Power Line News

Marxo

Whips out his GOP conspiracy du jour.

Having ...

Followed the rise, nay elevation, of Super Sleaze Grant Woods, it is safe for one to assume any position that is 180° opposite of his for the sake of reality.

UFB

I can’t even remember how many years ago it was that I stopped watching 60 Minutes - it was that long ago.

Cöcktail Party News - That’s all it is.

.

No, Don Siegelman was a crook, convicted not by “Republicans” but by our legal system which weighed the facts of the case and found him guilty.

right, I agree, I’m just saying what I see the konspiraci kooks are up to.

Two other criminal cases were initiated against Siegelman and later dropped because other prosecutors thought the cases were not just.

And the House rejected 2 articles of impeachment against Nixon, too: tax evasion and bombing Cambodia.  It’s the ones that stuck that got him.

Fifty-two current and former attorneys general - Democrats and Republicans - requested that Congress look at the case because of appearances of politically motivated prosecution.

How many called for his pardon as the victim of an actual politically motivated prosecution?  A Congressional review would not set him free.

A key witness in the current case, Nick Bailey, said he met with prosecutors 70 times and they asked him to write his story down several times so he could keep it straight.

The charges in the 2005 trial involved incidents from 1995 and 1999.

The judge’s decision to put Siegelman in chains and send him off immediately was certainly unusual, especially for a white-collar crime. Normally, those convicted have 45 days to get their affairs in order before reporting to prison. Usually, they also are allowed to stay out on bail during an appeal process. But the judge, a former state GOP executive committee member who was appointed to the judgeship by President Bush, went another away.

Scooter Libby didn’t get those perks either.

Almost everyone in the judicial system says a seven-year prison term does not fit the crime, but Fuller actually could have made the sentence longer, based on law. Yet, former Alabama Gov. Guy Hunt, a Republican, never spent a day in jail for state ethics violations.

A state ethics charge is not directly comparable to federal felony charges.

Siegelman never personally pocketed any of the money, but he was responsible for repaying the lottery campaign fund. People contributing to political funds and candidates is nothing new, and it’s nothing new for those who give the most to obtain government jobs or appointments. It happens almost every day in every state. (Shout out and waves to all those Bush Pioneers!!!

But not a straight quid pro quo at the request of a politician.  And if you believe no money could come back to the governor, then you probably believe you can’t still donate to a dissolved Education Lottery Fund.
http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobileregister/index.ssf?contract/lotto1.html

Well, at least Marko clearly shows whose side he’s on - the side of the liars.

The people at 60 Minutes are out-and-out liars and knaves.  The enemy within is at least as dangerous as the enemy without - but only if they can spread their poison and get people to believe them.

Fortunately every day fewer and fewer people believe them.

ILburbs - 02 March 2008 01:03 AM

Bravo, PowerLine!

Not so much..

Then there is the trial judge, Mark Fuller. Simpson alleges that Judge Fuller is part of the conspiracy, too. She concocted a bizarre theory that Fuller--to my knowledge, a competent and respected federal judge--had a conflict of interest (like Butts), in that he is an investor in an aviation company that has federal contracts, and one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys handling the Siegelman prosecution is an Air Force Reserve officer. Don’t spend a lot of time trying to get your mind around that one; in my professional opinion, the claim is frivolous.

Why does John dismiss this so quickly, why does he say not to look too closely at that stuff. Oh wait a minute....

Fuller is not that easy to dismiss.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000675

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000701

...But think about that for a moment. Fuller, an Alabama Republican stalwart, leaves for the federal bench—then finds his work as District Attorney under investigation by his replacement Gary McAliley. Fuller’s federal position was secure but his reputation was bruised, and he responded to his critics by insisting he left the D.A.’s office in “sound financial condition.” But he also let it be known that he felt that he was under political attack—by a recent Siegelman appointee.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000714

The second question is why, given that a case against Don Siegelman had been commenced in Birmingham before Chief Judge U.W. Clemon, ending in a dismissal with prejudice, the federal prosecutors were suddenly before a new grand jury in a new district. Conventionally, criminal claims against a defendant are joined, but here they were not. There seem to be plenty of illegitimate reasons for this strange bifurcation, the most troubling being that the prosecutors were busily shopping for a judge to their liking—a very dubious practice, and something that judges should guard against. But Judge Fuller raised no questions on the matter.

the RICO statute be used extremely sparingly, if at all, in political cases. Procedures are in place which limit its use and require approval at a very high level in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C....

One of the charges against Siegelman, on which he was convicted, was that he had accepted gifts from an Alabama lobbyist. When that lobbyist testified, he made the point that he done the same thing–except in a much larger way—with Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, without the Justice Department raising any questions about it....Judge Fuller owes his judgeship in part to Jefferson Sessions, moreover, he was an active supporter and campaign donor to Sessions’s senatorial campaign...No charges were ever brought against Sessions, nor was any investigation ever undertaken. Yet Siegelman was convicted on this charge.

So we return to our original question: did Mark Fuller perform the essential functions that the citizens expect of a federal judge? The answer is no. The conviction was a travesty.

Oh and the “weak” aviation link:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000762

Judge Fuller held a controlling 43.75% interest in government contractor Doss Aviation, Inc. After investigating these claims for over a month, the attorneys filed a motion for Fuller’s recusal on April 18, 2007. The motion stated that Fuller’s total stake in Doss Aviation was worth between $1-5 million, and that Fuller’s income from his stock for 2004 was between $100,001 and $1 million dollars.

Doss Aviation and its subsidiaries also held contracts with the FBI. This is problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.

In other words there a ton more to this story than just Simpson. Google Rove and let’s not forget a whole cast of characters involvement in Alabama’s politics going back to 94.

-This story isn’t about Rove
-It isn’t about Simpson
-This story is about very dirty politics played by a bunch of noodleheads who are now scrambling to not get caught.

I’ll give Powerline a chance to catch up with this case (they do claim they are relatively new to it)

They could start here:

http://tinyurl.com/3and3j

Scott Horton seems confused.  If any judge who clashed with appointees of a multiple term governor has a duty of recusal, then how is it appropriate to complain about a change of venue?

Horton has to somehow explain why a jury convicted Siegelman of demanding a payout from Scrushy to Siegelman’s pet project in return for a state office.  Horton comes up with some convoluted reasoning:

Siegelman was targeted for being a Democrat; the partisan ID of his accessory was irrelevant.

The fourth question is why the case was built by linking Siegelman to his adversary Richard Scrushy, the notorious executive of HealthSouth. Scrushy had supported Siegelman’s Republican opponent, and was himself a Republican. However, Scrushy had already been tried and acquitted in Birmingham, and many in the state were seething over the botched prosecution. There was a broad public demand for Scrushy’s head. Given this situation, the linkage between Scrushy and Siegelman was weak and highly prejudicial to Siegelman. The judge should have investigated whether prosecutors were attempting to capitalize on public anger against Scrushy to “get” Siegelman—but I can find no evidence at all that Fuller examined this possibility.

Siegelman was unfairly convicted of something which other people did too, and for which they weren’t sent to prison--though they should be!

One of the charges against Siegelman, on which he was convicted, was that he had accepted gifts from an Alabama lobbyist. When that lobbyist testified, he made the point that he done the same thing–except in a much larger way—with Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, without the Justice Department raising any questions about it. Now, as we have already noted, Judge Fuller owes his judgeship in part to Jefferson Sessions, moreover, he was an active supporter and campaign donor to Sessions’s senatorial campaign. Moreover, Sessions’s deputy and successor as Alabama Attorney General was Bill Pryor, who played a key role in directing the prosecution of Siegelman. When Sessions’s name came up, the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section lawyer objected, asking that this evidence be excluded, and Fuller complied. No charges were ever brought against Sessions, nor was any investigation ever undertaken. Yet Siegelman was convicted on this charge.

2. Sessions has now repeatedly been linked to efforts to politicize the prosecutorial process. One key email turned over by the White House in the early days of the U.S. attorney scandal–back in the period in which the White House and Justice Department were still disclosing documents on a piecemeal basis–had a White House staffer close to Karl Rove advising Justice Department lawyers to turn to Sessions for justification of the removal of a career prosecutor in Arkansas and his replacement with a man who ran politically-inspired voter “caging” operations for Rove. Sessions, it was argued, would provide testimonial that this was a reasonable move. The inference, sustained in other documents, is that Sessions was an integral part of the effort to politicize the U.S. attorney’s offices.

Emphasizing the serial, deliberate nature of government corruption will undermine trust in government.

RICO was developed in the late 1960s to provide prosecutors more reach to fight organized crime. The use of this statute in cases involving political corruption charges is problematic for a number of reasons, among them because it begins a process of marking government functions as organized crime—which in itself undermines public confidence in government.

Doss Aviation and its subsidiaries also held contracts with the FBI. This is problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.

Surely, if the FBI were not permitted to show up at the trial, the evidence the FBI gathered would still be introduced, and Doss would still get its contracts regardless of a single trial in Alabama?

As with other stories, I am content to wait, but it seems as if this one is falling apart. Whether it accelerates has more to do with the subject than anything else: The Bush-TNG story had legs because people were interested, while this one doesn’t have a critical timeline like a general election.

Anyway, what I get from this is that Dana Jill Simpson’s story has many logical holes, and keeps changing. Karl Rove wanted her to catch Siegelman in flagrante delicto? Does this make sense to you?

So my bet is that it collapses within a couple of weeks.

As I said, it would be faster if anyone outside Alabama cared about it.

cletus - 02 March 2008 10:41 AM

As with other stories, I am content to wait, but it seems as if this one is falling apart. Whether it accelerates has more to do with the subject than anything else: The Bush-TNG story had legs because people were interested, while this one doesn’t have a critical timeline like a general election.

Anyway, what I get from this is that Dana Jill Simpson’s story has many logical holes, and keeps changing. Karl Rove wanted her to catch Siegelman in flagrante delicto? Does this make sense to you?

So my bet is that it collapses within a couple of weeks.

As I said, it would be faster if anyone outside Alabama cared about it.

If it were so easy. Horton’s work (linked above) points out many of the issues with the conviction.

Powerline makes the mistake of concentrating on Simpson when so many other questions remain.

Doss would still get its contracts regardless of a single trial in Alabama?

So the fact that:
-A highly partisan judge
-Who had been shopped for by the prosecution,
-Who has a controlling interest in a company that gets a large government contract during the trial
-While working on a highly political case
-Who may have held a grudge against the defendant

And there are no issues. The list gets longer and longer the more you look at it.

The loony tunes democrats are using this smear to reaise funds from their base. Doesn’t matter that it is not true or close to true or have a shred of veracity.
Oh no just get it into print or send out a dvd or a
video snip and then the money comes rolling in.
That is why ol’ Dan gets rolled out every 6 wks or so. Time for money from the base and to keep their interest in the derangements

CBS caught lying again? Who would’ve guessed...?

Nothing will happen to them. Like The New Republic’s “soldier” who made up lie after lie, the rest of the MSM will just ignore this.

Thank the good Lord for the internet. At least some will see the ongoing lies of the old media.

Like so many others, I watched 60 Minutes,too; however, sometime during the 90’s I began to see the bias and stopped. Since then the MSM has spirled down, I believe. Now, I cannot watch TV news without seeing a bias and that is a sad commentary on reporting and jouralism as a whole.

-A highly partisan judge

Shown by what?  He presided over a trial that nailed a big GOP donor.

-Who had been shopped for by the prosecution,

Possibly, but Horton also claims Scrushy was gonna get nailed throughout the state.

-Who has a controlling interest in a company that gets a large government contract during the trial

Was it during? You mean, before the verdict?

-While working on a highly political case

That’s a given with the trial of a former governor.  Nothing to do with the judge.

-Who may have held a grudge against the defendant

And then again, might not.  He criticized his successor, who criticized him and his friends, and the Judge condemned his accuser.

Has anyone ever seen Lucy Ramirez and Jill Simpson in the same room?

My theory is that Lucy/Jill, upset at the mess than Gunga Dan and Mapes made of the TANG documents she handed over on the sly, decided to surface in person, rather than leave it to bungling third parties like Bill Burkett, in this latest incarnation of BDS at CBS (in this case, the get-Rove option).

Superb job on this report, John.

Here is the sad fact though.  Even though a small percentage will now know the score on the 60 Minutes smear job on Karl Rove and the Republican party, the vast majority of the general public is not going to hear how far the mighty 60 Minutes investigative journalists have fallen. 

We’ve asked the same question over an over: who will watchdog the watchdogs?  We are now able to watchdog the mainstream media, but we still have not been able to mainstream our whistle blowing.

rplat - 02 March 2008 08:52 AM

The ability to influence attitudes and behavior with distorted facts and lies by a malignant media entity like CBS is very dangerous.  “Powerline” should never let them off the hook.

This stuff is old hat for CBS-after all, they managed to lose the Vietnam War with biased reporting too.