God IS The Word
February 24th, 2008If it’s good enough for the mainstream media, it’s good enough for us (sang to the tune of “If It’s Good Enough For Jesus, It’s good enough for me.”)
We figure if the mainstream media believes it is necessary to cover “Faith” as news, why not engage in a little Biblical scholarship of our own on this Sunday when the CBS News magazine show will air on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. I mean Richard Scrushy had his own religious TV show.
And after all, that’s the life-long goal of University of Alabama journalism historian and professor David Sloan, who may be as responsible for our religious news media as any man alive. It’s a remarkable achievement, putting the University of Alabama’s fine journalism program into heated competition with the Baptist Samford University in Birmingham – for who could produce the most reporters to take care of the internship needs of the Alabama Baptist newspaper for generations to come. And occasionally, slip one in over at the Birmingham News and Fox News 6.
Since I was steeped in the Bible myself in my Birmingham upbringing, an experience that took many years to wear off in my own writing, I say with some chagrin, I figure I’ve got as much right as anyone else.
Since most of the religious people involved in American and Alabama politics I confront seem to use the Bible in ways that indicates they do not have “an ear to hear,” as it says in “Revelations,” and maybe they’ve never really sat down and read the entire thing themselves.
When I was in junior high, a coach and Sunday school teacher set our championship basketball team on a path of reading for the year. We would read the entire King James version of the Holy Bible. In one year.
So we did, and we won, every single game through the state and national championships. And I’m happy to say I only strayed from the reading a few times, during all them begets and such in the Old Testament.
I’ve often thought of those words, since I embarked on a more scientific academic path, perhaps not unlike E.O. Wilson, the Harvard professor from Alabama who has tried to start a movement to get Southern Baptists to embrace the cause of nature as “God’s creation.”
But there is something about the soil here, and the way the words are used, that is not only troubling. Who or what is it going to take to reach the great religious masses of the South and turn them away from hatred and violence?
Where is the newspaper editor who will send up a sharp warning on an editorial page somewhere, begging these people to “stop the killing!”
There were a few newspaper editors who had the guts to do that during the great Civil War, who called on their citizens to stop the killing.
In the early 20th century, there were a few newspaper editors who stood up against the Ku Klux Klan. Some of them lived to tell about it. Some didn’t.
During the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950s and ’60s in Alabama, there were a few courageous newspaper editors who got out front on covering race, but not many. There were crusading liberal lawyers in those days, and a few brave preachers, like the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who is now being treated in a Birmingham hospital.
Where are those voices today? Buried in the antiseptic cubicles of professional drudgery at the last vestiges of newsrooms in America’s cities? Or out there in wild blogland, the dot dot dot wilderness, where e-mails sometimes obliterate communication rather than fostering it – at breakneck speed.
We are looking for those voices and linking to them here, trying with 110 percent, the same as the effort required for winning basketball, to show you the way to the promised land of the best information on the Web. It’s an evil world out there, with all kinds of hacks and hackers, full of evil men who will play both sides against the middle for a dollar all day long every day.
But we know, and you know, that The Word is good. And God is THE WORD!
The Unjust Judge and the Importunate Widow
See you after the show…
We’ll have the embargoed transcript up at 7 p.m.
Here’s the blurb:
IS DON SIEGELMAN IN PRISON BECAUSE HE’S A CRIMINAL OR BECAUSE HE BELONGED TO THE WRONG POLITICAL PARTY IN ALABAMA? SIEGELMAN IS THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, AND HE WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRAT IN THAT REPUBLICAN STATE. BUT WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR, THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHED MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WENT ON YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL, FINALLY, A JURY CONVICTED SIEGELMAN OF BRIBERY.
NOW, MANY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BECOME SUSPICIOUS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S MOTIVATIONS. FIFTY-TWO FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL HAVE ASKED CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE PROSECUTION OF DON SIEGELMAN WAS PURSUED NOT BECAUSE OF A CRIME BUT BECAUSE OF POLITICS.
Jill Simpson will also be on MSNBC Monday and CNN soon, so watch for details as they come in…
Other Links
And oh yea, lest we forget, that snowy screed of desperation out of Montgomery:
Judge, Conduct of Siegelman Trial Defended
As always, we welcome any comments after the show, and editor and publisher Glynn Wilson will answer questions about the case based on his coverage and other inside info – now that the show is finally out. It’s been a long wait…
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
February 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The physical and documented evidence is overwhelming for this, but the Alabama Republican Party can’t resist trying to spike the Kool-aid.
The other GW
Alabama GOP responds before 60 Minutes Airs:
5:30 PM CST
Statement by Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard on the Dana Jill Simpson Accusations Aired by CBS’ 60 Minutes CBS News and 60 Minutes’ disdain for the Republican Party brought them embarrassment when they ran a bogus and fraudulent story about President Bush and his National Guard record in the fall of 2004 – ultimately admitting to not having followed “basic journalistic principles”. It appears that same revulsion for the GOP is bringing them embarrassment once again as they air yet another fiction. Today, the staff of the New York Times must be relieved they are not alone in having their liberal political bias examined on the national stage.”
It is becoming apparent that Dana Jill Simpson will fabricate any claim in order to extend her 15 minutes in the public spotlight. As the Associated Press pointed out this week, she has never before mentioned her most recent accusations about Karl Rove – in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters’. This is not the first time someone has noticed that her story has changed. I am sure it will not be the last.
“Our staff has done an exhaustive search of Alabama Republican Party records going back several years, and we can find not one instance of Dana Jill Simpson volunteering or working on behalf of the Alabama Republican Party – as stated by 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley. Nor can we find anyone within the Republican Party leadership in Alabama who has ever so much as heard of Dana Jill Simpson until she made her first wave of accusations last summer in an affidavit originally released only to the New York Times.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The Transcript:
EMBARGOED: Not to appear on wires, air, in print or on websites before 7:00PM ET Tonight (24). You may use up to 250 words from this transcript.
THE PROSECUTION OF GOVERNOR Siegelman
60MINUTES SUNDAY FEB. 24, 2008
STUDIO:
IS DON SIEGELMAN IN PRISON BECAUSE HE’S A CRIMINAL OR BECAUSE HE BELONGED TO THE WRONG POLITICAL PARTY IN ALABAMA? SIEGELMAN IS THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, AND HE WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRAT IN THAT REPUBLICAN STATE. BUT WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR, THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHED MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WENT ON YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL, FINALLY, A JURY CONVICTED SIEGELMAN OF BRIBERY.
NOW, MANY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BECOME SUSPICIOUS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S MOTIVATIONS. FIFTY-TWO FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL HAVE ASKED CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE PROSECUTION OF DON SIEGELMAN WAS PURSUED NOT BECAUSE OF A CRIME BUT BECAUSE OF POLITICS.
tape:
TEN YEARS AGO LIFE WAS GOOD FOR DON SIEGELMAN. AFTER HE BECAME gOVERNOR MANY BELIEVED HE WAS HEADED TO A CAREER IN NATIONAL POLITICS. IN 1999, SIEGELMAN’S PET PROJECT WAS RAISING MONEY TO IMPROVE EDUCATION, SO HE STARTED A CAMPAIGN TO ASK VOTERS TO APPROVE A STATE LOTTERY. HE CHALLENGED REPUBLICANS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER IDEA.
(SIEGELMAN SPEECH) You tell us how you’re going to pay for college scholarships. You tell us how you’re going to put state of the art computers inside every school in this state…
BUT NOW THE APPLAUSE HAS LONG FADED. THIS IS SIEGELMAN TODAY EMPTYING A MOP BUCKET AT A FEDERAL PRISON CAMP IN LOUISIANA HE’S DOING SEVEN YEARS. THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST HIM WAS THAT HE TOOK A BRIBE—GIVING A POSITION ON A STATE BOARD TO BUSINESSMAN RICHARD SCRUSHY, WHO HAD MADE A BIG DONATION TO THAT LOTTERY CAMPAIGN. THERE WAS A STAR WITNESS, NICK BAILEY, A SIEGELMAN AIDE WHO HAD A VIVID STORY TO TELL.
(JONES ) Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor’s office, just the two of them.
DOUG JONES WAS ONE OF SIEGELMAN’S LAWYERS.
(JONES) And then as soon as Mr. Scrushy left the Governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have given him for the lottery foundation.
(PELLEY) Had the check in his hand right then and there?
(JONES) Had the check in his hand right then.
(PELLEY) That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?
(JONES) That’s right, showed it to Mr. Bailey. And Nick asked him, “Well, what does he want for it?” And Governor Siegelman allegedly said, “A seat on the CON Board.” Nick asked him, “Can we do that?” And he said, “I think so.”
THE C-O-N BOARD REGULATES HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, AND SCRUSHY RAN A HEALTH CARE COMPANY. BOTH siegelman, on the left, AND SCRUSHY WERE CONVICTED IN FEDERAL COURT. BUT, AS WE FOUND OUT, THE IMPRISONMENT OF DON SIEGELMAN IS NOT NEARLY AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
(WOODS) I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done.
GRANT WOODS IS THE FORMER REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA. HE’S ONE OF THOSE 52 FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL, OF BOTH PARTIES, WHO’VE ASKED CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE SIEGELMAN CASE.
(WOODS) I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.
NOW A REPUBLICAN LAWYER FROM ALABAMA, JILL SIMPSON, HAS COME FORWARD TO CLAIM THAT THE SIEGELMAN PROSECUTION WAS PART OF A FIVE-YEAR SECRET CAMPAIGN TO RUIN THE GOVERNOR. SIMPSON TOLD US SHE DID WHAT’S CALLED OPPOSITION RESEARCH FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. SHE SAYS DURING A MEETING IN 2001, KARL ROVE, PRESIDENT BUSH’S SENIOR POLITICAL ADVISOR, ASKED HER TO TRY TO CATCH SIEGELMAN CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.
(PELLEY) Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman–
(SIMPSON) Yes.
(PELLEY) –in a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides?
(SIMPSON) Yes. If I could.
SHE SAYS SHE SPIED ON SIEGELMAN FOR MONTHS BUT SAW NOTHING.
EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS WORKING AS A REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN OPERATIVE, SIMPSON SAYS SHE WANTED TO TALK TO US BECAUSE SIEGELMAN’S PRISON SENTENCE BOTHERS HER CONSCIENCE.
(PELLEY) Were you surprised that Rove made this request?
(SIMPSON) No.
(PELLEY) Why not?
(SIMPSON) I had had other requests for intelligence before.
(PELLEY) From Karl Rove?
(SIMPSON) Yes.
ROVE WAS A STRATEGIST IN ALABAMA. SIMPSON SAYS SHE WORKED WITH HIM ON SEVERAL CAMPAIGNS. WE CONTACTED ROVE. THROUGH HIS LAWYER, HE DENIED SIMPSON’S ALLEGATIONS. ONE OF ROVE’S CLOSE ALABAMA ASSOCIATES WAS REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT BILL CANARY.[1] SIMPSON SAYS SHE WAS ON A CONFERENCE CALL IN 2002 WHEN CANARY TOLD HER SHE DIDN’T HAVE TO DO MORE INTELLIGENCE WORK BECAUSE, AS CANARY ALLEGEDLY SAID, “MY GIRLS” CAN TAKE CARE OF SIEGELMAN. SIMPSON SAYS SHE ASKED—“WHO ARE YOUR GIRLS?”
(SIMPSON) And he says, “Oh, my wife, Leura. You know, she’s the Middle District United States Attorney.” And he said, “And then Alice Martin. She is the Northern District Attorney, and I’ve helped with her campaign.”
(PELLEY) Federal prosecutors?
(SIMPSON) Yes, Sir.
BILL CANARY DENIES THE CONVERSATION EVER HAPPENED.[2] HE TOLD US HE NEVER TRIED TO INFLUENCE ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IN THE CASE. HIS WIFE LEURA CANARY AND ALICE MARTIN ARE top federal prosecutors IN THE STATE. BOTH WERE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT BUSH, AND THEIR OFFICES INVESTIGATED SIEGELMAN. [3] DETAILS OF SOME OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS LEAKED TO THE PRESS.[4] AND Siegelman LOST HIS 2002 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN NARROWLY TO REPUBLICAN BOB RILEY. TWO YEARS LATER AS SIEGELMAN GEARED UP TO RUN AGAIN, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK ONE OF ITS SIEGELMAN INVESTIGATIONS TO TRIAL—AN INDICTMENT involving an alleged medicaid scam.
(GRANT WOODS ) He’s indicted. He goes to trial. That’s a pretty big deal to have your former governor on trial. Everybody’s there. The government gives their opening argument. The judge says, “I want to see you in chambers because this case, there’s no case here.”
(PELLEY) Just throws it out.
(WOODS) Judge throws it out.
(PELLEY) On the first day.
(WOODS) Without a witness testifying. The case is so lame that he throws it out.
VINDICATED, SIEGELMAN FOCUSED ON WINNING THE 2006 ELECTION. AND THAT’S WHEN JILL SIMPSON SAYS SHE heard THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WAS GOING TO TRY AGAIN. SHE SAYS SHE HEARD IT FROM A FORMER CLASSMATE AND WORK ASSOCIATE ROB RILEY, THE SON OF THE NEW REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.
(JILL SIMPSON) Rob said that they had gotten wind that Don was going to run again.
(PELLEY) And Rob Riley said what about that?
(SIMPSON) They just couldn’t have that happen.
(PELLEY) And how were they going to prevent that from happening?
(SIMPSON) Well they had to re-indict him, is what Rob said.
SIMPSON TOLD THIS SAME STORY, UNDER OATH, TO CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS IN A CLOSED SESSION.
ROB RILEY TOLD US HE NEVER TALKED TO JILL SIMPSON ABOUT THIS.
FOUR MONTHS AFTER SIMPSON SAYS THEY SPOKE, SIEGELMAN WAS INDICTED ON NEW CHARGES.
DOUG JONES, SIEGELMAN’S LAWYER, SAYS ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS TOLD HIM THAT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON HAD ORDERED A TOP TO BOTTOM REVIEW OF THE CASE.
TODAY THE ALABAMA PROSECUTORS DENY THAT IT WAS WASHINGTON–BUT WHOEVER ORDERED IT—THERE WAS A BIG BOOST TO THE INVESTIGATION.
(JONES ) They started over. People started getting subpoenas that had never gotten subpoenas before, for testimony, for records. The Governor’s brother, his bank records started getting subpoenaed. The net was cast much wider than had ever been cast before.
(PELLEY) You know, on the other hand, what’s wrong with the Department of Justice vigorously investigating a case if they think there is an indictment to be made on public corruption charges?
(JONES ) Well, you still have to investigate crimes, not people. It undermines the entire system of justice because at that point anybody can be a target. Any prosecutor can look across the table and say, “You know what? I just don’t like you.”
THE PROSECUTION WAS HANDLED BY THE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY LEURA CANARY, WHOSE HUSBAND BILL CANARY HAD RUN THE CAMPAIGN OF SIEGELMAN’S OPPONENT, GOVERNOR RILEY.
(WOODS) Why would you do it that way? Why wouldn’t you say, “You know what? We’re going to bring in someone from another jurisdiction to do it. There’s a lot of United States Attorneys around the country. We’ll have somebody come in and do this case. That’s not what happened in Alabama. Every time they had the chance to go the extra mile to be independent and objective, they didn’t do it.
LEURA CANARY HANDLED THE CASE FOR EIGHT MONTHS. WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEYS OBJECTED, SHE TURNED IT OVER TO HER ASSISTANTS AND SAYS THAT SHE HAD NOTHING FURTHER TO DO WITH IT.
IN THIS NEW INVESTIGATION PROSECUTORS ZEROED IN ON THAT VIVID STORY TOLD BY SIEGELMAN’S AIDE, NICK BAILEY, WHO SAID HE SAW THE GOVERNOR WITH A CHECK IN HIS HAND AFTER MEETING RICHARD SCRUSHY. TROUBLE WAS, BAILEY WAS WRONG ABOUT THE CHECK, AND SIEGELMAN’S LAWYER SAYS, PROSECUTORS KNEW IT.
(JONES) They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand.
(PELLEY) That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case.
(JONES) It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy who’s credibility was going to be the lynch pin of that case. It was a huge problem.
AND THERE WAS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE PROSECUTOR’S STAR WITNESS—NICK BAILEY WAS A CROOK. UNKNOWN TO SIEGELMAN, BAILEY HAD BEEN EXTORTING MONEY FROM ALABAMA BUSINESSMEN.
FACING TEN YEARS IN PRISON, BAILEY AGREED TO COOPERATE WITH PROSECUTORS TO GET A LIGHTER SENTENCE.
WE WENT TO TALK TO BAILEY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULDN’T LET OUR CAMERAS INTO THE PRISON, BUT WE MET WITH HIM FOR HOURS. BAILEY TOLD US THAT BEFORE THE SIEGELMAN TRIAL, HE SPOKE TO PROSECUTORS MORE THAN SEVENTY TIMES, AND HE ADMITTED THAT DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, HE HAD TROUBLE REMEMBERING DETAILS.
HE TOLD US THE PROSECUTORS WERE SO FRUSTRATED THEY MADE HIM WRITE HIS PROPOSED TESTIMONY OVER AND OVER TO GET HIS STORY STRAIGHT.
(ON-CAMERA) IF BAILEY’S TELLING THE TRUTH, HIS NOTES, BY LAW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE.
BUT SIEGELMAN’S LAWYERS TELL US THEY NEVER SAW ANY SUCH NOTES AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO SHOW THE JURY JUST HOW MUCH BAILEY’S STORY HAD CHANGED.
NO ONE AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE INTERVIEWED FOR THIS STORY, BUT THEY DID SEND US A STATEMENT WHICH READ, IN PART: “This case was brought by career prosecutors … based upon the law and the evidence alone. After considering that evidence … a jury of Mr. Siegelman’s peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubT.”
BUT GRANT WOODS, THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, SAYS THE CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO TRIAL.
(WOODS) The prosecutor’s gotta look at it and say, “Hey, is this the sort of thing that we’re really talking about when we’re talking about bribery?” Because what the public needs to know here is there is no allegation that Don Siegelman ever put one penny in his pocket.
RICHARD SCRUSHY DID MAKE DONATIONS TOTALING 500-THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THAT EDUCATION LOTTERY CAMPAIGN AND AFTER SERVING ON THE HOSPITAL BOARD UNDER THREE PREVIOUS GOVERNORS, SCRUSHY WAS RE-APPOINTED BY SIEGELMAN. BUT WOODS SAYS THAT’S POLITICS, NOT BRIBERY.
(WOODS) You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit Not hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state. If you’re going to start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just– build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States.
(PELLEY) What you seem to be saying here is that this is analogous to giving a great deal of money to a presidential campaign. And as a result, you become Ambassador to Paris.
(WOODS) Exactly. That’s exactly right.
SIEGELMAN WAS CAMPAIGNING IN THE 2006 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY AS HE WENT TO TRIAL.
(SIEGELMAN) We’re going to turn this bus into what we call the night shift, because after, after the trial every day we’re gonna be hittin the trail every day.
BUT HE LOST IN THE PRIMARY. AFTER TWO MONTHS, THE JURY DEADLOCKED TWICE, THEN, VOTED TO CONVICT ON ITS THIRD DELIBERATION. MANY LEGAL MINDS WERE SHOCKED WHEN FEDERAL JUDGE MARK FULLER, AT SENTENCING, SENT SIEGELMAN DIRECTLY TO PRISON WITHOUT ALLOWING THE USUAL 45 DAYS BEFORE REPORTING.
(WOODS) He had him manacled around his legs like we do with crazed killers. And whisked off to prison just like that. Now what does that tell you? That tells you that this was personal. You would not do that to a former governor.
(PELLEY) Would you do that to any white collar criminal?
(WOODS ) No, I haven’t seen it done.
(PELLEY) Help me understand something. You’re blaming the Republican Administration for this prosecution. You’re saying it was a political prosecution. You are a Republican. How do I reconcile that?
(WOODS) We’re Americans first. And– you got to call it as you see it. And you got to stand up for what’s– what’s right in this country.
STUDIO:
KARL ROVE AND OTHERS AT THE WHITE HOUSE WERE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS BUT THEY REFUSED TO APPEAR. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. DON SIEGELMAN HAS SIX YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS TO GO ON HIS SENTENCE.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
This was a very TRUE and well-edited piece on what really happened. Sure the GOP will have a reply as they did,they can’t stand it when their little lies and games catch up with them.
This man, as I have always said should NEVER have been sent to prison. Nick Bailey is the one who should stay there, he “plea-bargained”….
Scrushy and Don both need to be out, they did not commit a crime.