Of course the fact that this article posts at 1:33 AM is indication of the Right's cover up. It's just as if the news were released late on a Friday afternoon.

Uh...yeah, Thursday, Feb 28 at 18:29ET is definitely 1:33AM.

WHO?

/First

as if

/time?
/Nonlikely

Karl Rove? Doing something illegal? Who would have thought?

If this were a right leaning website, the article might read 'Hillary Team Member Questions Obama Drug Use, Possible Sale'. Of course a headline like that would never go green.

FTA If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.

What charges would be applicable to this situation? I cannot think of one, maybe if he asked her to brake a law in order to get pictures RICO might be applied but that would be hard to prove. Dirty politics, sure, but illegal?

All the left can do is come up with childish smear tactics, while censoring the truth that _BARACKHUSSEIN _OBAMA IS A DANGEROUS MUSLIM THAT WON'T WEAR A FLAG PIN, WON'T SAY THE PLEDGE, AND SWORE INTO OFFICE ON A KORAN!!!!

wyohome: If this were a right leaning website

Um, dude. exposing and combating liberal media bias.

Presuming the allegations prove out, I'm interested to hear what Karl Rove offers in return for "opposition research". Cash? Political appointments? A chance to sit at his table in the cafeteria?

You'd think doing hits for Karl Rove would have to be lucrative.

wyohome:
If this were a right leaning website, the article might read 'Hillary Team Member Questions Obama Drug Use, Possible Sale'. Of course a headline like that would never go green.

1)how could title this article as you stated?
2)how could it "never go green"?

Yes, a headline like that would/could* go green, and of course, if this were a "leaning to the right" website I'm sure they could find an actual "news article" to "sort of" back up the claim of the headline, but it snot news: so we're left with this little gem.

*depending upon the fark mod/mins (it IS their website, afterall)

FTFA: "and that the investigations that landed him in jail for bribery were politically motivated".

So I may be a little unsettled, but I must ask, WTF are you talking about?!

CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:

* Proof that Jill Simpson ever worked with the Alabama Republican Party beyond simply being a volunteer, seemingly the easiest fact to verify or disprove.
* Proof that Simpson ever did "opposition research" for the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove.
* Proof that Simpson had been in contact with Rove.
* Proof that Rove asked Simpson to take compromising photographs of Don Siegelman


I hate to say this but that story doesn't have much to go on except the name Rove.

Link (new window)

MC Rove in da hizzy!

Well, now that Krymore has revealed itself as a troll, and not a very talented one; we can all ignore its stark, raving, mad, grumblings.

That's just what trolls do. They grumble. Don't feed them (not even crumbs), or they'll just grumble that much louder.

/bet it don't even have a flag pin
//it dint post one, so it must be a commodore!
///or is that commodist?
//Comunnist?
/Columnisht, right?

Well color me shocked.

Or green, either way. Maybe a nice mauve. Well, hell, I kinda like red too.

Either way I'll be colored.

Krymore
All the left can do is come up with childish smear tactics, while censoring the truth that BARACKHUSSEIN OBAMA IS A DANGEROUS MUSLIM THAT WON'T WEAR A FLAG PIN, WON'T SAY THE PLEDGE, AND SWORE INTO OFFICE ON A KORAN!!!!

that's so weak
/SO right wing radio
//learn to think for yourself

submitter, did you even read the article you linked to? It debunks everything you are claiming.

helix400: submitter, did you even read the article you linked to? It debunks everything you are claiming.

What are you smoking? Karl Rove denying something is hardly evidence that "debunks" the claim in the article.

The 60 minutes story really doesn't need the Rove component or Jill Simpson's claims about his involvement to be a shocking case of a politically driven prosecution. If Rove was involved and it can be proved that is just icing on the cake and I would love to see him frog marched off to a federal prison but this case needs to be looked at by a federal special prosecutor right away because it really looks like Siegelman is innocent and should be set free.

Why does everyone automatically assume Karl Rove would do something wrong? I mean really.

Next, you'll be assuming that Republican men caught in compromising situations in airport bathrooms are really gay!

LocalCynic: helix400: submitter, did you even read the article you linked to? It debunks everything you are claiming.

What are you smoking? Karl Rove denying something is hardly evidence that "debunks" the claim in the article.

No, it points out that CBS provided zero evidence. And when pressed, still won't give any evidence. Further, everyone digging into the story can't find anything to support CBS's claims. For example, nobody can even show what functions Jill Simpson performed or titles held as a Republican.

Essentially, the only thing CBS has is that Jill Simpson walked in, told CBS a wild story. That's it.

Did Rove also manufacture the evidence used at his trial? Bribe all the jurors who found his corrupt ass guilty? Slip the judge a few bucks to hit him with a serious sentence?

Siegelman played fast and loose with the rules, and got busted.

For you non-Southern Democrats, though, it might comfort you to know that Southern Democrats are about as "liberal" as a New England Republican. He's not really one of you.

LocalCynic: helix400: submitter, did you even read the article you linked to? It debunks everything you are claiming.

What are you smoking? Karl Rove denying something is hardly evidence that "debunks" the claim in the article.


And the article doesn't support the claim. The headline might as well have said she admitted sacrificing babies to the devil alongside Karl Rove for all the vetting and fact checking CBS has presented.

Though it is 60 Minutes and I doubt CBS would let them EVER say anything that isn't backed by facts. To do that would be IMPOSSIBLE.

Mrbogey: Though it is 60 Minutes and I doubt CBS would let them EVER say anything that isn't backed by facts. To do that would be IMPOSSIBLE.

Nothing like that has EVER happened at CBS. Taking impeachable sources who have made up an anti-Bush story, and running it without fact checking? That would never happen with CBS.

Just for added emphasis,



Of course, maybe he's part of the conspiracy. A vast, right-wing conspiracy.

Bleh, image was thrown.

I think the Simpson woman is the ugliest transvestite I have ever seen.

Here's a better fact-check of the story.

The conclusion seems inescapable that Simpson fabricated her story about Rove asking her to spy on Siegelman some time after September 2007. ...

This is not the only respect in which CBS's presentation of Simpson's story was less than honest. In fact, what Simpson has alleged is a "conspiracy so vast" as to be self-refuting. CBS failed to disclose the extent of Simpson's wild claims so as to conceal from its viewers the fact that Simpson is, to put it bluntly, a nut. ...

Actually, every single person whose name Simpson invokes as she spins her stories says that she is either lying or deluded. Even Don Siegelman. Simpson says that she signed her affidavit after repeated urging by Siegelman, whom she spoke with several times on the telephone. Untrue, says Siegelman. As the Justice Department wrote in a letter to John Conyers' Judiciary Committee:

The alleged conversation described by Ms. Simpson has been denied by all of the alleged participants except Ms. Simpson. Indeed, even Mr. Siegelman states that Ms. Simpson's affidavit is false as it relates to him. Moreover, according to Ms. Simpson, she met with Mr. Siegelman and his co-defendant Richard Scrushy for several months before signing the statement at their urging. She also claims to have provided legal advice to them. She contends she drafted but did not sign a motion filed by Mr. Scrushy seekung to have the federal judge removed from the case.

All of which is sheer madness. There are only two alternatives: either Ms. Simpson is a liar (or perhaps insane), or else every other person with knowledge of her allegations, including a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice and Don Siegelman himself, is lying. Yet CBS offered Ms. Simpson as a credible witness without disclosing these basic facts.

Saiga410: FTA If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.

What charges would be applicable to this situation? I cannot think of one, maybe if he asked her to brake a law in order to get pictures RICO might be applied but that would be hard to prove. Dirty politics, sure, but illegal?

It's called 'corruption' when a public official uses the mechanisms of government for private gain.

Louder And More Dissonant: You'd think doing hits for Karl Rove would have to be lucrative.

Nahhh... Republican money only flows one way - and that's NOT towards the working class.

El_Dan: It's called 'corruption' when a public official uses the mechanisms of government for private gain.

Unless it's a Democrat.

Yessss! Operation Slow Fuse Wet Firecracker was a tremendous success. Here is an excerpt from the inevitable made for TV movie coming out immediately after the Republican Convention.

Jill Miller: "Hello, 60 Minutes, like, um, I have the scoop on some general badness about Karl Rove, y'know."

60 Minutes: "What do you have? And quit chewing gum in the phone."

Miller: "Okay, so like, Karl totally had me spy for him back in 2001."

60 Minutes: "2001?" "What the fark?"

Alien Robot: El_Dan: It's called 'corruption' when a public official uses the mechanisms of government for private gain.

Unless it's a Democrat.

Any particular incident related to the article topic that you are referencing?

The article seems to point out that there is not much at all that substantiates this woman's claims. I'm more than happy to bash Bush, Rove, etc, but some actual evidence of wrongdoing in this matter would be nice.

I'm sure the Democratic congressperson I voted for will be all over this and get things straightened out in no time.

Five Minute Standup: Karl Rove? Doing something illegal? Who would have thought?

The writer of this article, apparently.

/read through, then check out the ad for unintentional comedy gold

submitter: Republican attorneyDeranged woman speaks out, admitsshares with 60 Minutes her hallucination that Karl Rove put her up to smearing Democratic Governor Siegelman

FTFY

From HappyDaddy's bio

"Profession: Lawyer/Lobbyist"

that pretty much says it all.

Boojum2k: Did Rove also manufacture the evidence used at his trial? Bribe all the jurors who found his corrupt ass guilty? Slip the judge a few bucks to hit him with a serious sentence?

Siegelman played fast and loose with the rules, and got busted.

There is far, far more to the Siegelman story beyond the accusations of one individual.

(Who does, by the way, have evidence to support her contentions)

52 former State Att'y Generals have called for a review of the case.

And Siegelman was convicted on the testimony of a man who gave more damning testimony against two Republicans (one of whom was Senator Jeff Sessions) who were not even investigated.

Skleenar: And Siegelman was convicted on the testimony of a man who gave more damning testimony against two Republicans (one of whom was Senator Jeff Sessions) who were not even investigated.

Save your typing. Boojum doesn't care as long as his team comes out on top.

The Why Not Guy: Save your typing. Boojum doesn't care as long as his team comes out on top.

Yes, but he is useful as a platform to get the truth out.

Saiga410: FTA If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.

What charges would be applicable to this situation? I cannot think of one, maybe if he asked her to brake a law in order to get pictures RICO might be applied but that would be hard to prove. Dirty politics, sure, but illegal?


Election Fraud comes to mind. Inasmuch as trying to corruptly force a candidate from the race qualifies

As it happens, just this morning I was reading an article in this month's Harper's magazine about how the Bush administration has manipulated the Justice Department for its own partisan ends. The article spends a page talking about Simpson and the Siegelman case. It's pretty convincing and damning. It seems that this story has legs.

Some chick trying to stab Karl Rove in the back nuts? Hmmmm...

[runs out to change a dead pool entry]

I'm sure e-mail archives will clear up any aspersions cast upon Karl.

helix400: No, it points out that CBS provided zero evidence. And when pressed, still won't give any evidence. Further, everyone digging into the story can't find anything to support CBS's claims. For example, nobody can even show what functions Jill Simpson performed or titles held as a Republican.

Essentially, the only thing CBS has is that Jill Simpson walked in, told CBS a wild story. That's it.

This all seems pretty familiar.

CBS runs a story painting the Bush administration (or Bush himself) in bad light. Righty blogs picking up on one small part of the story claiming that portion was based on false evidence--ignoring the entire weight of all the evidence provided.

What remains to be seen is if this, too, can be turned into a debate over one small part of the entire story and thus prevent the whole story being understood by the populace at large.

Seeing as the story was blacked out in Alabama by the GOP owners of the local CBS affiliate, it appears there is something about this story the GOP does not want to get out.

Wait. There are still people -- literate, allegedly sane people -- who still treat 60 Minutes as a non-fiction show?

Manfred J. Hattan: Wait. There are still people -- literate, allegedly sane people -- who still treat 60 Minutes as a non-fiction show?

You tell me. (link to Siegelman story at CBS)

Oh, and by the way, he can't appeal, because the court won't produce an official transcript of the case.

GaryPDX: CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:

* Proof that Jill Simpson ever worked with the Alabama Republican Party beyond simply being a volunteer, seemingly the easiest fact to verify or disprove.
* Proof that Simpson ever did "opposition research" for the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove.
* Proof that Simpson had been in contact with Rove.
* Proof that Rove asked Simpson to take compromising photographs of Don Siegelman


I hate to say this but that story doesn't have much to go on except the name Rove.

Not really. Since this was in a Right wing Blog they don't tell you the impWhole story or even the REAL import of Simpson

But I will. According to a story from TIME magazine about a year ago:
(new window)

A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove "had spoken with the Department of Justice" about "pursuing" Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama's U.S. attorneys.

The allegation was made by Dana Jill Simpson, a lifelong Republican and lawyer who practices in Alabama. She made the charges in a May 21 affidavit, obtained by TIME, in which she describes a conference call on November 18, 2002, which involved a group of senior aides to Bob Riley,...

According to Simpson's statement, William Canary, a senior G.O.P. political operative and Riley adviser who was on the conference call, said "not to worry about Don Siegelman" because "'his girls' would take care of" the governor. Canary then made clear that "his girls" was a reference to his wife, Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

Canary said "not to worry - that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman,.




So keep in mind she has said this UNDER OATH in WRITING.

Moreover, considering what happened after the charges were brought, her story seems credible:

A Federal Judge threw out Leura Canary's prosecution before it even came to trial(new window) WITH prejudice meaning the charges could not even be re-filed, a VERY drastic and unusual step)

U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon dismissed all charges Tuesday against former Gov. Don Siegelman and his top aide, Paul Hamrick, after federal prosecutors failed to convince the judge that Siegelman and Hamrick conspired to rig bids for Medicaid contracts.

The prosecution moved to dismiss all charges after Clemon rejected the key charge of conspiracy in which the government alleged that Siegelman and Hamrick conspired with Tuscaloosa physician Phillip K. Bobo to funnel $550,000 to the Alabama Fire College.


so, while I'm not shocked to see a right wing blog obsessing about sex, there a LOT more meat to these charges than that (including substantiation of the heart of the US attorney firing scandal: namely that rove was using the DOJ for political ends.

helix400:

No, it points out that CBS provided zero evidence. And when pressed, still won't give any evidence. Further, everyone digging into the story can't find anything to support CBS's claims. For example, nobody can even show what functions Jill Simpson performed or titles held as a Republican.

Essentially, the only thing CBS has is that Jill Simpson walked in, told CBS a wild story. That's it.

FAIL! You should really get your "facts" from somewhere other than Rush, Drudge, Powerline, LGF, or Freeperville.

Simpson was a county co-chair in the GOP. Do you really have trouble finding this out, or do you just ignore it when you peeked?

The reason so many state AGs are up in arms is it reeks of a purely political hit at election time. The judge was actively involved in aiding Siegelman's GOP opponent for years, yet didn't recuse himself from the trial. Also, as the former AZ AG pointed out, Siegelman was found not guilty of the majority of the charges, yet was sentenced to far more than the typical guilty verdict for those crime would have been. He was also not allowed to post bail while appeals were made, nor was he given the typical 30-60 days to report to prison given to "white collar criminals". Instead, he was denied bail, led off in shackles in a very public made for TV news display. Likewise, the chief prosecution witness was given a reduced sentence for "testifying" (aka lying) about what happened that day. His testimony was so shaky he was scripted in his testimony...and that being so, the defense should have been given a copy of the script during discovery.

To this day, Siegelman cannot appeal because his attorneys have been unable to get this judge to give them a copy of the court transcripts needed to file the appeal. It's been over a year now and any decent court reporter could produce a complete transcript in maybe 3 weeks tops. Who here is actively seeking to keep Siegelman in prison and away from the news cameras?

But OMG, CBS is lying again to smear a good republican, like they did with the coke addled retard in the oval office, so it's obviously some evil left-wing conspiracy...

I think I'd be more convinced by the defense of Simpson if the people who bought her story clearly weren't heavy partisans.

So far there's been a lot of "it's true!" but little of "here's the facts!" so much that now they're advancing an even greater conspiracy to suppress this "revalation".