Alabama GOP to “60 Minutes”: Put Up, or Shut Up
Tags: Bush Officials, Dana Jill Simpson, media bias, MSM, Scandals.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and 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…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
69 Responses to “Alabama GOP to “60 Minutes”: Put Up, or Shut Up”
Caucus of Corruption
I especially like point number 2 in that list,where they use two newspaper reports to “rebut” the phone conversations,lol.
Real depositions,eh?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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!!!
jackson,
What is that whistling sound?
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.”
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?
Woods is also co-chair of the McCain for President committee!
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
Diana,
See my response to Jackson.
Really, you guys are making complete fools of yourselves on this.
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….
“…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.
“Consistent with” = weasel words
I note that no proof has been forthcoming. Put up or shut up is right…..
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.
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
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.
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.