Political Trials in Alabama

T

Timshel

New member
Here is another matter congress could better use its time on than steroids in baseball.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts237.html

Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration.

The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration’s use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."
 
The hell he was framed. He wasn't even governor when he was convicted-- he was out of office in 2002, then went to jail in 2006. Nice try, though.
 
uscitizen said:
Rove was involved....
Click to expand...

Said a lawyer five years later, and all that was proved was that Rove was involved in the Republican candidate's election-- a Republican who won, and thus had nothing to gain by sending Siegelman to jail four years later (Siegelman was already politically dead at that point, as he couldn't even get his own party's nomination-- that was before the case, mind you).
 
uscitizen said:
Logical conclusion. Rove was involved. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, but after a Congressional investigation nothing foul was found. It seems that there was some obvious political concern of a Democrat being in office in a typically Republican state, but Siegelman lost the election in 2002 (as I said) and didn't go to prison until 2006...when he was no longer in any way a political threat.
 
RStringfield said:
??? This information is clearly presented in the article. So wtf ru bitching about?
Click to expand...

What I'm bitching about is that you are misrepresenting what happened, trying to make it look like Siegelman was persecuted so that the Republicans could win the state, when they already had the state.
 
gonzojournals said:
Yes, but after a Congressional investigation nothing foul was found. It seems that there was some obvious political concern of a Democrat being in office in a typically Republican state, but Siegelman lost the election in 2002 (as I said) and didn't go to prison until 2006...when he was no longer in any way a political threat.
Click to expand...

But the current administration is a vengeful one. Current threat would have nothing to do with it.
 
uscitizen said:
But the current administration is a vengeful one. Current threat would have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

The current administration had barely been in office, and was nowhere near what it has become. 2002 would have been just after 9/11, when the government actually had better things to do than frame some random loser.
 
gonzojournals said:
What I'm bitching about is that you are misrepresenting what happened, trying to make it look like Siegelman was persecuted so that the Republicans could win the state, when they already had the state.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I did not write the article, so I could not be claimed to be misrepresetning anything. And you have nothing to show the author misrepresented anything.

Again, the fact that he was not governor is in the article. Further, if you bothered to read, the article states the investigations began (and claims there were orchestrated leaks) prior to his reelection campaign. The article goes on to claim there were some shenanigans in the election and that Siegelman actually won. More attempts were made against him as he began his campaign to regain the position and torpedoed his primary bid.

Is it too much to ask that you actually read something before spouting off nonsense?
 
RStringfield said:
Let's see, I did not write the article, so I could not be claimed to be misrepresetning anything. And you have nothing to show the author misrepresented anything.

Again, the fact that he was not governor is in the article. Further, if you bothered to read, the article states the investigations began (and claims there were orchestrated leaks) prior to his reelection campaign. The article goes on to claim there were some shenanigans in the election and that Siegelman actually won. More attempts were made against him as he began his campaign to regain the position and torpedoed his primary bid.

Is it too much to ask that you actually read something before spouting off nonsense?
Click to expand...

I only had to read the original post to know that it was full of shit. That some obscure Southern politician needed to be framed for anything is absurd, especially since there was no election going on at the time that involved him, and the Republicans were all securely in power with a high approval rating (this is pre-Iraq, after all).
 
His sentence was unusually severe, but honestly, the only reason this big innocence campaign is going is because he was a politician, and some people will take whatever side he's on no matter what.
 
Watermark said:
His sentence was unusually severe, but honestly, the only reason this big innocence campaign is going is because he was a politician, and some people will take whatever side he's on no matter what.
Click to expand...

I will agree that he did get a pretty harsh sentence, but nothing outside of the actual law. If anything, we should be happy that a prominent member of society got the same sentence that the rest of us would normally get, rather than attacking the court system for being fair for once.
 
Watermark said:
His sentence was unusually severe, but honestly, the only reason this big innocence campaign is going is because he was a politician, and some people will take whatever side he's on no matter what.
Click to expand...

I don't know all the facts but it seems what little evidence is against him is questionable. Do you have something to add on the facts?
 
You are right-- it is just another conspiracy by what is apparently the most incompetent and clever administration in history. They have fooled us all by blundering pretty much everything they have ever attempted, so that they could get away with master plans such as framing a Southern politician four years after he was a political threat (if he ever was in the first place).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top