Mobile Register: "CBS (60 Minutes) guilty of bad journalism."

Op ed in Thursday's paper.

"THE PRODUCERS of the CBS television show "60 Minutes" should plead guilty to bad journalism for their clumsy attempt to portray former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman as the victim of a Karl Rove-led conspiracy.

It was perversely fitting that "60 Minutes" fired a wild shot at Mr. Rove just a few days after The New York Times tried to out-tabloid the tabloids with a story suggesting a romantic link between Republican presidential candidate John McCain and an attractive blonde lobbyist.

Following the lead of the Gray Lady, "60 Minutes" used sex to promote a weak story that rounded up a high-profile Republican suspect and then failed to present convincing evidence of corruption. The CBS program's descent into tabloid journalism consisted of uncorroborated and mostly repackaged charges about the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Siegelman on bribery charges."
http://www.al.com/opinion/press-register/index.ssf?/base/opinion/120419379414880.xml&coll=3

The Register is very right-wing, as I guess you can see.
Yesterday I posted a link to the transcript of Jill Simpson's sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee staff attorneys.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2946467&mesg_id=2946467

The Register editorial covers no new ground, offers no evidence to support their claim, just regurgitates 'he got a fair trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers, blah, blah, blah'. Just trots out some loaded words and phrases like 'clumsy attempt' and 'tabloid journalism'.

I've read the entire transcript and here's why I believe Jill Simpson:
In the transcript I discovered that Ms. Simpson didn't have some epiphany, 'Come to Jesus', 'Do the right thing' moment. She was covering her own butt. After consulting with some attorney friends about what she had witnessed and been told about the Siegelman prosecution she feared she might be in violation of state bar rules and ethics if she did not come forward with that information.

In the transcript she repeatedly says "I did not want to make an affidavit." After consulting with an official of the state bar association (ethics division, I think), she realized that to avoid future prosecution and possible disbarment she had to come clean with a sworn affidavit on the record. And she came 'part way' clean.

But she made no mention of the judge, Mark Fuller, in her original affidavit. And she stated in her sworn congressional testimony that she had decided (and told others) that she would ONLY tell what she knew, or suspected, about his conduct of the Siegelman trial "IF SHE WERE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY ABOUT IT".

And so she was subpoenaed, and she did spill the rest of the story.

The top Alabama repugs she names have denied all. Again and again. Not under oath, by the way. And they have said they will make their own sworn affidavits. But they haven't.

Rob Riley (the governor's son) at first seemed to hardly remember her. Said he hadn't had any contact with her in 12 or 13 years. Unfortunately, attached to her testimony are several exhibits (letters, emails, faxes) from Rob Riley to her as late as 2006. Mainly about cases they were working on together or payments to her for referrals of clients she made to him.

Of course US AG Mukasey has stonewalled congressional requests for DOJ documents on the Siegelman prosecution.
I guess we'll have to wait for a new administration to see justice done.
:-(

IMO it requires a grass-roots movement to keep pressuring congress primarily Congressman Artur Davis, Seventh District of Alabama because he is the only Alabamian with a bully pulpit who can keep demanding a thorough investigation of the political vendetta against Siegelman.

:hi: trof and have a great day.

jody