No Comment — October 22, 2007, 10:52 pm

More from the ‘Bama Press

Pravda’s Latest
The Birmingham News has done an amazing series over the last couple of weeks. They continue to be the Riley family’s faithful protectors, with the lead played by their vicious, prize-winning Attack Chihuahua. But in the last two weeks, the B’ham News have veered from the predictable Pravda style into something far more exotic. I’d say it has a distinctly North Korean flavor, enough perhaps to win Attack Chihuahua the vaunted Juche Award for political journalism. They’re already calling lawyers with threats to divulge lurid details from their sex lives. Maybe next they’ll try kidnapping movie starlets to fuel the appetite of their masters? In any event, when Hollywood gets the rights to this story, the inept comic relief part will be supplied by the B’ham News and its valiant Attack Chihuahua.

Last week the Attack Chihuahua evidently decided to cash in any pretense of being a journalist. He recorded an interview with a source, in which she explicitly asked him to treat parts of the interview as “off the record,” he agreed. But he then posted the interview on the News’s website. You can listen to it and can clearly hear his agreement to keep much of the conversation off the record. It’s amazing that neither the reporter nor his editors seem to be much concerned about this rather startling lapse of ethics.

Our sleuth has really outdone himself today, however. He’s busy trying to convince us that the 2002 gubernatorial election was marked by voting fraud. That of course is beyond doubt. But wait until you get to the details: the fraud was by Siegelman! We’re talking about the election in which voting machines in Republican-controlled Baldwin County suddenly and dramatically switched their results in the middle of the night, providing exactly the right number of changed votes to deliver the statehouse to Dick Riley.

Here’s what our sleuth reporter has to say:

During the recount challenging Republican Bob Riley’s tiny edge over Siegelman, Rob Riley, the governor’s son, was pursuing claims made in a sworn affidavit that accused Siegelman supporters of possible voter fraud.

Rob Riley took the claims so seriously that he forwarded the allegations to the attorney general’s office. Riley described the claims to a young lawyer in that office named Troy King, who was handling recount issues for then Attorney General Bill Pryor. Riley also contacted a reporter at the time about the allegations and showed her the affidavit.

That’s right. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. It’s on Pravda’s masthead. But while we’re tallying the more bombastic deceits, let’s note: Troy King. Yes. Troy King. Note that here he is “handling recount issues for then Attorney General Bill Pryor.” But in fact the records will show something else. Who was serving as legal advisor to the Bob Riley campaign on elections issues? Why, none other than the self-same Troy King. So which hat was Troy King wearing? And in the next grafs, we see that Toby Roth, the former chief of staff to Governor Riley, appears as a party, together with a Montgomery policeman named Eddie Spivey. Now that wouldn’t be the same Eddie Spivey who was involved in the famous Todd Road incident of 1983? That’s an incident in which a couple of cops, one named Spivey, busted in the door of a house in a Black neighborhood. A crowd of people had gathered, and there were cars with many out-of-state people present. The officers said they were convinced it was a gathering of drug kingpins. Of course, it turned out to be a funeral. Spivey was also Mayor Emory Folmar’s bodyguard. Could this be the same guy? And here he’s being presented as someone working for Siegelman? Sounds extremely fishy, like most of the stuff rolling from the pen of our sleuth reporter these days.

Why is he telling us all of this? The author seems to think it discredits Jill Simpson:

[Simpson] made no mention of the voter fraud affidavit that captured the attention of top campaign advisers at the time.

Hmmm. She probably also failed to include the day’s weather forecast for Duluth. Guess that makes her out to be a liar, right? But wait, it gets better.

Simpson told congressional lawyers last month she has no records, documents or other material to corroborate her recollection of telephone calls and meetings with Rob Riley, whom she said gave her all the information.

Small problem with this series of statements. They’re all untrue. Not only did she demonstrate that she had the records, she showed them to the journalists who asked for them. It seems that our ace reporter never bothered to ask her for them when he conducted his tape-recorded interview.

Artur Davis Gets It
The most cautious, level-headed analysis of the Siegelman affair to appear so far in the Montgomery Advertiser comes from the pen of Congressman Artur Davis. Here are some highlights:

Much of the press attention around this case has centered on the explosive allegations of a lawyer with Republican roots, Jill Simpson. She has claimed under oath that in late 2002, she participated in a conference call in which a high-ranking Republican bragged that the U.S. attorney’s office run by his wife would prosecute Siegelman; she has also testified that she was told of direct intervention by the president’s adviser, Karl Rove, to prod the Department of Justice to approve an indictment against the former governor. To date, no one has offered sworn testimony to rebut Simpson, who has twice made her claims under penalty of perjury.

It is true that the individuals whom Simpson links to a conspiracy to prosecute Siegelman are not exactly rogues; to the contrary, while they are all practitioners in the rough-hewn world of Alabama politics, they are well respected and have never been tinged by scandal. Congress’ efforts to prove or disprove Simpson, however, have been thwarted by two roadblocks: Rove’s steadfast refusal to appear before Congress even though he is now a private citizen, and the Justice Department’s insistence that it will not disclose any of the more than 600 documents in its possession regarding Siegelman’s case.

But Simpson is far from the only source of the suspicions around the Siegelman case. There is the recent revelation in Time magazine that the prosecutors who indicted Siegelman failed to aggressively pursue allegations of illegal campaign contributions against Republican officeholders, even though the source of the claims, Lanny Young, was one of their two principal witnesses against Democrat Siegelman.

This is setting the stage. Tomorrow a highly respected former U.S. Attorney will testify that he was told that the case against Siegelman was over. It had come up empty handed. And then the orders came from Washington: go over it again. Find something. Nail him. And chronologically this lines up perfectly with Jill Simpson’s testimony. It matches the time when Simpson recounts Rove spoke with Noel Hillman, the head of Public Integrity, who brought the Siegelman case, and instructed him to go after Siegelman.

Of course, the Birmingham News will insist that this is all unbelievable—because Jill Simpson’s original affidavit failed to include the day’s weather forecast for Duluth. And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

A Brazilian cat gave birth to a dog.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today