| The New York Times 5/1/07 “It appears they were looking for ways to get him.” |
The government charged the pair with a crime that hasn't been a crime in Alabama, or anywhere.
Countless contributors to political campaigns end up holding some kind of public office just as Mr.
Scrushy did. Why did that activity suddenly become a crime in Alabama? The judge and prosecutors
saw beyond the law and convinced jurors the two committed a crime. The case smells of politics just
as the alleged political firing of the U.S. attorneys is troubling, so is this case because the suspicions
go to the heart of our system of self-governance. Congress should look beyond those firings and
into this case.
[The Decatur Daily, Editorial, 4/26/07] < link to full article>
Countless contributors to political campaigns end up holding some kind of public office just as Mr.
Scrushy did. Why did that activity suddenly become a crime in Alabama? The judge and prosecutors
saw beyond the law and convinced jurors the two committed a crime. The case smells of politics just
as the alleged political firing of the U.S. attorneys is troubling, so is this case because the suspicions
go to the heart of our system of self-governance. Congress should look beyond those firings and
into this case.
[The Decatur Daily, Editorial, 4/26/07] < link to full article>
 |  |  |  |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
.........................................................................
| __________________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored by Friends of Don Siegelman 2007 <feedback> __________________________________________________________________________________________ |
 |  |  |  |
| Recent Press > |
..................................................................................................................................................
$100,000 contributors to President Bush's campaign are frequently
rewarded with ambassadorships. Is there one rule for people
connected to the "party in power," and another for those not?
..................................................................................................................................................
U.S. Attorneys Scandal - Birmingham and
Montgomery
Excerpted from article by Scott Horton Harper's June 17 2007
Moreover, let’s compare the allegations against Siegelman with
Abramoff’s funneling of millions in campaign contributions from Native
American tribes in Mississippi into the political coffers of Siegelman’s
opponent—Alabama Governor Bob Riley—going on at just this time. In
exchange, Riley was expected to intervene to shut down the gambling
aspirations of some of his own Alabama constituents. And Riley did
just as he was bade to do. Now that’s corruption. And what did the
U.S. Attorney in Montgomery, who brought the case against
Siegelman, do about that? Well, she seems to have actually been a
potential actor in connection with the corruption, having secured
appointment to a licensing board which would control the question.
And her tight links to Siegelman’s political nemesis, Riley, are
uncontested. She is in fact the wife of one of Karl Rove’s bosom
buddies, a leading mover in the Alabama GOP, William Canary.
<link to Harper's>
..................................................................................................................................................
Alabama Voices
excerpted from article by Julian McPhillips Montgomery Advertiser
June 20 2007.
Why was it wrong to indict Richard Scrushy for bribery in the first
place? The supposed crime was that Scrushy, through HealthSouth,
made a major contribution to a lottery fund (not Gov. Siegelman's
campaign fund), in return for which Siegelman appointed Mr. Scrushy
to the Certificate of Need Board, which governs hospital expansions.
The indictment overlooked that Richard Scrushy previously served on
the CON board under three previous governors -- Guy Hunt, Jim
Folsom, Jr. and Fob James. The charges also ignored that Mr.
Scrushy didn't even want to be on this board. Instead, he saw it as
public service. More importantly, HealthSouth didn't need Mr. Scrushy
on the board, and the board passed nothing beneficial to HealthSouth
or Scrushy during Scrushy's term in question.
Further, the CON board did not, and does not, regulate HealthSouth,
nor does it regulate any other health care company in Alabama.
Significantly, neither of the two financial contributions at issue came
from Mr. Scrushy himself. The first came from a Maryland company,
Integrated Health Services, and went to the Alabama Education
Lottery Initiative -- not to Gov. Siegelman. The second came from
HealthSouth Corp. -- not Mr. Scrushy -- and went to the Alabama
Education Foundation (which acquired the debt of the failed lottery
initiative) and not to Gov. Siegelman.
Admittedly, Mr. Scrushy inspired these contributions, and they may
have gained him greater access to Siegelman generally. So what?
That is exactly what thousands of contributors to Gov. Riley's
campaign expect. It also is what state legislators expect their
contributors will receive, namely access. There is no law against this.
It is part of the democratic process.
No matter how philosophically opposed one may have been to
Siegelman's lottery (and Scrushy himself was opposed on anti-
gambling grounds), the lottery's ultimate goal was to bring badly
needed finances to public education, a highly worthwhile purpose.
Scrushy must be the first person in Alabama ever charged with, or
convicted of, contributing to a charitable foundation, and yet he was
not even the one who made the contribution.
Hypocrisy is a part of politics, but gross hypocrisy exists in the case of
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Does anyone really believe Mr.
Gonzales knew nothing about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys whose
primary sins were their hesitation to prosecute Democratic politicians?
No wonder bipartisan calls for Gonzales' resignation cite both
dishonesty and incompetence. This attorney general was appointed
by a Republican president supported by many wealthy campaign
contributors.
<link to Montgomery Advertiser>
$100,000 contributors to President Bush's campaign are frequently
rewarded with ambassadorships. Is there one rule for people
connected to the "party in power," and another for those not?
..................................................................................................................................................
U.S. Attorneys Scandal - Birmingham and
Montgomery
Excerpted from article by Scott Horton Harper's June 17 2007
Moreover, let’s compare the allegations against Siegelman with
Abramoff’s funneling of millions in campaign contributions from Native
American tribes in Mississippi into the political coffers of Siegelman’s
opponent—Alabama Governor Bob Riley—going on at just this time. In
exchange, Riley was expected to intervene to shut down the gambling
aspirations of some of his own Alabama constituents. And Riley did
just as he was bade to do. Now that’s corruption. And what did the
U.S. Attorney in Montgomery, who brought the case against
Siegelman, do about that? Well, she seems to have actually been a
potential actor in connection with the corruption, having secured
appointment to a licensing board which would control the question.
And her tight links to Siegelman’s political nemesis, Riley, are
uncontested. She is in fact the wife of one of Karl Rove’s bosom
buddies, a leading mover in the Alabama GOP, William Canary.
<link to Harper's>
..................................................................................................................................................
Alabama Voices
excerpted from article by Julian McPhillips Montgomery Advertiser
June 20 2007.
Why was it wrong to indict Richard Scrushy for bribery in the first
place? The supposed crime was that Scrushy, through HealthSouth,
made a major contribution to a lottery fund (not Gov. Siegelman's
campaign fund), in return for which Siegelman appointed Mr. Scrushy
to the Certificate of Need Board, which governs hospital expansions.
The indictment overlooked that Richard Scrushy previously served on
the CON board under three previous governors -- Guy Hunt, Jim
Folsom, Jr. and Fob James. The charges also ignored that Mr.
Scrushy didn't even want to be on this board. Instead, he saw it as
public service. More importantly, HealthSouth didn't need Mr. Scrushy
on the board, and the board passed nothing beneficial to HealthSouth
or Scrushy during Scrushy's term in question.
Further, the CON board did not, and does not, regulate HealthSouth,
nor does it regulate any other health care company in Alabama.
Significantly, neither of the two financial contributions at issue came
from Mr. Scrushy himself. The first came from a Maryland company,
Integrated Health Services, and went to the Alabama Education
Lottery Initiative -- not to Gov. Siegelman. The second came from
HealthSouth Corp. -- not Mr. Scrushy -- and went to the Alabama
Education Foundation (which acquired the debt of the failed lottery
initiative) and not to Gov. Siegelman.
Admittedly, Mr. Scrushy inspired these contributions, and they may
have gained him greater access to Siegelman generally. So what?
That is exactly what thousands of contributors to Gov. Riley's
campaign expect. It also is what state legislators expect their
contributors will receive, namely access. There is no law against this.
It is part of the democratic process.
No matter how philosophically opposed one may have been to
Siegelman's lottery (and Scrushy himself was opposed on anti-
gambling grounds), the lottery's ultimate goal was to bring badly
needed finances to public education, a highly worthwhile purpose.
Scrushy must be the first person in Alabama ever charged with, or
convicted of, contributing to a charitable foundation, and yet he was
not even the one who made the contribution.
Hypocrisy is a part of politics, but gross hypocrisy exists in the case of
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Does anyone really believe Mr.
Gonzales knew nothing about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys whose
primary sins were their hesitation to prosecute Democratic politicians?
No wonder bipartisan calls for Gonzales' resignation cite both
dishonesty and incompetence. This attorney general was appointed
by a Republican president supported by many wealthy campaign
contributors.
<link to Montgomery Advertiser>
Definition of Quid Pro Quo: If a man takes a woman out on a
date and showers her with gifts in hopes of a more intimate
relationship you may say that he is paying for sex in a socially
acceptable way. The woman remains a free agent able to respond in
any manner that she chooses. The man and woman are not
engaged in prostitution until there is a quid quo pro - an agreement
made to exchange specific things for specific services.
Likewise, many acceptable exchanges occur in politics. Such
conduct becomes bribery only when there is quid quo pro.
According to this definition, Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted
of "prostitution" when in fact they went out on a date. <wikipedia>
date and showers her with gifts in hopes of a more intimate
relationship you may say that he is paying for sex in a socially
acceptable way. The woman remains a free agent able to respond in
any manner that she chooses. The man and woman are not
engaged in prostitution until there is a quid quo pro - an agreement
made to exchange specific things for specific services.
Likewise, many acceptable exchanges occur in politics. Such
conduct becomes bribery only when there is quid quo pro.
According to this definition, Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted
of "prostitution" when in fact they went out on a date. <wikipedia>
Questions....
Quid Pro Quo?
Quid Pro Quo?
[Consider] Abramoff’s funneling of
millions in campaign contributions
from Native American tribes in
Mississippi into the political coffers
of Siegelman’s opponent—
Alabama Governor Bob Riley..... In
exchange, Riley was expected to
intervene to shut down the
gambling aspirations of some of his
own Alabama constituents. And
Riley did just as he was bade to do.
Now that’s corruption.
millions in campaign contributions
from Native American tribes in
Mississippi into the political coffers
of Siegelman’s opponent—
Alabama Governor Bob Riley..... In
exchange, Riley was expected to
intervene to shut down the
gambling aspirations of some of his
own Alabama constituents. And
Riley did just as he was bade to do.
Now that’s corruption.