Gee Karl, thanks for posting on FarK. Of course the rest of us know it wasn't a bribe, since a bribe by definition must benefit the recipient.

Dinki: Gee Karl, thanks for posting on FarK. Of course the rest of us know it wasn't a bribe, since a bribe by definition must benefit the recipient.

He may have been politically targeted, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Siegelman did not take a bribe. What's next? Are you going to invoke the Bill Jefferson defense that he was actually holding the money to turn over to the FBI but hadn't yet told the FBI he was working for them?

Nabb1

I don't know much about the details of the case. Given that he was just freed, and that the federal appeals court has said there are legitimate questions about the case, why are you so certain that he took a bribe?

let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Siegelman did not take a bribe.

One of the legacies of the Clinton administration is a Supreme Court case saying that it isn't a bribe if you're just buying goodwill. A criminal conviction requires proof of a specific quid pro quo. Buying goodwill with gifts may be illegal, but is not specifically considered bribery.

Of course, we're all free to call it that.

Obdicut: Nabb1

I don't know much about the details of the case. Given that he was just freed, and that the federal appeals court has said there are legitimate questions about the case, why are you so certain that he took a bribe?

He wasn't "freed." He's on a temporary furlough to testify before Congress, and then he goes back to prison. As I said, he may have been targeted, but that doesn't mean he didn't wasn't guilty of bribery as the jury found in his case.

He's on a temporary furlough to testify before Congress, and then he goes back to prison.

Though the linked article didn't say so, I believe the appeals court ordered him freed because there was insufficient proof of the quid pro quo required for a bribery conviction. That implies that the appeals court intends to reverse his conviction but hasn't gotten around to issuing the official order.

Nabb1

he's not on furlough, he was released pending his appeal by the 11th circuit.

he didn't take a bribe either. he took a political donation from someone he later re-appointed to a state position. this is not bribery unless you get the sort of evidence that was presented at Seigelman's trial: he made the decision with the check in hand. except the guy who said that at trial was committing perjury.

ZAZ: He's on a temporary furlough to testify before Congress, and then he goes back to prison.

Though the linked article didn't say so, I believe the appeals court ordered him freed because there was insufficient proof of the quid pro quo required for a bribery conviction. That implies that the appeals court intends to reverse his conviction but hasn't gotten around to issuing the official order.

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware the 11th Circuit had taken it up. And a successful appeal may not end this. It seems the articles are saying a new trial is a distinct possibility.

You know who else accepted political contributions in return for appointed positions in an executive branch?
Yeah. Just about every president or governor ever.

Have fun prosecuting them, "It-was-a-bribe!" guys.

I trust 60 minutes far more than the justice system.

60 minutes did a big story on this, with a few dozen state Attourneys General saying that this case smacked of political prosecution, and a former GOP operative saying Karl Rove was the architect behind the prosecution.
Guess which CBS affiliate had mysterious technical difficulties? WHNT in Alabama.

Here's what happened.

Siegelman, after winning a tough election over Bob Riley in 1998, had some debt left over in a PAC that supported an education lottery. A guy named Richard Scrushy, who'd been supporting Siegelman's opponent and was the founder of HealthSouth, wrote some checks totalling $500,000 made out to this PAC that covered the debt. After those checks were written, Scrushy was named to the state Medicaid (Medicare?) board.

The Alabama Attorney General, who, along with Karl Rove, had campaigned for Siegelman's opponent, started investigating these donations in 1999, basically as soon as he took office. In 2001, after Bush took over the White House and Rove had been installed as deputy chief of staff, the investigation was taken over by the U.S. attorney's office, headed by the wife of Riley's campaign manager. The investigation ended up bringing charges against Siegelman in 2004, but were laughed out of court at the time. But, they kept going with the investigation and brought the charges Siegelman was eventually convicted on in 2005-06.

Siegelman and Scrushy both filed appeals, but both were refused an appeal bond by the trial judge. Scrushy's was initially refused because of his behavior during the trial, which led the judge to believe he was a flight risk. Siegelman's was refused because he failed to provide "substantial evidence" that could overturn his conviction. His recent release is based on providing that substantial evidence.

Here's where the facts end and my speculation begins. Go read up some of the things Dana Jill Simpson has been saying about the political motivations of the prosecution, and you'll see why so many people are up in arms about this case. The government's case was built on the contention that the checks written to the PAC were a bribe to get the Medicaid board job. Siegelman's case was based on the argument that the checks were regular political donations and that he appointed Scrushy because he wanted to, that it was just like thousands of other political donors who later receive appointed positions.

Either way, I'm not happy with a system that gives the impression that political donations can purchase appointed positions, but there's nothing illegal about it in this country. Siegelman's actual appeal will begin shortly, all of this stuff is just preliminary, and we'll see whether any heads will roll or not.

First stop after release was to meet Guy Hunt, his roomie in the Old Convicted Felon Governors' Home.

/Neither Hunt nor Siegelman farked Alabama like Fob James did in two separate terms (one for each party).
//Wonder what Riley will be charged with.

The Bushiates have attempted to hijack the justice system and turn it into the enforcment arm of the republican party.

It is what the firing of the US Attorneys was all about.

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable's links provide some scary shiat.

HAHAHA OH NOES! THE ROVE BOGEYMAN IS COMING FOR THE LIBS!

xbattlewax: HAHAHA OH NOES! THE ROVE BOGEYMAN IS COMING FOR THE LIBS!


Glad you like the politicization of our federal attorneys. Enjoy it when a Democrat becomes president.

xbattlewax: HAHAHA OH NOES! THE ROVE BOGEYMAN IS COMING FOR THE LIBS!

THIS
/if your IQ is under 65

phyrkrakr: Go read up some of the things Dana Jill Simpson has been saying about the political motivations of the prosecution, and you'll see why so many people are up in arms about this case.

Unfortunately, based on Jill Simpson's past history of making up crazy stories out of thin air, she's not exactly the kind of person anyone should trust to piece together events of the past.

Sabyen91: xbattlewax: HAHAHA OH NOES! THE ROVE BOGEYMAN IS COMING FOR THE LIBS!


Glad you like the politicization of our federal attorneys. Enjoy it when a Democrat becomes president.

truth is, this is a repoliticization of the justice system. People forget that in the decades leading up to Nixon, both parties abused surveillance and law enforcement in increasing amounts against their political opponents until Nixon finally went far enough to outrage people.

The bush administration has just been very retro.

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable:

The bush administration has just been very retro.



I'll say...

Tynerhilltopper: The Bushiates have attempted to hijack the justice system and turn it into the enforcment arm of the republican party.

It is what the firing of the US Attorneys was all about.

Exactly:

The details here

Freed Alabama governor argues that it was Karl Rove's fault he took was selectively prosecuted for a $600k "bribe"

FTFY

pmccall: FTFY

More here

Reminds me of when Karl Rove said it was the Democrats fault for bullying Bush into starting the Iraq War.

According to Rove, Bush didn't want to have to go to war, but the bloodthirsty warmonger democrats browbeat and forced Bush and the republican majority in congress into invading Iraq.

With the evidence out there on this case, it looks like Rove may be going to prison. The smoking gun, as they say.

His fingerprints are all over this. This is the case that sends him away.

Goodfella: With the evidence out there on this case, it looks like Rove may be going to prison. The smoking gun, as they say.

And what is this new evidence you speak of? So far, the only evidence is:

a) Circumstantial
b) Involves Jill Simpson's constantly changing and mutating stories.

helix400: And what is this new evidence you speak of? So far, the only evidence is:

a) Circumstantial

You forgot 'faked', as in the original case against Siegelman

b) Involves Jill Simpson's constantly changing and mutating stories.

A lying Republican?

You don't say!

Helix400

I can't find anything to discredit Jill Simpson, beyond people simply attacking her. You're acting like it's a well-known fact that she's inaccurate and untrustworthy. Do you have any proof you can cite?

Obdicut: Do you have any proof you can cite?

You mean, besides the fact she is a Republican?

/Actually, the accusation that she is a liar seems to be based on the fact that she has never held some position or another in the Alabama GOP--a position that I don't believe she has claimed she held nor would be required to have held to be involved per her assertions in this case. But truth isn't something apologists really are looking for.

Can the Democrats ever admit to wrongdoing? I'm sick of everything being someone else's fault. You are a corrupt piece of shiat. The quicker you die, the better the world will be.

Nemo's Brother: Can the Democrats ever admit to wrongdoing? I'm sick of everything being someone else's fault. You are a corrupt piece of shiat. The quicker you die, the better the world will be.

I hope that is trollrific, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

At least in this case a judge sees enough evidence to think the case has a good chance of being overturned. Normally republicans don't even let a judge decide.

Skleenar: You forgot 'faked', as in the original case against Siegelman>

And your evidence is... that Siegelman was convicted "one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice"? That he's preparing for his appeal? Oh wait, the evidence was "faked", but you never mentioned how.

Obdicut: I can't find anything to discredit Jill Simpson, beyond people simply attacking her. You're acting like it's a well-known fact that she's inaccurate and untrustworthy. Do you have any proof you can cite?

Well, in September 2007, she went before Congress and testified for a long time on this case. Throughout the transcript (about 140 pages worth: link to transcript), she was asked several times about a phone call in which she said she heard the name "Karl" mentioned. From that, she assumed that Karl Rove was working behind the scenes on this case. But she never heard Karl Rove speak, as he wasn't part of the phone conversation. She did submit an affidavit about that claim, but in one interview, she said she wrote it herself. In testimony, she said she had help from a Siegleman supporter.

A few months later, she shows up on 60 minutes, and claims (link):

* Rove and her were close friends, so close, that Rove personally had her investigate Siegleman's sex life, hoping to catch him in compromising sexual positions with his aides.
* Rove has called her before to help her gather "intelligence"
* She worked with Rove on several campaigns

She offers no evidence. But more importantly, none of this showed up anywhere in the past. Despite Congressmen repeatedly pressing her for every detail of her relationship with Karl Rove, she previously never mentioned that she so much as even spoke to him. But now, she's Rove's personal private sexual and intelligence investigator, because they've worked on several campaigns together. It's hard to imagine a bigger change in her recollection.

There's many other crazy parts to her story, such as calling other state and federal judges liars and conspirators. A simple Google search will show that.

Nemo's Brother: Can the Democrats ever admit to wrongdoing? [...] The quicker you die, the better the world will be.
In a world without Democrats, "unamerican" and "weak on foreign policy" would mean wanting to invade fewer than 5 countries at any one time.

Helix400

I don't find any of that crazy, nor is it conflicting. The CBS link and the transcript are in reference to two different conversations. You do realize that, right?


Her testimony shows that she did not just assume that since the name "Karl" was mentioned, it was Karl Rove. She's asserting that the only Karl that would have any purpose being referenced in the way he was being referenced, would be Karl Rove. In other words, if you're working with the Yankees and someone says, "Derek needs a new bat", you don't really have to wonder, "Derek who?"

Why would you intentionally be so deceptive in your presentation of her testimony, as such? "She offers no evidence. But more importantly, none of this showed up anywhere in the past. Despite Congressmen repeatedly pressing her for every detail of her relationship with Karl Rove, she previously never mentioned that she so much as even spoke to him."

During the questioning, she's talking about a specific set of conversations. she's never asked if she had personal contact with Rove otherwise.

Testimony below, for those interested:


Q And the Karl that is listed here, do you know who
that is?
A I believe that is Karl Rove.
Q And why do you think that's Karl Rove?
A Rob -- what Rob would do for us occasionally, he
would ask me to do little odds and ends for him, such as
follow Don Siegelman and stuff. And then he for me
occasionally would -- if I needed somebody to write a letter
to speed up a client getting a check or whatever, he would
see if he could find somebody that would help me with that.
And it was not uncommon for him to talk to Karl Rove and
Stewart Hall about that because he would make reference to
it.
Q You had heard Karl Rove's name come up before in
conjunction with matters like this?
A Yes. And basically what we would do, we would help
to write the letter that we wanted or he would help to write it. He would send it to me for me to approve, then he would
send it to Stewart and our -- or whoever. And they would --
and Karl -- and then they would attempt to get it approved.
You know, I mean get somebody to do it.

And here's another section:

"No. But I knew from conversations that I had had
with Rob that Bill Canary was very connected to Karl Rove.
Additionally, there was some talk -- and that's not in my
affidavit -- about Karl had -- about Washington; that Karl
had it taken care of in Washington. I mean, as I said, I
couldn't put everything down. I put the best I could, but I
didn't write every single word that occurred in that. So I
understood that to be -- and the only Karl I knew involved
in Rob's conversation was Karl Rove. So that's how I
understood it."

I'd also add that the Rove connection only shows up because of Jill Simpson claimed in May 2007 that she heard the name "Karl" mentioned in a 2002 conference call between her and 3 others. (Again, how she wrote this claim is also contradictory, as one account has a Siegleman supporter helping her write it.) The results of this 2002 phone conversation was that Jill Simpson claimed that she was an operative who snapped pictures (pictures she no longer has, of course) of a Siegleman buddy who tried to smear the new governor by associated his signs at a KKK rally. (Isn't it amazing how Jill Simpson somehow always finds herself as the private investigator in the juiciest political scandals?)

Unfortunatly, as the Justice Department points out (link):

"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."

So, from Jill Simpson's point of view, she's Karl Rove's personal sexual investigator and Riley's personal KKK investigator. And everybody else is a liar, because nobody agrees with her recollection of events. Including Siegelman.

Obdicut:

Yes, it was well known that when she mentions Karl, that Karl Rove is the individual. (I didn't mean to insinuate that it could be any guy named Karl, but I can see how it could easily be read that way). I'm just pointing out how her evidence is next to nothing.

helix400: Yes, it was well known that when she mentions Karl, that Karl Rove is the individual. (I didn't mean to insinuate that it could be any guy named Karl, but I can see how it could easily be read that way). I'm just pointing out how her evidence is next to nothing.

Well, she's making allegations to be pursued by the court. She may or may not have provided evidence to the court already.

So, from Jill Simpson's point of view, she's Karl Rove's personal sexual investigator and Riley's personal KKK investigator.

The phrase "personal sexual investigator", is a little lurid, don't you think? She says that Karl Rove asked her to investigate a sexual indiscretion.

I'm just pointing out how her evidence is next to nothing.

You seem awfully focused on attacking her credibility. You've shown that she's made some rather large claims; it doesn't appear she's given the media any evidence of them (who knows what she's given investigators; what you've failed to do is show how any of her allegations have been proved false.

Generally, when calling someone a liar, it's prudent to show a lie of theirs.

helix400: Oh wait, the evidence was "faked", but you never mentioned how.

It's in the 60 minutes video. Maybe, if you live in Alabama, you didn't get to see it.

Jill Simpson might just be a red herring now. Siegelman had previously asked to be released pending his appeal, and the judge had found his reasons for appealing not convincing enough to grant it. Now, his reasons are convincing enough.

It could be Simpson's testimony, it could be something completely different. We won't know Siegelman's actual arguments for overturning his convictions before the appeal actually begins.

For all we know, maybe the appellate judge is now agreeing with Siegelman's argument that a political donation doesn't mean a bribe without specific evidence of a quid pro quo.

Obdicut: Generally, when calling someone a liar, it's prudent to show a lie of theirs.

What scares me, is that we have someone who:

* Makes up as many juicy stories as Jill Simpson does
* Who has contradictory accounts of filing an affidavit about wild claim from 5 years prior
* And who says she was part of a phone conversation in which Karl Rove was mentioned
* And from that can deduce Karl Rove's motives
* Whose memory of a phone coversation is contradicted by all others involved.
* Who also claims that she took photos (but doesn't have the photos) of a Democrat trying to smear Republicans during a KKK meeting.
* And whose claims are also rejected by Siegleman when they involve him.
* And who claims others involved, such as a former state supreme court judge, are forced to take part in this conspiracy because of blackmail from another conspiracy.
* And who later adds to her story, saying that Rove talked to her many times.
* And that Rove asked her to snap photos of Siegleman in compromising sexual positions.
* And that Rove and her worked on several previous campaigns together.

Now, if this person can't be called a liar, who can?

helix400: Now, if this person can't be called a liar, who can?

Someone who you can show telling a lie?

Seriously, what do you not understand about that?

For the record: I neither believe nor disbelieve her. I think the court will probably get to the bottom of it.

Obdicut: Someone who you can show telling a lie?

What about when she contradicts herself?

Regarding her affidavit "I did not sit down with anyone else to prepare this. I prepared this myself." Here, listen to her yourself in this short soundbite: link. (Bonus: She even sounds like a crazy person.)

But in Congressional testimony, starting at page 79.

"Anyway, John Aaron, I just got to know him through that, and that's -- I just asked him to help me write the affidavit. . . . And I asked him if he would just help me with the
affidavit, but I didn't like his affidavit at all, so --"
Q Did he prepare a draft of an affidavit?
A He did.

She continues on for a while describing how she redid John Aaron's first draft affidavit in her own words, using parts his as a guide. Further, John Aaron is Seigleman's political researcher.

Seriously, my point is again, if Jill Simpson isn't a liar, then the bar is set so low that nobody else in the world can be a liar.

helix400: Seriously, my point is again, if Jill Simpson isn't a liar, then the bar is set so low that nobody else in the world can be a liar.

Seriously, that's the best you can catch her out on? By that measure, I expect you're calling for war crimes hearing for Cheney and Bush.

Are you seriously saying that you've conclusively proved that she's a liar, when she said "I did not sit down with anyone else to prepare this" and it's true?

Seriously, if this is the bar you're setting for lying, then your wrath should be turned on far, far more people than Jill Simpson. Like Karl Rove, for example.

And by the way, you meant "the bar is set so high", not low. You're the one setting the bar low.

Obdicut: Seriously, that's the best you can catch her out on? By that measure, I expect you're calling for war crimes hearing for Cheney and Bush.

The thumb is so heavy on his scales of justice that he probably doesn't see your point.

Its not like this hasn't happened before.

If you follow what Rove did in Texas, it becomes obvious how he plays the game. This is nothing new, it just might be proven this time.

/can't wait for congressional subpoenas
//cell phone records ftw

Obdicut Are you seriously saying that you've conclusively proved that she's a liar, when she said "I did not sit down with anyone else to prepare this" and it's true?"

I suppose I should find a well respected playwright, and ask him to write a play for me. I'll even announce it in the news "I asked him to write a play for me." Then, when he writes the play, I'll reword it in my own words and sell it. Then I'll claim "Nobody helped me write this! I did this on my own! I didn't consult anybody as I wrote this!" And apparently, I'm still not a liar, according to your extremely narrow definition.

Honestly, Jill Simpson could say "I am not lying when I say I know that two plus two is five", and you'd still not call her a liar.

Given the impossible level of proof you demand and the poor level of discourse in trying to change the subject, I see I'm now wasting my time.

helix400: Honestly, Jill Simpson could say "I am not lying when I say I know that two plus two is five", and you'd still not call her a liar.

Every adult human being with the capability of speech since the dawn of time has lied about something at least once in their lives.

Apes lie. Birds lie.

Proving that a human being has lied is a trivial exercise.

Proving that they have lied about a issue of import or in such a way to discredit an assertion of theirs you dispute is a higher bar.

And all you have done is provide evidence that she may have contradicted a non-material part of her testimony--and we all knoW that it is only a lie if she Meant it to be false when she saiD what she Said..

helix400: Given the impossible level of proof you demand and the poor level of discourse in trying to change the subject, I see I'm now wasting my time.

I think everyone, as is evidenced from the rest of the conversation in thread, can see who's demanding the impossible here.

Siegelman is a farking sleaze. The last time he ran for governor he told everyone that all of a sudden his name is pronounced SIG-ul-man, not SEEG-ul-man. SIG-ul-man doesn't sound nearly as Jewish. And his wife is a skank too.