From: Joseph Patton
I do a weekly segment of political satire for WAUD 1230 in Auburn. I've included a section on Siegelman for this week's segment. The following is the full script. Enjoy!
--
Just when you thought the temperature couldn’t get any worse, I’m bringing a little hot air to the airwaves.
That’s right, folks, it’s time again for "Goat Hill Gossip." This is Joseph Patton from the Capital City Free Press, Alabama’s premier online magazine at Capcityfreepress.com. That’s Capcityfreepress.com.
In response to Judge Mark Fuller’s sentence of multiple lifetimes in prison and daily Chinese water torture for former Governor Don Siegelman who was convicted of multiple felony counts of being a Democrat in the state of Alabama, the Alabama Democratic Party is turning the tables on the sitting governor, Republican Bob Riley.
In an op-ed piece written for the Press-Register of Mobile, state party chairman Joe Turnham argues that Siegelman’s wrongdoing is no different than Riley’s campaign receiving funds from convicted lobbyist and former Riley aide Michael Scanlon. Scanlon has pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials. Turnham says the money was funneled from casino interest through the state Republican Party to the 2002 Riley campaign. And… how does Governor Riley feel about PAC-to-PAC transfers again?
Turnham also notes the $300,000 PAC gift to the ‘06 Riley campaign from investors of the newly formed Hudson Alpha Institute, which, you guessed it, received millions of dollars from the State of Alabama for a biotech operation in Hunstsville.
Despite all the facts and figures Turnham is tossing around, he should be reminded that any politician who can first win election by making votes magically appear in Mobile County on the THIRD tally, then four years later gives his opponent a stroke, will remain governor as long as he darn well feels like it.
And in related Siegelman witch trial news, Fuller ruled yesterday that Siegelman does not have to pay
$181,325 in restitution he had just ordered a week prior. Fuller explained that the amount was based on a charge Siegelman had already been acquitted of.
I suppose the best way to describe the gratuitous error would be your credit card statement revealing that you were charged 10 grand for that pizza you ordered during the last ball game. Did you think people wouldn’t notice, Slick? Even George W. Bush’s math isn’t THAT bad.
And speaking of big bucks, the state of Alabama has yet again landed itself as the 50th state in terms of the amount of sales and local taxes collected per person. The latest report shows that Alabama collected
$2,569 from state, county and local taxes in fiscal year 2005. The national median for ‘05 was $3,387.
Though some may scoff at our low tax receipts, I say we should stand proudly--peering out over our schools with crumbling walls, streets riddled with potholes and police officers chasing criminals with go-karts--and take pride in our low, low taxes.

And of course what few dollars we do forfeit to our various levels of government are now being diverted to pay Nick Sabin’s salary anyway.
And in news which certainly qualifies as bizarre, a Kansas City golf course is missing almost 5,000 golf balls. The balls are fluorescent yellow and were all swiped some time Sunday night from the range. Though local police have made no arrests and don’t even have any leads in the case, our investigator reporter from the Capital City Free Press is on top of the mysterious theft. Her current theory concerning the culprit even has a political twist. She believes the perpetrators can be found at the highest level of government no less--Congress in fact--since the Democrats have clearly been missing their balls since taking power last year.
Also in in our nation’s capitol, President Bush has directed former White House aides to defy congressional subpoenas, citing presidential privilege. The orders were issued as part of an investigation into the administration’s domestic spying program. The defiant act is leading some in Congress to consider issuing contempt citations, an action not taken since Ronald Reagan was president.
When asked for comment, Bush angrily pounded the podium in the White House briefing room, exclaiming:
"But… but… Dick Cheney told me I could use my super-duper presidentiacal powers, gosh darnnit!"
Cheney of course could not be reached for comment as he is again hunkered down in an undisclosed location where he runs his new mysterious fourth branch of government and is completing work on the Death Star.
And in less serious news, the much-lauded Redneck Games just held its 12th annual gathering this weekend. In East Dublin, Georgia, crowds came from far, wide and trailer parks in general to participate in events such as the Mud Pit Belly Flop, Redneck Horseshoes in which the participants toss toilet seats, Watermelon Seed Spitting and Bobbin’ for Pig’s Feet.
An Associated Press reporter interviewed one August, Georgia man who attends very year. Tom Curry said, "Coming here is our roots. And it’s the best day of the summer. Everybody’s friendly and everybody’s family." Well yeah, Tom, when inbreeding is involved, everyone IS in fact family.
And before they try and burn my office down again, I’m tuning out. Be sure and direct your internet browser to Capcityfreepress.com. That’s Capcityfreepress.com for a scathing looking at the search for Osama bin Laden by Managing Editor Josh Carples and my open letter to Ann Coulter
This is Joseph Patton from the Capital City Free Press signing off. Talk to you to next week!

U.S. Representative Artur Davis submitted this letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers formally requesting the inclusion of the case against former governor Don Siegelman in the committee’s investigations of the selective political prosecutions by the Department of Justice.


ARTUR DAVIS
7th District, Alabama
United States House of Representatives
208 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2665 phone (202) 226-9567 fax
www.House.gov/ArturDavis

July 6, 2007

Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6216

Dear Chairman Conyers:

It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee plans to conduct a hearing regarding allegations of selective prosecution by the Department of Justice. I appreciate your willingness to engage this issue, and I am writing to encourage you to include within the inquiry the recent prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Siegelman was the target of a four year federal probe into influence-peddling by his administration and its allies. In 2004, after narrowly losing reelection, Siegelman was indicted in the Northern District of Alabama on charges related to the delivery of a state Medicaid contract. The charges were weak enough that they were dismissed at the start of trial.

In 2005, Siegelman was indicted again, this time in the Middle District of Alabama, on a broad array of corruption charges. In June, 2006, the jury returned a mixed verdict, finding him not guilty of 25 of the 32 counts against him. The remaining counts focused largely on one event: in 1999, an Alabama health care executive, Richard Scrushy, made a sizable contribution to a lottery referendum initiative backed by Siegelman. After making the contribution, Scrushy was appointed to a position on the state board awarding certificates of need to hospitals.

A variety of claims have arisen regarding the Siegelman case. It has been suggested that the case against Siegelman was unusually weak and uncorroborated. Only one witness testified that there was any linkage between the appointment of Scrushy and his contribution to the lottery initiative, and that individual professed to have no first hand knowledge. Despite the lengthy indictment, no government witnesses claimed to have direct knowledge that Siegelman had solicited or obtained favors or contributions in exchange for official actions: virtually all of the evidence of “cash for contracts” involved Siegelman staffers, and not the governor himself. (notably, all of the counts involving these claims were rejected by the jury).

Most explosively, an attorney who worked in the 2002 campaign against Siegelman has sworn an affidavit claiming that she participated in a November 2002 conference call in which an influential Republican claimed that Karl Rove had given assurances that Siegelman would be indicted. Prior to his service in the White House, Rove had an extensive history of involvement in Alabama elections, and maintains contact with a number of Republican contributors and operatives in my state.
Our committee has heard testimony that one former U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, was pressured by a United States Senator to bring indictments against Democratic officials prior to the November 2006 elections. Another former U.S. Attorney, Jack McKay, testified that he was pushed by Republican officials to indict Democrats engaged in voter
registration efforts during a governor’s race in Washington. At least one U.S. Attorney, Steven M. Biskupic, was removed from a list of prosecutors to be terminated only after he indicted a Democratic appointee in the midst of a closely contested governor’s race in Wisconsin. Finally, another chief prosecutor, Todd Graves, has testified to the Senate that he believes his termination was linked to a refusal to bring charges against local voting rights activists.

A claim of selective prosecution is not implausible in this Justice Department. In addition to evidence that prosecutors were fired for failing to bring cases that would bolster the Republican cause, the press has reported on several cases where the
government’s cases against Democratic officeholders were strained at best. I have referenced the Wisconsin prosecution of Georgia Thompson, where the Seventh Circuit summarily reversed a corruption conviction and denounced the prosecution case as “beyond thin”, and I note the prosecution of a Democratic District Attorney in Michigan on charges related to a campaign contribution from a relative of a defendant for whom the DA sought a new trial. The case, which resulted in a swift acquittal, was marred by the complete absence of any proof connecting the contribution to the DA’s actions.

The trading of favors for official acts is reprehensible, and stains the reputation of the political process. But it would shatter the system if a Justice Department built a culture in which prosecutors’ career advancement depends on their willingness to press exotic legal theories that might advance the electoral interests of the Republican Party.

I am sensitive to the fact that the Siegelman case is on appeal. But an appellate court is not susceptible to being influenced by publicity in the way that a jury might be. I agree with the New York Times editorial of June 30, 2007 that the facts are suggestive enough that United States v. Donald Siegelman merits inclusion in the committee’s inquiry.

Sincerely,

Artur Davis

Member of Congress

Note: A few weeks ago, this paper tried to discredit the affidavit by misidentifying Simpson as a “Siegelman advocate” resulting in a printed retraction. This same paper ran an article attacking the affidavit based on allegations from a former Bob Riley staffer – failing to mention that the individual disparaging the affidavit had close ties to Karl Rove. For nearly six years, the Birmingham News never scrutinized the prosecutions charges, methods, or conflicts. Had they done so – and thus removed the state’s media security blanket swaddling the US Attorney - there is a real possibility that the Siegelman indictment never would have become a reality. The bias of the Birmingham News and the Mobile Press Register is glaring and quickly becoming part of the story of the Siegelman case.

Affidavit about Siegelman case open to debate
Sunday, July 08, 2007
BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE
Birmingham News staff writer
An affidavit cited as proof that White House strategist Karl Rove helped arrange the Justice Department prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman doesn't actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn't stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.
Jill Simpson, the Republican Rainsville lawyer who wrote the affidavit, said in an interview that she is not responsible for how others interpret her sworn statement. She said she tried to accurately represent a conference call she heard in which Rove's name came up, and she said no one definitively said in that call that Rove arranged for Siegelman's investigation.
It's not clear if Rove was being identified in the call as the person behind the investigation or as someone who heard Siegelman already was under investigation, Simpson said.
"You can read it both ways," Simpson said in the interview Friday. "I did it as best I could to factually write it down as exactly as to what was said. And there's two interpretations to it, there's no doubt about that."
The fact that Simpson's affidavit is unclear about Rove's role is significant because her statement has been reported nationally as the first clear link between Rove and the Siegelman case. Democrats and Siegelman supporters have cited Simpson's affidavit as proof that the case was politically motivated, with U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, becoming the latest to argue that Siegelman's case should be included with others under congressional review for possible selective prosecution.
And that's fine with Siegelman's lawyers, who say Simpson's claims are not relevant to the appeal of his conviction. A congressional review, however, could help him win a new trial.
"I don't know whether what she says is true or not. And it doesn't really matter as to where I am or what my job is right now," Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said. "But if there are documents produced, let's say, in the congressional investigation, and they're exculpatory and they have not been produced to the defense, that's a new trial, in my opinion."
Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy remain in an Atlanta federal prison following their sentencing on corruption convictions last month.
Close election:
The national buzz over possible White House influence in the Siegelman investigation began several weeks ago, after Simpson's affidavit was distributed to several national publications. Simpson said Scrushy lawyer Art Leach asked her earlier this year to write the affidavit.
In her affidavit, written in May, Simpson said fellow Republicans during a conference call on Nov. 18, 2002, discussed concerns that Siegelman would continue to be a political problem in the future. That was days after the general election, and Siegelman and Bob Riley, who would go on to win the governor's race, were involved in a heated recount battle because of the election's razor-thin margin.
Simpson's affidavit said Bill Canary, a Riley adviser, told Riley's son on the call that Siegelman wasn't likely to be an issue. Canary is the husband of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary of Montgomery, whose staff handled the Siegelman investigation.
"William `Bill' Canary told him 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," Simpson said in the affidavit.
The federal investigation of Siegelman was well publicized before the November 2002 conference call Simpson describes in her affidavit. Nearly 10 months earlier, The Birmingham News reported the federal investigation of Siegelman.
The case received extensive media coverage throughout that year, including articles about Leura Canary stepping aside from the investigation, and arguments by Siegelman and his lawyers that politics prompted the investigation.
Media inferences:
While Simpson does not say it explicitly in her carefully worded affidavit, her statement about Rove has led several national media outlets and Siegelman supporters to infer that she heard Canary say Rove arranged for the Justice Department investigation of Siegelman. The result has been a number of articles characterizing Rove's role in different ways, even using partial quotes from Simpson's affidavit at times to more clearly link Rove to the case.
Time magazine: "A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top GOP operative in the state say that Rove `had spoken with the Department of Justice' about `pursuing' Siegelman."
Los Angeles Times: "Just this month, a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Rove was preparing to politically neutralize the popular Siegelman." The Times in the same article states that Simpson's affidavit said Rove and others "would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future."
The New York Times editorial: "The most arresting evidence that Mr. Siegelman may have been railroaded is a sworn statement by a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson. Ms. Simpson said she was on a conference call in which Bill Canary, the husband of the United States attorney whose office handled the case, insisted that `his girls' would `take care of' Mr. Siegelman. According to Ms. Simpson, he identified his `girls' as his wife, Leura Canary, and another top Alabama prosecutor. Mr. Canary, who has longstanding ties to Karl Rove, also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that he had worked it out with `Karl.'"
Hearing requested:
Davis, in a letter requesting a congressional hearing, also went further in linking Rove to the Siegelman case than Simpson did in her affidavit. He cited The New York Times editorial in his request to House leaders Friday that Siegelman's case be included in a broader congressional investigation of selective political prosecutions.
"Most explosively, an attorney who worked in the 2002 campaign against Siegelman has sworn an affidavit claiming that she participated in a November 2002 conference call in which an influential Republican claimed that Karl Rove had given assurances that Siegelman would be indicted."
Simpson said in her interview Friday that she is not responsible for how Davis and the media characterize her affidavit.
Davis held a different view of Simpson's affidavit in an interview last month, noting that her statement did not prove Siegelman's case was politically motivated. "All Jill Simpson can testify to is what she says a bunch of people said during a phone conversation. Rove never came on the line," Davis said last month. "That's why the affidavit doesn't tell you that much."
Davis on Friday said he has not changed his position, and he once again downplayed Simpson's affidavit.
"I don't put much stock in the affidavit as critical proof," he said. "The affidavit is one piece of proof ... but I don't think it is the most important piece of proof in this matter. It doesn't speak to Karl Rove. The question is whether Karl Rove ever did or said anything to instigate this investigation."
A bid for accuracy:
Simpson said that while she personally believes Rove had a role in the federal investigation of Siegelman, she was careful in her affidavit not to overstate what was said in the conference call, despite complaints from some who wanted her to more clearly link Rove to the case. Instead, Simpson said, she tried to factually recount the call, and in doing so allowed for the possibility that Canary was saying Rove heard about the investigation or Rove arranged for it.
"It can be either of the two," Simpson said. "And mind you, the fact of the matter is, I've heard from half a dozen people, `Well, why can't you have said, blah blah blah blah blah?' And I'm like, `I was trying to be factual.'"
Simpson said she's also troubled by the fact that the purpose of her affidavit is being ignored by some who have portrayed it as focusing on Rove's role in the Siegelman case. Rove is mentioned in only one of the 22 paragraphs, she said, in an affidavit that was written to disclose what she believes is another lawyer's conflict of interest.
Simpson claims Terry Butts, one of Scrushy's lawyers, had a conflict of interest in the corruption case because he earlier had worked for Riley and against Siegelman.
"To be honest with you, I wrote it about Terry Butts. I ended up writing an affidavit about it eventually. And I stand on it," she said in the interview.
In her affidavit, Simpson states that Butts was involved in the conference call and said he would persuade Siegelman to drop his challenge of Riley's 2002 victory. Butts and Canary have said the phone call Simpson refers to in the affidavit never happened.
"I can't have a conflict if the conversation didn't happen," Butts said Saturday.
Washington correspondent Mary Orndorff contributed to this report. bblackledge@bhamnews.com
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/118388255328230.xml&coll=2
© 2007 The Birmingham News


Siegelman/story clarification
Quote from the Simpson Affidavit:
(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," the affidavit said.
Point being that according to today’s Birmingham News Story, the US Attorney’s husband (Bill Canary) and the son of Governor Bob Riley (Rob Riley) have given up their denials that Canary had a conversation with Rove. They are only arguing what Canary’s conversation with Rove meant. There is no denial in the story that Rove had a conversation with Justice regarding an ongoing investigation of a sitting Democratic Governor.
The real question is whether Rove’s – now undisputed – conversation with Justice about Siegelman occurred before or after November 6, 2002 – Election Day.

Please forward & blog, everybody, everywhere; write, fax & call Congress. Demand JUSTICE for our Great Governor Don Siegelman!!!
Thank you,
Pam Miles 256-679-4997

www.donsiegelman.org

www.thatspolitics.com