What a crock of manure. Or should I say, "In the opinion of 'many liberals' truth and scientific fact have a conservative bias"?

The story may or may not be accurate--but how is one to know without additional sources? Single source reporting is often unwise to take at face value. Come now, conservative folks are often accused of getting all of our information from Fox News...if that is so horrible then surely one should not rely on a story from 60 Minutes alone? Did you guys actually read/watch the article? There's never any question what conclusion you're expected to draw from reading that article; it's crystal clear that Siegelman was a victim of injustice. I mean, you've got one of his lawyers and a couple of other people saying so--what is conviction by a jury compared to that?

Despite the eagerness of some to lay every evil in creation at the doorstep of the current administration, and despite my own disagreements with them, I hesitate to unquestioningly accept an article presented so as to lay such an obvious conclusion before me. If someone does have another more objective source for facts about this case, I too would like to see it.

Gandol teh Pirate wrote:

---

There is evidence, but it's more convenient to shoot the messenger in this case and assume that a Democrat was properly prosecuted not just on the strength of a trial, but on the anecdotal, ever-dishonest work done by 60 Minutes.

Who says? Generally, we assume someone was properly prosecuted when they are convicted by a jury. All that's been said is that we'd like more than just a 60 Minutes piece to convince us otherwise.

A jury said he was guilty. A jury said the guy accused of bribing him was guilty. If there was prosecutorial malfeasance in one or both cases, as 60 Minutes finds to be so terribly obvious, I imagine that the appellate system will rectify the matter. Until then, it's going to take more than their say-so to convince me.