Former AL Gov indicted

[RightIsWrong]

Here is another in the growing roll call of pols that think that they can line their pockets at the expense of the people and not have to be accountable for it. And to boot, he pulls a DeLay and blames it on a "political witch hunt by Republican prosecutors". Like DeLay, that might be true. But also like DeLay, if you hadn't done anything to give the impression of improprietary acts, you wouldn't have to worry about witch hunts.

CBS Story

(AP) Former Gov. Don Siegelman was charged Wednesday in a "widespread racketeering conspiracy" that includes allegations he took a bribe from former hospital executive Richard Scrushy for a key state appointment.

Also indicted on federal charges were two members of Siegelman's administration and Scrushy, the former head of the HealthSouth medical-services company who was acquitted earlier this year in a massive accounting-fraud case.

Siegelman, who was governor from 1999 to 2003, was charged with racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion and obstruction of justice.

Siegelman called the long-running grand jury probe a political witch hunt by Republican prosecutors trying to derail his current Democratic campaign for a second term in 2006.

"I never put a dime in my pocket that didn't belong there," he said Wednesday.

The former governor was expected to turn himself in later this week.

The indictment alleges that Scrushy, former chief of the HealthSouth medical-services company, made disguised payments totaling $500,000 to Siegelman to get appointed to a key hospital regulatory board.

Siegelman's former chief of staff, Paul Hamrick, was charged with racketeering for taking bribes from a former lobbyist to steer state contracts to his business interests.

Former state Transportation Director Gary Mack Roberts was charged with fraud for his alleged role in influencing the agency on Siegelman's behalf.

Three other people with ties to the Siegelman administration have pleaded guilty to corruption in the alleged scheme ? Nick Bailey, a former executive secretary and Cabinet head; Lanny Young, a former lobbyist and landfill developer; and Curtis Kirsch, a Montgomery architect who did work for the state during the Siegelman administration.

Wednesday's indictment alleged that Siegelman and Hamrick took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Young to aid Young's business interests, including awarding contracts to companies controlled by Young.

Young, Bailey and Kirsch had been scheduled for sentencing Oct 14 in Montgomery, but that hearing was postponed. No new date has been set.

As part of their plea-bargain agreements, the three men's sentences will be determined in part by their cooperation with federal authorities.

Scrushy was charged with bribery and fraud in an indictment filed May 17 but kept under seal, prosecutors said.

The indictment claims Scrushy made "two disguised payments" totaling $500,000 to Siegelman in exchange for Siegelman appointing him to the state's Certificate of Need Review Board, which decides on hospital expansions.

Earlier this year, Scrushy was acquitted in a criminal case stemming from a massive accounting fraud at the Birmingham-based HealthSouth chain.

 

[Mursilis]

How many times does it have to be said?

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

 

[CaptnKirk]

Hang 'em High - let the guilty rise above the rest, so they can be seen.

 

[moshquerade]

i hope this gets to mug-shot stage. i'd like to see if he copies DeLay's approach. :laugh:

 

[CaptnKirk]

What a guy !

The indictment was last May.

 

[Genx87]

Do these people think that they are bulletproof?

Yes they do

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i hope this gets to mug-shot stage. i'd like to see if he copies DeLay's approach. :laugh:

I think I'll collect the whole set!

 

[daveshel]

Let the backlash begin.

Yes, they all thought they were bulletproof. They thought God was on their side, and that they were going to fix the world. Problem was, a lot of regular folks believed them, too. But now the regular folks see nothing positive being accomplished. They are getting tired of the divisiveness and getting tired of watching the body count rise.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Let the backlash begin.

Yes, they all thought they were bulletproof. They thought God was on their side, and that they were going to fix the world. Problem was, a lot of regular folks believed them, too. But now the regular folks see nothing positive being accomplished. They are getting tired of the divisiveness and getting tired of watching the body count rise.

And this "rising body count" has what to do with this Democrat ex-Governor of Alabama?

Perhaps you should save your preachin' for Sunday mornings, or at least until a relevant thread comes along.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
But also like DeLay, if you hadn't done anything to give the impression of improprietary acts, you wouldn't have to worry about witch hunts.

That sounds dangerously close to "If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't object to being investigated" anti-logic that leads us to sh1t-legislation like the Patriot Act. :thumbsdown:

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: daveshel
Let the backlash begin.

Yes, they all thought they were bulletproof. They thought God was on their side, and that they were going to fix the world. Problem was, a lot of regular folks believed them, too. But now the regular folks see nothing positive being accomplished. They are getting tired of the divisiveness and getting tired of watching the body count rise.

And this "rising body count" has what to do with this Democrat ex-Governor of Alabama?

Perhaps you should save your preachin' for Sunday mornings, or at least until a relevant thread comes along.

We're little trigger-happy this morning. Too much caffiene?

 

[dahunan]

I wish we would investigate every single god damned one of these politicians.. they are all criminals.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
But also like DeLay, if you hadn't done anything to give the impression of improprietary acts, you wouldn't have to worry about witch hunts.

That sounds dangerously close to "If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't object to being investigated" anti-logic that leads us to sh1t-legislation like the Patriot Act. :thumbsdown:

Not at all. Simple misinterpretation. Allow me to clarify.....

Don't do sh*t that gives the opposition ammo and they won't have REASONABLE CAUSE to start an investigation in the first place.

I wasn't trying to imply that any search would be fine b/c you are innocent.....but that there wouldn't be a reason to search to begin with. I am definately not in the mindset that "if you are innocent you won't mind us searching". Just the opposite.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
But also like DeLay, if you hadn't done anything to give the impression of improprietary acts, you wouldn't have to worry about witch hunts.

That sounds dangerously close to "If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't object to being investigated" anti-logic that leads us to sh1t-legislation like the Patriot Act. :thumbsdown:

Not at all. Simple misinterpretation. Allow me to clarify.....

Don't do sh*t that gives the opposition ammo and they won't have REASONABLE CAUSE to start an investigation in the first place.

I wasn't trying to imply that any search would be fine b/c you are innocent.....but that there wouldn't be a reason to search to begin with. I am definately not in the mindset that "if you are innocent you won't mind us searching". Just the opposite.

It still sounds like you're saying all people on the receiving end of an investigation are inherently guilty, or else they wouldn't be accused.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
But also like DeLay, if you hadn't done anything to give the impression of improprietary acts, you wouldn't have to worry about witch hunts.

That sounds dangerously close to "If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't object to being investigated" anti-logic that leads us to sh1t-legislation like the Patriot Act. :thumbsdown:

Not at all. Simple misinterpretation. Allow me to clarify.....

Don't do sh*t that gives the opposition ammo and they won't have REASONABLE CAUSE to start an investigation in the first place.

I wasn't trying to imply that any search would be fine b/c you are innocent.....but that there wouldn't be a reason to search to begin with. I am definately not in the mindset that "if you are innocent you won't mind us searching". Just the opposite.

It still sounds like you're saying all people on the receiving end of an investigation are inherently guilty, or else they wouldn't be accused.

Not at all. I am saying that people on the receiving end of an investigation have some something to PROMPT that investigation. My philosophy is just keep your nose clean in the first place.

 

[imported_Condor]

Before you libs get out the party hats, you should be told. He is a Democrat! Typical!

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Condor
Before you libs get out the party hats, you should be told. He is a Democrat! Typical!

I think that was made quite clear in the OP. Crooks are crooks.