Did anyone else catch the piece on 60 Minutes last night regarding former Governor Don Siegelman(D) of Alabama and the efforts Karl Rove was going to to destroy him?

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

I hope they do these types of investigations on all of the Bush administration as they now come to the end (hopefully) of their regime. This has been some of the slimiest political BS since Gingrich, Hyde and Starr blew 100+ million tax payer dollars and sanctioned criminal behavior in the attempt to discredit President Bill Clinton.

At the very least, maybe the exposure last night of his underhanded attempts to deny the voters their choice of a Governor will influence some of those with an ounce of integrity left to distance themselves from this sleazeball.

I missed the 60 Minutes thing but have been aware of this since at least June. The entire matter is quite unreal, but illustrative of both the willingness of Bush's right hand man to do anything for his party and the politicization of all aspects of government under the current President. Somehow I don't expect Fox News to distance themselves much at all from their new hire over it.

I hope they do these types of investigations on all of the Bush administration as they now come to the end (hopefully) of their regime. This has been some of the slimiest political BS since Gingrich, Hyde and Starr blew 100+ million tax payer dollars and sanctioned criminal behavior in the attempt to discredit President Bill Clinton.I hope they do too, but I just don't see that happening. He'll (hopefully!) step down at the end of his presidency, and the next president - especially someone like Obama - is likely to give some speech about letting old battles end to heal the country and bring the parties together. The attacks on Clinton were largely driven by the Republicans, the Democrats just don't seem to have the stones to do the same.

The attacks on Clinton were largely driven by the Republicans, the Democrats just don't seem to have the stones to do the same.It could be "stones," but it could also be that those who tend to go Dem have never developed a knack for this type of corrupt gamesmanship, or that they can conceive of taking such actions but tend not to for moral issues. Whatever the reason, I consider it a virtue rather than a defect -- one can be tough on one's opponents without sinking to these levels.

Oh, come on. Both parties play equally dirty. You can't be naive enough to honestly assign those qualities to the Democratic party as an excuse for their inaction.

Oh, come on. Both parties play equally dirty. You can't be naive enough to honestly assign those qualities to the Democratic party as an excuse for their inaction.

While I agree wholeheartedly that both parties are equally capable of playing the game dirty, it is hard to come up with publically acknowledged comparisons to: Nixon and the Watergate affair; Gingrich, Hyde and Starr and the Clinton invesssssstigationssssss; the Bush 2000 campaign and the South Carolina racist phone banks attacking McCain for having a "colored" child in the family; and, Karl Rove and and and and.............

I have no doubt the Dems play dirty as well, but their shit does not get flung in the face of the public as often or as blatantly.

So, pointing to balantly worse behavior, makes sneaky bad behavior, somehow, good?

So, pointing to balantly worse behavior, makes sneaky bad behavior, somehow, good?

Hmmm... Famaliar...

Oh yeah. The waterboarding and beheading thing. Sixee is learning! :D

Meant to start a new thread.....my bad. Text removed.

Hmmm... Famaliar...

Oh yeah. The waterboarding and beheading thing. Sixee is learning! :D

Sorry, that's the only conclusion I can draw from the statement.

Both sides suck, and will try anything they can concieve of to "win".

The American people lose, in the process.

The 2 party system in this country, has us in a stranglehold. You give up 1 bad thing on 1 side, for something equally bad on the other.

Oh, come on. Both parties play equally dirty. You can't be naive enough to honestly assign those qualities to the Democratic party as an excuse for their inaction.Bylimet answered this quite well, but I should add that simply reading what I wrote should disabuse you of the idea that I just "assigned" those qualities to the Dems. I chose my wording pretty carefully on that, in fact.

Like Bylimet, I find it difficult to find a series of Democratic tactics to compare to the vast array of Republican-organized electoral shenanigans since the Watergate era. Siegelman, the NH phone-bank jamming scandal, one Rep candidate (Michael Steele IIRC) passing out blue pamphlets indicating he was a Democrat*, attempts at disenfranchisement of likely Dem voters and numerous other examples of going beyond the usual negative advertising from candidate committees. I find the difference between the parties both qualitatively and quantitively different. Why the differences exist I don't know (and are likely different from candidate to candidate).

It doesn't mean that Dems can't be underhanded (look at the last LA mayoral election for a good example), only that the Republicans excel at it.

*His explanation was something like, "I wanted people to know I'm like a Reagan Democrat, only a Republican!"

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0224dems0224.html

Tee hee.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0224dems0224.html

Tee hee.

Oh god that Woman is crazy...

Siegleman was a crook, found guilty by a jury (not by evil Rove) and went to jail. My sympathy meter isn't registering.

And Thormir, look no further than Wisconsin for organized Democrat shenanigans --

http://www.bestandworst.com/v/?id=65550

Tthe case had been dropped in 2004, but reportedly pressure from the administration to local prosecutors resulted in its reopening. An affidavit (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rove-affidavit/?resultpage=3&) from Republican lawyer Dana Simpson* implicates Rove as being involved. [Shortly after she agreed to come forward, her house was burned (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000351) down and her car run off the road and totaled.] The Harpers article also details behavior by Siegelman's former opponent, Republican Gov. Bob Riley, that is quite similar to what Siegelman was accused of yet went uninvestigated.

A very sordid affair.

Anyone who's annoyed with the 2 party system should support instant runoff voting, as that's the only way for 3rd parties to have a shot at existing. Without it, it IS in your best interest to look at the polls to see who the top two candidates are, and to vote for one of them.

Siegleman was a crook, found guilty by a jury (not by evil Rove) and went to jail. My sympathy meter isn't registering.

And Thormir, look no further than Wisconsin for organized Democrat shenanigans --

http://www.bestandworst.com/v/?id=65550


My question to you is: Would you fire upon US citizens on US soil if ordered to do so?

A bit more on the Siegelman case. First off, it's interesting to hear that that specific segment of 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml) was blacked out in Alabama. The station originally stated that it was due to a technical problem from CBS in New York, but when CBS said it wasn't, the station went with a new claim (http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7918345). Hilarious.

The 60 Minutes episode includes the following bit with Ms. Simpson, which I wasn't aware of previously: Now a Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has come forward to claim that the Siegelman prosecution was part of a five-year secret campaign to ruin the governor. Simpson told 60 Minutes she did what's called "opposition research" for the Republican party. She says during a meeting in 2001, Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political advisor, asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife.
"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley clarifies.

"Yes, if I could," Simpson says.
I knew that several Republicans were involved in the alleged scandal that tripped up Siegelman, and that none of them were indicted. It's a bit worse (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1668220,00.html) than that.According to Young, among the recipients of his largesse were the state's former attorney general Jeff Sessions, now a U.S. Senator, and William Pryor Jr., Sessions' successor as attorney general and now a federal judge. Young, whose detailed statements are described in documents obtained by TIME, became a key witness in a major case in Alabama that brought down a high-profile politician and landed him in federal prison with an 88-month sentence. As it happened, however, that official was the top Democrat named by Young in a series of interviews, and none of the Republicans whose campaigns he fingered were investigated in the case, let alone prosecuted. The same allegations used to put Siegelman behind bars applied to others, yet prosecutors in the case never bothered to investigate them.

Here's a thought, don't take bribes.

Here's a thought, don't take bribes.I think the whole point is that he didn't take bribes and the "star" witness the government used was about to do some serious time and avoided it by saying that the governor took a bribe.

I guess the real lesson here is going to be a karmic one and we are seeing the beginning of that "spiritual payback" starting now, and it looks like Rove and a few US atorneys are in the "spiritual crosshairs".

Karma FTW!!!!

Anyone ever wonder how radically different our elections would be if we did not conduct any polls? Vote for who you like, and then see the results as you go up each step. No chance for people to simply jump on the winning side, or politicians to step up their campaign when they think they're losign ground.It could be "stones," but it could also be that those who tend to go Dem have never developed a knack for this type of corrupt gamesmanship, or that they can conceive of taking such actions but tend not to for moral issues. Whatever the reason, I consider it a virtue rather than a defect -- one can be tough on one's opponents without sinking to these levels.Lets face it, both sides pull this garbage, the Republicans are simply better at the follow through. There is a significant difference between Rove and Bill Clinton however. Clinton's attack was based around a moral affair, and up until he purjured himself I think he was doing okay. Rove and company have essentially committed crimes against this country, and need to be investigated as criminals. Unfortunately the Republicans are too busy protecting them and themselves, and the Democrates just can't seem to mount an attack.

You would think that honest, upstanding individuals in government would want to band together to root out evil and investigate the strong stink of wrongdoing.

You would think that honest, upstanding individuals in government ...

And therein lies the problem.

Just so you know, I vomited a little as I typed that.

Rove asks some questions:

Dear Mr. Abrams:
On April 7th, you again devoted a substantial part of your show to the claim of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that I was behind his prosecution. Your continued coverage of this issue raises questions about your journalistic standards and those of MSNBC and NBC. During your broadcast, Mr. Siegelman referred to Ms. Dana Jill Simpson as a “respected Republican political operative,” a reference it seems you accept because of the frequent attention you give her in your broadcasts.

Have you, during your coverage of Ms. Simpson, ever actually looked into her claims? For example, have you ever asked her what campaigns she worked as “an operative” with me?

And if so, did you check out what she said by calling the candidates who were my clients or their campaign managers to ask if she was involved in those campaigns? Did you review campaign expenditure reports to see if her name appeared as a paid operative? Or did you check with the DeKalb County Republican chairman or activists (such as the Moore campaign chairman, an effort she told the Judiciary Committee she was active in) to see if she really was a “respected Republican political operative?”

Did you inquire when it was that I first asked her to undertake unnamed campaign tasks, as she alleged happened in the years before 2001? And did you try to ascertain whether she was telling the truth about those requests?

Did you inquire when and where her supposed 2001 meeting with me took place at which she was asked to follow Siegelman and photograph him? If so, did you make any effort to see if she could document her claim?

And if you were personally convinced by her answers that there was a good likelihood of such a meeting, did you try to figure out if there was any way that I was likely to have been available for such a meeting? Or is it merely enough for her to assert for you to repeat?

Didn’t it strike you as foolish for me to ask someone with no particular experience to undertake a task requiring adroit surveillance and shadowing skills, a mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces?

Then consider Ms. Simpson’s September 14, 2007 interview with the House Judiciary Committee that followed an earlier extensive interview by a Democratic committee lawyer. Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story that you then repeated on February 25th? After all, wouldn’t that be something Congressman John Conyer’s people would find interesting?

Don’t you find it odd that in 143 pages of testimony in September she said nothing about having worked with me in campaigns, nothing about being asked by me to undertake various tasks, nothing about my supposedly having asked her to follow Governor Siegelman and photograph him in a compromising position, nothing about having had meetings with me? In fact, she never says she knows me or has met me. Don’t you find that odd? Or were these considerations that got lost as you attempted to catch-up with CBS on the story? Did the pressure of competition lead you to discard tough questions and sober reflection?

In fact, did you even read the transcript of Dana Jill Simpson’s testimony? Did you try to ascertain if there was any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the claims she made to the Judiciary Committee staff about Don Siegelman, Terry Butts, Judge Fuller and others were likely to be accurate? Did it matter to you that following the release of her interview, as one observer has written, that “every single person whose name Simpson invokes as she spins her stories says that she is either lying or deluded?” Are you aware that the list of people denying her claims includes Don Siegelman, whom she claims repeatedly urged her to provide her original affidavit?

Did you try to discover whether there was any evidence she did in fact shadow Don Siegelman? Did you ask for travel records, itineraries, or expense reports that showed Ms. Simpson’s travel from Northeastern Alabama matched up with the Governor’s schedule?

Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera? Did you talk with the Alabama Department of Public Safety?

In fact, did you ever ask her how she attempted to find him in a compromising position? Was it her practice to follow him from his events and shadow him late at night when he was on the road? Peek through hotel windows? Hang out down the hallway from his hotel room? Were you satisfied she actually did what she was supposedly asked to do?

In your February 25th broadcast, she said she had phone records of calls to “Virginia and Washington” that corroborate her charges. Have you made an effort to review those records and ascertain what they point to? Since I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. in 2001, I can’t imagine what her cryptic reference to Virginia could mean. The Bush/Cheney transition office (where I was rarely, working instead in Austin) was in Virginia until late 2000, before the transition was moved to a government building near the White House before year’s end. But what number and who was she calling in Virginia (presumably) later in 2001 when she was being asked to shadow Siegelman? And what were those Washington numbers? Did you ask her? Or was it good enough for you that she said had them so you were content to let the matter drop?

In fact, what did you do to ascertain if anything she told you and that you repeated or relied upon was accurate? Or is it good enough for you to simply repeat her charges without examining them personally to satisfy yourself that she is – and has done – what she says she did?

Does it bother you that your coverage asserts, as Governor Siegelman summarized it in his April 7th appearance on your program, that he is the victim of a vast conspiracy involving two U.S. Attorneys, the Alabama Attorney General, unnamed career officials in the Public Integrity Unit at the U.S. Justice Department, unnamed higher-ups in the Justice Department and, oh yes, Karl Rove and that there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who’s came forward, not one credible witness to the workings of the conspiracy?

And do you really believe such a scheme could be operated so efficiently and effectively that it would manipulate the career prosecutor who brought the case so that he did not understand he was doing the bidding of this vast conspiracy? And that the FBI agents who conducted the investigation could similarly be so easily and subtly subverted?

In fact, it seems you believe that the absence of any concrete evidence is itself evidence of the conspiracy. If you don’t have any proof Karl Rove did it, that absence is proof enough. I am that good.

And is it your habit not to challenge a guest, as long as he is following your chosen theme for the night? For example, let’s take your December 13, 2007 broadcast.

Scott Horton said “We don’t have all the links in place but we do know that certainly beginning from 2002, Karl Rove out of the White House was deeply involved in the election of Rob [sic] Riley, structuring it, raising money for it, putting together a strategy for it. A part of that strategy involved the criminal justice system nailing charges, landing charging [sic] on Siegelman on some sort. As we know that it involved at some point, consultation with the Justice Department and also two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama…”

Just how does Mr. Horton know all this “certainly”? Did you ask him what proof he had that I was deeply involved in Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid? What evidence does he have that I structured it, raised money for it, put together a strategy for it? What evidence does he have that “my” strategy included indicting Siegelman? With whom and when did I consult with the Justice Department about this “strategy?” When did I consult with the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about it? He said, “we do know that certainly” this all happened. If you consider yourself a journalist or even a lawyer, wouldn’t this be the point where you should have asked Mr. Horton, how do you know that, what evidence do you have?

What about you? Did you review campaign spending and news report to identify the Riley campaign consultants or ad team and call them to see if I played a role? Did you do some sleuthing of your own, phoning Republicans in Alabama who might have been in a position to know? Did you call any major donors to Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid and ask if they were contacted by me and encouraged to give money? Did you talk with your colleagues in NBC covering the White House and ask them how credible the argument might be that I was serving as the political consultant and campaign manager of a candidate for Governor of Alabama in 2002 while also serving as Senior Advisor to the President of the United States? Or because Mr. Horton’s assertions fit your story line for the night, did you think he didn’t need to prove anything he claimed and you didn’t need to do any work?

As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than “structuring” a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate, calling people to raise money for his race, and going through the arduous task of “putting together a strategy.” And I certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman. My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but don’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires. For example, while you do ask Siegelman what evidence he had to back up his charges, you did not press him when he said "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits."

The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “The glove fits! The glove fits!” - only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line ("Bush Justice") and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable. You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts. You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review. You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your producers slapped on your segment, created the nifty graphic for and promoted in the ads before your appearances.

Sincerely,

Karl Rove

Considering that Rove's attorney has stated he would be available for questions by the committee investigating these charges, this letter strikes me as both fishing for information to prepare himself with, and the proverbial "methinks he doth protest too much".

But then, it may just be my intense dislike for Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc., tainting my rational thought; and, believing any of the three are capable of actions that would destroy someone willy-nilly if it would allow them to further their own agenda.