The Smear Job - Round Four - Birmingham News is the latest attack dog... (Siegelman)

[MelissaB]

The Smear Job - Round Four - Birmingham News is the latest attack dog...

by Larisa Alexandrovna

First, for those of you new to the Don Siegelman saga, see HERE. Also, see the first "smears" as follows:

The Warning
Scott Horton First Victim
The Smear Job - Part Two
Horton Takes on Rove
The Smear Job - Part III - Alabama GOP Mass Meltdown



Now for the latest propaganda glop from the Birmingham News. With my commentary included for your reading pleasure (or displeasure, whichever happens to be the case):

Former Gov. Don Siegelman is waging a two-front war on a public corruption conviction that sent him to prison - one in the courts, the other in the political arena.

A recent segment about the Siegelman case on CBS' "60 Minutes" contained ammunition on both fronts. The show focused on Siegelman's claims to have been the victim of a partisan prosecution pushed by Republicans at the highest levels of government."

The show did not focus on any claims made by Siegelman. In fact, the claims were made by others, including former Arizona Attorney General and Republican, Grant Woods (who is the state co-chair of the McCain campaign), Republican attorney Dana Jill Simpson, who was a campaign opposition researcher for Alabama Governor Bob Riley's campaign in 2002, and included investigative work done by the 60 Minutes reporters and producers.

"There was former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, who said he didn't believe Siegelman had committed a crime in taking $500,000 from HealthSouth's ex-CEO, Richard Scrushy, for a seat on a state board. Although a jury concluded otherwise, Woods said the case wasn't valid because the money went to Siegelman's lottery campaign, rather than to him personally. Though a Republican, Woods contends the case against Democrat Siegelman smacks of politics."

Really? Because if I recall correctly, what the broadcast showed was that the witness - Nick Bailey - who made the claim that Governor Siegelman took a check (bribe) from Richard Scrushy was not only shown to have been lying, but the show also alleged that the prosecution knew about it. What Woods goes on to say is that Siegelman made no money or had direct benefit from the transaction in any case, because it went to a state lottery to fund Alabama education programs. In other words, if this is quid pro quo, where is the "quo?"

As for the jury concluding "otherwise," the Birmingham News fails to mention what is known about both the judge on this case - Judge Mark Fuller - and allegations of jury tampering by jurors.

Now here comes the GOP talking points we have seen over the last week:

"Then there was Dana Jill Simpson, a Rainsville lawyer who has been lobbing would-be bombshells for months about the Republicans' alleged vendetta against Siegelman. On "60 Minutes," she claimed Republican strategist Karl Rove personally asked her in 2001 to try to get evidence Siegelman was cheating on his wife.

A word about this: It's not as if Rove hasn't dabbled before in Alabama politics, and it's certainly not as if Rove is above playing dirty.

The problem is Simpson. She has dribbled out damaging allegations in such a way as to undermine her credibility. A statement issued months ago recalled secondhand references she'd heard about Rove's alleged conversations about the Siegelman prosecution. In her later testimony to a congressional committee, she went a little further, claiming she'd heard Rove went to the Justice Department about the Siegelman case and "had it taken care of." Yet until now, she never revealed the interesting tidbit that Rove had personally asked her to get some dirt on Siegelman. How can that be?"

This is a blatant lie. Not a mistake, but a lie. Simpson had in fact told these and other allegations not yet made public to Scott Horton at Harper's, to me, to Time magazine reporters, and to Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork journal.


More from Larisa: http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/the-smear-job-2.html

[Hissyspit]

1. When they posted it on the Internet, look what they did with the headline:

LOL

http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1280

Make up your own!

[MelissaB]

2. .

:rofl: Oh, my!

[CatWoman]

4. Karl Rove Made Us Cookies!!!

:rofl:

[StrictlyRockers]

3. And he did all that from his jail cell? OK...

He exerts a lot of influence on the producers and editors of 60 Minutes. Amazing.

[lala_rawraw]

5. Thanks for posting... also, Dana Siegelman and Scott Horton will

be on Abrams tonight:)

[annabanana]

6. Excellent (setting Tivo). . . . n/t

[mod mom]

7. K & r

[Uncle Joe]

8. I hope 60 Minutes repeats the program soon as it was blacked out in Alabama.

"The Nation: The 60 Minutes Blackout"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2929210&mesg_id=2929210


Thanks for the thread, MelissaB.

[lala_rawraw]

9. There are questions at bottom that I want Birm News to answer...

Please write to them and demand they answer these questions... here is the bottom of the post above:

##
I will refrain from posting the rest of their idiocy here. But I will issue a challenge to the editors of the Birmingham News to address some of the questions that I and many others have. This is an open letter:

1. Are 52 State Attorney Generals - of both parties - all lying about the problems with the trial? Are they simply wrong? How do you account for what they cite vs. what you have reported?

2. Are Scott Horton and I both lying? If so, please provide specific, point-by-point proof of this.

3. Is the Alabama GOP and/or Governor Bob Riley and/or Karl Rove in discussions about this case with the paper? If so, what is the subject of those discussions?

4. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Governor Siegelman got a fair trial? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

5. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Dana Jill Simpson is lying? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

6. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that the prosecution had no knowledge that Nick Bailey was lying? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

7. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Lanny Young's testimony against Siegelman was credible, even though his allegations against Republicans, Senator Jeff Sessions and Judge William Pryor were dismissed by the prosecutors? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

8. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Karl Rove had no involvement in the investigation, indictment, trial, and imprisonment of Don Siegelman? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

9. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Bill Canary had nothing to do with the investigation and trial of Don Siegelman? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

10. Is the paper willing to say that should evidence prove them wrong on their "facts" (much like Karl Rove's math), they will be honorable and retract all of their previous false reporting and opining on this case and apologize to their readers? f the answer is no, please make that answer public, apologize to your readers, and quit pretending to be journalists.

That is my challenge. A think 7 days from today should be enough time. I also ask your help in making sure that the Birmingham News understands the amount of interest the public has in getting these answers.

You can email them as follows:

Tom Scarritt
Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Hunter George
Executive Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Bob Blalock
Editorial Page Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Pamela Dugan
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Chuck Clark
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Scott Walker
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

[MelissaB]

10. Kick!

I ain't too proud. :)