60 minutes story on siegleman

[kickinwang 0]

short and to the point

[kickinwang 0]

more on the story

GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem

60 Minutes: Woman Says Top Bush Adviser Asked Her To Take Compromising Pictures Of Alabama Gov. Siegelman

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2008

(CBS) A Republican operative in Alabama says Karl Rove asked her to try to prove the state’s Democratic governor was unfaithful to his wife in an effort to thwart the highly successful politician’s re-election.

Rove’s attempt to smear Don Siegelman was part of a Republican campaign to ruin him that finally succeeded in imprisoning him, says the operative, Jill Simpson.

Simpson speaks to Scott Pelley in her first television interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, Feb. 24, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Simpson spoke to Pelley because, she says, Siegelman’s seven-year sentence for bribery bothers her. She recalls what Rove, then President Bush’s senior political adviser, asked her to do at a 2001 meeting in this exchange from Sunday’s report.

"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" asks Pelley.

"Yes," replies Simpson.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," clarifies Pelley.

"Yes, if I could," says Simpson.

Simpson says she found no evidence of infidelity despite months of observation. She tells Pelley that Rove, who had been a top Republican strategist in Alabama, had made requests for information from her before in her capacity as an "opposition researcher" for Republicans running for office.

Rove would not speak to 60 Minutes, but elsewhere has denied being involved in efforts to discredit Siegelman.

Siegelman was convicted of bribery in a case that has drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans. In fact, 52 former states’ attorneys general from both political parties petitioned Congress to investigate Siegelman’s case, resulting in hearings held last fall.

"I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done," Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona and one of those who petitioned Congress, tells Pelley. "I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square."

Siegelman was the only politician in Alabama history to be elected to all four of the state’s highest offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, and he did it as a Democrat in the heavily Republican state.

[AFTiger 282]

More on the story.

"60 Minutes" a Glutton for Punishment?

Less than four years after getting embroiled in a scandal over their use of forged military records, CBS' "60 Minutes" is attacking Karl Rove with a witness who has already been discredited:

On Thursday, the 60 Minutes web site began hawking a feature to run on its show. This Sunday, an already discredited Alabama attorney named Dana Jill Simpson will claim that Rove asked her to photograph Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in a "compromising, sexual position with one of his aides."

Nothing about her story even begins to stand up to scrutiny; indeed all of it fails every basic test of common sense. A former Democratic Alabama Supreme Court justice (and sometime Siegelman adversary) who represented a co-defendant and close ally of Siegelman's in the trial that convicted Siegelman of federal bribery and obstruction charges, said that the previous versions of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer."

[A] Associated Press report noted Thursday that Simpson "has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity -- in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters."

Numerous Alabama reporters, including a recent Pulitzer Prize winner, have noted a bevy of other changes or additions to Simpson's story over the past year as she has spun one strange tale after another of a supposed Republican conspiracy to destroy Siegelman's career, a conspiracy that she says was responsible for his eventual prosecution on what left-wing activists now charge were trumped-up charges.

Until recently, she had alleged that her knowledge of Rove's involvement (beginning in 2002 -- not, as she now says, in 2001) ... was limited to hearing top state Republicans refer to a "Karl" as the mastermind. Now, suddenly, she says that she met with Rove in person a full year before the later alleged skullduggery and that he "approached her" to ask her to take pictures of Siegelman cheating on his wife.

You'd think, after their shenanigans all but got Dan Rather fired, the producers would be a little more careful when they go "republican hunting" these days

[kickinwang 0]

More on the story.

"60 Minutes" a Glutton for Punishment?

Less than four years after getting embroiled in a scandal over their use of forged military records, CBS' "60 Minutes" is attacking Karl Rove with a witness who has already been discredited:

On Thursday, the 60 Minutes web site began hawking a feature to run on its show. This Sunday, an already discredited Alabama attorney named Dana Jill Simpson will claim that Rove asked her to photograph Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in a "compromising, sexual position with one of his aides."

Nothing about her story even begins to stand up to scrutiny; indeed all of it fails every basic test of common sense. A former Democratic Alabama Supreme Court justice (and sometime Siegelman adversary) who represented a co-defendant and close ally of Siegelman's in the trial that convicted Siegelman of federal bribery and obstruction charges, said that the previous versions of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer."

[A] Associated Press report noted Thursday that Simpson "has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity -- in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers for hours last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters."

Numerous Alabama reporters, including a recent Pulitzer Prize winner, have noted a bevy of other changes or additions to Simpson's story over the past year as she has spun one strange tale after another of a supposed Republican conspiracy to destroy Siegelman's career, a conspiracy that she says was responsible for his eventual prosecution on what left-wing activists now charge were trumped-up charges.

Until recently, she had alleged that her knowledge of Rove's involvement (beginning in 2002 -- not, as she now says, in 2001) ... was limited to hearing top state Republicans refer to a "Karl" as the mastermind. Now, suddenly, she says that she met with Rove in person a full year before the later alleged skullduggery and that he "approached her" to ask her to take pictures of Siegelman cheating on his wife.

You'd think, after their shenanigans all but got Dan Rather fired, the producers would be a little more careful when they go "republican hunting" these days

so it goes...

[Tigermike 3,040]

so it goes...

Linking a far left blog. That carries a lot of weight. What does moveon & kos have to say?

[kickinwang 0]

so it goes...

Linking a far left blog. That carries a lot of weight. What does moveon & kos have to say?

but a link that just rehashes "the american spectator" is perfectly fine, right?

[BZ770 2]

Don was a crook. Period.

[Ranger12 46]

CBS has a great track record recently of airing accurate stories.

Again, the NY Times and CBS report news without facts. Instead they report something as fact even though it is based upon accusations. In-depth research is not a job requirement for them apparently.

[Auburn85 432]

just felt compelled to share this article from the huffington post!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexa...ro_b_88218.html

Parts of "60 Minutes" Broadcast Blocked in Alabama...

If you do not yet know who Don Siegelman is or what has happened in this country, then let me ask you to please read the following articles and visit the following websites, before I tell you what the latest developments are:

Introduction

The Permanent Republican Majority Part I

The Permanent Republican Majority Part II

The Permanent Republican Majority Part III

Harper's Excellent Coverage via Scott Horton HERE

My blog, at-largely, HERE

And this evening's 60 Minutes broadcast HERE

Also, Don Siegelman support site

Soviet America

Now, let me tell you what has been going on. As 60 Minutes was putting its show together, the White House put pressure on CBS -- the parent company -- to kill the show. Over the last few days, as word got out that the 60 Minutes show would air tonight, Karl Rove's associates began planting defamatory stories about journalists working on this story (see example here) and attacking the whistle-blower who came forward, Dana Jill Simpson. If you recall, Ms. Simpson testified, under oath, to Congress about Karl Rove's involvement in politicizing the DOJ. What you may not know, however, is that her house mysteriously caught fire and she was run off the road in the weeks leading up to her testimony.

What you may also not know is that Governor Siegelman's house was broken into twice during his trial as was his attorney's office.

Yesterday, the attacks on Simpson and journalists increased with a series of emails from the Alabama GOP. See Here.

Tonight was something truly unseen in US history. During the 60 Minutes broadcast and ONLY during the Don Siegelman portion -- the screen went black for Huntsville residents and Mobile residents. There are other reports of other locations, but I have not yet confirmed those. In Florida, a series of strange ads were running about the FISA bill and how Democrats are not tough on terrorism, apparently during the 60 Minutes hour and also right before 60 Minutes, but not after (still trying to confirm when the ads stopped running).

In other words, in the United States of America, a man is imprisoned for being a Democrat. When reporters attempt to get this story out, they are threatened and smeared. When all else fails, the public is not allowed to see the news. This is not acceptable and I -- as a US citizen -- demand that Congress investigate this series of blackouts immediately. Any company involved in this must have their FCC license pulled too. Karl Rove may be gone from office, but he clearly is not gone from power. So long as his buddy, George W. Bush, continues to occupy the White House -- what used to be a symbol of how a nation could both be governed and be free -- we will continue toward abuse after imperial, no Soviet, abuse against us. That too is unacceptable.

Contact Congress now, non-stop, and demand a full investigation into what caused this selective blackout. You can find your member's contact information here. If no investigation happens ... If no one in Congress responds, then you will know finally and fully the ugly truth: we are no longer a democracy . And if we are no longer a democracy, then presidential election can fix the problem, because something that no longer exists cannot be fixed. Sadly, at that point, the only path left to us is the one I most abhor.

Update:

We are now being told that it was a technical issue with CBS in New York:

We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring "The Prosecution of Don Siegelman."

It was a techincal(sic) problem with CBS out of New York. We are working with them right now to see if we can re-broadcast the segment.

Please be patient with us during this time. We are doing our best to correct the problem.

Excuse me? Are they trying to tell us that a glitch in New York ONLY happened in Alabama -- which is the topic of the 60 Minutes broadcast -- and ONLY during the Don Siegelman segment? Are you kidding me? We have selective prosecution and now we have selective news delivery?

Update II:

I have written an article at Raw Story about this now. I am hoping that other news outlets give this issue adequate attention. Harper's and Raw Story should not be the only news outlets carrying this story.

[arnaldoabru 11]

For all the Huntsville Decater people, was this story really blacked out in Huntsville?

[AFTiger 282]

Link

Eddie Curran’s letter to 60 Minutes

Published here without edits or commentary…

Subject: Substantial factual errors regarding the “vivid story” and virtually every other major assertion made in Sunday’s piece on Don Siegelman, as well as questions regarding journalistic integrity and work ethic by 60 Minutes staff in the preparation and presentation of the piece.

From: Eddie Curran

Attn: Jeff Fager, Joel Bach, David Gelber, Scott Pelley, Rich Kaplan

Producers, host, management, of 60 Minutes

Dear Sirs,

I am, as at least David knows, a reporter with the Mobile Press Register. I did the stories that prompted an investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration. I am on sabbatical from the paper, working on a book about the administration, the trial, and the aftermath, including the 60 Minutes show, and am no longer covering the matter for the paper.

I will be writing about the program, both in my book and, likely, in articles that I hope to publish prior to publication. I also intend to disseminate this letter because, frankly, I doubt it will ever reach you otherwise. I would like here to ask some questions, and point out some errors. I will begin with statements by Doug Jones.

First of all, you introduced him as one of Siegelman’s lawyers. Are you aware that he did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial? I believe that if you were to ask viewers, they would have assumed as much. I trust you knew this; and for whatever reason, you did not mention it. Possibly if Jones had been at trial, he wouldn’t have told you, and a national audience, the following, as pulled from the transcript (all of the following in italics is as it was pulled from your web-site):

“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,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers.

“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.”

“Had the check in his hand right then and there?” Pelley asks.

“Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

“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,’” Jones says.

And later in the segment:

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.

“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,” Jones explains.

“That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case,” Pelley remarks.

“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,” Jones says.

First: Bailey was not the only one who “indicated” there was a meeting. Witnesses who testified included HealthSouth lawyer Lorree Skelton and company public relations officer (and also State Senator) Jabbo Waggoner. Both said (and I believe this was confirmed with company flight records) that they flew on the company helicopter with Scrushy, went to the capitol.

There, they met Siegelman and his aide Nick Bailey, and Siegelman asked that he and Scrushy be excused. The meeting, according to testimony, lasted about 30 minutes. Substantial testimony was given as to why this meeting occurred, and was considered necessary from HealthSouth/Scrushy’s point of view. I assume, given your months of work on this story, that you are familiar with this.

Second: Jones paraphrasing of Bailey’s testimony about his discussion with Siegelman following the meeting is not exact, not as strong as the actual testimony, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting (actually, as I assume you know, the check came from Maryland-based Integrated Health Services.) In fact, there was substantial testimony from a host of witnesses including former executives with Integrated Health, HealthSouth, and the New York-based investment banking firm that served HealthSouth and had a most interesting role in the $250,000 donation.

Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors nor witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting.

Doug Jones was flat wrong on this point which 60 Minutes thought so powerful that, out of what surely was a much longer interview, it used in the segment.

Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

Bam! Killer proof that that the prosecution put on bogus evidence.

Only Jones was wrong, and it was 60 Minutes that put on the bogus evidence.

It is my understanding that 60 Minutes spent months on this story. That you did so and got so wrong this crucial element of the evidence presented to the jury is stunning.

I am sure that your sources on the defense teams have the transcript and if you asked, would provide it to you. If not, I will be glad to search my records for appeals briefs or could send you stories by me and other reporters from the trial.

The issue is simply not in dispute.

Your big witness – Doug Jones – was not at trial and he was totally wrong. I suggest you call him and ask him to provide the documentation to support what he told you with such an impressive degree of authority. Don’t rely on his memory – ask him to provide you with the documentation. This is what real reporters do and what an audience expects of 60 Minutes.

Dana Jill Simpson: I assume you are aware of her constantly expanding and evolving stories. That you even put her on television after reviewing these ever-evolving tales is incredible. Furthermore, you absolutely had to know of her association with the Siegelman and Scrushy legal teams that began, at the latest, in February of last year. Among other things, she has testified to doing what would appear to be an illegal credit check report on the judge who presided over the case.

We reporters in Alabama, no doubt because we’re dumb rednecks or being paid off by Republicans, have from the beginning seen Simpson for what she is: a very lonely person with a very – and this is your word – vivid imagination.

It would appear – or at least, CBS made it appear – that this particular Rove claim (there have already been several by her relating to her allegations that Rove was involved in the Siegelman administration)”) was new. This was suggested by Scott Pelley’s surprise, which I trust was not feigned.

As anyone who has ever worked in a newsroom knows, it is almost a daily occurrence for someone to come by or call and spin the most amazing stories. A few, a very few, are true. A decent reporter can usually tell the difference in about a minute.

The crazy ones are treated politely and ushered out the door as soon as possible. Considering her past stories — none corroborated by a single human being — 60 Minutes should never have interviewed her in the first place. However, after that mistake, once she started on the Rove tale, Pelley, the producers, the janitor, someone, should have pulled the switch.

This leads me to ask the following questions of the journalists at CBS:

After Simpson delivered these explosive and entirely uncorroborated accusations (again, all of her stories are uncorroborated) did 60 Minutes ask Simpson where she followed Siegelman, as in what cities and on what dates?

Having done so, did 60 Minutes conduct a simple Nexis search of stories during that period? After all, Siegelman’s trips and actions were covered almost daily by the press, especially the AP.

And also asked her:

Who funded this top-secret mission? She does not live anywhere near Montgomery and one assumes that while carrying out this top-secret assignment she incurred hotel, travel, and meal bills. Did you ask her if she had any records of these bills? Is there anyone alive who can corroborate this?

Did you ask her: How was a big redhead like you able to follow Alabama’s governor for months without being seen by the governor or his security?

Did you follow him by car? Hide in the bushes? Hover above in a helicopter? You claim that this was not the first “intelligence” assignment given you by Rove. What were the others?

You said you met him working on past campaigns. Which campaigns and can you provide us with a single person who also worked on these campaigns who can confirm that you worked on them and that, furthermore, you met Rove while doing so?

Pelley, with a wink and a nod, noted that Rove worked in some Alabama campaigns. This is widely known. They were judicial races in the mid-1990s. I was in Alabama at the same time and, remarkably, never ran into Rove. I doubt Simpson did either though. However, if we are to trust your broadcast, you made no effort to check this out. You simply tossed it out that Rove had been in Alabama, as if our state is the size of Mayberry.

I’m not sure what would be worse, for CBS not to have asked such questions or to have asked them but not shown or reported that it did so to the audience, and given her responses and the results of your verification.

Instead of actually doing some legwork to support such a serious to say nothing of unlikely claim on national TV, the network simply covered its ass with the old, obviously expected denial from Rove.

Is that characterization of your journalism correct or incorrect?

There is no question, such as with the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry, that Rove has done some exceedingly distasteful things. However – if I may opine – that would not be sufficient reason for 60 Minutes to put on Dana Jill Simpson stories without subjecting them through a level of verification that any decent reporter could do in an afternoon.

Grant Woods: Ten years ago, on a non-investigative story about the tobacco wars, I quoted Grant Woods saying he’d spent much time working with Siegelman. Woods, like Siegelman, supported those lawsuits. At least three times as governor, Siegelman used state funds to pay for him and his wife to fly and stay at resorts for the annual conferences of the Western Attorney General Association.

Did you ask Woods if he and Siegelman are old friends? Did you at all wonder why a former Arizona attorney general had taken such an interest in this case? Do you suppose Siegelman might have asked him to help, such as by putting together that petition signed by 52 former attorney generals? And would you suppose they are more familiar with Don Siegelman as a friend, or the facts and testimony put on at trial?

If you knew they were old friends and didn’t disclose this to viewers, why not? Were you afraid it might dilute the power of what he was saying?

Did you ask Woods specific questions about the evidence at the trial that he did not, to my knowledge, attend for one day? It is my guess that he couldn’t answer basic questions about the evidence. What you have is an old pal of the governor’s speaking in bold generalities about a case I doubt he knows much about.

Also, Woods asserts the following: “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.”

A reasonable follow-up question by Pelley might have been: But hadn’t he been defeated, “fair and square,” in the 2002 election?

In 2005, when he was indicted, Democrat Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley was all but the anointed party choice for the 2006 nomination, but you present Siegelman as if he was some vital force who Riley and the Republicans feared, and I dare you to locate a single political science professor in the state who would say as much. It’s not true, but for you, it was necessary. Without it, there would be no “motive basis” for the claim you assert with your opening sentence, which is more statement that question: “Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?”

I assert that you made up your mind as to the answer to this question even before your reporters/producers began their investigation into the Siegelman prosecution. However, I welcome your comments to the contrary.

The leaks: Viewers were told the following:

Details of some of those investigations leaked to the press. And Siegelman lost his 2002 re-election campaign narrowly to Republican Bob Riley.

Then viewers were at that point shown an article written by myself and a fellow reporter, Jeff Amy, apparently this serving as evidence of “the leaks.” First off, a careful read of the piece would show that our story cited the Birmingham News, which initially reported the grand jury meeting in its paper the day before.

No proof whatsoever is offered to support what is stated as fact that the News or myself or anyone else received leaks from prosecutors. None. Because you have none. Prove me wrong.

Also, and I could be wrong here as well, but I don’t recall many grand jury type stories in 2002. There were dozens of stories on other matters, such as Siegelman’s use of a straw man to sell his house for twice its value to Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines; the revelation of a $500,000 payment by Waste Management to his pal Lanny Young after Young secured a secret deal from Siegelman controlled revenue department slashing taxes at the company’s massive west Alabama landfill; the many stories required to unearth the undisclosed “campaign donations” presented as routine by you; and many more instead.

And that’s just a partial list.

Instead, contrary to any evidence or proof, you connected Siegelman’s loss in the 2002 election to prosecutorial leaks for which you have no proof even occurred.

I am aware that Siegelman and his lawyer routinely blamed Republican prosecutors for stories in the Birmingham News reporting that Siegelman’s financial records had been subpoenaed, including holding a press conference, but they, like you, offered no proof. For my book, I recently called the News’ reporter, Brett Blackledge, who wrote that story Without identifying specifically who told him about the subpoenas, I will just say that Brett assured me it was not prosecutors.

No proof. None. Nor did you have the decency to call and ask the reporters.

Bill Canary: The following is a direct quote from the program: “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, Gov. Riley.”

Bill Canary did not run Riley’s campaign. According to everything I’ve read, he was one of many unpaid advisors. What documentation do you have supporting that Canary ran Bob Riley’s campaign?

If you don’t have any such evidence, why not? As you know, you use this fact as a lead in to Grant Woods’ assertions that Leura Canary should therefore not only have recused herself, but brought in prosecutors from another district.

As with virtually your entire piece, you present false evidence to support assertions with no basis in fact.

Nick Bailey: You state, “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.”

Assuming that Bailey didn’t tell anything to Siegelman – and the evidence is that he told the governor about at least some of the money he was receiving — why did you neglect to inform viewers that Siegelman was also convicted of covering up a $9,200 payment from Lanny Young, the Waste Management lobbyist and G.H. Construction figure? As surely you must know, prosecutors presented substantial evidence, including bank records, showing that Siegelman and Bailey covered up the payment from Young to Siegelman by concocting a bogus “loan repayment” for an equally bogus motorcycle sale.

This was not even referred to. Nor were viewers told, even in a single summary sentence, that the Siegelman administration was beset by numerous serious scandals and that it was those, not leaks, that led to his electoral downfall. Did you ever think to consider, for example, calling any one of the half-dozen or so university professors who follow state politics and are quite familiar with such matters?

The Don Siegelman you presented was a squeaky clean victim of Republicans.

Should you wish to comment, I can be reached by the above phone numbers and e-mail address [withheld by me].

Sincerely,

Eddie Curran

P.S.: I had, for your information, read something in a publication called the Montgomery Independent indicating that the 60 Minutes program would broach allegations against jurors in the trial. I have records which I believe would prove the anonymously sent e-mails were frauds, and for pure humanitarian purposes wanted to call 60 Minutes to offer that evidence in the hope that, whatever was coming, that the jurors be spared.

I didn’t know any of your names, and, as I told David when he asked how I got his number, I got it from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as I assumed, correctly, that they had been contacted by you. I was treated with what I thought was astonishing rudeness by David for merely calling him. This suggested that I am or had presented as being “among the enemy” by your team’s sources. I can tell you that I have never treated a fellow journalist in that manner for the sin of merely calling me.

[Tigermike 3,040]

just felt compelled to share this article from the huffington post a far left hate site!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexa...ro_b_88218.html

Fixed that for you.

[AFTiger 282]

An analysis from John Hinderaker of Powerline Blog

Dissecting the 60 Minutes Scandal

We've written a couple of times about the 60 Minutes story last Sunday that claimed former Alabama governor Don Siegelman was the victim of a Republican conspiracy that sent him to prison for bribery and mail fraud. The story implicitly accused the career prosecutors who handled the case of complicity in the alleged conspiracy, but the real focus of CBS's account was Karl Rove. The network's star witness was a small-time Alabama lawyer named Jill Simpson, who claimed she was a life-long Republican, but had stepped forward to tell what she knew about events in 2001 and 2002.

The centerpiece of Simpson's account, as presented on 60 Minutes, was her claim that she did "opposition research" for the Republican Party in Alabama at the request of Karl Rove. She said that in 2001, while Siegelman was still governor, Rove asked her to follow Siegelman around and try to get photos of the Governor in bed ("in a compromising sexual position") with one of his female aides. Not only that: Simpson said that this request by Rove didn't surprise her, because Rove had asked her to carry out other secret missions in the past.

Put aside for a moment the inherent stupidity of this account. CBS aired it without disclosing the fact that Simpson has told her story several times before--without mentioning that she had ever met or spoken to Karl Rove, let alone that he asked her to spy for him.

Simpson first came to public attention last summer, when she signed an affidavit about a conversation that she allegedly had with Rob Riley, son of soon-to-be Republican Governor Bob Riley and several others, in November 2002. The affidavit, 22 paragraphs long, purported to set out Simpson's recollection of a phone conversation that was then five years in the past. It says that "Karl" was mentioned in the phone conversation, and she understood "Karl" to be Karl Rove. The affidavit does not say that Simpson had ever met Rove, spoken with Rove, or been asked by him to spy on Governor Siegelman.

This affidavit brought Simpson to the attention of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. Democrats on the Committee's staff set up a formal interview with Simpson, under oath, as part of their "investigation" into whether Siegelman had been railroaded by Alabama Republicans. Staff Democrats pre-interviewed Simpson before her sworn testimony was taken, on September 14, 2007.

The transcript of the interview is 143 pages long. Ms. Simpson was asked about her work on various Republican campaigns. She was obviously a low-level volunteer; she described "my general way I help, which is putting up signs and things of that nature." At no time did she claim to have done any opposition research in connection with any campaign.

In fact, while the whole point of the interview was to try to show that in 2002 Republicans, including Karl Rove, conspired to destroy Don Siegelman with a trumped-up prosecution, Simpson never suggested that she knew Rove; that she had ever spoken to Rove; or that Rove had asked her to spy on Siegelman--all facts that would have been highly relevant to the Committee's inquiry. Obviously she never disclosed these claims to the Democratic Committee staff, or they would have asked her about them in the interview. Nor did they come up when a Republican counsel cross-examined Simpson, establishing that her claims were all hearsay and not based on personal knowledge.

The conclusion seems inescapable that Simpson fabricated her story about Rove asking her to spy on Siegelman some time after September 2007. At a minimum, 60 Minutes certainly owed it to its audience to ask Simpson, on camera, why her alleged memory of a passing reference to "Karl" in a phone conversation more than five years ago has suddenly morphed into the claim that she had such a close relationship with Rove, one of the most senior officers of the Executive Branch, that he would ask her to spy on the Governor of Alabama--a claim for which, CBS might have noted, she offers zero evidence.

This is not the only respect in which CBS's presentation of Simpson's story was less than honest. In fact, what Simpson has alleged is a "conspiracy so vast" as to be self-refuting. CBS failed to disclose the extent of Simpson's wild claims so as to conceal from its viewers the fact that Simpson is, to put it bluntly, a nut.

Let's start with Terry Butts. By her own account, Simpson started getting involved in the Siegelman prosecution in large part because of her purported concern about Butts's "conflict of interest." She alleges that Butts was one of the participants in the November 2002 conference call that is the centerpiece of her tale. She says further that on November 18, 2002, Butts went to Don Siegelman and compelled him to drop his challenge to Bob Riley's election victory by threatening to disclose the blockbuster information that Simpson herself had developed (more about this later). Butts then surfaced as one of the lawyers representing Richard Scrushy, former chairman of HealthSouth and Siegelman's co-defendant. Simpson's affidavit emphasizes the importance of Butts's alleged conflict:

The reason I did this is because I believe everyone has a sixth amendment right to have an attorney who does not have a conflict and I believed that Mr. Butts did.

The problem for Simpson (and CBS) is that Terry Butts is not, like Simpson, an unknown lawyer of uncertain mental health. He is a former Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He unequivocally denies that the 2002 conversation alleged by Simpson ever took place: "Absolutely not true."

Then there is the trial judge, Mark Fuller. Simpson alleges that Judge Fuller is part of the conspiracy, too. She concocted a bizarre theory that Fuller--to my knowledge, a competent and respected federal judge--had a conflict of interest (like Butts), in that he is an investor in an aviation company that has federal contracts, and one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys handling the Siegelman prosecution is an Air Force Reserve officer. Don't spend a lot of time trying to get your mind around that one; in my professional opinion, the claim is frivolous.

Actually, every single person whose name Simpson invokes as she spins her stories says that she is either lying or deluded. Even Don Siegelman. Simpson says that she signed her affidavit after repeated urging by Siegelman, whom she spoke with several times on the telephone. Untrue, says Siegelman. As the Justice Department wrote in a letter to John Conyers' Judiciary Committee:

The alleged conversation described by Ms. Simpson has been denied by all of the alleged participants except Ms. Simpson. Indeed, even Mr. Siegelman states that Ms. Simpson's affidavit is false as it relates to him. Moreover, according to Ms. Simpson, she met with Mr. Siegelman and his co-defendant Richard Scrushy for several months before signing the statement at their urging. She also claims to have provided legal advice to them. She contends she drafted but did not sign a motion filed by Mr. Scrushy seekung to have the federal judge removed from the case.

All of which is sheer madness. There are only two alternatives: either Ms. Simpson is a liar (or perhaps insane), or else every other person with knowledge of her allegations, including a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice and Don Siegelman himself, is lying. Yet CBS offered Ms. Simpson as a credible witness without disclosing these basic facts.

Which brings us, finally, to Ms. Simpson's core narrative: her account of what happened in November 2002.

Here again, CBS has demonstrated a remarkable lack of that critical faculty which once was attributed to newsmen. Here is their account of Simpson's story of the phone call, in its entirety:

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?”

“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,’” Simpson says.

“Federal prosecutors?” Pelley asks.

“Yes, Sir,” she says.

Where to begin! Perhaps with the fact that this is only a small part of the story that Simpson has told, in her affidavit, her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, and elsewhere. To appreciate fully what an unreliable witness Simpson is, more context is necessary.

The events in question happened in November 2002. Don Siegelman was the sitting Governor of Alabama, and his race against the Republican challenger, Bob Riley, came down to a photo finish. For some days after the election the outcome was uncertain. Siegelman tried various legal maneuvers, unsuccessfully, and on November 18, 2002, he conceded that he had lost the election.

Simpson claims that after the election, she was contacted by Rob Riley, the Republican challenger's son, who asked her to look into a possible dirty trick by the Democrats. Simpson's story isn't very coherent, but it can be fairly summarized as follows: Riley signs were disappearing in Simpson's part of Alabama; it was suspected that a particular Democratic lawyer was stealing them; the Riley camp feared that this Democratic lawyer would use the Riley signs in connection with a Ku Klux Klan rally to be held shortly; they wanted Simpson to "investigate" this possible dirty trick; Simpson went to the KKK rally; she saw the Democratic lawyer putting up Riley signs at the rally, thereby confirming the dirty trick; and she took photos of the lawyer, the signs and the rally.

On Simpson's telling, she called Rob Riley, the Republican candidate's son, on November 18, 2002, to report the success of her mission and the fact that she had taken photos of the KKK rally. She says that Riley then conferenced others (Terry Butts, Bill Canary, et al.) into the call. It is in this context that Simpson alleges that Canary said that the group didn't need to worry about Siegelman, since "his girls"--two United States Attorneys; is this a bad joke, or what?--would take care of him. Further, Canary supposedly said that "Karl" had spoken to the Department of Justice and "the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman."

This is the heart of Simpson's story, as relayed by 60 Minutes, but it makes zero sense. As of November 18, it was clear to nearly everyone that Riley had won the election; in which case, why would anyone be worried about Siegelman? Further, how could pictures of a Democrat putting up Riley signs at a KKK rally have any impact on Siegelman's legal challenges to Riley's apparent victory? And, in any event, how could anything that Canary's "girls" could do by way of investigating Siegelman over the months and years to come have any impact on the election results? Moreover, by November 2002, it had already been reported publicly that the U.S. Attorney's office was investigating Siegelman's conduct as governor, so the alleged reference to "Karl" and the "girls" would, at the time, have been gratuitous at best.

Simpson's story continues with the claim that, notwithstanding Canary's faith in the "girls," Terry Butts went to Don Siegelman to convey the supposedly devastating information that Jill Simpson had pictures of a Democratic lawyer putting up Bob Riley signs at a KKK rally:

I understood from what Rob told me that Terry Butts talked to Mr. Siegelman and some of his campaign people is what I understood. And in that conversation basically, Mr. Siegelman had been offered to go ahead and concede, that the pictures would not come out and that they would not further prosecute him with the justice department.

The idea that Governor Siegelman conceded the race because Simpson had photos of a would-be Democratic dirty trick is, to put it kindly, stupid. Undoubtedly, Siegelman conceded the race because he had exhausted his legal challenges to Riley's electoral victory. Yet this is how Simpson tells the story in her affidavit. Note, by the way, that the idea that Butts's offer included--absurdly--immunity from future Justice Department prosecution is an interpolation that occurred after Simpson's meeting with House Democratic staffers. In the original version, she says that Siegelman quit the race solely to avoid revelation of his supporter's dirty trick:

During the call Rob Riley was upset about the pictures and internet trick and wanted to go to press but was told by Terry Butts that he would confront Siegelman regarding the signs and get him to withdraw his contest of the election and he believed that Don Siegelman would concede by the ten o'clock news when confronted with these pictures and the internet so as to avoid any embarrassment to Don Siegelman. Terry claimed that he would be able to assure Don that this would be all over if he would concede. ***

Arrangements were made with me to meet a campaign worker of Bob Riley's to give the photos that I had received from the attorney in Jackson County [the Democrat referred to above] and to give the disposal [sic] camera since I had not developed the pictures that I had taken. I gave the photos and the disposal [sic] camera to the campaign worker.

Late that afternoon of November 18, 2002, I was called by Rob Riley and told Terry Butts had talked with Don Siegelman and that Don Siegelman would be resigning before the ten o'clock news.

Don Siegelman gave up his contest of the Alabama Governor's Election the night of November 18, 2002.

Q.E.D. Remarkably, though, Siegelman himself had no knowledge of Simpson's pivotal role in the 2002 election:

I did not realize until this past fall when I was having a conversation with Joe Espy that Don had never told his attorney why he conceded on November 18, 2002.

The "real reason," unknown to Siegelman himself! Jill Simpson is a sad case, but she's not the only one. The world is full of mildly deranged people who are convinced that they alone have stumbled onto the great conspiracy of their time, or that they themselves have played a key role in events, unaccountably unacknowledged by anyone else. There once was a time when journalists tried, at least, to avoid being led down blind alleys by such sad cases.

What is surprising is not that Jill Simpson exists, but that CBS chose to put her forward on 60 Minutes as a credible witness, without disclosing the many facts that would have enabled the network's viewers to draw their own conclusions about Simpson's story. It seems fair to wonder whether, at some level, the people who run CBS and 60 Minutes are as deranged as Jill Simpson when it comes to Karl Rove and the Republican Party.

[WinCrimson 61]

For all the Huntsville Decater people, was this story really blacked out in Huntsville?

I'm not jumping into this debate, as I don't have a dog in the fight.

I do know, however, that the broadcast was blocked in certain areas of Florence. No idea about H'Ville.

[AFTiger 282]

Doesn't the FCC have better things to do?

FCC official wants probe of "60 Minutes" black-out

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Federal Communications Commission official is seeking an inquiry into the blacking out of a politically charged segment of the CBS News magazine "60 Minutes" by a local television station in Alabama.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he had asked the chairman of the FCC to open an inquiry into the February 24 incident at WHNT, a CBS affiliate in Huntsville, Alabama, in which civil rights footage from the 1960s was blacked out.

"The FCC now needs to find out if something analogous is going on here," Copps said at a luncheon with media watchdog groups. "Was this an attempt to suppress information on the public airwaves, or was it really just a technical problem?"

Copps is one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member FCC. The chairman of the agency, Kevin Martin, is a Republican.

Martin responded by saying he would look into the matter but has not indicated yet whether he would issue a letter of inquiry to the station, a source close to the commission said.

The "60 Minutes" segment centered on the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who was convicted in 2006 on charges of corruption.

The program made the case that Siegelman had been wrongly convicted on the basis of a politically motivated case built by Republican prosecutors and White House political advisor Karl Rove.

The blackout of the segment in Huntsville prompted an editorial in The New York Times the following week that raised comparisons between the WHNT incident and systematic efforts by a Mississippi TV station to suppress information about the civil rights movement during the 1960s.

WHNT denied that the blackout was politically motivated. It said it had failed to get the segment on the air because of an equipment failure at the station that cut off the feed from CBS. WHNT said the problem was corrected a few minutes before the end of the Siegelman segment.

In a posting on WHNT's Web site, the station's news director, Denise Vickers, said the station had been "bombarded" with complaints and accusations that the station had sabotaged the broadcast for political reasons.

"But I assure everyone that the notion is patently false," Vickers wrote in her Web site posting. "Who would invite such a public relations nightmare on themselves??"

WHNT was sold along with eight other stations by The New York Times Co last year to the private equity firm Oak Hill Capital Partners.

Station managers requested and received permission from CBS to re-air the segment twice in the following days, Vickers said.

Copps said on Monday the FCC should move quickly to "determine the facts" surrounding the incident.

"If the decision was intentional, who made the decision and why? The FCC needs to get to the bottom of this," Copps said. (Reporting by Peter Kaplan; editing by Stuart Grudgings)

Link

[WinCrimson 61]

No, they don't. And they shouldn't.

Seeing why this broadcast was not aired in two of the state's largest areas is cause for suspicion. If it's proven that it was a honest mistake/technical failure, then everything is fine and we'll all move on. Perhaps WHNT had nothing behind it? As of right now, we just don't know, and that's the idea behind an investigation.

I never was a big Siegelman fan when he was in office, so don't take my opinion on this subject as that from a biased liberal. He did a lot of good things for our state, but was a career politician who made a living out of talking out of both sides of his mouth. If I had to choose between our past two Governors, I would choose Riley without much deliberation.

[aumd03 2]

The NYT also wrote an editorial piece critical of WHNT for not airing the piece. After an investigation, it was determined to in fact be a technical error.

Is it just me, or does it seem that responsible reporting has just gone to hell in a handbasket. Nobody bothers to investigate anything anymore. They just report allegations under the guise of "editorials" and deal with the backlash later. And it goes for both sides of the aisle.

[WinCrimson 61]

Is it just me, or does it seem that responsible reporting has just gone to hell in a handbasket. Nobody bothers to investigate anything anymore. They just report allegations under the guise of "editorials" and deal with the backlash later. And it goes for both sides of the aisle.

I agree 100%. I'm all for investigative journalism, but have an entirely different take on witch hunts.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Is it just me, or does it seem that responsible reporting has just gone to hell in a handbasket. Nobody bothers to investigate anything anymore. They just report allegations under the guise of "editorials" and deal with the backlash later. And it goes for both sides of the aisle.

I agree 100%. I'm all for investigative journalism, but have an entirely different take on witch hunts.

So,if someone is guilty of a crime, and gets found out having to have committed that crime, then we should worry about those who uncovered the truth, and their motives, rather than the crime which has been committed ?

In the 80's, I think that would have been called the ' Gary Hart' defense.

[aumd03 2]

Is it just me, or does it seem that responsible reporting has just gone to hell in a handbasket. Nobody bothers to investigate anything anymore. They just report allegations under the guise of "editorials" and deal with the backlash later. And it goes for both sides of the aisle.

I agree 100%. I'm all for investigative journalism, but have an entirely different take on witch hunts.

So,if someone is guilty of a crime, and gets found out having to have committed that crime, then we should worry about those who uncovered the truth, and their motives, rather than the crime which has been committed ?

In the 80's, I think that would have been called the ' Gary Hart' defense.

Easy there tiger,

I was just saying, actually finding out if it was a tech glitch or a conspiracy would have been good before writing an editorial implying a conspiracy. By the way, WHNT was just sold to corporation owning many local tv stations and none of the others had issues with the story. And the seller? The NYT parent company.