SternFanNetwork Archive - 60 Minutes Sunday: GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

60 Minutes Sunday: GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem - Ala. Gov. Don Siegelman - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

60 Minutes Sunday: GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem - Ala. Gov. Don Siegelman - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

AttyTude

One client of our 5-man law firm - former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Just watch it.
I grew up a Republican, voted mostly Republican all my life and I am sickened at what has happened these last 7+ years with this Administration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...in3859830.shtml

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, on the CBS Television Network.

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.

Jackie's Career

So basically 60 Minutes is doing a story on a 'smear' that never even happened. Dumb.

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
So basically 60 Minutes is doing a story on a 'smear' that never even happened. Dumb.

Read the first post again. Slowly.

Jackie's Career

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
Read the first post again. Slowly.

Show me what I missed, Oz.

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
Show me what I missed, Oz.

The story is about Rove's tactics and what is perceived as an injustice. I don't know enough about this dude to comment.

Jackie's Career

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
The story is about Rove's tactics and what is perceived as an injustice. I don't know enough about this dude to comment.

Of course, but the woman admits she had nothing to give Rove. How then did Rove smear the guy?

Even the title of the piece is: Rove Sought To Smear Dem. Smearing in politics is par for the course but this is a story about a smear that didn't even happen. It's just a really weak story, but then again 60 Minutes is the same outfit who gave us "fake but accurate".

artechba

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
Of course, but the woman admits she had nothing to give Rove. How then did Rove smear the guy?

Even the title of the piece is: Rove Sought To Smear Dem. Smearing in politics is par for the course but this is a story about a smear that didn't even happen. It's just a really weak story, but then again 60 Minutes is the same outfit who gave us "fake but accurate".

Karl Rove was abused as a child

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
Show me what I missed, Oz.

You are a stupid ignorant piece of cockroach shit.

This case ties directly into the fired attorneys scandal and the politicization of the Justice Department.

There is a man sitting in a prison cell for no other reason than he was a Democrat. He's basically a political prisoner in the year 2008 of these supposed United States of America.

Congrats, fuckos.

:hitler::ps:

NCMike06

Was the smear 'attempt' before or after he was convicted of corruption charges by a Federal Jury???? :burst: :burst:

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by NCDike69
Was the smear 'attempt' before or after he was convicted of corruption charges by a Federal Jury???? :burst: :burst:

:rolleyes:

You remain the biggest piece of shit Cunt on this board....and that is saying A LOT!!!

Quote:

Here is a transcription of David Bender's Ring of Fire interview with Harper's Scott Horton; it provides vital insights into the Siegelman case in particular, and perhaps into the general reticence to make any direct moves against the Bush-Cheney cabal. -- Richard Power

David Bender: Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman has just begun serving a seven year term in federal prison, after having been convicted of accepting a half million dollar bribe. But critics say his prosecution was a political vendetta by Republicans. Karl Rove has been implicated. Dozens of former state attorneys general are demanding a congressional investigation, and members of the House Judiciary Committee are calling for a Justice Department probe of Don Siegelman's prosecution.

Scott Horton is an attorney and a contributor to Harper's Magazine, where he has been covering the Segalman case.
Scott, welcome to Ring of Fire. ... Explain this to me. What we the charges against Don Siegelman and how where the brought to bear against him.

Scott Horton: We've had a series of different proceedings brought against him going back to 2001. The first set involved accusations, always accusations of political corruption involving dozens of different acts. The first set was investigated by the Alabama state attorney general. A man named Bill Pryor, a very controversial fellow ... extremely, intensely partisan ... Pryor concluded he couldn't make a case, but he then went and try to sell to the Department of Justice, the of bringing a case ...

Bender: We have talked about bribery. What were the charges? What was the alleged case against Don Siegelman? [It] involved automobiles, kickbacks for state favors?

Horton: The absolute core accusation is this -- a man named Richard Scrushy, the CEO of Health South, made a contribution of $500,000 to the Alabama Education Foundation, which was an organization that was involved lobbying for an education lottery in Alabama.

Bender: A lottery that Siegelman had run on?

Horton: Right. And then Mr. Scrushy was appointed to a hospital oversight board in Alabama. The core accusation all the way at the base of all of this is that Don Siegelman sold that office, the appointment to that board, for $500,000. Note: Siegelman derived no personal benefit from this whatsoever. Richard Scrushy is a Republican, who opposed Don Siegelman, and he had been appointed to that board by three prior governors, most of them Republicans. ... One of the most preposterous cases ever brought.

Bender: As I recall, one of the judges used that word "preposterous" in here somewhere. So go forward. Bill Pryor could not make a case in 2001 ...

Horton: Then we have another case being brought involving some incidents in Tuscaloosa, in the Northern District of Alabama. It comes before a judge named Clemens, and he instantly starts asking questions about the political motivations of about the political motivation of the prosecutors, and says "Look, I am not going to allow this to go forward in my court unless you can make a prima facie case before me that you have got something here." They fail. The matter is dismissed. And then, in a matter of weeks, it is recommenced in the Middle District of Alabama. And this time it is commenced by another US attorney ...

Bender: So they went court-shopping?

Horton: Exactly. Which is not appropriate. In fact, it is a serious violation of legal norms. But there is hardly a legal norm or rule that has not been violated in the course of this prosecution.

Bender: It is important to note here, Scott, that Don Siegelman was one of the most successful Democrats in the modern history of Alabama, in the last twenty five years, in a heavily Republican state.

Horton: I would say he was the most successful Democrat. He was the Democrat that Alabama Republicans most liked to hate. He had been elected to every significant state-wide office ...

Bender: Secretary of State, Lt. Governor ... Attorney General as well?

Horton: Attorney General as well. He had sometimes won by landslides. He was incredibly popular. All this at a time when the Republican Party was consolidating its vise-like grip on politics in Alabama. So they hated him .. And there was a lot of concentrated energy on taking him out.

Bender: So let's pick up the thread. ...

Horton: To jump forward a little bit, recently, in the last two and a half months, they have gotten a lot of detail about what was happening when this case got launched. ... A Republican attorney named Jill Simpson filed an affidavit. Ms. Simpson had worked in the election campaign of Don Siegelman's opponent. She files an affidavit in which she discloses that back in 2002, she had heard a number of very prominent Republican figures talking, in her presence, about the effort to get Don Siegelman. And the discussion included getting Karl involved. And William Canary, who is the husband of Leura Canary [the US attorney in the Middle District], had talked to Karl about this, and Karl had talked to Justice and this would be taken care of.

Bender: "Karl" would be Karl Rove?

Horton: Exactly. And William Canary was the partner of Karl Rove. Karl Rove had a long period of time in which he was deeply involved in Alabama politics. In 1990, he managed a campaign through which the Republicans took control of the Alabama court system at the highest level. ... And that is marked as the point at which the Republican Party really rose to take control of state apparatus ...

Bender: So if you follow the thread here all of it leads through the Republican administrations at both the state and national levels, and Karl Rove, clearly, one could make a case, was intimately involved in the details of this. But unfortunately, as we will see moving forward ... with the whole US attorneys issue, there is no way to make these cases. Because they are denying access to these records ... they are stonewalling ...

Horton: Except, remember, that we have a Republican lawyer who says she heard this being discussed. We have gone back and checked a number of details surrounding her statement, and we have found a contemporaneous corroboration of this, when she sought Ethics advice, from other attorneys in Alabama, we know that the meeting actually occurred, we know the people she said were there were there. Everything falls into place. And then we've got a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Rove was indeed involved in this ... This prosecution was right at the top of the political agenda ...

Bender: ... Where does this go from here?

Horton: Well, the sentencing itself was extremely theatrical. The judge insisted that he be manacled and hand-cuffed, and dragged out of the court room in front of press cameras. Something I have never seen happen before. It was poor political theatre from beginning to end. This is a case where there is quite compelling, indeed, overwhelming grounds for appeal, and I certainly expect this is going to be overturned on appeal.

Bender: This sounds like Russia, this sounds like a show trail.

Horton: I started my own career observing trials in the former Soviet Union and I have to say that more than once looking at this it has reminded me of some of the things I saw in Russia. But we have to go back and look at what is happening with the prosecutors. Because the larger dimension of this is the politicization of prosecution. The government is saying now, "Oh, this has all been handled by local prosecutors, career people down in Alabama." They even have the local prosecutor coming out and making statements, repeatedly, to that effect. That's a lie.

Bender: Who is Noel Hillman?

Horton: Noel Hillman was the head of the Public Integrity section of the Department of Justice. We know from the beginning of the case that Public Integrity was providing supervision. Noel Hillman went down and gave a press conference. He since has been appointed as a federal judge. He was also appointed to be a Court of Appeals judge, and that appointment was pulled at the last minute. We have been told there is a very clear reason why: if he came before Congress for hearings, he could be asked about the Siegelman case and the White House didn't want to risk that.

Bender: And it appears that it is not just that Siegelman case ... Noel Hillman ... was involved not only in this, but in a case in Wisconsin, which was thrown out by the courts, and that there has been a clear, partisan politicization of prosecutions ... this is sort of the flip-side of [the US attorneys scandal], those attorneys may have been fired for not being sufficiently partisan, we are now seeing what happens when you get US attorneys and Justice Department officials who are partisan zealots ...

Horton: ... It is under Noel Hillman that we get seven prosecutions of Democrats to every one [prosecution of] Republicans ...

Bender: Seven to one Democrats to Republicans prosecuted under the Public Integrity section of the Justice Department? ...

Horton: And we have people in the Justice Department right now telling us that it went far beyond the Public Integrity section, and that there were people at the level of Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General and in the White House who were involved in directing these cases, which leads us back to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and others.

http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/...lessons-of.html

rod_jammer

The story details that Karl Rove is a corrupt tyrant and a liar: this is news?

Reed Rothchild

What's news is that a Democrat named "Siegelman" was elected Governor in Alabama.

For real though, this guy has been getting it up the ass since 2002 when a "glitch" in one county in Alabama voting machine (no way!) took away 6000 votes. His jail sentence is bullshit too, considering what people usually get for this type of crime, if the crime is even legit.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000212

MLBoros72s

Karl Rove is a piece of :shit:?
No way. :rolleyes:

:D

NCMike06

Lets see....on one hand we have a CONVICTED FELON....The DemoRatic Ex-Governor of Alabama..

on the other, Karl Rove, never indicted, never convicted of anything...outside of the moonbat world, (outside of the moonbat world = reality)

And who are the leftbot wacko's on this site defending??? The CONVICTED FELON, DEMORAT !! :burst:

But wait, but wait...it was all a Rove conspiracy !!! :burst: :burst:

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Lets see....on one hand we have a CONVICTED FELON....The DemoRatic Ex-Governor of Alabama..

on the other, Karl Rove, never indicted, never convicted of anything...outside of the moonbat world, (outside of the moonbat world = reality)

And who are the leftbot wacko's on this site defending??? The CONVICTED FELON, DEMORAT !! :burst:

But wait, but wait...it was all a Rove conspiracy !!! :burst: :burst:

Actually the "convicted felon democrat" isn't saying anything - this is coming from a REPUBLICAN operative, who evidently is growing a conscience.

Have someone read it for you - you'll see.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Actually the "convicted felon democrat" isn't saying anything - this is coming from a REPUBLICAN operative, who evidently is growing a conscience.

Have someone read it for you - you'll see.

Which was not my point, but whatever...have someone read the posts to you where his conviction was all part of some grand conspiracy, and his election loss was some grand conspiracy, and then read the posts which defended this convicted felon.

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Which was not my point, but whatever...have someone read the posts to you where his conviction was all part of some grand conspiracy, and his election loss was some grand conspiracy, and then read the posts which defended this convicted felon.

It wasn't your point?

You mean in the post where you compared the "convicted democrat felon" to the respectable and distinguished Karl Rove, you weren't really doing that?

What were you doing, exactly?

Jackie's Career

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06

And who are the leftbot wacko's on this site defending??? The CONVICTED FELON, DEMORAT !! :burst:

It seems the idea of Karl Rove being "frog-marched" is hard for them to let go of.

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
It seems the idea of Karl Rove being "frog-marched" is hard for them to let go of.

He ain't safe in his grave yet.

There's still time.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
It seems the idea of Karl Rove being "frog-marched" is hard for them to let go of.

Exactly !!!!!!! It is the leftbot wet dream..... :burst:

To bad it won't happen.... :burst:

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
It wasn't your point?

You mean in the post where you compared the "convicted democrat felon" to the respectable and distinguished Karl Rove, you weren't really doing that?

What were you doing, exactly?

That in looking at the 2....the leftbots on the site were all defending the CONVICTED FELON DEMORAT.....

SaintJimmy

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
That in looking at the 2....the leftbots on the site were all defending the CONVICTED FELON DEMORAT.....

But you didn't pit them against rove in your post - you talked about the "convicted democrat felon" and rove, while completely ignoring the source of the story, who is a REPUBLICAN operative.

You're not attempting to re-write history, are you?

Turd_Cutter

I got an idea. Let's watch the piece and THEN comment on it. See you all Monday!!

Marinolaw

Quote: Originally posted by AttyTude
One client of our 5-man law firm - former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Just watch it.
I grew up a Republican, voted mostly Republican all my life and I am sickened at what has happened these last 7+ years with this Administration.

I can't agree more with this statement, I was a Democrat until 1988, then a Republican, now I am neither

AttyTude

60 Minutes tomorrow night

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
But you didn't pit them against rove in your post - you talked about the "convicted democrat felon" and rove, while completely ignoring the source of the story, who is a REPUBLICAN operative.

You're not attempting to re-write history, are you?

Re-Writing what history??? WHen comparing the CONVICTED DEMORAT FELON, to Rove, the leftbots on the site, side with the CONVICTED DEMORAT FELON... WFT are you talking about???

All I know about the source of the story, is that she is the source of the story... Doesn't mean that she is, or is not credible....but charges 7 years after the fact are a little questionable to say the least, especially since the given reason is that the sentence Sieglemnan received bothered her??? What does one, have to do with the other?? She wasn't bothered by the request from Rove (if it ever happened) but she is bothered now because of the sentence of a criminal, that she has to come forward now???? Huh?????

Fdubya247

MCDikey-Dike69,000
SS Member

SnortingLines

Sig Heil, Dikey!!! :hitler:

zimmie

:lol: :lol: :rofl: :jj: :jj:

AttyTude

reminder bump - in case it interests you

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by zimmiecunt
:lol: :lol: :rofl: :jj: :jj:

zimmietard and Dikey-boy are too stupid to realize that the only reason this guy is a so-called "CONVICTED FELON" is because of illegal/corrupt Republican politicking, likely directly engineered by Karl Rove....

Dumbfuck retards.

:freak: :crazy:

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by AttyTude
reminder bump - in case it interests you

Thanks!

I doubt these right-wing cunts have the moral fortitude or intellectual honesty to watch it.

Fucking DUPED sheep.

ChaseDC

funny how the gopcunts on here are attacking 60 minutes. Must be that "librul" media conspiracy!

The gop is by far the biggest bunch of criminals, pussies and liars ever assembled. The democrats are right behind them, but compared to the gop scum, they are the lesser of the two evils. PUSSIES like ncmoron will defend the liars to the death. the party of nixon is entrenched in scandal, corruption and lies.

afterage41

Siegelman was convicted for appointing a chief executive of a health care company, Richard Scrushy, to a hospital board in exchange for a $500,000 contribution to an education fund. Siegelman got what he deserved.

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by afterage41
Siegelman was convicted for appointing a chief executive of a health care company, Richard Scrushy, to a hospital board in exchange for a $500,000 contribution to an education fund. Siegelman got what he deserved.

You are a stupid fucking Cunt. Scrushy had been appointed to that same board by the three previous (and Republican) governors.

The "education fund" had nothing to do with Siegelman's personal finances.

Typical LYING right-wing cockroach piece of debunked shit....

:rolleyes:

Reed Rothchild

Yeah, he got what he deserved all right. He got roughly the same jail time that Duke Cunningham got, except Cunningham didn't trade a contribution to an education fund for a seat on a board. He took cash in his pocket in exchange for nice fat defense contracts. Also, the sentencing judge in Siegelman's case took into account charges that he was acquitted on in passing sentence. Siegelman is a special kind of guy. :rolleyes:

afterage41

[QUOTE=Fdubya247][B]You are a stupid fucking Cunt. Scrushy had been appointed to that same board by the three previous (and Republican) governors.

The "education fund" had nothing to do with Siegelman's personal finances.

Typical LYING right-wing cockroach piece of debunked shit..

Richard Scrushy is a scumbag and Don Siegleman is a dumbass for having anthing to do with him. He (Scrushy) cheated Healthsouth out of $300 mil. and got away with it.The feds had a hardon for his ass and Siegleman Took a fall with him. Like i said before, he got what he deserved.

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by afterage41
Richard Scrushy is a scumbag and Don Siegleman is a dumbass for having anthing to do with him.

That's just it, he didn't have anything to do with him.

Quote: Originally posted by afterage41
He (Scrushy) cheated Healthsouth out of $300 mil. and got away with it.The feds had a hardon for his ass and Siegleman Took a fall with him.

Siegleman had nothing to do with any of that. He probably never even met Scrushy.

Quote: Originally posted by afterage41
Like i said before, he got what he deserved.

Like I said, you are an idiot. Even if guilty, which he is not, the sentence for a comparable offense committed by a Republican was only 3 months.

:rolleyes:

Fdubya247

The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.

~ Catch-22

afterage41

Quote: Originally posyed by Fdubya247 ....Siegleman had nothing to do with any of that. He probably never even met Scrushy.

you are right, he(Siegleman) had nothing to do with the Healthsouth scandal. but you can't possibly believe that these two had never met!!! have you turned so far to the left that you can't see whats directly in front of you? like the truth...........

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by afterage41
you are right, he(Siegleman) had nothing to do with the Healthsouth scandal. but you can't possibly believe that these two had never met!!! have you turned so far to the left that you can't see whats directly in front of you? like the truth...........

...Dozens of former state attorneys general are demanding a congressional investigation...

...A Republican attorney named Jill Simpson filed an affidavit....

Its not a partisan issue, idiot. The facts are plain, the trumped charges clear. You are talking out your stupid ass.

:hw:

Reverend Tyler

Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Pretty damnig, and its gonna cause a lot more heat on the Justice Department to release their files.

tifdog1

Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
So basically 60 Minutes is doing a story on a 'smear' that never even happened. Dumb.

Ok stupid people...the issue here is that there has ALREADY been a Bush Administration scandal for firing all of the US prosecutors and appointing new BUSH Administration approved prosecutors, a practice that has NOT ever been carried out by previous presidents...this case is what results when politics determine the appointment of US prosecutors. SHAME SHAME SHAME on the Bush administration. George W. Bush is a traitor and should be impeached. How DARE he appoint prosecutors who won't investigate REAL crimes and protect the American public. SHAME SHAME SHAME!

tifdog1

Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Pretty damnig, and its gonna cause a lot more heat on the Justice Department to release their files.

Ya I just watched it too and it's pretty disgusting what the Bush Administration is getting away with. Honestly, I wish the electorate was smart enough or cared enough to see what how dishonest this administration is. This administration makes me ashamed to be an American.

Reed Rothchild

Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Pretty damnig, and its gonna cause a lot more heat on the Justice Department to release their files.

They won't release shit, the President will invoke "executive privilege" and will probably even have Cheney make the phone call telling Congress to go fuck themselves.

afterage41

I just finished reading several articles on the Siegleman case and I must admit that it does look like he got screwed. I live near birmingham AL and i remember when Scrushy was found not guilty in the Healthsouth case. Everyone was in awe when they let him go, not only did he go free but he got to keep all that money. It was right after that when the Siegleman stuff came out and when he and Scrushy were found guilty and went to jail no one around here cared. It just seemed like justice was served. I was wrong i think Siegleman got shafted so they could get Scrushy. Yes I believe that I was wrong and if i'm wrong I don't have a problem admitting it, thank you Fdubya247 for setting me straight on this issue. Respectfully yours afterage41, proud member of the G.O.P. :D

Fdubya247

:ps:

Fdubya247

This shit just gets more disgusting the more light gets thrown on it....

....not only was the prosecution's one witness a convicted criminal (doing time now), but he was pressured by Rove (either directly or indirectly) to LIE. Doing so gave him a lighter sentence. He was also told if he didn't LIE, his brother (also in trouble with the law in an unrelated case) would also do time. If he LIED, his brother would walk.

Basically the LIE he told, was that he saw Scrushy give a check to the Governor. Except that the check (never mind it was for an Education Fund, and had nothing to do with the Gov's own pocket) was not written until days after the "alleged" meeting.

Making matters worse, the Prosecutors (witch-hunting repuke operatives), KNEW that the check/meeting time-line was bullshit, but they DID NOT share that exculpatory evidence with the Defense, as REQUIRED in our so-called justice system.

Welcome to the United States under the rule of the fascist Bush Cabal.

:hitler::ps:

:shit:

Reverend Tyler

So a completely coincidental blackout occurred during just this segment - in Alabama...

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Pretty damnig, and its gonna cause a lot more heat on the Justice Department to release their files.

Ummmm Yeah.... :rolleyes:

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=11702

The 60 Minutes report tonight was even worse than I expected – and I expected it to be awful. In fact, it was execrable: easily the worst journalistic ethics I have ever seen in my life.

First, the “expert” given the most air time to allege that Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, now serving time for bribery, should never have been prosecuted in the first place was “Republican” former Arizona AG Grant Woods. Two points. First, how the heck would Woods know? He was in Arizona, not Alabama. Second, despite 60 Minutes going to great lengths to stress that Woods is credible specifically because he is a Republican criticizing other Republicans, the truth is that Woods is hardly a GOP stalwart. As long ago as October of 2002, he was publicly threatening to bolt the GOP and become a Democrat. A quick Google search seems to show that he takes the “liberal” side in most of his law cases (I will gladly correct myself if proved wrong on this); for instance, he most recently was in the news for agreeing to prosecute a border patrol agent who shot an illegal immigrant. And in 2006 he publicly supported Democrat Harry Mitchell in his bid to unseat conservative Republican U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Some Republican Woods is! And again, he is in Arizona, not Alabama. What a joke.

But as a journalistic sin, the prominent attention given to Woods is child’s play compared to the airing of the utterly bizarre allegation by ditzy-sounding Alabama attorney (and supposed one-time Republican “operative”) Dana Jill Simpson that Karl Rove “approached” her at a 2001 “meeting” and asked her to try to photograph Siegelman in sexual acts with an aide. On air at least, though, 60 Minutes did not even bother to ask her the most obvious of follow-up questions to test her story. Such as: Exactly where did this supposed meeting take place? Exactly when in 2001? Was anybody else present? What was the meeting about? Why did Rove have any reason to think she, of all people, could find Siegelman in flagrante, much less photograph him? Did Rove ever follow-up with her to find out if she had been successful? Did she tell anybody else at the time about Rove’s supposed request? And so on….

As I noted in my earlier column, there is absolutely no reason to believe the woman, and not even any logic that would explain Rove’s interest in such a project in Alabama while he was busy getting settled into his first year at the White House, a full year before the Alabama governor’s race.

I mean, the entire story is ludicrous on its face. And 60 Minutes now has good reason to look up to the National Enquirer as a exemplar of journalistic ethics and accuracy to which 60 Minutes can only hope to aspire IF 60 Minutes would spend years improving its product.

Pretty 'damning' indeed.........

Reed Rothchild

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ummmm Yeah.... :rolleyes:

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=11702

The 60 Minutes report tonight was even worse than I expected – and I expected it to be awful. In fact, it was execrable: easily the worst journalistic ethics I have ever seen in my life.

First, the “expert” given the most air time to allege that Democratic former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, now serving time for bribery, should never have been prosecuted in the first place was “Republican” former Arizona AG Grant Woods. Two points. First, how the heck would Woods know? He was in Arizona, not Alabama. Second, despite 60 Minutes going to great lengths to stress that Woods is credible specifically because he is a Republican criticizing other Republicans, the truth is that Woods is hardly a GOP stalwart. As long ago as October of 2002, he was publicly threatening to bolt the GOP and become a Democrat. A quick Google search seems to show that he takes the “liberal” side in most of his law cases (I will gladly correct myself if proved wrong on this); for instance, he most recently was in the news for agreeing to prosecute a border patrol agent who shot an illegal immigrant. And in 2006 he publicly supported Democrat Harry Mitchell in his bid to unseat conservative Republican U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Some Republican Woods is! And again, he is in Arizona, not Alabama. What a joke.

But as a journalistic sin, the prominent attention given to Woods is child’s play compared to the airing of the utterly bizarre allegation by ditzy-sounding Alabama attorney (and supposed one-time Republican “operative”) Dana Jill Simpson that Karl Rove “approached” her at a 2001 “meeting” and asked her to try to photograph Siegelman in sexual acts with an aide. On air at least, though, 60 Minutes did not even bother to ask her the most obvious of follow-up questions to test her story. Such as: Exactly where did this supposed meeting take place? Exactly when in 2001? Was anybody else present? What was the meeting about? Why did Rove have any reason to think she, of all people, could find Siegelman in flagrante, much less photograph him? Did Rove ever follow-up with her to find out if she had been successful? Did she tell anybody else at the time about Rove’s supposed request? And so on….

As I noted in my earlier column, there is absolutely no reason to believe the woman, and not even any logic that would explain Rove’s interest in such a project in Alabama while he was busy getting settled into his first year at the White House, a full year before the Alabama governor’s race.

I mean, the entire story is ludicrous on its face. And 60 Minutes now has good reason to look up to the National Enquirer as a exemplar of journalistic ethics and accuracy to which 60 Minutes can only hope to aspire IF 60 Minutes would spend years improving its product.

Pretty 'damning' indeed.........

So, I don't know what you thought of the story, but this blogger has a problem with a Republican In Name Only former Atty. General criticizing this case because he is a liberal Republican, but doesn't have an issue with what he actually said?

I actually agree with him about the "Republican Operative" working on Rove's orders and thought they gave too much time to this aspect of the story, but does he, or You, have any other thoughts on anything else that was talked about in the story?

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Reed Rothchild
So, I don't know what you thought of the story, but this blogger has a problem with a Republican In Name Only former Atty. General criticizing this case because he is a liberal Republican, but doesn't have an issue with what he actually said?

I actually agree with him about the "Republican Operative" working on Rove's orders and thought they gave too much time to this aspect of the story, but does he, or You, have any other thoughts on anything else that was talked about in the story?

THoughts about what??? THe disgusting lack of followup, or pressing for details and specifics... Could 60 minutes NOT find a journalist, lawyer, or someone else, who might have given another side of the story??? Did they even try??? Of course the Justice Dept is not going to be interviewed....and Rove would not, and should not dignify that nonsense with a response. I counted 1, just 1 'on the other hand' type question....

One sided stories like this about an issue so complex and detailed really don't say much of anything. TV might not be built for indepth investigations, but stories like this don't really move the debate forward in any meaningful way. Maybe this guy was railroaded, maybe he wasn't...and I am sure there is MUCH more to the story that what we heard...However a jury of his peers found a popular former governor guilty...as it is, he is a convicted felon.

Reed Rothchild

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
THoughts about what??? THe disgusting lack of followup, or pressing for details and specifics... Could 60 minutes NOT find a journalist, lawyer, or someone else, who might have given another side of the story??? Did they even try??? Of course the Justice Dept is not going to be interviewed....and Rove would not, and should not dignify that nonsense with a response. I counted 1, just 1 'on the other hand' type question....

One sided stories like this about an issue so complex and detailed really don't say much of anything. TV might not be built for indepth investigations, but stories like this don't really move the debate forward in any meaningful way. Maybe this guy was railroaded, maybe he wasn't...and I am sure there is MUCH more to the story that what we heard...However a jury of his peers found a popular former governor guilty...as it is, he is a convicted felon.

I don't know, before this story, I had never heard of Don Siegelman, and was more shocked that there had been a Democrat Governor in Alabama in the last 20 years than I was about the details of the case. The discussion has to start before it can move forward in any meaningful way. And how can there be any meaningful discussion when the other side of the argument is "We have no comment" or "He was convicted by a jury of his peers." If the news can only get one side to talk, what should they do? Not run the story?

Reverend Tyler

they said they asked Karl Rove for an interview and through a lawyer he refused.

How about that "techincal (misspelling on purpose) mistake" by the lone affiliate in Alabama blacking out for just that segment?

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
So a completely coincidental blackout occurred during just this segment - in Alabama...

....And the family that owns the Alabama television station that "blacked-out" is the same family that now owns Harken Energy....yes, THAT Harken Energy.....

Big Bush donors.

What a coinky-dink....

:rolleyes:

:hitler::ps:

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Reed Rothchild
I don't know, before this story, I had never heard of Don Siegelman, and was more shocked that there had been a Democrat Governor in Alabama in the last 20 years than I was about the details of the case. The discussion has to start before it can move forward in any meaningful way. And how can there be any meaningful discussion when the other side of the argument is "We have no comment" or "He was convicted by a jury of his peers." If the news can only get one side to talk, what should they do? Not run the story?

I had heard of him, and remember when the sentence came down. ( I might have even posted about it) Other than that, I didn't know much of the story.

North Carolina has had a Dem Governor for 16 years now, I think, plus we gave the world John Edwards....Other southern states have had Dem GOvernors, ect... I thought that was played up a bit too much...really a non-story, part of the story.

Of course the Justice Dept is not going to send someone out to interview with 60 minutes, and Rove should not dignify the comments.... How about finding or looking for someone who would give comments onn BOTH sides of the story...not just 1. THe bit about ROve was especially gauling..it was ridiculous. You might think they tried to get the other side, given the history of CBS, with this administration, I would think otherwise..

Fdubya247

:lol:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-HAHAHAHAHAHA-HAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

You disgusting worm....

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I had heard of him, and remember when the sentence came down. ( I might have even posted about it) Other than that, I didn't know much of the story.

North Carolina has had a Dem Governor for 16 years now, I think, plus we gave the world John Edwards....Other southern states have had Dem GOvernors, ect... I thought that was played up a bit too much...really a non-story, part of the story.

Of course the Justice Dept is not going to send someone out to interview with 60 minutes, and Rove should not dignify the comments.... How about finding or looking for someone who would give comments onn BOTH sides of the story...not just 1. THe bit about ROve was especially gauling..it was ridiculous. You might think they tried to get the other side, given the history of CBS, with this administration, I would think otherwise..

:bigcry:

Check out the Harper's story for more details, Bitch.

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
As I noted in my earlier column, there is absolutely no reason to believe the woman,

:lol:

.....well, she did testify UNDER OATH before Congress on this shit.....when was the last time a member of the Bush Cabal had the guts/honesty to do that???

:opps:

Fdubya247

In exclusive interview, Alabama whistleblower says Rove trying to smear her

02/25/2008 @ 11:02 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna

Rove's attorney says CBS should apologize for story

Advertisement

After a CBS affiliate blacked out 60 Minutes in Alabama, Dana Jill Simpson, the Republican attorney from Alabama and a whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, told RAW STORY Monday that the coordinated smear attack on her credibility by the state's GOP and the American Spectator publication are being pushed by Karl Rove – the former senior aide to President Bush – in retaliation for her revelations of his role in the investigation and conviction of Don Siegelman.

Siegelman was convicted of corruption charges and sentenced to seven years in prison in 2006. A 60 Minutes piece Sunday, as well as several by RAW STORY and Harper's Magazine, have raised questions about the circumstances of his conviction.

Over the weekend, a series of articles appeared in the Montgomery Independent and the American Spectator attacking both Simpson and Harper’s reporter Scott Horton.

Karl Rove, through his attorney, declared that Simpson’s allegations are false and the story foolish.

“60 Minutes owes Mr. Rove an apology for circulating this false and foolish story," Rove attorney's Robert Luskin said.

Simpson, however, points to the fact she testified to Congress under oath. Though called to testify, Rove did not show up.

“Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify in front a Congressional committee,” said Simpson this morning during a telephone interview. “He would not testify. He did not even appear in front of Congress, which is like not showing up for a court subpoena.”

“I testified under oath in front of Congress," she added. "He won’t even show up. Now you tell me who is lying?”

The American Spectator article, "The False and the Absurd," written by Quin Hillyer, alleges that Ms. Simpson’s story has changed.

“On Thursday, the 60 Minutes website began hawking a feature to run on its show this Sunday wherein an already discredited Alabama attorney 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 spectacularly 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 incarnations of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer."

Hillyer goes on to claim that this is the first time Ms. Simpson has alleged that Karl Rove had directly asked her to be involved in finding dirt on Governor Siegelman. This allegation, however, is not true. This reporter was aware months ago of this allegation as was Scott Horton of Harper’s who provided his own account of what Simpson told him, also months ago. In addition, Hillyer cites Toby Roth as a “Republican activist” who claims to have never heard of Simpson before.

“For one thing, Simpson consistently has made claims of being a longtime, and fairly high-level, Republican activist in Alabama. But my Republican sources in Alabama say they either don't even know her or barely remember her having done some rather low-level volunteer work. On Friday, longtime activist Toby Roth said of the 2002 campaign (around which most of her allegations revolve): "I was the campaign director [for now-Gov. Bob Riley, who challenged Siegelman]. I did not know her. Never met the lady." His only contact with her, he said, came four years later when she faxed him letters demanding that one of her clients be awarded a state contract to clean up a tire dump. The contract went to somebody else, and Roth says her bizarre allegations began surfacing only after her client lost the business.”

Earlier this month, this reporter interviewed Republican party members who have known Ms. Simpson for a very long time in Alabama. Documents regarding business contracts also indicate that Ms. Simpson worked closely with Governor Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley Jr. In addition, the Spectator fails to mention that Mr. Roth is a lobbyist for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and had close business dealings with Michael Scanlon, the lobbyist who has plead guilty to bribery and money laundering charges and Jack Abramoff, also a lobbyist and Mr. Scanlon’s mentor, who is now serving time also for money laundering and bribery charges. Both Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff have admitted to moving Choctaw casino funds into political campaigns.
Alabama GOP launch mass mailings

Yet despite these conflicts of interest, the Alabama GOP –- via state representative Mike Hubbard -- issued a series of emails citing the American Spectator article in order to criticize Simpson.

Simpson came forward last year to testify in front of House Judiciary Committee about what she alleges was Karl Rove’s involvement in the Don Siegelman prosecution.

As reported by Raw Story in the first part of an ongoing investigation into the Don Siegelman case, the Permanent Republican Majority, Simpson testified that she was on a conference call that discussed how Governor Siegelman would be “hanged.”

It would take a Riley campaign attorney -- long-time Alabama Republican Dana Jill Simpson -- to finally blow the whistle on the Republican governor. In a 2007 affidavit and sworn testimony, Simpson stated unequivocally that dirty tricks had sealed her boss’s victory in the 2002 election, and she named Karl Rove and the US Department of Justice as conspirators in the case.

Simpson had worked for the Riley campaign in 2002 as an opposition researcher, digging up dirt on then-Governor Siegelman. According to Simpson's May 2007 affidavit, Siegelman was pressured to concede the 2002 election because the Riley camp threatened to make public a set of photographs of one of Siegelman's supporters planting Riley campaign signs at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Simpson also stated that Canary had indicated that “Karl” -- by which she had no doubt he meant Karl Rove -- had taken a personal interest in the matter.

...

In this additional testimony, Simpson described a conference call among Bill Canary, Governor Riley's son Rob and other Riley campaign aides, which she said took place on November 18, 2002 -- the same day Don Siegelman conceded the election. Simpson alleged that Canary had said that “Rove had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman and had also advised Riley's staff “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor.

The “girls” allegedly referenced by Bill Canary were his wife, Leura Canary -- who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 as the US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama -- and Alice Martin, another 2001 Bush appointee as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Simpson added that she was told by Rob Riley that Judge Mark Fuller was deliberately chosen when the Siegelman case was prosecuted in 2005, and that Fuller would “hang” Siegelman.”

Just prior to Simpson’s Congressional testimony, her house was burned down and she was once driven off the road in Alabama.

“I don’t feel safe,” Simpson added this morning.

:hitler::ps:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ In_e...br /> 0225.html

Fdubya247

Of course the more important story is the election FRAUD that had Siegleman going to bed thinking he won the election on the night of, only to find out in the morning that the Republicans had magically "found" 15K more votes....all for the Republican candidate....

Of course when he had the temerity to run again in the next election, in come the hand-picked PARTISAN STOOGE prosecutors, and the trumped up charges, all orchestrated by Herr Rove from his snake pit.....

:hitler::ps:

tifdog1

So after a scandal in which the Bush Administration was accused of firing all of the US attorneys and replacing them with prosecutors who would gladly indict based upon political motivation, you don't find it odd that this case was prosectued by the Federal Government? You can't possibly be that naive. Get a clue...as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, where there's smoke, there's fire.

afterage41

When the jury retired, half of the members favored acquittal, and the other half, who according to subsequent statements felt they were doing what Judge Fuller wanted them to do, supported conviction. The jury initially deadlocked, sending the judge a note stating that they could not resolve the case. The judge responded by suggesting that he would be prepared to hold them indefinitely, including over the upcoming holiday. An anonymous source supplied defense counsel with evidence that some jurors were engaged in inappropriate conduct, among other things reading press accounts of the case and discussing how to pressure other jurors into a conviction with outside evidence.http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000714

Fdubya247

....the truth is setting you free aa41....! I've turned you into a veritable Paladin of Truth...!

:ps:

Fdubya247

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
You can't possibly be that naive. Get a clue...

NCDike69
Limp Member

Jerk-off

nunpuncher

Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
....the truth is setting you free aa41....! I've turned you into a veritable Paladin of Truth...!

:ps:

aw how sweet supermult41 and fdub are buddies

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
So after a scandal in which the Bush Administration was accused of firing all of the US attorneys and replacing them with prosecutors who would gladly indict based upon political motivation, you don't find it odd that this case was prosectued by the Federal Government? You can't possibly be that naive. Get a clue...as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, where there's smoke, there's fire.

First of all, the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President...and can be fired any time, for any reason. There is no scandal.

Secondly, Bush didn't fire 'all' the US attorneys..He fired 7, I believe. If you want to look at a situation where 'all' US attorneys were fired, see Clinton, Bill.... thats what HE did... look it up.

Get a clue?? You can't even get your facts correct... Reading the headlines, and reading the leftbot blogs is no way to go thru life...wise up.

tifdog1

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
First of all, the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President...and can be fired any time, for any reason. There is no scandal.

Secondly, Bush didn't fire 'all' the US attorneys..He fired 7, I believe. If you want to look at a situation where 'all' US attorneys were fired, see Clinton, Bill.... thats what HE did... look it up.

Get a clue?? You can't even get your facts correct... Reading the headlines, and reading the leftbot blogs is no way to go thru life...wise up.

Ok Jack-wad, the correct number of firings was 8. And the reason these firings were controversial is the firings occured mid-term, a practice that is unheard of and highly unusual. At any rate, the issue is the fact that Bush administration appointed US attorneys based upon their political affiliation. The appointed attorneys were not the most qualified or the best candidates for the jobs.

For Christ's sake dumb ass there were fucking congressional hearings regarding these firings. What do you mean there was no scandal ..can't you remember? Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified (and might be charged with purgery as a result of his testimony) during these hearings.

It's pretty clear to anyone who has a brain that Siegelman's case is as a result of politically-motivated prosecution. You need to get a clue too. BTW-I don't read any left wing blogs, I just read the newspaper. Something that you evidently don't. Really, you should look into it. Asswipe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7030500666.html

tifdog1

Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
NCDike69
Limp Member

Jerk-off

Luv it.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
Ok Jack-wad, the correct number of firings was 8. And the reason these firings were controversial is the firings occured mid-term, a practice that is unheard of and highly unusual. At any rate, the issue is the fact that Bush administration appointed US attorneys based upon their political affiliation. The appointed attorneys were not the most qualified or the best candidates for the jobs.

The was nothing innappropriate about the firings, and nothing 'highly unusual' about them. (and 8 is quite a bit less than 'all) . You have no idea about the qualifications of the newly hired attorneys, or who was the 'best qualified' for the jobs. You are simply talking out of your ass.

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
For Christ's sake dumb ass there were fucking congressional hearings regarding these firings. What do you mean there was no scandal ..can't you remember? Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified (and might be charged with purgery as a result of his testimony) during these hearings.

The DemoRats in Congress held congressional hearings everytime a Republican looked at someone the wrong way. The important thing is NOTHING illegal occurred, nothing innapropriate was found. THese were nothing more than fishing expeditions in search of a non existent scandal. GOnzolez was an idiot long before he fucked up at those hearings...the only good thing that came from them was his ultimate exit.

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
It's pretty clear to anyone who has a brain that Siegelman's case is as a result of politically-motivated prosecution. You need to get a clue too. BTW-I don't read any left wing blogs, I just read the newspaper. Something that you evidently don't. Really, you should look into it. Asswipe.

No, its 'pretty clear' to anyone who hates Bush and the administration that any and every little thing is some grand scandal with Karl Rove at the control. Try reality....its the cure.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The DemoRats in Congress held congressional hearings everytime a Republican looked at someone the wrong way.

Anogram

The firings were possible because of a loop hole in the patriot act that we had to accept. Because of the loop hole and the timing of the firings, this made it highly unusual. This brought heavy attention to it.

tifdog1

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The was nothing innappropriate about the firings, and nothing 'highly unusual' about them. (and 8 is quite a bit less than 'all) . You have no idea about the qualifications of the newly hired attorneys, or who was the 'best qualified' for the jobs. You are simply talking out of your ass.

The DemoRats in Congress held congressional hearings everytime a Republican looked at someone the wrong way. The important thing is NOTHING illegal occurred, nothing innapropriate was found. THese were nothing more than fishing expeditions in search of a non existent scandal. GOnzolez was an idiot long before he fucked up at those hearings...the only good thing that came from them was his ultimate exit.

No, its 'pretty clear' to anyone who hates Bush and the administration that any and every little thing is some grand scandal with Karl Rove at the control. Try reality....its the cure.

Hey dumb-shit, no one said the firings were illegal. The appointment of US attorneys based politics IS WRONG. These attorneys are supposed to protect the American public, not do the republican's dirty work when they can't seem to beat a candidate, which was the case with Siegelman.
And if you actually go back to the hearings I believe it was republican Senator Arlen Spector, the senior ranking member of the judiciary committee who lead the questioning of Gonzales (you spelled his name wrong dumb shit) as well as others in the Justice department about this matter. Spector even suggested that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate this matter further. Sorry, you can't blame partisan politics on this investigation. Pull your head out.

The fact that you support this cowboy administration shows everyone all we need to know about your level of intelligence.

tifdog1

BTW NCMike--Maybe you don't know about the background of the appointed US attorneys, but I actually read the newspaper and listen to what is going on in the world of politics so I do. There were many stories on the background of the appointed US attorneys. But of course, you'll just brush off those stories as being the result of the liberal media bias...same old tired cliche. If you want to debate an issue on the facts, you should read a little...and learn how to spell.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
Hey dumb-shit, no one said the firings were illegal. The appointment of US attorneys based politics IS WRONG. These attorneys are supposed to protect the American public, not do the republican's dirty work when they can't seem to beat a candidate, which was the case with Siegelman.
And if you actually go back to the hearings I believe it was republican Senator Arlen Spector, the senior ranking member of the judiciary committee who lead the questioning of Gonzales (you spelled his name wrong dumb shit) as well as others in the Justice department about this matter. Spector even suggested that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate this matter further. Sorry, you can't blame partisan politics on this investigation. Pull your head out.

The fact that you support this cowboy administration shows everyone all we need to know about your level of intelligence.

Thats a wonderful speech....except that in all those hearings, there was NEVER, ANY proof shown that ANYONE was fired for political reasons. And if it was not illegal, WTF were there hearings for anyway??? You ASSUME there was malfeasance, because it was Bush...

Spector is an idiot.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by tifdog1
BTW NCMike--Maybe you don't know about the background of the appointed US attorneys, but I actually read the newspaper and listen to what is going on in the world of politics so I do. There were many stories on the background of the appointed US attorneys. But of course, you'll just brush off those stories as being the result of the liberal media bias...same old tired cliche. If you want to debate an issue on the facts, you should read a little...and learn how to spell.

Yeah, thats why you thought they were 'all' fired.... You probably started reading about it shortly after I corrected your gross exaggerration.

And the LAST worn out, lame tactic of the fool without an argument is to go to the spelling nonsense. Get real, and do some reading BEFORE you enter the debate, not after you are embarrassed.