Rove linked to DoJ prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman during disputed election

From Time:

  1. Who’s telling the truth, Simpson or Canary & Butts?

  2. Assuming Simpson is, did Rove or the DoJ do anything illegal or improper here?

  3. Is Siegelman really guilty or innocent?

The conviction of Don Siegelman has a lot of parallels with the conviction of Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin. She was convicted of fraud chages after being part of a committee to award a state contract, and advocating for the low bidder, who also happened to be a contributor to the governor’s campaign. There was no evidence she knew anything about the contributions, which were indisputably legal.

Anyway, it the story behind the conviction is anything close to what Time purports, this conviction will be tossed out shortly with extreme prejudice.

But, Siegelman was convicted on the evidence by a jury; a bad political motive for the prosecution does not necessarily invalidate the evidence.

The appeals court found in Georgia Thompson’s case that no crime had been committed at all, and she was ordered immediately released. Much as I am generally happy to see elected politicians brought low for their corruption, I have a great deal of trouble seeing a crime.

However, I will say I have absolutely no other information about this case, and I wouldn’t want to rely on one souce, but if the Time account is the accurate gist of the events, I’d say he’s an innocant man:

Of course, if Siegelman is exonerated . . . Bob Riley remains governor. Right?

Update: Alabama Congressman Arthur Davis, questioning Gonzalez last week, suggests the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated.

I invoke the Resident Master of Google-Fu to unearth my cite! It will provide the context of how many corruption charges the DOJ has leveled against Dems in recent years as compared to Chubby Pubbies.

Seems to me a simple matter of rotten economics: the party in power is going to get a lot more opportunities to succumb to temptation than the party on the outs. More bunghole for your buck, so to speak. I’d look it up myself, but I’m lazy and easily …ooh, shiny!

How about, for instance, little Teddy Stevens of Alaska? There’s a bit of stench about that.

Here ya go. (No Googling needed – found it right on the first page of this thread, post #28.)

That’s always true – but has any previous administration of either party, with or without a Congress of its own party, ever used the DoJ politically in this way, to this widespread and systematic an extent?

Update: From Harper’s:

You can view Simpson’s affidavit here.

Also from Harper’s, following day:

This also reminds me of the Silkwood case.

Damn, BrainGlutton! If not Rove, then who? If not now, when?

Why do people not see this sort of thing as the overthrow of government?

Er, because the government’s doing it?

Its just so hard to believe, hurts the brain. Looks like the last 6 years have been one long dirty truck, or, in Rovespeak, a ratfuck. They really are trying to warp the mechanisms of government to keep themselves in power.

But I wonder if its so much to stay in power, or just to keep the lid on all the crap they’ve done and got away with. I mean, the Dems in Congress have been turning over rocks for about six months now, and you can’t keep up with the squirmy grey things, crawling out into the sunlight and withering, kind of things maggots wont hang with.

Yeah, my opinion of the Republican Party leadership was pretty low before Bush got in power, but I never really seriously thought of them as being a criminal conspiracy on par with the Mafia before. Now I do.

Which leads to more disquieting thought: I’d always accepted the notion that the Republicans were interested in packing the judiciary with Republicans was for ideological reasons, abortion and so forth. But now I have to consider the notion that it was to allow Republican operatives like Karl Rove to commit what would ordinarily be garden-variety crimes and get away with it. Which means they were planning the shit that happens now for the last 10-20 years.

Pretty chilling stuff. I think if you cross Karl Rove you wind up with a severed horse head in your bed.

I saw this myself earlier, I imagine BG and I frequent the same lefty sites. But why is this in Harper’s and not the Washington Post or NBC or Fox (ok, just kidding with the last one)? This should be the lead story, there should be outrage. Could it be the GE for example doesn’t want to let NBC run with a story that could kill the Republican Party? The corporate masters of the media aren’t about to let this take center stage.

I can only hope that the investigation is done diligently and thoroughly and that someone gets nailed but good.

Are they? It seems to me they’re turning things up, said things deny any knowledge of any rocks, things, dirt, soil, or mulch, and then life goes on.

Am I missing some more exciting news somewhere?


I’m thinking Siegelman is in a similar situation to O.J. Simpson: Just because he was framed doesn’t mean he’s not guilty.

But does anyone here think he’s actually not guilty?

Just slightly beside the point. Its kind of like the FBI tracking and toying with AlQ wannabes for more than a year and then busting TERRORISTS! (AAAAArroooooga! AAAAAroooga!) at a convenient moment.

What do I care if you find me guilty of molesting mollusks if there’s no actual affect on my life or lifestyle?


Cross Karl Rove with who and get a severed horse head in your bed?

Seriously? Okay, cross

Number 43 comes closest to what I had in mind. I wasn’t aware that I was using an obsolete meaning.