Friday, August 17, 2007
Revisiting Rove's Dirty Tricks
The workweek started with news that Karl Rove would be leaving the Bush White House at the end of August.
So let's end the week by looking at perhaps Rove's most lasting legacy--a history of dirty tricks. Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now, provides the analysis.
Over the next 25 years or so, historians are sure to unearth many more nuggets from Rove's bag of tricks. And a number of those are likely to involve Alabama. After all, Rove probably deserves more credit than anyone else for turning Alabama's state courts into a Republican-dominated playground.
Readers of Goodman's piece might want to ask themselves this question: Would I trust courts that this guy helped shape?
We invite you to stay tuned here at Legal Schnauzer over the coming weeks and months as we present overwhelming evidence of rampant corruption among Republican judges in Alabama courts. It should be a fitting addition to the Rove legacy.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
An Old Letter with a New Twist
Trent Thompson at Left in Alabama provides a thought-provoking version of the letter Alabama GOP chair Mike Hubbard recently wrote regarding inflammatory comments by AEA's Joe Reed.
Reed's comments went too far, but Thompson's letter shows how partisan politics can blind folks to even more serious realities.
Reed's comments went too far, but Thompson's letter shows how partisan politics can blind folks to even more serious realities.
Will DOJ Scandal Expand?
ABC News is reporting that the U.S. attorneys scandal might be more widespread than is currently thought.
Justin Rood reports that the number of U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) could be considerably higher than the current figure of nine.
Rood notes that Bush Administration officials for months have refused to directly answer a key question: Have other U.S. attorneys been fired, beyond the nine already publicly identified? At one point, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seemed to admit that more than nine had been fired, but the DOJ has remained slippery on revealing the exact number.
Justin Rood reports that the number of U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) could be considerably higher than the current figure of nine.
Rood notes that Bush Administration officials for months have refused to directly answer a key question: Have other U.S. attorneys been fired, beyond the nine already publicly identified? At one point, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seemed to admit that more than nine had been fired, but the DOJ has remained slippery on revealing the exact number.
Riley, Minor, and More
Updates on some recent posts:
* Yesterday's post, "Nothing Sticks to Teflon Bob," drew a couple of interesting comments from folks who seem to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from yours truly. Issues raised in the comments merit a considered response, but unfortunately, your humble blogger doesn't have time to compose such a response today. But we will return very soon to the issues raised regarding "Teflon Bob."
* We've had several recent posts about the sentencing in Mississippi of attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. The sentencing hearing, which already has lasted one week, now is set to resume on September 6.
* Yesterday's post, "Nothing Sticks to Teflon Bob," drew a couple of interesting comments from folks who seem to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from yours truly. Issues raised in the comments merit a considered response, but unfortunately, your humble blogger doesn't have time to compose such a response today. But we will return very soon to the issues raised regarding "Teflon Bob."
* We've had several recent posts about the sentencing in Mississippi of attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. The sentencing hearing, which already has lasted one week, now is set to resume on September 6.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Nothing Sticks to Teflon Bob
Let's return to the subject of Alabama's two most recent governors, each of whom waged a statewide campaign for governmental reform. One, a Democrat, now is in federal prison because of contributions made toward his campaign. The other, a Republican, received contributions to his campaign without raising nary an eyebrow from the press or law enforcement.
How can that be?
A recent post here drew comparisons between former Governor Don Siegelman's failed lottery campaign and the failed tax-reform campaign of current Governor Bob Riley. We noted the letter Siegelman had written to Riley, stating that the two campaigns were set up in a similar fashion and that Riley should be cautious because Siegelman was then facing federal corruption charges largely as a result of contributions made to his campaign.
A reader left a comment to my original post stating that Riley announced state support for a biotechnology project in Huntsville, and the donation to his campaign came after that. The reader seemed to be saying that this is one quality that made Riley's contribution legal. The reader also noted that Riley's biotech initiative enjoyed wide bipartisan support.
The reader's comment caused me to do a little research. Here's what I found:
Siegelman was prosecuted under several corruption-related statutes, including 18 U.S. Code 666 (Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds). The statute states that bribery occurs when an agent of a State "corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more."
I realize that's a mouthful of legalese. But a couple of things are clear. The Huntsville biotech project certainly involved more than $5,000. And it is irrelevant that Riley announced state support for the project prior to receiving the campaign donation. The key is the communication between the two parties, not the timing of any announcements.
This is not to say that I have any proof that Riley committed a crime. Siegelman, in his letter, said he did not think Riley had committed a crime, and I'm willing to go along with the opinion of a former state attorney general. Of course, Siegelman also thought that he (Siegelman) had not committed a crime. The Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) begged to differ.
The critical question is this: Why did the Siegelman transaction draw heavy scrutiny from the press--and eventually, an investigation and prosecution by law enforcement--while Riley's transaction drew scant attention in the press and evidently zero interest from law enforcement?
That goes to the issue of selective prosecution, which Congress is set to investigate when it returns from summer recess in September.
Those don't seem to be terribly substantive responses to serious inquiries--inquiries about the kind of matters that have put one former governor in federal prison.
How can that be?
A recent post here drew comparisons between former Governor Don Siegelman's failed lottery campaign and the failed tax-reform campaign of current Governor Bob Riley. We noted the letter Siegelman had written to Riley, stating that the two campaigns were set up in a similar fashion and that Riley should be cautious because Siegelman was then facing federal corruption charges largely as a result of contributions made to his campaign.
A reader left a comment to my original post stating that Riley announced state support for a biotechnology project in Huntsville, and the donation to his campaign came after that. The reader seemed to be saying that this is one quality that made Riley's contribution legal. The reader also noted that Riley's biotech initiative enjoyed wide bipartisan support.
The reader's comment caused me to do a little research. Here's what I found:
Siegelman was prosecuted under several corruption-related statutes, including 18 U.S. Code 666 (Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds). The statute states that bribery occurs when an agent of a State "corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more."
I realize that's a mouthful of legalese. But a couple of things are clear. The Huntsville biotech project certainly involved more than $5,000. And it is irrelevant that Riley announced state support for the project prior to receiving the campaign donation. The key is the communication between the two parties, not the timing of any announcements.
This is not to say that I have any proof that Riley committed a crime. Siegelman, in his letter, said he did not think Riley had committed a crime, and I'm willing to go along with the opinion of a former state attorney general. Of course, Siegelman also thought that he (Siegelman) had not committed a crime. The Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) begged to differ.
The critical question is this: Why did the Siegelman transaction draw heavy scrutiny from the press--and eventually, an investigation and prosecution by law enforcement--while Riley's transaction drew scant attention in the press and evidently zero interest from law enforcement?
That goes to the issue of selective prosecution, which Congress is set to investigate when it returns from summer recess in September.
In a recent press release, Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin (Middle District of Alabama) said the investigation into Siegelman's activities was prompted by a series of articles (many of which ran on the front page) by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran.
The same reporter, Mr. Curran, wrote a story about Riley's transaction with the biotech folks in Huntsville. (It evidently was not a series of stories; best I can tell, it was only one story, and I think it ran on an inside page. Selective reporting?) But the transaction has not been a secret.
Riley's political opponents, one an arch-conservative, made very public statements about the biotech deal. Roy Moore, Riley's opponent in the Republican primary for governor, called the biotech transaction a clear "quid pro quo." Lucy Baxley, who ran against Riley in the general election, also noted the transaction, "Tell me that's not a trade-off."
Granted, Moore and Baxley were opponents of Riley. But they also have significant experience in state government. Moore was chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, so his thoughts on legal matters should resonate with someone. But evidently the Bush DOJ isn't interested enough to even look into the Riley matter.
As for the idea that Riley's biotech deal enjoyed widespread, bipartisan support, that's not exactly true. Anyone who was in Birmingham or around UAB at the time remembers the uproar over an investment in biotech for Huntsville while a substantial biotech infrastructure already exists in the Magic City. Even The Birmingham News raised questions about duplication of services.
It's interesting to note the response of Riley's spokesmen to charges that the biotech venture was improperly handled. Josh Blades used the terms "ridiculous" and "ludicrous" to describe such charges. Dax Swatek (whose father, Pelham, Alabama, attorney Bill Swatek, is at the heart of our story of judicial wrongdoing) used the term "ridiculous."Those don't seem to be terribly substantive responses to serious inquiries--inquiries about the kind of matters that have put one former governor in federal prison.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Rove Mindset
Joshua Green's article "The Rove Presidency," which is just coming out in the September issue of Atlantic Monthly, provides a detailed look at the mindset that has led to what might be the most disastrous presidency in American history.
It also provides a look at the mindset that shaped Alabama's Republican-dominated state courts. Corruption in those courts, which took a major ideological turn thanks to Karl Rove and Bill Canary's campaign efforts in the 1990s, is at the heart of our story here at Legal Schnauzer.
It also provides a look at the mindset that shaped Alabama's Republican-dominated state courts. Corruption in those courts, which took a major ideological turn thanks to Karl Rove and Bill Canary's campaign efforts in the 1990s, is at the heart of our story here at Legal Schnauzer.
If you were to see how Alabama courts operate, as I have over the past seven years or so, you would not be surprised to see the mess Rove has made at the White House.
Green's article, which is currently available on the Web only to Atlantic subscribers, paints a vivid picture of a conservative guru who is adept at attaining power but has no idea how to govern. Green's article is in the Atlantic, but it could just as easily be in Psychology Today.
It essentially is a case study of political and personal dysfunction. Arrogance, deceit, disrespect, selfishness, and much more are on ample display. A few highlights from Green's article:
* On Rove's insecurity: "A large part of his self-image depends on showing that his command of history and politics is an order of magnitude greater than other people's. Rove has a need to outdo everybody else that seems to inform his sometimes contrarian views of history. It's not enough for him to have read everything; he needs to have read everything and arrived at insights that others missed."
* On Rove's misguided notion that America was ready for a realignment in 2000 that would put Republicans in charge for roughly 40 years, similar to the one led by his hero, William McKinley: "The subtext seemed to be that Rove, too, recognized something everybody else had missed--the chance for a Republican realignment--just as he recognized the overlooked genius of William McKinley. . . . Like his hero McKinley, he alone was the true visionary. Everyone else looked at the political landscape and saw a nation a rough parity. Rove looked at the same thing and saw an emerging Republican majority."
* On his lack of respect for others, including those in his own party: "He never appreciated that his success would ultimately depend on the sustained cooperation of congressional Republicans, and he developed a dysfunctional relationship with many of them."
* On Rove's misguided determination to push for Social Security reform: "Had Bush decided not to pursue Social Security or had he somehow managed to pursue it in a way that included Democrats, his presidency might still have ended up in failure, because of Iraq. But the dramatic collapse of Rove's Social Security push foreclosed any other possibility. It left Bush all but dead in the water for what looks to be the remainder of his time in office."
Green conducts a fascinating interview with Republican Dick Armey, the House majority leader when Bush took office. Armey talks about a tradition he and Bill Clinton developed when they met in the White House. Armey would take the name tag he received as a White House visitor and ask Clinton to sign it. Without saying a word, Clinton would sign and date it, and when Armey left the White House, he would give the card to the first schoolkid he came across. "Bill Clinton and I didn't like each other . . . " Armey said. "But he knew that when I left his office . . . some kid who had come to Washington with his mama would go home with the president's autograph. I think Clinton thought it was a nice thing to do for some kid, and he was happy to do it." When Armey tried to continue the routine with Bush in the White House, Bush declined and Rove said the card probably would wind up on eBay. "If my expectations of civility and collegiality were disappointed, what do you think it was like for the rest of the congressmen they dealt with?" Armey said
Finally, Green adds a touch of historical irony. While Bush has come to be bogged down in Iraq, Rove's hero (McKinley) saw much of his presidency consumed by a foreign adventure--the Spanish-American War. McKinley launched the war at the urging of his future vice president, Teddy Roosevelt, and other hawks. And Green notes that after American forces defeated the Spanish navy in the Philippines, the U.S. occupation encountered a bloody postwar insurgency and allegations of torture committed by U.S. troops. Does that sound familiar?
Bruce Reed, domestic-policy chief under Clinton, may have summed it up best: "I think the larger, deeper problem was they never fully appreciated that long-term success depended on making sure your policies worked."
Alabama courts have suffered from a similar affliction for quite some time now. History suggests that Rove just wanted his side to dominate Alabama courts, which they have done. But small items like due process, equal protection, the rule of law? Those are rather important to the functioning of a court system. But did Rove and his conservative brethren care about such operational matters (not to mention matters of right and wrong)? Evidently not.
The mindset outlined in Green's article will be very much on display as our tale unfolds here at Legal Schnauzer.
Karl Rove and His Alabama Connections
All roads to Karl Rove seem to run through Alabama.
So notes Scott Horton of Harper's in an intriguing post today. Highlights from Horton's post:
* Horton discusses Rove's appearance at Alabama's Troy University to speak at its journalism center. The visit was arranged by U.S. Representative Terry Everett, who is the mentor for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman trial. "The Alabama GOP has been very good to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove has been very good to the Alabama GOP," Horton writes. "It's a thoroughly symbiotic relationship."
* During his Troy address, Rove noted the brewing U.S. Attorneys scandal and compared it to the removal of "123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration." Rove fails to mention, Horton states, that newly elected president Bill Clinton received the resignation of all U.S. attorneys when he was inaugurated, as generally happens with all presidents. That is a very different matter from the current scandal, where U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush evidently were fired because they refused to politicize their offices.
* Horton says the subpoena showdown with Congress is not likely to go away now that Rove has announced his resignation from the Bush White House. Horton notes that much of the scandal-related material was stored on a Republican National Committee server, suggesting that Rove considered the matter to be of a partisan political nature. This also would weaken any claim by Rove of executive privilege.
For good measure, Horton adds a post about his awards for best and worst performances in the Rove postmortem. His award for best blog post goes to conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan. Another sign that Rove was hardly beloved among his fellow Republicans.
So notes Scott Horton of Harper's in an intriguing post today. Highlights from Horton's post:
* Horton discusses Rove's appearance at Alabama's Troy University to speak at its journalism center. The visit was arranged by U.S. Representative Terry Everett, who is the mentor for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman trial. "The Alabama GOP has been very good to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove has been very good to the Alabama GOP," Horton writes. "It's a thoroughly symbiotic relationship."
* During his Troy address, Rove noted the brewing U.S. Attorneys scandal and compared it to the removal of "123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration." Rove fails to mention, Horton states, that newly elected president Bill Clinton received the resignation of all U.S. attorneys when he was inaugurated, as generally happens with all presidents. That is a very different matter from the current scandal, where U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush evidently were fired because they refused to politicize their offices.
* Horton says the subpoena showdown with Congress is not likely to go away now that Rove has announced his resignation from the Bush White House. Horton notes that much of the scandal-related material was stored on a Republican National Committee server, suggesting that Rove considered the matter to be of a partisan political nature. This also would weaken any claim by Rove of executive privilege.
For good measure, Horton adds a post about his awards for best and worst performances in the Rove postmortem. His award for best blog post goes to conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan. Another sign that Rove was hardly beloved among his fellow Republicans.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rove Leaves Behind Another Mess
The announcement that Karl Rove will leave the Bush White House is dominating the news today--and probably for many days to come.
Ironically, Atlantic Monthly has just released a major article by Joshua Green on the failed "Rove Presidency." The article is in the September issue and is available online only to subscribers. It was available briefly this morning at freedomworks.org, but has since been taken down due to copyright issues. I managed to check out the article, and it seems Green knew Rove was in deep trouble. The opening sentence: "With more than a year left in the fading Bush presidency, Karl Rove's worst days in the White House may still lie ahead of him."
News surely will come out soon about the reasons behind Rove's exit. But for now, here are some key points in Green's article:
* "Rove's greatest shortcoming was not in conceptualizing policies but in failing to understand the process of getting them implemented, a weakness he never seems to have recognized in himself."
* "A corollary to the Cult of Consultant is the belief that winning an election--especially a tough one you weren't expected to win--is proof of the ability to govern. But the two are wholly distinct enterprises."
* "For all the fascination with what Rove was doing and thinking, little attention was given to whether or not it was working and why."
The key message of Green's superb article is this: Rove knew little, and perhaps cared even less, about governance. He was about getting elected and maintaining power--at all costs.
People like that tend to leave huge messes in their wake. America only now is beginning to come to grips with the mess Rove has made in our country. But those of us who have had up-close dealings with Alabama's state courts already know the kind of mess Rove can leave.
Rove was pretty much an unknown outside of Texas until he began a series of campaigns that led to Alabama's appellate courts being dominated by Republicans. One wonders if he ever would have made it to the White House without success in those Alabama court races. In a most unfortunate sense, America owes much of its current mess to Alabama voters and their willingness to buy into Rove's message about the need for "conservative" courts.
In an earlier piece for Atlantic, Joshua Green outlined Rove's tactics for gaining power, focusing heavily on Alabama. This article remains one of the definitive work on Rove, along with the books by Dallas-based journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater.
We will continue to learn, in the days ahead, about the mess Rove has left behind at the national level. But what about the mess he made in Alabama? That is the subject of our Legal Schnauzer blog. Corruption, cronyism, inefficiency, hypocrisy. It's all there and more, and we will paint the picture in detail. That's the Karl Rove legacy in Alabama.
For more on Rove and his resignation, you will want to check out the following journalists with strong Alabama ties:
* Scott Horton of Harper's has an interesting take on Rove and the new Atlantic Monthly article.
* Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, says an investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice might be ominous for Rove.
Ironically, Atlantic Monthly has just released a major article by Joshua Green on the failed "Rove Presidency." The article is in the September issue and is available online only to subscribers. It was available briefly this morning at freedomworks.org, but has since been taken down due to copyright issues. I managed to check out the article, and it seems Green knew Rove was in deep trouble. The opening sentence: "With more than a year left in the fading Bush presidency, Karl Rove's worst days in the White House may still lie ahead of him."
News surely will come out soon about the reasons behind Rove's exit. But for now, here are some key points in Green's article:
* "Rove's greatest shortcoming was not in conceptualizing policies but in failing to understand the process of getting them implemented, a weakness he never seems to have recognized in himself."
* "A corollary to the Cult of Consultant is the belief that winning an election--especially a tough one you weren't expected to win--is proof of the ability to govern. But the two are wholly distinct enterprises."
* "For all the fascination with what Rove was doing and thinking, little attention was given to whether or not it was working and why."
The key message of Green's superb article is this: Rove knew little, and perhaps cared even less, about governance. He was about getting elected and maintaining power--at all costs.
People like that tend to leave huge messes in their wake. America only now is beginning to come to grips with the mess Rove has made in our country. But those of us who have had up-close dealings with Alabama's state courts already know the kind of mess Rove can leave.
Rove was pretty much an unknown outside of Texas until he began a series of campaigns that led to Alabama's appellate courts being dominated by Republicans. One wonders if he ever would have made it to the White House without success in those Alabama court races. In a most unfortunate sense, America owes much of its current mess to Alabama voters and their willingness to buy into Rove's message about the need for "conservative" courts.
In an earlier piece for Atlantic, Joshua Green outlined Rove's tactics for gaining power, focusing heavily on Alabama. This article remains one of the definitive work on Rove, along with the books by Dallas-based journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater.
We will continue to learn, in the days ahead, about the mess Rove has left behind at the national level. But what about the mess he made in Alabama? That is the subject of our Legal Schnauzer blog. Corruption, cronyism, inefficiency, hypocrisy. It's all there and more, and we will paint the picture in detail. That's the Karl Rove legacy in Alabama.
For more on Rove and his resignation, you will want to check out the following journalists with strong Alabama ties:
* Scott Horton of Harper's has an interesting take on Rove and the new Atlantic Monthly article.
* Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, says an investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice might be ominous for Rove.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Siegelman's Letter to Riley
This might be old news to some readers, but I came across it the other day, and it was news to me.
In June 2006, the Associated Press reported that former Governor Don Siegelman sent a letter to Governor Bob Riley advising that contributions to Riley's failed 2003 campaign for a $1.2 billion tax increase would have to be considered a "thing of value," under a federal prosecutor's view of a bribery charge in Siegelman's trial.
Siegelman goes on to state that Riley's Amendment One tax proposal was structured identically to Siegelman's lottery referendum, which led to Siegelman's prosecution on corruption charges. "While you also raised funds for an issue that was important to you, I stand firm in my belief that you committed no crime."
The letter went on to state that Riley had received campaign contributions from developers who received state incentives for a Huntsville project.
The Birmingham News is my main source of state news, and I don't recall seeing this story. And evidently it had little in the way of "legs" because I see no signs that the press looked into the issues Siegelman raised.
Interesting that a Riley spokesman responded by using putdowns and name-calling, as opposed to making a substantive response. That's usually a sign that someone has no substantive response.
Anyone out there seen the full text of Siegelman's letter? Anyone know what became of this project in Huntsville?
In June 2006, the Associated Press reported that former Governor Don Siegelman sent a letter to Governor Bob Riley advising that contributions to Riley's failed 2003 campaign for a $1.2 billion tax increase would have to be considered a "thing of value," under a federal prosecutor's view of a bribery charge in Siegelman's trial.
Siegelman goes on to state that Riley's Amendment One tax proposal was structured identically to Siegelman's lottery referendum, which led to Siegelman's prosecution on corruption charges. "While you also raised funds for an issue that was important to you, I stand firm in my belief that you committed no crime."
The letter went on to state that Riley had received campaign contributions from developers who received state incentives for a Huntsville project.
The Birmingham News is my main source of state news, and I don't recall seeing this story. And evidently it had little in the way of "legs" because I see no signs that the press looked into the issues Siegelman raised.
Interesting that a Riley spokesman responded by using putdowns and name-calling, as opposed to making a substantive response. That's usually a sign that someone has no substantive response.
Anyone out there seen the full text of Siegelman's letter? Anyone know what became of this project in Huntsville?
More Intrigue in the Siegelman Case
I don't know John Caylor of Insider Magazine, but he comes up with some of the darnedest stories I've seen on corruption in Alabama and north Florida.
His latest, in the form of a letter to Don Siegelman's daughter, Dana, is a must read if you have been following the Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal.
The entire letter is intriguing. But it becomes particularly alarming near the end when Caylor states that he has information indicating that Dana Jill Simpson, who wrote the famed affidavit claiming the Siegelman prosecution was a political hit, might be in danger.
Caylor earlier wrote about U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and his ties to drug running in south Alabama. Fuller, of course, was the judge in the Siegelman case.
Many of you might have the same initial reaction that I do upon reading some of Caylor's work--it seems to far out there to possibly be creditable.
But thinking about what I've personally witnessed from Republican higher-ups in the Alabama judicial system, I am slow to write off Caylor's work. I'm not sure there is a level so low that some GOPers won't stoop to it, particularly when they fear their grip on power might be endangered.
With that in mind, I will continue to follow Caylor's Web site closely.
His latest, in the form of a letter to Don Siegelman's daughter, Dana, is a must read if you have been following the Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal.
The entire letter is intriguing. But it becomes particularly alarming near the end when Caylor states that he has information indicating that Dana Jill Simpson, who wrote the famed affidavit claiming the Siegelman prosecution was a political hit, might be in danger.
Caylor earlier wrote about U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and his ties to drug running in south Alabama. Fuller, of course, was the judge in the Siegelman case.
Many of you might have the same initial reaction that I do upon reading some of Caylor's work--it seems to far out there to possibly be creditable.
But thinking about what I've personally witnessed from Republican higher-ups in the Alabama judicial system, I am slow to write off Caylor's work. I'm not sure there is a level so low that some GOPers won't stoop to it, particularly when they fear their grip on power might be endangered.
With that in mind, I will continue to follow Caylor's Web site closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)