60 Minutes on Siegelman

If you missed the 60 Minutes segment on the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman, you can watch it here:

11 Responses to “60 Minutes on Siegelman”

  1. Jeff (no, the other one) says:

    Over at Danny’s, Jill Simpson’s getting smeared top to bottom and side to side by a few different commenters, it seems. From the transcript, she hardly had much part in the CBS piece. For a story accused of having no substance, it sure seems to be getting under people’s skins.

  2. Kathy says:

    Yeah, Danny does have some commenters who get quite rabid about the issue. As I’ve said here before, the Bush Justice Department has only itself to blame if people are suspicious of this prosecution. And I’m still wondering about the “equal justice” of Siegelman being sent straight to prison while Gary White gets a new trial based on an issue that wasn’t raised until after his conviction.

  3. Bill says:

    I am no fan of Don Siegelman (gross understatement). But that piece was appalling. Karl Rove should be the one in jail.

  4. Del says:

    Jill Simpson could stand some work on her, um, demeanor on-camera. Not exactly a commanding, convincing presence. I know we all can’t be Perry Mason but I can’t imagine her in a courtroom setting, at least not as an attorney. (Let alone dramatically producing the secret tapes created with her Inspectress Gadget purse mic, as Spyware Freak mentions on Dan’s blog.) And the story about Rove requesting she take dirty pictures just sounds dotty as hell.

    The thing that keeps coming up in my mind is the question of whether Simpson was really a big player in the Republican campaigns or if she just licked a few envelopes once. We’ve ALL encountered people who like to name-drop and talk about who they “worked with” or have “known for years” when really all they did was attend a PTA meeting that the person gave a treasurer’s report at fifteen years ago. The “we’ve never met this woman before in our lives” story seems to be firmly in place—it’s a natural-enough kneejerk defense, but hardly one that would hold up for long if it’s a lie. Political campaigns seem chaotic enough, what with the temporary office quarters and college students tripping over yard signs and extension cords, but they can’t be that hopeless. Can they?

    I thought the Arizona (former) AG was very effective–wish I knew more about him. However, I think the comparison between what Siegelman did and the awarding of an ambassadorship to Paris is specious. I can’t think of ways an ambassador can use his appointment to personally make millions, off the backs of the sick & dying yet. According to my husband, it’s the same thing Edwin Edwards did and nobody is trying to get him off. The issue isn’t Siegelman’s guilt, it’s the way the prosecution was handled, and I think it’s a mistake to keep muddying the waters about that.

    And absolutely, Kathy. All the Team Bush stonewalling and refusal to produce materials – how can that look anything BUT suspicious?

  5. Helen says:

    “The issue isn’t Siegelman’s guilt, it’s the way the prosecution was handled, and I think it’s a mistake to keep muddying the waters about that. ”
    Amen, Del.

  6. Kathy says:

    “And the story about Rove requesting she take dirty pictures just sounds dotty as hell.”

    Oddly enough, that’s the story that one of Danny’s very Republican commenters acknowledged might just be true when it was first reported a few days ago. With the caveat that it’s typical opposition research. Given the amount of reported adultery in the Republican party, Rove could be excused for thinking everyone is doing it.

    The spy camera commenter is so over the top that I almost wonder if s/he is a plant. Or just a run-of-the-mill nut eager to inject him/herself into the story.

  7. ahab says:

    Thanks for the heads-up on this story, Kathy. Mary and I caught it. And were APPALLED! God, what a scummy party with such scummy people in it.

  8. Del says:

    “Typical opposition research.” That’s hilarious. “We’re so proud of Junior. Finished up his master’s at Columbia in political science, and he’s just landed a job doing opposition research. Of course, it doesn’t pay much to start, but he’s making wonderful contacts.”

    But honestly. She’s supposed to stalk him and walk in with the camera at the ready when he’s got some girl (or boy, I suppose, who knows) bent over the desk? Like those old movies where the detectives burst into the hotel room? Or is she supposed to use her nanotech amplifying device (looks like an ordinary stick of gum!) to secretly record him talking dirty to the girl who brings him his coffee? “I think I could use a little extra cream today, Caitlin! Know where I could get any sweet fresh cream?” “Oh, Mr. Siegelman, tee hee hee. You’re just terrible.”

  9. Jeff (no, the other one) says:

    Jill is country, no doubt about it. Ever been to Rainsville? There’s a N. Alabama/TN accent where “our” is pronounced “air”. Can’t testify to her courtroom abilities, but I know she’s taken her entire office on vacation to Jamaica, with their families, in the past, for something like 10 days. She’s capable of makin’ money.

    She can talk a blue streak, and her demeanor doesn’t come across so well on camera, you’re right. I wouldn’t want to be cross-examined by her.

    I called her out of the blue in 2000 and she gave me good — free to an old friend — legal advice about my divorce.

    I find it very hard to believe she’d go through all this for a little attention. For her conscience, yes; for the drama, no. One earlier comment she made (Scott Horton article, maybe?) just sounded hopelessly naive to me, something about believing in the law and that justice would always prevail.

    I have my doubts about all that.

  10. Kathy says:

    Jeff, thanks! It’s good to get some input from someone who actually knows Jill Simpson instead of people who are drawing conclusions based on their biases.

    Del — sweet fresh cream:lol: !

  11. Andress says:

    “Lobbyist Jack Abramoff funded Bob Riley’s campaigns against Don Siegelman”

    Though John McCain has repeatedly claimed he took on Jack Abramoff and the Republican culture of corruption, a recent story revealed that McCain covered for his friend, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, who was fighting a tight re-election battle at the time against ex-governor Don Siegelman, by refusing to release key evidence that would have linked Riley to the Abramoff scandal. Yesterday, Riley returned the favor by endorsing McCain.

    As chair of a committee conducting an investigation on Abramoff, McCain had access to an incriminating email sent just one month after Riley was elected to office detailing what Abramoff wanted Riley to do in return for the contributions Abramoff’s tribal clients directed toward his campaign. But instead of including the email in his report on the Abramoff scandal, McCain instead chose to withhold the email, shielding Riley from becoming implicated in the scandal as he was waging a bitter fight to keep his seat, a race that even Karl Rove became involved in. [Huffington Post, 2/25/08]

    This cycle of quid pro quo seriously calls McCain’s integrity into question and is further evidence that the so-called “maverick” isn’t the Washington reformer he claims to be.

    McCain Didn’t Investigate Republican Colleagues for Their Illegal or Unethical Behavior. John McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee hearings failed to go after federal lawmakers who benefited from Jack Abramoff’s lobbying. “McCain said his committee continues to examine all the financial angles of where the $82 million ended up, as well as other political and charitable contributions the tribes made at Abramoff’s request. But he reiterated that he was following the money trail, not the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress. ‘We stop when we find out where the money went,’ he said.” [Roll Call, 3/10/05]

    McCain Acknowledged That Some Legislators Had Committed “Wrongdoing,” But Refused To Investigate. Asked if he believed that some legislators had committed a crime related the Abramoff scandal, Senator McCain said “There’s strong evidence that there was significant wrongdoing, but I’m not a judge or jury,” and refused to investigate his colleagues in Congress, saying “I will not, because I’m a chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. This was brought to our–this whole thing started–was brought to us–attention by some disgruntled tribal council members in a small tribe in Louisiana, and we took it as far as we thought was our responsibility, which is where the money ends up.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 12/4/05]

Leave a Reply