The current trade deals are not free trade.

A Republican former AG says Gov. Don Siegelman’s case raised red flags
Monday, February 25, 2008KIM CHANDLERNews staff writer
Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods told “60 Minutes” in an interview aired Sunday night that “red flags” surrounding the case against former Gov. Don Siegelman make him think the case is politically motivated.

Woods, a Republican, said Siegelman’s having been prosecuted over campaign contributions made him question the prosecution.

The segment also included accusations that prosecutors did not give defense attorneys notes from their star witness.

The lead prosecutor in the Siegelman case called the piece an “assassination.”

A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy of conspiracy and federal funds bribery. Prosecutors alleged Scrushy bought a seat on a state board with a $500,000 donation to Siegelman’s lottery campaign.

The jury also convicted Siegelman of a separate obstruction of justice charge, finding that he tried to hide $9,200 he received from a lobbyist.

“I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of,” Woods told “60 Minutes.”

Woods is one of 52 former state attorneys general who signed a letter saying they were concerned about the Siegelman prosecution, and the case has been one mentioned in accusations that politics tainted Department of Justice prosecutions.

Louis Franklin, the acting U.S. attorney in the case, said Sunday night that evidence, not politics, drove the Siegelman case.

“It’s obvious he does not know the evidence - and how strong the evidence was - that put Don Siegelman in jail,” Franklin said.

Campaign contributors give to candidates expecting their interests will be served. But when there is a deal worked out to sell an official action for a donation, it’s a crime, Franklin said

The “60 Minutes” piece also alleged that prosecutors, concerned their star witness, former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey, had trouble remembering, had Bailey write out his testimony over and over and that those notes were not turned over to defense attorneys. Bailey, who is in prison on a convictions of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and making false statements, did not appear on camera but told that to reporters from the news program.

“That is a problem,” former U.S. attorney and Siegelman defense attorney Doug Jones said in an interview Sunday night. Such material should have been made available to the defense, said Jones, who said he had not heard that accusation before Sunday night.

Franklin said Bailey was not asked to write out his testimony over and over.

North Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson in the piece also said she viewed the prosecution as part of a five-year campaign to stop Siegelman’s political career.

Simpson raised claims she has not made in previous interviews, in an affidavit or in sworn testimony before Congress.

Simpson said White House strategist Karl Rove in 2001 asked her to get photos proving Siegelman was cheating on his wife with an aide.

Simpson said it wasn’t the first time that Rove, who had run campaigns in Alabama before going to the White House, had asked her to do opposition research.

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard issued a statement accusing Simpson of fabricating her story and saying no one in Republic Party leadership positions know of her or work she’s done for Republicans.

Simpson’s lawyer, Priscilla Duncan, told the Associated Press that Simpson could provide details of fundraisers and other activities she helped arrange.

You can bet the crackpots will be doing their utmost to refute the truth.

YOUR leftist crackpots have REFUSED to give top qualified judicial nominees an up or down vote on at least EIGHT occasions since Bush took the White House.

Don’t hand me this codswallop about “Deomcrats block ideologically offensive judicial appointees — and in exactly the same way that
Republican’ts have done throughout my lifetime — because that’s a tool of opposition politics” because it’s nothing but crap and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is proof of that. A Clinton nominee, she got the up or down vote DESPITE her love affair with the ACLU because the repuliCANS agreed her QUALIFICATIONS were beyond question, even if her IDEAOLOGY left much to be desired.

The Senate has a Constitutional mandate to appoint QUALIFIED JUDGES to the bench, NOT IDEALOGUES.

You’re so far left and so filled with BDS you can’t even admit the truth.

GO hug a tree and make yourself feel better. Your fact checking leaves much to be desired and your knowledge of constitutional requirements is non-existent.

Read the facts here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/019926.php

http://www.flashpointblog.com/2008/03/02/a-quick-primer-on-the-don-siegelman-fantasy/

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/60-minutes-too-major-scandal-brewing.html

You know NOTHING about our health care system. Stick your head back in the sand.

Bill,

I agree with your posts. But, let’s not forget that the biggest supporters and enablers of lobbyists are our elected officials. It just amazes me when people cry out for more regulation as if we have independent, non biased, objective elected officials who abide by their constitutional responsibilities to represent the people who put them there. Lobbyists rule our government and until we get serious about breaking those ties (i.e., term limits, public hearings versus closed door meetings, etc.), I don’t trust the government to do what’s best for the American people. AND, corporations are but one of the entities lobbying our government, NGOs, unions, academia, advocacy groups and the like have as much, if not more influence, to eat away our tax dollars, erode our freedoms and rights and threaten our national security.