Talk:Don Siegelman

Needs references to a highly relevant book

In his book "The Governor of Goat Hill" (ISBN 978-1-4401-8939-5), Eddie Curran, the investigative reporter who exposed the scandals underlying Siegelman's conviction, discusses their history in detail and also offers a convincing case for the spuriousness of the Karl Rove political motivation claim. Curran's work should be discussed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.102.229 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and the 'harsh sentence' claim

The claims that this was a particularly harsh sentence from the guilty man's defense team are repeated as fact. There are several other Gov's who have been convicted of similar crimes, felonies and bribes in the $500,000 to $1,000,000 range. Gov. Ryan of Illinois got 6.5 years. Two other Gov's of Illinois who were convicted of felonies got 3 and 7 years. (one for acts after leaving office) Jim Guy Tucker got 4 years probation, but he agreed to work with prosecutors and had a very serious medical condition eventually requiring a liver transplant. I think this is another case of this article being advocacy for the Gov's case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.23.32 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Did Siegelman's campaign staff write this? This article has some serious NPOV problems. I don't have time to do any rewrites myself, but I would look at the following: 1) The 2002 election "scandal" is only being told here from Siegelman's point of view. It's been a while, so I can't remember it exactly, but it seems like most people thought Riley rightfully won the election. I think something mentioning the other side of the story is needed. 2) A large part of lottery opposition was a feeling that the income from the lottery wouldn't support the programs that were to be funded by the lottery, resulting in the threat of a tax increase to cover the difference (and Alabamians HATE tax increases, as Riley found out). There were a lot of people simply opposed to the lottery for economic reasons; they weren't all "religiously motivated." 3) Siegelman did accomplish a lot as governor, but if you say "Siegelman" to the average Alabamian, they think of the lottery initiative (which is a positive thing if you're pro-Siegelman, negative if you're against him), or his legal indictments. For better or for worse, he's really not remembered first and foremost for education and economy; that's a tag applied more often to Riley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.19.84 (talk • contribs) May 23, 2006

Regarding the 2002 election, the same wording had been used on the Bob Riley (Alabama) article, which I had to rewrite yesterday. I think I've toned down the opinionated tone, but I have not changed the facts as they were stated. If these facts are in error, please let me know and/or point to a good reference. I moved that section further down and I'll go back in re-read for conjecture. Thanks for the heads up. --Dystopos 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. Like I said, the main thing was the tone that made it sound like Siegelman was completely robbed, when in fact there was no where near the level of controversy. The new version reads much better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.19.45 (talk • contribs) May 26, 2006

Thanks. By the way, the Riley article prompted a brief edit skirmish and resulted in the creation of a new article, Alabama gubernatorial election, 2002, which you might want to look at. --Dystopos 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a rough clean-up of the article's citation formats, indents, and so on today. The NPOV problem still remains to an extent; other than adding a quote from the NYT, I didn't change any of the substance of the article. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and the Canary issue

I want to raise an issue with the section on Leura Garrett Canary. She may have had to recuse herself from the case due to the conflict of interest, but you make it seem as if she was part of a grand conspiracy, which poses a problem with the NPOV rule as I read it. First off, I don't think she received "widespread criticism" about her conflict of interest, and calling the Business Council of Alabama a Riley ally seems problematic as well. It might be best to say that BCA endorsed him. And finally, the sentence "The case went to trial in early May 2006 with Canary's subordinates prosecuting it." is unnecessary other than to make it seem like Canary had it out for Siegelman. I don't know if you are an avid fan of Siegelman, but toning that paragraph down would make the article more balanced and not pose a NPOV problem.--Bamanative 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Karl Rove involvement . . .

Re: 2005 Indictments, 2006 Convictions section. . .The Associated Press [1] reports "Jill Simpson, once a campaign worker for Republican Bob Riley, said in a sworn statement last month that Rove may have played a role in the investigation." citation (copy and paste if needed)
<ref>{{citenews | first=Bob | last=Johnson | coauthors= | title=Lawyer Links Rove to Ala. Investigation |date=June 6, 2007 | publisher=KLBJ 590AM - Emmis Austin Radio Broadcasting Company, Lp. | url=http://590klbj.com/news/article.aspx?id=1145539 | work=Associated Press | pages= | accessdate =June 7, 2007}}</ref> R. Baley 10:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Time has a new article

on Siegelman that can be found here [2]. Someone should probably incorporate some of this information into the article. Remember 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An Unresolved Point re Personal Life

How did Siegelman, who was a long-term karate student and presumably thus in good health, manage to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam? The Vietnam War was the biggest war of this person's lifetime, and almost 3 million boys his age were sent to fight it. Avoiding the draft was an obsession with people of that generation. In any event, this issue must be addressed, in a person his age, in order to have a real biographical sketch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The same way that everyone born on February 24 between 1944 and 1950 did--their number (235) was never called. There's no issue here to address, period. Samer (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Things from 60 Minutes that should get in the article:

• "Star witness" Nick Bailey as cornerstone of case, but he was subsequently convicted of extortion and given 10 years, cooperated with prosecutors to lighten own sentence, over 70 interviews with prosecution but notes not shared with defense, check he testified he saw was actually written days later.
• 52 state Attorneys General calling the case into question, specific testimony from Grant Woods, R-AZ (1991-1999)
• Jill Simpson makes pretty unequivocal testimony

Transcript and video here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml -Pete (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate text

WP is not a site for promoting one's own work, and, as a result, the original formatting and wording is not anything approaching encyclopedic in tone. Moreover, regardless of the validity of the claims, much of what is written here is irrelevant to the topic at hand--namely, Don Siegelman himself. That said, if you wish to include relevant portions of this information, you may do so. Samer (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) THE ABOVE IS UNTRUE "RAW STORY DID NOT BREAK THIS STORY" http://www.insider-magazine.com broke the story in-depth in July 2007 and later a follow-up story was done in October 2007 when Jill Simpson testified to the House Judiciary Committee staffers behind closed doors. http://www.insider-magazine.com/DeadUSattysOrig.html - again in December 2007 http://www.insider-magazine.com/Contract_On_America.html. Insider-Magazine.com and Emerald Coast Insider Magazine publisher John Caylor has been working on the U.S. Attorney firings and justice corruption story since 2003. In September 2006 Caylor moved his residence near Karl Rove's Rosemary Beach home to gain a tactical advantage on reporting this story. In July 2007 Caylor made a formal documented complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation supervisor at Montgomery, Alabama concerning Karl Rove's reported involvement in Siegelman's prosecution uncovered by Caylor in March 2007 as a result of Caylor's investigative work. The FBI has an open investigation of the above referenced complaint by Insider-Magazine.com and Caylor. Insider-Magazine.com can produce a tape recording from the Federal Bureau of Investigation validating this fact. Attempts by Raw Story to hijack our hard undercover investigative work will not be tolerated. - Please see the Criminal investigative reports in our http://www.insider-magazine.com/DeadUSattysOrig.html story documenting our involvement since 2003 in these matters. Mr. Caylor's association with former republican party attorney Dana Jill Simpson came about because Simpson was hired to investigate Caylor by Republican Party Officials and these facts will be validated at a later date in federal court.

Rove's Response

Karl Rove has released a point-by-point rebuttal of the charges that he was involved in the situation, or that Dana Jill Simpson was working for him. It's directed at Dan Abrams of MSNBC, but the rebuttal is significant here. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4YTBmMDg3NDljYWY0NTViNmMxNzgwOGUzZTk1NGI= — DesScorp (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What's really remarkable about that letter is how it asserts practically nothing. Everything is phrased in the form of a question, and there is no unambiguous denial of being involved. Same as his interview with Stefanopolous, where he says "I first learned of the indictment in the newspaper," which is technically true even if he did plan it. The whole letter is the same, one big non-denial denial. Dsol (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with this article

The latter part of the article is written largely in the order in which facts became known. The trial is suddenly mentioned under "2006 gubernatorial election" without any prior explanation (what trial?). The article would be easier to read if it were written in chronological order. Also, the "Federal prosecution" section claims that the investigation started already in 1999, something which is not supported by the reference. The year 1999 seems extremely early given that he took office in January 1999, and appears to contradict the idea that Rove planned all this in 2002 (which may not be true, of course, but the article needs to be clarified here). --KarlFrei (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Dystopos (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Documents

I'm just placing these links to new documents from Time Magazine reporting further evidence supporting the allegations against a politicized US Attorney General. They need to be worked into the article, which I will try to do later, but I welcome all comers to integrate it in before I get the chance.

• Time article detailing the new facts
• John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey citing the new material.
• Internal prosecution emails

Have a blast! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey I tried to integrate the first article. The second two I haven't taken a look at. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Election "glitch" as "claimed" vs. undisputed

Please read the cited article from the website of a local Baldwin County newspaper. It clearly documents the existence of doubt regarding the existence of a "glitch" in the voting system. The change, which I reverted, refers to the glitch in terms of certainty not supported by the cited source. Perhaps a reformulation of the sentence that neither presumes nor questions the glitch would be a good idea. I suggest trying new language out here on Talk first. This section was the subject of heated editing before an expanded version was moved to the special article on the election. And it took a long time to reach language in such a short section that made everyone happy. And for what it's worth, I think the changes to the language about the state AGs was well taken - the document they issued seems closer in tone and position to the new language in the article.Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Having made a "band aid" note, how about the folowing language? (with the citations added back in)

Siegelman was defeated for reelection in November 2002 by Representative Congressman Bob Riley by the narrowest margin in Alabama history: approximately 3,000 votes. The result was controversial, as on the night of the election, Siegelman was initially declared the winner by the Associated Press. Later, a voting machine malfunction in a single county was claimed reported to have produced the votes needed to give Siegelman the election. Local officials reported that when the malfunction was claimed to have been corrected, Riley gained sufficient votes emerged to emerge the statewide winner. Siegelman supporters have disputed the authenticity of the malfunction, and complained that the reported recount was conducted in the absence of Democratic poll observers.[10]<ref>Scott Horton, [http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000509 "Noel Hillman and the Siegelman Case," ''Harper's Magazine'', July 13, 2007]</ref> The recount of that county's votes was affirmed by the state's Attorney General, Republican Bill Pryor. Largely as a result of this controversy, the Alabama Legislature amended the election code to provide for automatic, supervised recounts in close races.[11]

Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

I edited the page to (correctly) point out this is a conspiracy theory, the kind that Wikipedia tends to (unfortunately) promote.--76.101.170.98 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this modification since a conspiracy theory would still feature an imprisoned Siegelman. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don or Donald

I'm finding some contradictions on whether his full name is "Don Eugene Siegelman" or "Donald Eugene Siegelman". The National Governors Association as well as various news articles and books refer to him as Donald, but the Alabama Governor's website and various court proceedings list him as "Don Eugene Siegelman" (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus DON EUGENE SIEGELMAN, RICHARD SCRUSHY for example). Anybody have the definitive answer on this? I'd always assumed Don was short for Donald, but I was surprised to see Federal Court proceedings use Don. --auburnpilot talk 03:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If the legal documents give his legal name as "Don Eugene," I'd go with that as a more reliable source than the news articles, especially as the governor's website agrees with the legal documents. Apparently the sources that change "Don" to "Donald" are based on an incorrect assumption that "Don" is a nickname for "Donald."

It was not unheard of for southerners born in the 20th century to be given names that are traditionally considered informal. E.g., I come from two generations of Georgians named Charlie, not Charles. Wouldn’t be surprised if this happened in other U.S. regions as well. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

This article still devotes far too much attention to partisanship. I suspect that few readers who are not partisans either for or against Siegelman manage to read very much of it. It's freakin' boring and feels dishonest, and occasionally absurd.

Take this sentence, for instance: Many analysts believe that the key to the lottery[ referendum]'s defeat was the difference in turnout between supporters and opponents. Uh-huh. Can you give me an example of a fair ballot that was not decided by a difference in turnout? The sentence tells us nothing. I have deleted it. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Siegelman's "Rhodes Scholarship"

The only Rhodes Scholar selected from Alabama in 1972 was Harold Watkins Stanley. Siegelman is not listed as a Rhodes Scholar (for this or any other year) in the Summer 2003 issue of The American Oxonian, giving an "Address List Living Rhodes Scholars 1920-2003." This probably explains why his college is given as TBD in Wikipedia's list of Rhodes Scholars. Was this a claim he made, or merely an unsubstantiated - and incorrect - rumor? 173.72.214.213 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don Siegelman

Article does not seem to say what happened after 2009 as regards Siegelman's sentence - left hanging in the introductory paragraphs. 210.11.145.8 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)