digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Siegelman: ‘This Will Make Watergate Look Like Child’s Play’

thinkprogress.org — In a new interview with the Anniston Star (AL), former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman speaks out about Karl Rove’s involvement in his prosecution.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • joaob, on 05/20/2008, -5/+30This makes me giddy....embarrassingly so!
  • treehugger87, on 05/20/2008, -7/+127Too bad more Americans think Sadaam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks than know the name Don Siegelman. This is absolutely an impeachable offense but the MSM won't touch it. Digg it up!
    • JKap, on 05/20/2008, -2/+39Too bad more Americans vote for American Idol than in their states' primary elections and caucuses.
      • JensenSteve, on 05/20/2008, -9/+1If you could vote in the presidential elections by phone and text message, and opened the lines to anyone regardless of age or country, im sure there would be a higher turnout.
        • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6Yeah, we saw how those Ron Paul polls worked out....

          Wonder how many people would buy 2nd, 3rd, and 10th disposable phones just to call in for their "savior" on a different number each time.
        • OralCavity, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5there's enough concerns already about falsified electronic voting that removing control over the machines would never fly.
        • JensenSteve, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3Im not saying to do that. I'm just saying anyone who dugg him up is an idiot, because more people do not vote for American idol than the elections. If you had to register to vote for American idol, be 18+, and travel to a polling booth to vote there would be a lot less people voting every week.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 05/20/2008, -15/+7whats with this perception that the more diggs a story gets, the higher its chances are of being covered in the MSM? is the digg community really this self centered? you're just preaching to the choir. i've learned that if the digg community opposes something, i probably should support it.
      • zyl0x, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3I was about to post the exact same thing. Everyone on Digg already knows this kind of thing. The MSM will never, ever cover anything important, ever, no matter how many Diggs something gets.

        Think of how many people out there in the real world know what the hell Digg is or why anything with more "Diggs" would be important to them.
    • PhantomRogue, on 05/20/2008, -7/+9I can't wait for the time when my Generation (Internet Generation) will get in power. We aren't handicapped by the MSM and other controlling outlets. We see the world as it is, not through the rosy-tinted goggles the Government and the big corporations try to make us wear.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -5/+20thats so dumb and naive its funny -- but well intended though
        • kemp34, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2Please explain.
        • spawnfree, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6i think he means that for every generation of ordinary people there is a generation of wealthy individuals, groomed and conditioned through special privileged institutions to look down on us and not empathize as they re-enforce the system that keeps all our wealth under their control and out of ours.

          at least i think that's what he means, just a guess.
        • Gutterpunk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2@spawnfree : hahaha... That is probably what he means, but being of the "Internet Generation" he doesn't know how to express himself other than with clumsily capitalized words.
        • Blandyman, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Gutterpunk: spawnfree was saying that's what 5urr4al5am means. Nice to see you taking a pot shot at the wrong person, though.
      • peterjmag, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11Yeah, we see the world through the supremely intellectual, completely unbiased lens of Digg...
      • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Hey man, Woodstock is that way... Don't take the brown acid.

        We've heard that ***** before, and look where it got us.

        Once the hippies and flower children "got theirs", they turned into the greediest, most selfish ***** on the face of the earth.

        And it's the MEDIA with the "rose tinted glases". Yeah, right.

        Don't worry, maybe it'll make sense once you hit 30.
    • dafragsta, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6I think most Americans knew and know now that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't be so naive. We were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the invasion was based on a UN resolution. It doesn't make it right, because the intelligence is *****, but at least give credit to those of us who agreed with the war in the onset because it was backed by a UN resolution. We forget history so quickly don't we?

      I remember saying to a friend of mine on the day of the invasion "if they find chemical weapons plants and WMDs, then this is justified, otherwise, it's ***** and someone should answer for it."
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7In general, by the comments you read here on digg you'd think congress had no say in the matter? And you'd think that the user base was to dumb to realize more congressional democrats voted for the war than did not.
      • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -5/+9"but at least give credit to those of us who agreed with the war in the onset because it was backed by a UN resolution."

        Give you credit? Hah! You are an immense *****. The UN never authorized the war. Saddam let the inspectors back in and gave them unfettered access in the end, but Bush told them get out because it was "too late."

        No one at the UN thought it was too late. The inspectors themselves were saying at the time that they could find no evidence of WMD.

        You are an idiot. Please kill self immediately. TYIA.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3if by UN you mean Germany, France, and Russia.. and oh.. look which countries were in bed with Iraq

          on a personal note you seem like a nasty *****
        • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7No, by UN I mean the security council and every other UN agency with a say on this matter. If you honestly believe the UN authorized the war, surely you can point us to the resolution that did so. I won't hold my breath.
        • dafragsta, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3Taken from Wikipedia:
          "United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 which was on 3 April 1991 set the terms with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.[1]

          It required the destruction of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, as well as all ballistic missiles with range greater than 150km. These actions "represented steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons"(paragraph 14)

          The resolution also required Iraq to honour all its international debts and pay war reparations to Kuwait.

          The rest of the resolution reiterated the Iraq sanctions regime begun in UN Security Council Resolution 661, and laid the groundwork for the Oil-for-Food Programme by taking charge of the petroleum exports (paragraph 19).

          The resolution was passed by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen) after a very extended meeting.[2]"

          It DID say nothing about "regime change" which was just the Bush cowboy talk. Thank you and drive through, douchebag. Not everyone who agreed with the invasion was a war monger, and unless you were a DC Insider, the nightly news on virtually every network had you fooled about the seriousness of Iraq as a threat and about the legitimacy of the claims made by the intelligence.
        • dafragsta, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3Here is more from Wikipedia:

          "After considerable debate, the U.N. Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not believe these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government.[28] Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.[29]

          Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors hadn't uncovered those weapons yet. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they’d ever turn up. By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[10]

          In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain U.N. authorization for an invasion. Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to al-Qaeda, claims that have since been widely discredited. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.[30][31]"
        • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2@dafragsta (wtf does that mean? ebonics for "the fragster"?)

          Good thing Wikipedia can't be changed by anyone with a motive, huh?
        • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5You could have saved us a whole lot of bother by posting the only relevant portion of all that wikipedia spam:

          "Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution."

          In other words, the UN never passed a resolution authorizing the war.

          Thanks, dafragsta! I knew I could count on you to ***** the bed when pressed to defend your assertion that the UN authorized the war!
        • dafragsta, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2petrodollar: I'm sorry, do we know each other that you can speak as though we are familiar? I don't ***** think so. Anyone here who pretends the American people had all the facts before them or that their government didn't sell them on a war, is kidding themselves. I guess we should all be so lucky to have the foresight that you do. The NBA finals are coming up. You should head to Vegas, douchebag.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Petrodollar:
          Who threatened to veto the resolution? France and Russia.. and oh.. look which countries were in bed with Iraq with the Oil-For-Food scandal?? -- They had everything to lose by attacking Iraq. They were getting billions of dollars from Saddam to look the other way. You think the US and it's allies didn't have that information?
    • AtomicTheory, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1Dugg down for "Digg it up!"
    • Naieve, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1LOL Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11, though Anfal...
      He was merely part of the cultural problem that allows actions such as that.
      Al Qaeda is merely a symptom of a ravenous disease.
      Good luck with that world.
    • PrettyBoyFloyd, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well, the mainstream media have taken notice of this story. I first heard about it from a fascinating 20-minute long story on the venerable CBS news magazine you may have heard about called "Sixty Minutes."
  • peterjmag, on 05/20/2008, -12/+152Why yes, iTunes DOES make Watergate look like child's play.
    • sockpuppets, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Now I know why they call her deep throat.
  • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -3/+14So why was Siegelman convicted?
    • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -3/+27Because the star witness for the prosecution lied about seeing Siegelman with "a check in his hand" after his testimony was extensively coached by the prosecutors.
      • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -5/+10That's what I thought, but can anyone prove it?
        • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17Prove what? That the star witness lied? Yes, easily. They have the check, which is dated days after the witness claimed to have seen it. Prove that he was coached? Nobody denies that he was, to the point where the prosecutors had to make him write out his testimony ahead of time so he could remember to say the right thing.
        • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -7/+5So the judge and the jury were both complicit in the perjury? I guess it seems like it should be pretty easy to defend this one...
        • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15Uh, what? Complicit in the perjury? Are you trying to assert that believing a lie is a crime?
        • fancypantscz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6Siegelman was convicted and is serving his sentence because a court found him guilty. Yes, thats the way the justice system works but that is not what is at issue. If Rove was using the justice department to serve political ends, he should do time as well. This is a serious allegation and not the first of its kind. In my mind there is no reason this Rove case shouldn't receive the kind of 'thorough' investigation that the Siegelman received.
        • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3@swrostmore, no no no.. I simply mean if everyone knows its a lie than why doesn't his team of lawyers have the verdict thrown out? They can present the check and their information to a judge... I mean if he was JUST sentenced and they already have all this evidence of the perjury and his innocance we should be able to set him free fairly easily.
          I'm getting the feeling there's some things you're leaving out. I'll digg into it and see what I can find.
        • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6By "set him free" you mean they should let him out of jail on appeal while the courts review the evidence that I've mentioned? What do you know, they've already done that!
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -9/+4this is a funny argument .. you know.. not believing what is right out there in the open and coming up with their own bs logic that makes them feel that they have been wronged, their guy in innocent, and the other guy is guilty .. nice
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/20/2008, -9/+10Because he 's a democrat.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3I'm sure there's something to this story but...
      am I the only one who thinks that article sucked, was vague, and did nothing but point fingers?
      Like why dont legitimate articles about this stuff make it far on digg instead of these ridiculous propaganda outlets...
      • Mothrog, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Welcome to Think Progress.
      • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Like who, the media who isn't covering this? The ones that still want access to the White House and Rove for ratings?

        Who would you trust? The New York Times? The Moonie Post? FOX?

        Yeah. FOX would be unbiased. One of their own political commentators being accused of illegal, and downright traitorous acts?

        Yeah. They'll be a great source.

        NO news source which stands behind Rove and his "permanent Republican majority" will cover this. And considering the media in the US is owned by 5 companies with very similar views on these things, well, you won't hear about it.

        The media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them.
  • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+28"The other cases that are being mentioned or being talked about are primarily the eight U.S. attorneys who were targeted for removal either for failing to move quickly enough or for not following really the party line — the Karl Rove party line — of trying to do damage to Democrats who were involved in an elections contest.

    What Congress is seeing in this case is the other side of that coin, which is what happens when a U.S. attorney does follow the party line and a person is selectively prosecuted to impact the outcome of an election."
  • Sairynn, on 05/20/2008, -5/+12Does this mean the media will finally stop adding a "-gate" suffix to every scandal?
    • Neoanarchist, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6No. Sensationalism is the new journalism. Facts not included, thinking prohibited.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1You don't want prosecutionofspiegelmangate to be the name?
  • elliotys, on 05/20/2008, -6/+72Karl Rove should eat ***** and die.
    • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -10/+1Watch your mouth when you talk about Mr. Rove. He is a patriot who's done a lot for this nation.
      • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8You forgot your /sarc tag.
      • romistrub, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Jesus Christ, I hope you're kidding. I don't give a ***** about the "respect Rove" thing, but telling someone to show respect when talking *about* any person is ridiculous.

        ***** The Pope, ***** Gandhi, ***** Mother Theresa, ***** George Bush Jr. AND Sr, ***** Dick Cheney, and ***** Bob Barker (too far?).

        But most of all, ***** you.
    • actionscripted, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2That faggotdwarf should suck devilcock.
    • kmesp86, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Karl Rove has got BALLS OF STEEL
  • inajeep, on 05/20/2008, -1/+15Unfortunately the scandal doesn't involve sex, drugs or money so it has slipped from the media's wobbly spot light and most of America's frontal lobe.
    • ManOfVirtues, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1then whats all this talk about a check?
  • Belayman, on 05/20/2008, -18/+4I know you guys don't like Rove ... but Siegelman is just as untrustworthy. He was the governor of my state - I'm familiar with his methods/politics - he's at least as slimy as Rove. Take what he says with a grain of salt. (And in all honestly, Seigelman wishes he were important enough for Rove to launch a personal attack against him.)
  • BesideYouInTime, on 05/20/2008, -11/+8Wow, two million songs on iTunes...you're right, this is WAY bigger than Watergate.
  • mrogi, on 05/20/2008, -18/+3Don Siegelman is the most corrupt governor in the history of Alabama. Prosecutors presented evidence against Siegelman that was overwhelming. Siegelman was represented by the best legal team money can buy and a jury of his peers found him guilty as charged. Every major newspaper in Alabama chronicled Siegelman's extensive trail of corruption during his tenure as governor.
    http://www.thetruthaboutdon.com/
    • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -0/+9Even if Siegelman was a scumbag, and I'm not saying he isn't, does that somehow preclude this particular case against him from being *****?
  • eavesdrop, on 05/20/2008, -4/+19I want Karl Rove indicted. And please, I want everyone else to call their senators and representatives. Do not write emails, do not write letters, CALL THEM. If you don't like talking on the phone, use ip-relay or sprint relay.
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2What charge? You idiots are real quick to want to take away someone's freedoms on only opinion. Maybe we should indict you on the basis of stupidity. Its no different than what you want to do.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3lolol. welcome to the blind left, full of vague, unfocused vengeance.
        ***** man just put someone in jail i don't care why!

        seriously though if anyone does deserve to go to jail for some reason or other, its rove.
  • Setter, on 05/20/2008, -17/+8"This Will Make Watergate Look Like Child’s Play"

    Nothing like some hard-hitting journalism! Incidentally, Think Progress, how's the impeachment of Bush coming along?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -9/+3LOLOL -- that's awesome
    • ouzome, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3love you long time!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3i LOVE how you're dugg down setter, for pointing out how many diggers are suckers for sensationalist headlines.
      embarrasssing
  • and303, on 05/20/2008, -4/+19Unfortunately, this scandal is way too complicated for your average voter.
    If it requires more than a paragraph of reading, or can't be handled on Jerry Springer, most of America isn't interested.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/20/2008, -13/+3most liberals you mean
      • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Excuse me? I've never heard "tl;dr" from a liberal.

        And yeah, those "liberal" states, being TROUNCED on in the education metrics by those "conservative" states. LOL!

        The last 7 years ALONE are proof that Republicans don't understand anything that doesn't take place THIS WEEK and involve their wallet.

        So yeah, keep patting yourself on the back about that "conservative" intellect. It's funny as hell.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1You mean how Bush actually showed his grades and in the end did better then John Kerry?
        • bjornski, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2He showed off his "gentleman's Cs"? Even his professors have come out to say that he didn't earn them, and barely payed attention in class.

          But gee, I guess that means he IS smart! I mean, it's not like grades can be BOUGHT for the kids of elected officials or anything.....
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1why does liberal logic always seem so insincerely flawed? tell me this: who made the case of Bush's grades? and now you're trying to steer the question away to him of 'buying Cs'?? wow such incredible denial. Do you even realize how more more money that John Kerry has over Bush? Get a clue.
        • bjornski, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It's not about "more money".

          It's about having your father help seat you at your SECOND choice of schools, and help you get passed, so that you can then go to the TANG, get your pilots license, and then go AWOL to work on the campaign of one of his fathers friends.

          I don't give a ***** if Kerry has more money than Bush. Yes, there's a possibility that Kerry could have had grades "bought" too, but his academic record doesn't look like it.

          And excuse me? Trying to steer the question AWAY from Bush having his Cs bought for him? Yeah, I'm avoiding it, that's why I BROUGHT IT UP.

          Holy *****, you people just have no clue....
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -9/+2What an arrogant prick you are. Typical elitist liberal pig.
      • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I think and303 hit a sore spot with this one....

        "you book learning liberals think you're so smart....."
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2not only are you sounding like an elitist, but if you read that ***** joke of an article from that joke of a website thinkprogress, you should be intelligent enough to realize that it makes jerry springer look like ***** Einstein.
      I love how you act smart after reading the ***** writing in a ***** article on this ***** site that does absolutely no justice to the issue whatsoever...but ***** it right? all you blind liberal sheep should flock to this joke of an article....
      • Gutterpunk, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Intelligence called and would like a word with you
  • jayscot, on 05/20/2008, -16/+5Digg...the left-wing dance party.

    This ***** was supposed to be filtered out.
    • knobidy, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Its called "not clicking".

      I know, novel concept.
    • Seafea, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Much like your post, right?
  • aratika, on 05/20/2008, -11/+4ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.........
  • synthpop, on 05/20/2008, -8/+4not to worry America, The Democrats are on the case!
    and we all know these guys play hardball, oh man, Rove better watch out
    • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Watch Bush's EPA chief being grilled on CSPAN3 right now if you want to see how Democrats play hardball. Alberto Gonzales' case of selective amnesia seems to be contagious, and Waxman is getting pissed!
  • Horace, on 05/20/2008, -14/+5Who F'ing cares? Can the D's do anything but whine about Rove?
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1Yes. They whine about Bush. But thats the extent of their limited mental capacity.
  • lukeduke, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2Just like your cellmate made your cornhole look like the Manhattan tunnel. Oops Governor, I dropped the soap, can you issue a pardon if I give you a lethal "injection"
  • MrTito, on 05/20/2008, -5/+11I'm a democrat, but this whole Siegelman crap is so overblown. Being from Alabama, I have a somewhat more informed understanding of the politics of this state than most of those following this as a national story. Trust me, Siegelman is not as big of a victim as he wants you to think. He's just media savvy. Or at least more media savvy than most Alabama politicians.
    • David513, on 05/20/2008, -4/+11MrTito is SO right. I work in politics in Alabama, and I'm VERY familiar with many of the players in this story. Siegelman is a very smooth operator, and he is VERY corrupt. He has been very successful in trying to latch his case onto the anti-Bush sentiment in the country, but there's not much to this. The man isn't innocent. In fact, he's guilty of far worse than he was convicted of. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who works in Alabama politics who doesn't know this.

      You national Democrats are being taken for a ride by a sly Siegelman. You're being used by a corrupt politician who just cares about his own skin. I'm a libertarian, so I don't like the Siegelman crowd OR the Bush crowd. Both sides in this dispute are crooks and liars.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -4/+5god I REALLY wish you guys had the first two comments up there instead of the same old blind liberal sheep herd that are all over huffpo/rawstory/crooksandliars/thinkprogress's stories.
      and I say that as a liberal.
    • Greenkayak, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2When you guys say "I am a Democrat" or "I am from Alabama" or "as a liberal" I just think to myself: Nice attempt at an online beard but your fake sunglasses and nose are too obvious to everybody!

      It doesn't work here on political blogs any better than when you try to pose as a 19 year old co-ed on Saturday nights when you are typing and blogging late at night in your underwear and mustard stained t-shirt.
      • David513, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2You don't know what you're talking about, moron. I've been working in Alabama politics for 17 years. You're just trying to ignore the obvious fact that those of us who know the real facts (and have lived with Siegelman and his cronies for years) know a lot more than you do about this. I've interviewed the man when I was a journalist years ago. (He was either secretary of state or attorney general at the time. I forget which.) He was slimy then and he's slimy now. Those of us here know things you don't. So quit pretending that you know what you're talking about. You don't.
      • MrTito, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Why don't you read my comment history, douchebag. I preface that I'm from Alabama because the story is relevant to Alabama. I'm not fake about anything. But since you jump to those conclusions that says a lot about your own authenticity, which I'm guessing there isn't much of. So, in brief, from now on if you're gonna spout some blanket tirade and make generalizations about someone from a three or four word phrase, do everyone in this whole wide world a favor and lodge a bullet in your infinitely useless brain. Thanks and ***** off.
  • p0s3r, on 05/20/2008, -7/+8This has already been debunked 100x over. The "covert GOP op" that named Karl Rove had given a 147pg testimony and never onced named Rove.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/019 ...
    • IslandDog, on 05/20/2008, -7/+4Don't confuse the liberals.

    • David513, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3I'm amazed that people would digg this down. The link given is relevant and does a masterful job of proving Jill Simpson to be a deranged liar. Why would anyone want to defend a corrupt and defeated former governor just because of the word of a woman who is obviously lying and probably mentally troubled? READ the link posted here. There are even more reasons to doubt the story than are given here, but these are enough.

      If you have a REASON to disagree, make your argument, but don't digg a guy down because he has the temerity to disagree with you and provide evidence to back up his case.
  • PixelMagic, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1I live in Alabama. :(
  • wanderingsun, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2Hey! I worked at the Anniston Star!
  • Seann7656, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Over two million songs and counting?!

    Best news ever!
  • katorga, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3So did the Siegelman take bribes or not? If yes, he needs to be in jail, not on bond regardless of what Rove did. Wait and see, he'll get a pardon next year and be back in the corruption biz.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Funny. I like the people who are in prison to have been convicted without the witnesses having to purger themselves.

      That whole "liberal" innocent until _proven_ guilty BS.
  • diggstown, on 05/20/2008, -6/+9So let me get this straight, the summary of this is: Rove must be guilty of something unfathomably heinous because he didn't want to testify under oath.

    Seriously?

    That's really all of the content that thinkprogress has provided in this "article"?

    And they claim one of their 4 pillars they're fighting against is "Braindead Media"?
  • Ell3, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6No wonder America's liberal leftists love digg...they get to play out their fantasies on the front page!
  • Infidelcastr0, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4I smell a lot of pardons coming at the end of Bush's term. What is up with that picture?
  • minox, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7Look, the woman who is making these allegations against Rove has basically no credibility, and no proof of anything. For all the time she allegedly spent following Siegelman, she has not produced a single hotel receipt, shown a single phone bill corroborating her story about having contact with Rove, or found even one person who backs up her story. I'm sorry, but this is Vince Foster territory and the fact that 60 Minutes picked up on it doesn't make it anything else. But this will gain a following just like any other alleged conspiracy. Because it relies on the ambiguity of any situation and emphasizes it to grotesque proportions, enabling the conspiracy theorist to live out their wildest fantasies and concoct tales that are more cathartic for them than real life.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1Pantera: Five Minutes Alone

    i see you had your mind all made up you group of
    pitiful liars. before i woke to face the day, your master
    plan transpired. -something told me- this job had more to
    meet the eye. my song is not believed? my words some-
    what deceiving? now i'm unwhole.

    you've waged a war of nerves
    but you can't crush the kingdom

    can't be what your idols are. can't leave the scar.
    you cry for compensation. i ask you please just give us...

    5 minutes alone

    i read your eyes, your mind was made up. you took me for
    a fool. you used complexion of my skin for a counter
    rascist tool. -you can't burn me- i've spilled my guts out
    in the past. taken advantage of because you know where

    i've come [from]. my past.
    you've waged a war of nerves
    but you can't crush the kingdom

    can't be what your idols are. can't leave the scar.
    I bury your compensation. i ask you please just give us...

    5 minutes alone
  • mrzack, on 05/20/2008, -5/+3what about 9/11 being an Insidious Job???
    • Mothrog, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2What about mrzack being an enormous tard?
      • mrzack, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Irregardless whether I'm a tard or not, there is legitimate evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job...
        • Mothrog, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Sayeth the tard...
        • mrzack, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1You're the Real Tard for not questioning the government's official story. Just keep on living in denial.
        • Mothrog, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Blah, blah, blah. Where are the peer reviewed journals from qualified individuals supporting the twoofers' *****? Oh, right, there are none. You have to be retarded to believe theology professors over engineers when it comes to building collapses. But hey, for a ***** that actually thinks FPS are a conspiracy to placate the masses, being a twoofer is only one of a very long list of things that makes you a giant *****.
  • IslandDog, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6More Thinkprogress liberal BS.
  • MortalynFlux, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9Many things the George Bush administration has done make Watergate child's play. But they get away with it every time because they fly the flags of God and Country on every ship they wreck. This will be no exception. I think Americans in general have lowered their standards as to what to expect from politicians. With a scandal coming out every week, we're all jaded by now, and when something so un-American as this blatant abuse of power surfaces, we're the proverbial frog sitting in the simmering water.
  • bluetytanium, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Childs Play was a ***** scary movie, Or at least it was when I was little.
    • lukeduke, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1We're friends....friends to the end
  • bhamfree, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I'm from Alabamy and what most people are missing is that Siegelman got caught up in the Richard Scrushy story. Everybody was gunning for that egomaniacal bastard. Scrushy crazy-Jesused his way out of jail months before by buying off the entire Black church community in Birmingham and was on TV every day with his bat-***** crazy/stupid trophy wife talking up the Jesus. They painted the whole trial of the obviously guilty Scrushy as a universal fight between good and evil.
    Believe it or not Siegelman was an afterthought.
  • AtomicTheory, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1ROOOOOOOOOOLL TIDE!
  • 1aPowerDigger, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3It *SHOULD* make watergate look like child's play, but let's be honest: (I'm a Democrat so this isn't a flame) The Democrats in Congress are utter pussies. They have zero balls. They should have stood their ground against Bush long ago. They should have accused him of war crimes. They should have laughed at his efforts for war funding. They should have called the Surge "preposterous". They should have gone after the cooked election in 2004. They should be crucifying Bernanke *right now*.

    Watergate? No. Back then, the Democrats were badasses. Today we have a bunch of sniveling beaurocrats in power.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I am thinking that the first thing Rove did with the wireless wiretaps is get as much black mail material on the Democrats that he could find.
    • Naieve, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Nah, the Democrats just didn't want to risk their political careers.
      Like being for the War in Iraq before being against it.
      But but but, they would have called us unpatriotic, but but but, we can't look bad, but but but, we don't care about our morals when it's OUR neck on the line.
      At least the Republicans stand by their decisions. Even when it costs them elections and with the grim media driven reality falling down upon them, they are still for the War in Iraq. Even though we are going to leave before the jobs done, whether this election or the next, they are still for it.
      At least we know where they stand.
      Democrats just blow in the wind whichever direction popular opinion sends them.
      Look at Hillary, prime example.
      Could you imagine a Republican getting away with the kind of things she has lied about and still being a possible candidate?
      It would be nice if we lived in a Libertarian country, but I think we will just have to wait till the Democrats and Republicans drag us all the way down before the populace says enough is enough and we go clean out Washington.
      For now I'll vote for Obama, because of his record in Illinois. I don't like most of his agenda, but hey, at this point it's the lesser of the evils. McCain and Hillary are so corrupt they don't even remember what it was like not to be.
    • spankaccount, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Maybe the democrats know something we dont?
  • Siraf, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1***** THING SUCKS!
  • GrodyChamp, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Wishful thinking at best.
  • lajaw, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Siegelman is a crybaby who broke the law. That is why we voted him out in Alabama.
  • m1zl3d, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I live near Anniston...The "Anniston Star" is our local news paper. I trust them about as much as Fox News. What a joke Siegelman is too. Acting like he's not in the wrong.
  • Argle, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3I hate Karl Rove just as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that he had nothing to do with this. Siegelman states in the article: "[Rove] wrote a, I think it was a five-page letter to [MSNBC anchor] Dan Abrams basically asking Dan Abrams questions about why he should testify under oath." The article provides this link: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4YTBmM ...

    If you actually read Rove's letter it doesn't say anything about testifying under oath. Instead it asks the MSNBC anchor if he did any fact-checking before he aired the story. Rove also, quite believably says, he was too busy in the White House to be paying any attention at all to an Alabama gubernatorial race. Which makes perfect sense. Why the hell would Karl Rove give a damn about these yokels in Alabama?

    It sounds to me like Siegelman is clinging to this story to try and clear his name. I dunno anything about Siegelman, but why would Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales waste their time trying to put him in jail? Seriously. Who cares about Alabama?
  • jsffive, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I got news: Watergate WAS child's play...

    Nixon was WAY ahead in the poles... what exactly did Nixon think the Democrats had on him?

    It's a question that I'm going to ask EVERY TIME someone invokes Watergate. Certainly the MSM won't ask. And when they do ask, it's only to immediately reply that it's an answer lost to the ages.

    What was Nixon so afraid of, that he felt compelled to BREAK THE LAW in order to find out? What was the "Bay of Pigs thing" that he referenced in the recordings?

    They say "Watergate", I ask the pertinent question that no one asks. They say "Nazi appeaser", I say "Prescott Bush".

    Learn how to fight back.
  • sch060, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0since i started digging i have been simultaneously happy that my paranoia about conspiracies is well founded and depressed that i only hear about these things through digg (and the antenna the illuminati implanted in one of my molars)
  • rpetty, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2opinion presented as news--boring
  • LexTalionis, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1How many of you DC ***** are willing to shed your blood for what you believe in? Ok then, STFU!
  • spankaccount, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I predict this is forgotten in less than a week. (because it's not true.) Diggbots fooled again.
  • magus_melchior, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, if Rove does get busted and convicted...
    a) He won't serve time because Bush will pardon him or commute his sentence a la Scooter Libby, and
    b) The trial will go on just long enough to protect Bush, Cheney, and Addington from impeachment. They might be tried later by the new administration, but they know how to abuse their lawyers.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.