|  Crossposted at DailyKos.
It's pretty clear that some members of the press in Alabama are a little miffed at those (Scott Horton of Harper's, the NYT editorial page, the House Judiciary Committee and others) who have questioned the motivation behind former Governor Don Siegelman's investigation, prosecution and subsequent immediate incarceration. Would these professional newspaper folks let that irritation dictate the stories they pursue? Ticked off about Siegelman controversy
John Ehinger's column in the Huntsville Times of Aug. 26th reads like Horton got under his skin in a big way. Normally Ehinger comes across as a straight shooter and a pro, but that column made me wonder if he had been actually been following Horton's writing or had just read a single post and missed all the background. Then there was this cartoon that ran in the Sept. 13 Mobile Press-Register, clearly belittling the idea that anyone but Siegelman had a hand in his fall from grace. Certainly not Karl Rove! On the same day, the Birmingham News published this editorial which reiterated that Siegelman's administration was guilty of political payoffs, sweetheart deals and other bad things, then hinted that Congress is pursuing a political agenda of its own by investigating Siegelman's prosecution. But Congress' motives should be as pure as it is demanding of prosecutors. Justice is not served if political games are being used to excuse public corruption or, even more frighteningly, to try to intimidate prosecutors who may be contemplating future cases against Democrats or Republicans.
So, some Alabama journalists seem to be nettled that the House Judiciary Committee has picked the Siegelman case as one of three they want to examine for evidence of selective prosecution and that some in the national press are implying that the local papers were so eager to see Siegelman go down that they didn't pay enough attention to the other side of the story. You can imagine how irritating that would be, especially if the implication contained a few grains of truth. This is where Artur Davis enters the fray But would this irritation extend to Representative Artur Davis (D, AL-07) who, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has called for an investigation to see if selective prosecution occurred in the case of Don Siegelman? Yesterday Scott Horton wrote The 'B'ham News' Revs Up the Slime Machine alleging that not only were some folks there irritated with Davis, they were digging up dirt on his staff members to damage his credibility. A No Comment reader who works at the Birmingham News tells us that a certain editor and writer at the illustrious Pravda of the South are royally pissed off at Representative Artur Davis. It seems that Davis’s questions and press releases on the Siegelman case are making a decisive difference in pushing the matter forward. And the reputation of the News, which has played a key role in the anti-Siegelman campaign by giving press cover to the cabal and by disseminating and lending unwarranted credibility to claims of the prosecutors who front for it, is on the line. So what’s the answer? According to my source, the word went out: Slime Artur Davis. If you can’t hit him personally, at least slime some senior aide who works for him. Do it quickly.
The very idea of a news organization doing investigative reporting based on a political agenda is unsettling. In addition to calling for an inquiry into Don Siegelman's prosecution, Congressman Davis is the only member of Alabama's delegation to openly oppose President Bush's policy for continuing the Iraq war until the next president takes office. So Davis is way off the conservative reservation on at least two counts. He was no fan of Alberto Gonzales either. In case you think Scott Horton's notion of a prestigious newspaper and one of it's best known reporters deliberately looking for dirt on Artur Davis' staffers is delusional, tin-foil hat stuff, get a load of what was in the Birmingham News this morning. Political aide's salary paid by 2-year colleges: Alabama two-year colleges paid the salary for nearly five years of a political appointee hired by former Gov. Don Siegelman and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, system records show. Gina Bailey McKell, the cousin of one of Siegelman's closest aides, received nearly $73,000 a year from one college to work in the governor's office and later more than $76,000 a year to work in Davis' office until she resigned last year. Both Siegelman and Davis are Democrats.
Writer Brett Blackledge also tells us Ms. Mckell worked briefly for Republican Governor Bob Riley under the same arrangement. You have to read to page 4 of the online story to find out she worked 4 months for Riley and apparently resigned on her own -- no evidence Riley forced her out. In contrast, the fact that Ms. McKell is Nick Bailey's cousin is right up front. Nick Bailey is the former Siegelman aide who turned state's evidence and was recently sentenced for bribery and filing a false income tax return. I don't know about y'all, but I have lots of cousins. Some are upstanding citizens and some are scoundrels if not actually criminals. I surely want to be judged by my own actions, not those of my cousins. The rest of the article is a history of McKell's employment with the state, her salary and duties at various times, mixed with statements of State School Board members to the effect that they didn't know the system had any employees who were included in the staff of the Governor or the state's Congressional delegation. Chancellor Byrne admits that there may be other employees in the same situation that he just isn't aware of yet. There is a lot of disapproval and innuendo that Ms. McKell and by extension, Gov. Siegelman and Rep. Davis (but, interestingly, not Bob Riley) did something wrong. Read for yourself, but I didn't see any evidence that the employment arrangement was illegal or that it was done in an underhanded way, as someone would if they thought it was illegal or unethical. The college Presidents who agreed to pay McKell recieved approval for her employment from a previous Chancellor. The article quotes Rep. Davis as saying "If it's appropriate in the context of Governor Riley, I don't think it becomes less appropriate when you're talking about a Democratic member of Congress." McKell is also a Democrat (right out in the open about it, too!) and has sent a lot of emails encouraging people around the state to support Don Siegelman in his appeal and to ask for an investigation of his case. What nerve, huh? Guilt by association Blackledge's story links Congressman Davis with Gina Bailey McKell, then takes pains to link McKell to Nick Bailey, (recently sentenced, with lots of fanfare in the press) to Don Siegelman (likewise, recently convicted and sentenced) and to the Alabama 2-year college system. Brett Blackledge won a Pulitzer a few months ago for a series exposing nepotism, etc. in the 2-year college system. That system is widely associated with corruption in Alabama government right now. So, Gina McKell's name is linked to some pretty negative things, although no evidence is presented that she did anything illegal or unethical. Nor did Artur Davis. Is governing while Democrat the problem? Don Siegelman was the most prominent Democrat in the state when the Justice Department began investigating him. It looked like he had a bright future back then. As a frequent reader of newspapers in those days, it looked like the Alabama press were very happy to cover his problems and not interested in digging to see if there was a political angle to the investigations and the timing of the charges against him. Siegelman is now in prison (he is appealing the conviction) and his political hopes are in tatters. Is it a coincidence that Rep. Artur Davis is one of the most prominent Democrats in Alabama right now, frequently mentioned as a future Governor or Senator? Surely we aren't seeing the beginning of a campaign to slime another Southern Democrat who looks like he could go places. Left in Alabama Siegelman case archive. |
