Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Precious little reason to believe exactly what?

Good grief B'ham News! Over to the left we have Victor Hanson III who once said "Though we are owned by the Newhouse family, The News is still run locally as it always has been." Whoever is running this paper ought to be ashamed of their treatment of Don Siegelman. Plenty of folks believe the entire Newhouse line here in Alabama has it in for Don yet the way they continue to cover his trial and incarceration seems like it will only add fuel to the fire. And maybe that's good? Let's see what all they twisted in their Siegelman's Seige editorial ...
Although a jury concluded otherwise, (Former Arizona Attorney General who remains a strong Republican) Woods said the case wasn't valid because the money went to Siegelman's lottery campaign, rather than to him personally.
Was this the jury that had to be sent out several times with instructions that they better render a verdict? And of course Mr. Woods is just one of several former AGs that have asked for a further review of Don Siegelman's situation.
It's not as if Rove hasn't dabbled before in Alabama politics, and it's certainly not as if Rove is above playing dirty.
Yup! And then you add ...
Yet the Justice Department's actions in some cases outside of Alabama make it hard to flat-out disregard Siegelman's complaints. That's unfortunate.
I'd think it a little more than "unfortunate", especially if you're in federal prison. And reckon Karl Rove and other movement conservatives might have had something to do with this monkey business at Justice?
The problem is (former GOP operative Dan Jill) Simpson. She has dribbled outdamaging allegations in such a way as to undermine her credibility.
Actually she's testified under oath. She's got her law license on the line plus perjury charges. Until some of these folks in the story testify under oath I'd think her side of the story counts for plenty. Also, since when does one have to tell the full story to make what she's said true? Maybe having her house burn down early on was what cause her to dribble? Dribbling is allowed I'd think and perhaps could even make her more credible. She's said she mentioned this plan to follow Don to see him fooling around on the wife to Congressional aides and they passed on questioning her on that part of her story. And what about all those records she's claiming to have to back up her side of the story. Think y'all might want to try to get a look at them?

But wait, it gets better with ...
Then again, the problem with this whole controversy is so many sides aren't wholly believable.
So we'll leave a man, a former Governor no less, in prison and deny him the normal bail pending appeal? The News' contempt for the legal system continues with ...
... Siegelman's defense lawyers seized on the show's less glamorous claim that former-aide-turned-witness Nick Bailey had made notes about his testimony that weren't furnished to his former boss' legal team. Prosecutors denied knowing of any such notes, but if the claims were borne out, they could provide a legal hook for Siegelman to win a new day in court.
A "legal hook"? Reckon how those claims will be "borne out" without an investigation? It looks rather glamorous to me to have the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and probably a likely Brady Order from the bench ignored. As I recall the story Bailey is to have said people from the prosecution team were there helping him write (over and over) out his story until he got it right. Am I wrong? If this is so, that's prosecutorial misconduct perhaps rather than a "legal hook". Than new day is court might be a dismissal, especially if somebody other than Judge Mark Fuller is hearing the evidence.

The close is priceless. The B'ham News writes ...
Politics should not play any role in launching a criminal investigation, or in ditching a case, either.Unless there is more evidence Siegelman was prosecuted for the wrong reasons, or that he wasn't provided a fair playing field, there's precious little reason to believe justice wasn't served when a jury found him guilty.
What else do y'all need? So are you calling for an investigation? Or are you selectively examining the case to justify keep Don in the can? I'm furious. And now I'm running late. I needed to vent. More to come perhaps? Hang in there Siegelmans. John Gunn

No comments: