FOX BUSINESS - 14 September 2009: Fmr. Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on appealing to Scrushy's bribery conviction and the other corruption in the case.
Neal Cavuto tries to spin the case into an issue of free speech for corporations and blame the media for an attack on the wealthy. Siegelman continually brings it back to misconduct and corruption on the part of the Rove/Bush Department of Justice. Subtle, but fun to watch.
SIEGELMAN: ... during the trial, they approached Richard Scrushy. Scrushy could have thrown me under the bus any time he wanted to and walked out of that court room a free man. Richard Scrushy is in prison today for something he absolutely did not do.
CAVUTO: But you might say, he could have thrown you under the bus, but you go thrown under the bus anyway, not directly through him, but both he and you. He's still in prison, you got out, but it's not a sure thing you won't go back in. But, I guess I want to be clear, governor, you're saying, and these attorneys general are saying, when we start judging whether people can give money whether to a cause or an undertaking, and that freezes that kind of activity, it not only freezes commerce, it also freezes free speech. Do I get the gist of that right?
SIEGELMAN: Well, it freezes free speech because as we all know it takes a lot of money to run for public office, and if you're going to start putting people...
CAVUTO: So there'd be a chilling effect in terms of corporate entities, CEOs, giving money to anything, anyone if there's a risk they might end up in the slammer.
SIEGELMAN: Well, absolutely Neal. I would advice your viewers who are businessman, if they have given any money to any member of Congress or to any Senator or to the President, that they ask those people to whom they have contributed, to please not do anything for them. Don't vote for any legislation that they might be interested in, and don't appoint them to anything, because they, too, could end up in prison. I want to go back to, just for a minute...
CAVUTO: But wasn't this an issue where that, in most cases where companies give donations and all, it's all publically discernable, this didn't become aware until much later, wasn't that the issue?
SIEGELMAN: No, we disclosed both of the contributions. They're both a matter of public record. There was a delay in reporting one of the contributions, but it was after the election, and the money was used to pay off the debt of the lottery foundation.
CAVUTO: Then where do we stand? The Supreme Court can decide to take this up. If it does not, then game over, right?
SIEGELMAN: Well, not necessarily, because there are
strong issues of selective prosecution, as has been pointed out by Time Magazine. We have, 60 Minutes ran a special - it can be found on my website - where they show that the key witness in this case that convicted Richard Scrushy and me, was a felon who was plea bargaining for his life. They interviewed this felon over 70 times. They made him write and rewrite his testimony until he got it the way the prosecutors wanted it and then they put him on the stand. The other thing, Neal, is that we were prosecuted by the wife of my opponent's campaign manager.
I was indicted during the campaign and brought to trial one month before the election by the wife of my opponent's campaign manager. A federal indictment is the most effective campaign tool ever invented and it was used in this case.
So we are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will take up this case and will rule in accordance with what has been established law in this country. Secondly, we are hopeful that the House Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct in this case.CAVUTO: Let me ask you this governor, when our producer, Eric Spinato, first started writing Richard Scrushy in jail, and he got this letter back from Richard Scrushy, among the things that Mr. Scrushy had relayed to Eric was this notion that maybe his very wealth made him a target, and that, to harken back to your earlier comment, the media just didn't like the guy... How much did that play into this, that he was not someone whose initial exoneration in court went down well with a media that didn't like him, and that stuck in their craw and that going after him became a concerted desire.
SIEGELMAN: Well, I think that that was part of the prosecution's plan in adding him to the case against me. It looked like clearly an afterthought. I believe that they felt that Richard Scrushy had been so bloodied up and had been convicted in the press, that it would make it easier for them to get a conviction against me.
And the fact that they offered him a chance to walk free if he would lie against me, I think, is further evidence of misconduct of the government in this case. But you asked me a question about his wealth...
CAVUTO: Governor, I wish we had more time, sir. I do want to brink you back. These breaks are so hard that you can't remove them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
