when he also implicated Judge William Pryor and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the same types of allegations? If he gets 2 of the 3 wrong, how is he still credible? Or is it that Jeff Sessions were not prosecuted because they are Republicans, while Siegelman is a Democrat?
19. Why won’t the DOJ provide any documents to Congress regarding the Siegelman case or other selective prosecution cases?
20. And again, I ask, why won’t Karl Rove testify under oath if he has nothing to hide?
21. Why did Judge Fuller not investigate the jury-tampering issues when they were brought to his attention?
Ask these questions if you really have an interest in seeing justice done, instead of citing Eddie Curran and questions that are not remotely relevant to the material issue: did Siegelman receive a fair trial? If not, why not?
Or continue to demand answers from CBS and prove that justice is not the reason for your open letter in the first place.
I leave that choice to you and the judgment of that choice to the public, a jury of your peers - Americans.”
Wow. Cant wait to hear the response.
“…. and the walls, come crumblin down, crublin-crumblin, crumblin crumbllin, and the walls…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/an-open-letter-to-powerli_b_89341.html
68. Mark Noonan | March 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Jackson,
I have some others:
22. Did Karl Rove organize the bribes which were paid to Siegelman?
23. Why did Siegelman appoint Scrushy’s people to the health board? Just happened to be the best qualified?
24. When did Rove decide to also “get” Scrushy?
25. Did Rove hire reporter Curran in 1999 to start the ball rolling, knowing that in 2002 he would be White House political advisor and would desperately need to ensure that a GOPer won the Alabam governorship that year?
26. What role did Rove play at the grassy knoll with the Area 51 aliens?
You see, Jackson, what you’ve got is a series of accusations - anyone can come up with such a list of accusations. But to accuse doesn’t mean to convict - and given the known facts of the case, adjudicated in a US court of law before a jury of Siegelman’s peers, you are required to bring some really rock-solid proof of malfeasance or misfeasance before any reasonable questions can be asked of the jury verdict. Darkly hinting that Rove had a hand in it isn’t good enough - especially as the prime witness, Simpson, is apparantly a well-known crank who has no known connection to Karl Rove or the Alabama GOP.
69. jackson | March 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
How typical. Instead of answering ANY of these damning questions, which are based on solid facts and the investigations of MANY respected journalists and attorneys general, you have to resort to sarcasm and parrotting the same tired old GOP lines. You have no answers that are logically and/or legally sound. I, on the other hand, will answer yours:
22. Did Karl Rove organize the bribes which were paid to Siegelman?
-perhaps, perhaps not. Lets get him under oath and find out. And what you call a “bribe” was a campaign donation from which he didn’t personally benefit. If you want to convict him for that, then you also have to look at the 142 republicans who also gave large sums of money(bribes, you say) in exchange for influential government posts. And before you resort to the tired old line about him being convicted by a Jury, we already know for a fact that exculpatory evidence was withheld from them, and they were still deadlocked for a very long time.
23. Why did Siegelman appoint Scrushy’s people to the health board? Just happened to be the best qualified?
-Yes, they were also appointed by several previuos governors to the same board, and were experienced. So what’s the big stink? Should the 3 former governors also be locked up?
24. When did Rove decide to also “get” Scrushy?
-Apparently Scrushy was picked to bring Siegelman down because he was already under suspicion and also VERY unpopular- a very convenient tie-in.
25. Did Rove hire reporter Curran in 1999 to start the ball rolling, knowing that in 2002 he would be White House political advisor and would desperately need to ensure that a GOPer won the Alabam governorship that year?
-I’ll leave this one to Alexandra- read her article to see what a hack and shill Curran is. He’s doing it all for a book deal, which is in BIG jeopardy if Siegelman is found innocent.
26. What role did Rove play at the grassy knoll with the Area 51 aliens?
Ha, that’s really weak.