Siegelman on Rove

Strong words -- necessary words -- from Don Siegelman, who discusses (among other topics) Karl Rove's involvement with Siegelman's prosecution:

The Star: Why do you believe Rove hasn't agreed to testify under oath?

Siegelman: He doesn't want to run the risk of lying under oath and being prosecuted for perjury. ... When Conyers invited him to testify under oath, he's dodged that, he's skated, and I think it's clear he's got something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason why he wouldn't testify under oath.


Siegelman: It's much bigger than me because it's not just my case. This was not an isolated incident. This was a pernicious, political plan that was set in motion by Karl Rove to further his espoused dream of establishing a permanent Republican majority in this country, and what he left out was by any means necessary.

It is clear to me — and I think to those who have been investigating, and that's why they're so hot about this case — it is clear that Karl Rove abused his power and misused the Department of Justice as a political tool to win elections, and that is something that would happen in a police state. That is something that we might have read about in history books as happening in Russia, but it is not something that should be allowed to happen in the United States of America. And Congress, and I believe John Conyers, clearly sees this as a wrongful action against democracy in this country, and he wants to make a statement that is clear and unequivocal that this kind of abuse of power is not going to be tolerated under any administration whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration.

We have got to regain control over our system of justice, and it's got to be put back in order, and not allowed ever to be used in this manner again.

That's why I've been working not just on my legal appeal, but on an appeal to the United States Congress to keep digging in and fighting for the truth.

< FDL Book Salon: Snitch with Author Ethan Brown | Soldier Uses Koran For Target Practice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    absolutely (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    We have got to regain control over our system of justice, and it's got to be put back in order, and not allowed ever to be used in this manner again.

    I am thrilled that Siegelman is saying this, but disheartened that it came at such a horrible personal cost to him.  What our government is doing now is absolutely disgusting.  Thank you for posting this; I'm not sure I would have seen the quotes otherwise.

    And where was the democratic party? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by pie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    When they should have had his back, they let him hang?

    Why?  So the story can get out now?  A martyr for the cause?

    The Bushies aren't paying any price.  Thay must not be allowed to stand.


    Not sure what they could have done. (none / 0) (#5)
    by HelenK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    The US justice dept decided to bring the case against him. I am not sure how the local party could have stopped them.

    The local party? (none / 0) (#7)
    by pie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    This was anything but local when the Bush administration is involved.

    I too (none / 0) (#20)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:51:51 AM EST
    wonder where the Democratic Party was when the Republicans were turning this country into a police state. Where were those big mouths that always seek the limelight when the Justice Department was turned into an instrument of the RNC? If nothing else they could have yelled bloody murder and kept yelling. The few that did I respect. The rest? Traitors to all they claim to stand for.

    They were a minority, they whine. Well they're a majority now and they don't seem to be any more capable of doing anything than they were before.

    Oh wait, they are investigating and holding hearings.

    When it suits individual Democrats for their own personal needs they seem to be able to find a convenient microphone. If nothing else the Democrats should have been informing the public what was going on at every available opportunity.

    We no longer have a media that serves the people and if appears to me that we no longer have a government that does that either. All too busy making money.


    What privilege (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by pie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    underwrites an appearance in court for an underling?

    These guys are getting away with murder.  

    One Day We Hope To See Rove Being (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    frog marched to jail...people will cheer, especially Siegelman and Plame!

    Never underestimate Rove (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by honora on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    Sometimes, I will listen to Rove's views on politics and forget who he really is.  Can you imagine taking politics to such an extreme that you would actually put a man in prison because it helped the RNC?  The man and the party are truly vile and I will never trust either.  However, I used to trust the DNC and this election has taught me that I can not do that either.  The DNC is showing their true colors and I no longer feel like they are the 'ideal' that I built up.  Hard for this life-long Democrat to come to grips with that reality.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    and I fear that Obama's campaign is pretty much Rove anew. If he somehow makes it to the WH, then we'll be dealing with a worse party implosion than we are now. Obama's campaign seems to have modeled itself on the worst part of the Rove/Delay machine.

    The country is in bad shape and this is the choice for Dems? Ugh, double ugh. This is probably why people see the independent maverick John McCain as change for the country. He appears to be less like Bush than Obama does.


    asdf (none / 0) (#18)
    by 2liberal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    and I fear that Obama's campaign is pretty much Rove anew. If he somehow makes it to the WH, then we'll be dealing with a worse party implosion than we are now. Obama's campaign seems to have modeled itself on the worst part of the Rove/Delay machine.

    OMFG. you need to lighten up a little.  obama was against the war, voted against alito, does not accept contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs. worse than delay and rove?


    I used to think we had the high road (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    Now, I see that all these years, they've just been swimming along beside the RNC in the gutter.

    Can pardons be given without a trial being held?  There isn't enough time to catch Rove on anything.


    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by pie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    President Bush December 24 granted pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair.

    Bush said Weinberger -- who had been scheduled to go on trial in Washington January 5 on charges related to Iran-Contra -- was a "true American patriot," who had served with "distinction" in a series of public positions since the late 1960s.

    "I am pardoning him not just out of compassion or to spare a 75-year-old patriot the torment of lengthy and costly legal proceedings, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves for his extraordinary service to our country," Bush said in a proclamation granting executive clemency.


    That pardon saved Bush 1 from going to jail! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by alexei on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:17:32 PM EST
    Weinberger would have spilled all the beans if he hadn't been pardoned.  Did anyone hear anyone in the media chastise or excoriate Bush 1 like Clinton was for penny ante Rich?  Of course not.  

    OTOH, (none / 0) (#11)
    by pie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    if Rove isn't charged with anything in relation to anything until Bush gets out of office...

    Well, I'll leave it to the lawyers.


    Siegelman is exactly right (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    when he calls what happened to him police-state tactics. It is exactly that. I am astounded that there was so little outcry about this case. What it says about what America has become under Bush is staggering.

    That Seigleman's case (none / 0) (#21)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:56:56 AM EST
    has come to public attention outside of his home state owes more to Dan Abrams' outrage than the Democratic Party. They let one of their own sit in prison and did little more than wring their hands.

    The Republicans are the culprits, with Rove as culprit in chief, but are not the Democrats guilty of something by being silent while it happened?


    Research (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Tess on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    I knew little about this case until I saw it reported by Dan Abrams on MSNBC prior to Siegelman's release.

    I was able to do research and catch up quickly at his website where there are full video's of the 60 Minutes program and also the Abram's series.

    This is such an important case I urge those interested to check it out:


    Reading the homepage of a convicted (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    felon doesn't equate to "research."

    Read the following and understand something. By leaving out her claims Ms Simpson says, believe me but I won't swear to it. That's a very bad position.

    Put aside the fact that before she was interviewed by House Democratic staffers, Simpson submitted an affidavit on the alleged conspiracy. In her affidavit, she did not claim that she had ever met Rove, let alone been his secret agent in Alabama. What MSNBC found plausible was Simpson's suggestion that House Democratic staffers got their hands on the story that Karl Rove had tried to get compromising photographs of the governor of Alabama and they hushed it up! The credulity of modern journalists apparently knows no bounds.

    Rove? Under oath? (none / 0) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST

    (BTW...sent you an email)


    I find it interesting how (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Leisa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    time and information can change perspective...

    It will be interesting to observe and witness how this is resolved...

    I am certain that Hillary would not protect him through the executive branch...

    And you have (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:59:13 AM EST
    some inside information on just how Senator Clinton feels about the Seigleman case? Otherwise it would make you look incredibly foolish to make such a statement.

    You are right (none / 0) (#27)
    by Leisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    I was talking about Rove and if he just his just reward...

    *gets* his (none / 0) (#29)
    by Leisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST
    Looks pretty plain to me (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    The former governor is serving time for appointing former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to a medical licensing board after accepting a $500,000 contribution Scrushy made to a political fund the governor was using in his public campaign to legalize gambling in the state.

    Now. Why would you want this guy cut loose??

    You have this very wrong (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:17:07 PM EST
    As others here will tell you, do some research before making statements like that.

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    That is what he was convicted of.

    Do you deny that?


    The Weekly Standard (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    has very strong words for the "case" against Rove.

    Does Rove not deserve the benifit of the doubt and a look into the acuser or does that only apply to democrats?

    How dare you ask?? (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM EST

    testify under oath? (none / 0) (#12)
    by diogenes on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    Maybe Karl Rove learned from what happened to Bill Clinton when he testified under oath.