• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'

creativedreams said:
Plus is there any connection...
there was a very large and unusual trade of stocks in the SAME airlines used in 9/11 but the "Securities and Exchange Commision" NEVER revealed who made the unusual trades which profited $50 Million when the attack happened and another $2 Billion within weeks after the attacks...
Just wondering any connection?
Click to expand...

Dude, not every thread on this board is, or needs to be, about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Got clue?
 
Moon said:
Dude, not every thread on this board is, or needs to be, about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Got clue?
Click to expand...

Can't blame me for having a little curiousity, can you? Just asking.
 
Middleground said:
It has nothing much to do with the jurors. I guess you have not followed much regarding this case.

Take a look at the judge and prosecutors, and get back to me, m'kay. If that sits right with you, then corruption is not a big thing to you. You better hope that no juror has a crush on the opposition when you're in court, but then again, you might not mind when she's allowed to pass a love note.
Click to expand...

Again, we argued this exact issue around and around on another thread. The fact that I don't buy what you're selling doesn't mean I haven't paid attention to the case.

PS. You know that the lawyer that you're trumpeting as "blowing the whistle" on Rove? She's changed her testimony once already, so what makes you think she's telling the truth now?

TheHill.com - GOP lawyer ties Rove to Siegelman case

independent_thinker2002 said:
You don't have to get to the jury. You only have to get to the judge. The judge filters what the jury can and can't hear. It's not as if an injustice can't happen in a courtroom. Why won't Rove testify if it is so simple that he did nothing wrong?
Click to expand...

Would you want to appear before a group of people who you knew would do everything in their power to demonize and attack you for political gain? **** no.

And FWIW, judges have far less control over what juries can and cannot hear than you might think.

Middleground said:
And if one is knowledgeable regarding this case, one would know that this case was thrown out twice before they "found" a judge that would see it.

Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The fact that prosecutors withdrew particular charges, leading to dismissal by the judge, is not the same thing as having the entire case "thrown out" by a judge.

Middleground said:
Blago wanted to pocket the money himself, didn't he? Seigleman wanted it as a donation to his lottery state education fund, not his personal bank account.
Click to expand...

Blago wanted donations to his campaign fund. Siegelman wanted donations to his campaign fund for a particular project.

Really different, eh?

creativedreams said:
Plus is there any connection...
there was a very large and unusual trade of stocks in the SAME airlines used in 9/11 but the "Securities and Exchange Commision" NEVER revealed who made the unusual trades which profited $50 Million when the attack happened and another $2 Billion within weeks after the attacks...
Just wondering any connection?
Click to expand...

Keep this type of stuff in the conspiracy theory forum.
 
Middleground said:
Everything that he was convicted for, had to do with that. The $500,000 donation to his state lottery education fund. He was NOT convicted of anything not related to that. Yes, that's right. Still think he's scum, or are you thinking, "wow, stuff like that does not happen in the good old US of A?"
Click to expand...

Fascinating argument; so you are saying it is NOT corrupt to shake down donors as long as you don't pocket the money but use it for a pet project or charity? :rofl
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, we argued this exact issue around and around on another thread. The fact that I don't buy what you're selling doesn't mean I haven't paid attention to the case.

PS. You know that the lawyer that you're trumpeting as "blowing the whistle" on Rove? She's changed her testimony once already, so what makes you think she's telling the truth now?
Click to expand...

Whatever it is, the details cannot lead one to come away thinking that Siegleman was not witch-hunted and framed. Nothing that I've read or seen has lead me the critically think otherwise.

Of couse Dana Jill Simpson is being attacked. Aside form those who are trying to poo-poo her tesitmony, her house was set afire and she was run off of a road while driving. Not sure if it's linked, but you can't help but think there's something off here. Bottom line is that she has not had any issues with testifying under oath, yet it seems that Carl would rather not. Why is that? He could clear theair if he wishes.

Simpson, however, points to the fact she testified to Congress under oath. Though called to testify, Rove did not show up.

“Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify in front a Congressional committee,” said Simpson this morning during a telephone interview. “He would not testify. He did not even appear in front of Congress, which is like not showing up for a court subpoena.”

“I testified under oath in front of Congress," she added. "He won’t even show up. Now you tell me who is lying?”

The American Spectator article, "The False and the Absurd," written by Quin Hillyer, alleges that Ms. Simpson’s story has changed.

“On Thursday, the 60 Minutes website began hawking a feature to run on its show this Sunday wherein an already discredited Alabama attorney will claim that Rove asked her to photograph Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in "a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides."

Nothing about her story even begins to stand up to scrutiny; indeed all of it spectacularly fails every basic test of common sense. A former Democratic Alabama Supreme Court justice (and sometime Siegelman adversary) who represented a co-defendant and close ally of Siegelman's in the trial that convicted Siegelman of federal bribery and obstruction charges said that the previous incarnations of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer."

Hillyer goes on to claim that this is the first time Ms. Simpson has alleged that Karl Rove had directly asked her to be involved in finding dirt on Governor Siegelman. This allegation, however, is not true. This reporter was aware months ago of this allegation as was Scott Horton of Harper’s who provided his own account of what Simpson told him, also months ago. In addition, Hillyer cites Toby Roth as a “Republican activist” who claims to have never heard of Simpson before.

“For one thing, Simpson consistently has made claims of being a longtime, and fairly high-level, Republican activist in Alabama. But my Republican sources in Alabama say they either don't even know her or barely remember her having done some rather low-level volunteer work. On Friday, longtime activist Toby Roth said of the 2002 campaign (around which most of her allegations revolve): "I was the campaign director [for now-Gov. Bob Riley, who challenged Siegelman]. I did not know her. Never met the lady." His only contact with her, he said, came four years later when she faxed him letters demanding that one of her clients be awarded a state contract to clean up a tire dump. The contract went to somebody else, and Roth says her bizarre allegations began surfacing only after her client lost the business.”
Earlier this month, this reporter interviewed Republican party members who have known Ms. Simpson for a very long time in Alabama. Documents regarding business contracts also indicate that Ms. Simpson worked closely with Governor Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley Jr. In addition, the Spectator fails to mention that Mr. Roth is a lobbyist for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and had close business dealings with Michael Scanlon, the lobbyist who has plead guilty to bribery and money laundering charges and Jack Abramoff, also a lobbyist and Mr. Scanlon’s mentor, who is now serving time also for money laundering and bribery charges. Both Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff have admitted to moving Choctaw casino funds into political campaigns.

The Raw Story | In exclusive interview, Alabama whistleblower says Rove trying to smear her


This is incorrect. The fact that prosecutors withdrew particular charges, leading to dismissal by the judge, is not the same thing as having the entire case "thrown out" by a judge.
Click to expand...

Okay, guess this is wrong:

In 2004, Don Siegelman was charged with attempted bid-rigging in a case brought by US Attorney Alice H. Martin After many twists and turns, the case was thrown out by a clearly exasperated judge on grounds of insufficient evidence.

The Raw Story | Timeline: The political prosecution of Don Siegelman



Blago wanted donations to his campaign fund. Siegelman wanted donations to his campaign fund for a particular project.

Really different, eh?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are really different. There was NO personal benefit to Seigleman, as opposed to Blago, who wanted money for HIS campaign. I'm surprised that you cannot see that.

According to Grant Woods (a lifelong Republican, co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and a lifelong friend and advisor to the presumptive 2008 G.O.P. presidential candidate. Woods is also godfather to one of the McCain children) this was the motive:

Attorney General Woods has this to say about the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman: "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."

From the 60 Minutes piece:

Start with the notion that the conduct that figures in the accusations is actually a crime. The basic charge is that businessman Richard Scrushy gave $500,000 to the Alabama Education Foundation, a vehicle Siegelman created to run a campaign for a state education lottery, and Siegelman in exchange appointed him to the state’s hospital oversight board.

WOODS: You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit. It’s that you’re exchanging an official public act for a personal benefit. Not, “Hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state.” If you’re gonna start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just– build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States.

PELLEY: What you seem to be saying here is that this is analogous to giving a great deal of money to a presidential campaign. And as a result, you become Ambassador to Paris.

WOODS: Exactly. That’s exactly right.

Firedoglake » First Monday: The Siegelman Case — A Political Prosecution Exposed


All of this, and yet I haven't even discussed the kangaroo trial in which the judge had a grudge against Siegleman, the prosecutor that had recused herself (on the grounds of conflict of interest) hadn't really, and the jurors who actually had communications with the prosecution teams.

Wow, talk about justice. :doh
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Whatever it is, the details cannot lead one to come away thinking that Siegleman was not witch-hunted and framed. Nothing that I've read or seen has lead me the critically think otherwise.

Of couse Dana Jill Simpson is being attacked. Aside form those who are trying to poo-poo her tesitmony, her house was set afire and she was run off of a road while driving. Not sure if it's linked, but you can't help but think there's something off here.
Click to expand...

:rofl You're really lending credibility to your argument by including crap like this. I've tried to google credible links for this, and all I've found is **** like prisonplanet. Any evidence at all that the woman involved isn't just nuts, like most of the people who are apparently hyping her tales?

Bottom line is that she has not had any issues with testifying under oath, yet it seems that Carl would rather not. Why is that? He could clear theair if he wishes.
Click to expand...

Again,

Would you want to appear before a group of people who you knew would do everything in their power to demonize and attack you for political gain? **** no.
Click to expand...

The American Spectator article, "The False and the Absurd," written by Quin Hillyer, alleges that Ms. Simpson’s story has changed.

“On Thursday, the 60 Minutes website began hawking a feature to run on its show this Sunday wherein an already discredited Alabama attorney will claim that Rove asked her to photograph Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in "a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides."

Nothing about her story even begins to stand up to scrutiny; indeed all of it spectacularly fails every basic test of common sense. A former Democratic Alabama Supreme Court justice (and sometime Siegelman adversary) who represented a co-defendant and close ally of Siegelman's in the trial that convicted Siegelman of federal bribery and obstruction charges said that the previous incarnations of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer."

Hillyer goes on to claim that this is the first time Ms. Simpson has alleged that Karl Rove had directly asked her to be involved in finding dirt on Governor Siegelman. This allegation, however, is not true. This reporter was aware months ago of this allegation as was Scott Horton of Harper’s who provided his own account of what Simpson told him, also months ago. In addition, Hillyer cites Toby Roth as a “Republican activist” who claims to have never heard of Simpson before.

“For one thing, Simpson consistently has made claims of being a longtime, and fairly high-level, Republican activist in Alabama. But my Republican sources in Alabama say they either don't even know her or barely remember her having done some rather low-level volunteer work. On Friday, longtime activist Toby Roth said of the 2002 campaign (around which most of her allegations revolve): "I was the campaign director [for now-Gov. Bob Riley, who challenged Siegelman]. I did not know her. Never met the lady." His only contact with her, he said, came four years later when she faxed him letters demanding that one of her clients be awarded a state contract to clean up a tire dump. The contract went to somebody else, and Roth says her bizarre allegations began surfacing only after her client lost the business.”
Earlier this month, this reporter interviewed Republican party members who have known Ms. Simpson for a very long time in Alabama. Documents regarding business contracts also indicate that Ms. Simpson worked closely with Governor Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley Jr. In addition, the Spectator fails to mention that Mr. Roth is a lobbyist for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and had close business dealings with Michael Scanlon, the lobbyist who has plead guilty to bribery and money laundering charges and Jack Abramoff, also a lobbyist and Mr. Scanlon’s mentor, who is now serving time also for money laundering and bribery charges. Both Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff have admitted to moving Choctaw casino funds into political campaigns.[/I]
Click to expand...

I don't know what you think this proves.


Okay, guess this is wrong:

In 2004, Don Siegelman was charged with attempted bid-rigging in a case brought by US Attorney Alice H. Martin After many twists and turns, the case was thrown out by a clearly exasperated judge on grounds of insufficient evidence.

The Raw Story | Timeline: The political prosecution of Don Siegelman
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's because that passage was written and is being interpreted by someone who doesn't understand the law.

1) The trial in 2004 and the trial in 2006 were on completely unrelated issues.

2) Whether or not the case in 2004 went forward has absolutely no bearing on the evidence involved in the 2006 case.

3) The decision of the prosecutor to drop particular charges in one of the earlier cases is not the same as having the case "thrown out"

Yes, they are really different. There was NO personal benefit to Seigleman, as opposed to Blago, who wanted money for HIS campaign. I'm surprised that you cannot see that.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this?

Blago wanted money for his general election campaign
Siegelman wanted money for his special issue campaign

They're the same damn thing.

If I rob a store in order to get money to keep my small business from going bankrupt, am I somehow less of a scumbag than if I robbed the store to put money in my pocket?

According to Grant Woods (a lifelong Republican, co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and a lifelong friend and advisor to the presumptive 2008 G.O.P. presidential candidate. Woods is also godfather to one of the McCain children) this was the motive:
Click to expand...

Oh, so now McCain is a bastion of truth and honesty? Funny how 3 months ago you would have considered a friendship with McCain to be proof of this guys propensity to lie. :lol:

Attorney General Woods has this to say about the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman: "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."
Click to expand...

From a letter written by the journalist who originally broke the Siegelman story, calling out 60 minutes on their ****tastic journalism:

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 than question: “Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?”
Click to expand...

Flashpoint Blog Archive Eddie Curran’s letter to 60 Minutes

You might also want to read his comments on Simpson.

All of this, and yet I haven't even discussed the kangaroo trial in which the judge had a grudge against Siegleman, the prosecutor that had recused herself (on the grounds of conflict of interest) hadn't really, and the jurors who actually had communications with the prosecution teams.

Wow, talk about justice. :doh
Click to expand...

If your evidence for these claims is as lacking as what you've offered so far, don't bother.
 
RightinNYC said:
:rofl You're really lending credibility to your argument by including crap like this. I've tried to google credible links for this, and all I've found is **** like prisonplanet. Any evidence at all that the woman involved isn't just nuts, like most of the people who are apparently hyping her tales?
Click to expand...

Not sure what "Google" you're using but, I found these quite easily...

From: from: Dana Jill Simpson Issues Press Release—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
Truth is marching on. I will not allow Middle District U.S. Attorneys Laura Canary or Louis Franklin to deter me from testifying before Congress.

Initially, I was shocked to read the false and gross distortions issued in a press release by Middle District U.S. Attorneys Laura Canary and her assistant Louis Franklin regarding my role in the controversy surrounding the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy prosecution.

It is my understanding that it is a violation of the ethical rules governing prosecutorial conduct to issue this type of press release when a case is still pending in the courts. I want the citizens to be aware that prosecutors are supposed to be “shepherds of justice”. When a government attorney with enormous resources at their disposal abuses power and ignores ethical standards he and she not only undermine public trust but inflict damage beyond calculation to a system of justice. This alone should compel the responsible and ethical exercise of this power. However, these individuals appear to be ignoring this duty. It has been suggested in recent reporting that I am a Democrat, when I can verify that I have been a long-time Republican and worked in Governor Bob Riley’s campaign for Governor. There have been reports insinuating that I am an attorney for Mr. Scrushy, which is false. I have never been retained by, nor have I ever received any monies from, Don Siegelman or Richard Scrushy.

I will quote my grandfather, who told me as a young girl that only, “a hit dog hollers.” I knew when I decided to get involved in this matter that the Riley people would come after me but I am a strong person and I will continue to tell the truth.

When I first got involved in this matter on the Republican side of the fence, I was shocked and sickened to learn of the U.S. Department of Justice’s selective prosecution of Democrats, including former Governor Don Siegelman. I have a legal duty as a licensed attorney in Alabama to report anything that I consider to be unethical or illegal, when I obtain knowledge of same. Over a period of months I received legal advice regarding my ethical duty from a prominent Montgomery attorney, the Alabama Bar Association and a Circuit Judge in DeKalb County, where I primarily practice law.

Mrs. Canary and Mr. Franklin are attacking me personally in an attempt to throw up road-blocks so the truth will not be shown to the public. I will once again state, I am looking forward to raise my hand to God under oath and to testify to these matters recently revealed. I assume that all of the others involved in this horrible travesty of justice, including Mrs. Canary and Mr. Franklin, will be willing to do the same.
Click to expand...

From: The Locust Fork Journal: Jill Simpson's Affidavit May Help Justice Prevail in the Siegelman, Scrushy Case
Her house has already been burned down and one of her vehicles has been run off the road and totaled since she decided to seek justice and come out against the Bush and Riley political machines in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy. While there may be no proof of a connection and there may be no connection at all, knowing the history of how hard the Bush's are willing to play in their pursuit of power, it has to make a person just a tad concerned - under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

YouTube - Dana Jill Simpson Responds to Karl Rove

This sounds like yet another case of someone with ethics standing up against the Bush administration and getting trashed for her efforts. Well, Bush and his thugs are gone and there is a new sheriff in town. It should be interesting how this case proceeds now. :mrgreen:
 
RightinNYC said:
:rofl You're really lending credibility to your argument by including crap like this. I've tried to google credible links for this, and all I've found is **** like prisonplanet. Any evidence at all that the woman involved isn't just nuts, like most of the people who are apparently hyping her tales?
Click to expand...

Most certainly, sometimes life is stranger than fiction. You can deny it all you want, but according to what I have read, there are police reports on both the house fire and the car "accident." So you can go on thinking the gal is nuts, that's fine. But nuts or not, both instances DID happen. Is there any relation to her blowing the whistle? Nothing that I know of, but you can't deny that it's extremely coincidental.

A FIRE IN ALABAMA
On Feb. 21, 2007, a private residence located at 1429 West Main Street in Rainsville, Alabama caught fire. The house belonged to whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson, a long-time Alabama Republican lawyer and political opposition researcher who was then preparing to come forward in connection with the conviction of former Alabama Democratic governor Don Siegelman and his co-defendant, Republican fundraiser and businessman, Richard Scrushy.

According to the police report obtained by RAW STORY, the east side of the building was completely damaged and the entire structure sustained damages of roughly 30 percent. (See attached report.) The cause of this fire is unknown and there has been no formal investigation to date. Simpson was not home at the time of the incident.

According to Simpson's attorney in Montgomery, Alabama, Priscilla Duncan, the timing of the fire at Simpson's home should raise questions.

Jill "was talking to Siegelman's attorneys about what she was witness to, discussing going public," said Duncan in a conversation late last week. "On February 15 she also sent a letter to Art Leach [Scrushy's attorney]."

Six days after Simpson sent the letter to Leach, her house caught fire.
Click to expand...

THE CAR ACCIDENT
Less than two weeks after her house caught fire, Simpson's car was allegedly forced off the road. She was rushed to Marshall Medical Center South and was treated for bruising on her arms and chest. According to the police report of the accident, Simpson was heading northbound on U.S 431 when a "non contact" vehicle made an improper lane change into her lane. Simpson swerved to avoid hitting the vehicle, almost going into the ditch, and struck a car parked in a driveway. (In the police sketch of the accident below, Simpson's car is marked #1. The parked car is marked #2.)


According to the police report, the driver of the non-contact vehicle was Mark Roden of Rainbow City, Alabama.

Ms. Simpson told RAW STORY several weeks ago that a state trooper interviewed Mr. Roden at the scene of the accident, and "when the trooper asked him for his employment information, Mr. Roden said that he was a officer with the Attalla police department. He was then allowed to leave without a citation."

The city clerk for the city of Attalla, Alabama confirmed to us that Mark Roden was indeed a former police officer with the Attalla Police Department, but she could not provide additional information. Calls left for the Attalla police chief were not returned.

Repeated attempts to reach Mark Roden at the residence listed on the accident report have been unsuccessful.

According to Priscilla Duncan, on the day of the car accident Simpson had met with Richard Scrushy, the co-defendant in the Siegelman case, to discuss coming forward as a whistleblower.

"It is definitely coincidental," Duncan said.
Click to expand...

The Raw Story | Break-ins plague targets of US Attorneys


Where are you getting this?

Blago wanted money for his general election campaign
Siegelman wanted money for his special issue campaign

They're the same damn thing.

If I rob a store in order to get money to keep my small business from going bankrupt, am I somehow less of a scumbag than if I robbed the store to put money in my pocket?
Click to expand...

Where am I getting this? Ahhh... how about common sense? I'm shocked that you cannot see this! Your analogy is absolutely silly. The monies that Seigleman raised for his Lottery Education Fund, was part of HIS job as elected Governor. It's not like we was planning on sending his kids to Harvard with it. It was for the greater good of the state that elected him. I repeat... there WAS NO PERSONAL GAIN, and there's nothing that I've seen so far that makes me think otherwise.

Oh, so now McCain is a bastion of truth and honesty? Funny how 3 months ago you would have considered a friendship with McCain to be proof of this guys propensity to lie. :lol:
Click to expand...

You shouldn't make assumptions. Just because I didn't think McCain was the right choice for President does not mean that I ever thought he was dishonorable. But that's besides the point. Here is a man that is a very close friend to McCain and a lifelong Republican who without a doubt think Siegleman was framed.


If your evidence for these claims is as lacking as what you've offered so far, don't bother.
Click to expand...


There is tons of info out there, so I'll just paste some Wiki stuff on here and you can delve further if you wish.

[edit] Testimony of star witness
Witness Nick Bailey, who provided the cornerstone testimony upon which the conviction was based, was subsequently convicted of extortion; upon being given 10 years in prison Bailey cooperated with prosecutors to lighten his own sentence. Although he engaged in over 70 interviews with the prosecution against Siegelman, none of the notes detailing these interviews were shared with the defense. In addition, after the case was tried it was confirmed that the check he testified he saw Scrushy write for Siegelman was actually written days later, when he was not actually present.[20][21]


[edit] Partiality of the jury
Following the trial, Kilborn and McDonald raised issues regarding the jury's impartiality after receiving emails exchanged between two jurors during the trial.[22] In court at the time the judge would not hear the concerns of the defense regarding jury partiality, insisting, "I do not want to deliberate too much about these e-mails".[22] Documents obtained by Time magazine in November 2008, revealed that one or more jurors had repeatedly contacted the government's legal team during the trial. The documents also indicated that prosecutors interviewed two jurors, despite express instructions from the judge that no contact with jurors should occur without his permission, while the court was reviewing charges of juror misconduct.[23]


[edit] Karl Rove connection
Allegations that Siegelman was prosecuted at the insistence of Bush-appointed officials at the Justice Department, as well as the insistence of Leura Canary, a U.S. Attorney in Montgomery whose husband was Alabama's top Republican operative and who had for years worked closely with Karl Rove, led federal courts to release the accused on bail[23] In June 2007, a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Alabama, signed a sworn statement that, five years earlier, she had heard that Karl Rove was preparing to neutralize Siegelman politically with an investigation headed by the U.S. Department of Justice.[24] Simpson later told The Birmingham News that her affidavit's wording could be interpreted in two ways, and stated that she had written her affidavit herself, whereas in her Congressional testimony she had admitted to having help from a Siegelman supporter.[25]

According to Simpson's statement, she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary's "girls" and "Karl" would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.[24] "Canary's girls" supposedly included his wife, Leura Canary, who is United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Alice Martin.[24] Leura Canary did not submit voluntary recusal paperwork until two months after Siegelman attorney David Cromwell Johnson's press conference in March 2002.[26][27][28]

In interviews with the press, Simpson has emphasized that she heard Rove's name mentioned in a phone conversation in which the discussion turned to Siegelman, clarified that she heard someone involved in a 2002 conference call refer to a meeting between Mr. Rove and Justice Department officials on the subject of Siegelman, and revealed that Karl Rove ordered her to "catch Siegelman cheating on his wife."[20] The Anniston Star published an editorial stating that, "If that's his story, then Rove should not hesitate to go under oath and answer questions before a congressional committee."[29]

Despite claims to 60 Minutes about having met and spoken with Rove repeatedly over the previous several years, in her sworn testimony to Congress in 2007 Simpson did not mention having spoken with him or met with him.[citation needed] On the other hand, Raw Story reports that Karl Rove advised Bill Canary on managing Republican Bob Riley's gubernatorial campaign against Siegelman in the election fraud controversy of 2002, based on the testimony of "two Republican lawyers who have asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation," one of whom is close to Alabama's Republican National Committee.[30]

Simpson's house burned down soon after she began whistleblowing, and Simpson's car was driven off the road by a private investigator[citation needed] and wrecked. As a result of the timing of these incidents, Simpson said, "Anytime you speak truth to power, there are great risks. I've been attacked," explaining she felt a "moral obligation" to speak up.[31]


[edit] Misconduct by Attorney General
In November 2008, new documents revealed alleged misconduct by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney and other prosecutors in the case. Extensive and unusual contact between the prosecution and the jury appears to have occurred.[23] According to Time, a Department of Justice Staffer furnished the new documents at the risk of losing her job. The documents included e-mails written by Canary, long after her recusal, offering legal advice to subordinates handling the case. At the time Canary wrote the e-mails, her husband was publicly supporting the state's Republican governor, Bob Riley. In one of Leura Canary's e-mails made public by Time, dated September 19, 2005, she forwarded senior prosecutors on the Siegelman case a three-page political commentary by Siegelman. Canary highlighted a single passage which, she told her subordinates, "Ya'll need to read, because he refers to a 'survey' which allegedly shows that 67% of Alabamans believe the investigation of him to be politically motivated ... Perhaps [this is] grounds not to let [Siegelman] discuss court activities in the media!" At Siegleman's sentencing, the prosecutors urged the judge to use these public staements by Siegelman as grounds for increasing his prison sentence.[23]
Click to expand...

Don Siegelman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Most certainly, sometimes life is stranger than fiction. You can deny it all you want, but according to what I have read, there are police reports on both the house fire and the car "accident." So you can go on thinking the gal is nuts, that's fine. But nuts or not, both instances DID happen. Is there any relation to her blowing the whistle? Nothing that I know of, but you can't deny that it's extremely coincidental.
Click to expand...

Note: I'm not denying that there was a fire at this lady's house or that she had a car accident. What I am denying is the ludicrous claims advanced and insinuated by her and you that they had anything to do with some secret conspiracy to shut her up. That is literally one of the most ridiculous things imaginable.



Where am I getting this? Ahhh... how about common sense? I'm shocked that you cannot see this! Your analogy is absolutely silly. The monies that Seigleman raised for his Lottery Education Fund, was part of HIS job as elected Governor. It's not like we was planning on sending his kids to Harvard with it. It was for the greater good of the state that elected him. I repeat... there WAS NO PERSONAL GAIN, and there's nothing that I've seen so far that makes me think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Blago wasn't sending his kids to Harvard with campaign funds either, and I'm sure he considered his campaign to be for the "greater good" of the state, much like you consider donations to the lottery campaign fund to be for the "greater good" of that state.

Fact: Siegelman wanted money to be raised for that fund. Whether it was out of a selfish desire or out of the most purely altruistic desire possible, that doesn't have any bearing on the legality of what he did. This is not a difficult concept.

Again, if I rob a bank and then donate that money to charity, am I less guilty of robbery than if I robbed the bank and used the money to buy drugs?

You shouldn't make assumptions. Just because I didn't think McCain was the right choice for President does not mean that I ever thought he was dishonorable. But that's besides the point. Here is a man that is a very close friend to McCain and a lifelong Republican who without a doubt think Siegleman was framed.
Click to expand...

He's also a long time friend to Siegelman, or did you not pick that up? And again, what is he basing his conclusion on? Did he go to court and watch the trial? Did he investigate it himself? Or is he just saying "This is my friend and he's a good guy and I can't believe he'd do that!"


There is tons of info out there, so I'll just paste some Wiki stuff on here and you can delve further if you wish.
Click to expand...

Points 1 and 2:

Given that there's no way to judge the veracity of these claims with the evidence available, we'll have to see what the 11th circuit says.

Point 3:

Again, this relies entirely on Simpson, who has no corroboration for any of her claims and seems ****ing crazy.

Point 4:

Even if all this is true, it's simply evidence that the prosecutor in this case should be chastised for her actions. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Siegelman is guilty, nor will it affect the verdict in any way.
 
RightinNYC said:
Blago wasn't sending his kids to Harvard with campaign funds either, and I'm sure he considered his campaign to be for the "greater good" of the state
Click to expand...

Note the word "HIS," and in "his campaign." This has nothing to do with the state that elected him, and everything to do with getting HIMSELF re-elected. See the diff?

much like you consider donations to the lottery campaign fund to be for the "greater good" of that state.
Click to expand...

No, not like I would consider a donation to a lottery campaign devised to aid the constituents of his state. That does not put money in Seigleman's pockets. That does not put money in Seigleman's re-election campaign. He is just doing the job that he was elected to do.

Fact: Siegelman wanted money to be raised for that fund.
Click to expand...

No kidding. He was Governor. It was his idea. Of course he wanted donations!

Whether it was out of a selfish desire or out of the most purely altruistic desire possible, that doesn't have any bearing on the legality of what he did.
Click to expand...


It appears that he did nothing wrong. At least for what he was convicted of.

This is not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not. So whay are you not getting it?

Again, if I rob a bank and then donate that money to charity, am I less guilty of robbery than if I robbed the bank and used the money to buy drugs?
Click to expand...

Terrible analogy. The bank was never robbed.
 
Middleground said:
Note the word "HIS," and in "his campaign." This has nothing to do with the state that elected him, and everything to do with getting HIMSELF re-elected. See the diff?

No, not like I would consider a donation to a lottery campaign devised to aid the constituents of his state. That does not put money in Seigleman's pockets. That does not put money in Seigleman's re-election campaign. He is just doing the job that he was elected to do.
Click to expand...

This is just incorrect. The lottery campaign was a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN that Siegelman was running. He wanted a lottery to be enacted because that was a campaign pledge that he had run on. He had a DIRECT vested interest in seeing a lottery enacted, and needed funds in his lottery campaign war chest in order for that to happen. I don't understand how you don't realize how related these two things are.

HYPO: I run for mayor of NYC, pledging that I'm going to end smoking. Halfway through my term, I haven't ended smoking yet, so I need to convince the public that smoking is bad. I start a "Smoking Cessation Education Campaign Fund" in order to spread that message. Do you see why I have a vested interest in the success of that fund? Do you see how that campaign fund serves a critical political purpose for me?


It appears that he did nothing wrong. At least for what he was convicted of
Click to expand...
.

I'm just amazed at how someone can be so convinced of that fact without seeing a single moment of the trial, without having any of the relevant evidence presented to them, and without having any knowledge of the relevant laws.


Terrible analogy. The bank was never robbed.
Click to expand...

:confused: A crime was committed. You're simply trying to argue that there was no motive.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is just incorrect. The lottery campaign was a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN that Siegelman was running. He wanted a lottery to be enacted because that was a campaign pledge that he had run on. He had a DIRECT vested interest in seeing a lottery enacted, and needed funds in his lottery campaign war chest in order for that to happen. I don't understand how you don't realize how related these two things are.

HYPO: I run for mayor of NYC, pledging that I'm going to end smoking. Halfway through my term, I haven't ended smoking yet, so I need to convince the public that smoking is bad. I start a "Smoking Cessation Education Campaign Fund" in order to spread that message. Do you see why I have a vested interest in the success of that fund? Do you see how that campaign fund serves a critical political purpose for me?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Right, you have not convinced me one iota. If that is your stance, than any politician that raises money for a campaign promise is only doing it for themselves. So they can get re-elected. Shoot, it's not like they are trying to do the job and fulfill their campaign promises, LOL. :doh

BTW, I'm not proclaiming in any way that Seigleman was as honest as they come. I doubt any politician is. I just believe that in this case the conviction of Don Seigleman is completely and totally bogus. A witch hunt. There's not much that gets me riled up, but this case has. Out of all the stuff that has happened under Bush, I believe this to be the worst slap on the face. **** like this should not happen in America.
 
Middleground said:
Judging by the fact that I know, there's no way it will not be overturned. And rightly so.
Click to expand...

FYI.
Don Siegelman "disappointed, but not discouraged"
Posted by Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff -- Birmingham News March 06, 2009 2:52 PM

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman said today is "disappointed, but not discouraged" that an appellate court today upheld most of his government corruption conviction. "The fight will continue," Siegelman said in an e-mail to supporters.

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling
upheld key bribery, conspiracy and obstruction of justice counts against Siegelman but reversed two counts of honest services mail fraud.

The court vacated Siegelman's sentence since the two fraud counts were reversed. Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said a new sentencing hearing will be scheduled in the future.

The next step in the appeal process may be to ask for review by all of the judges of the 11th Circuit, Kilborn said.

A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and Scrushy of bribery, conspiracy and fraud. Prosecutors alleged Scrushy bribed Siegelman for a seat on the state Certificate of Need Review Board with $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's 1999 lottery campaign. Siegelman also was convicted on a separate obstruction of justice charge. Siegelman was sentenced to more than seven years in prison but later was released pending appeal of his case. Scrushy was sentenced to more than six years and still is serving in a federal prison in Texas.

Defense lawyers argued in their appeals that there was not adequate evidence to prove Scrushy and Siegelman struck a deal to swap the CON board appointment for donations to the lottery campaign.

But the court said: "In the absence of a defendant's confession or observation of his wrongdoing by a third person, proof by circumstantial evidence and the fair inferences to be drawn therefrom is both necessary and permissible. .¤.¤. While Siegelman may not approve that the testimony of coconspirators was sufficient to support the jury's findings of fact, the jury was free to disregard or disbelieve it. They believed it."

Siegelman's attorneys also argued that the verdict was tainted by jury misconduct, but the court did not agree.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Middleground said:
Yes, I read it today. Though 2 counts were overturned, it's very disappointing. So what is the status now? Is he out of options?
Click to expand...

He can ask for an en banc hearing by the 11th Circuit, but it's unclear if they'll grant it. If they don't, he goes back to the district court for sentencing.
 
Oh I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about Karl Rove. Don't mind me, carry on.

/exit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom