Although his exact whereabouts are currently unknown and although he has a growing stake in events unfolding in Alabama, it is highly unlikely that Karl Rove’s fingerprints will be found at the scene or that his DNA will be found in the blood spattered aftermath; but recent revelations and allegations reported by the Birmingham News conjures up distant memories of a blueprint, and a familiar pattern that has shown up in Alabama, in Texas, in California and in Washington DC. Leak or whisper something that finds its way into the press, and then follow it up with an investigation.
It has been reported that Gina Bailey McKell was on the payroll of Alabama’s two-year college system while she was employed first by Siegelman’s administration, and then in the offices of Congressman Artur Davis, not coincidentally one of the primary politicians who has pushed the Siegelman situation into Congress, and has been holding the White House’s feet to the fire, requesting documents and an investigation into the Siegelman prosecution.
This may not be direct evidence of Karl Rove or Washington influence, but it is Rovian in nature, but before making that jump, there are at least two bright red flags that must at least give us some pause before taking the Birmingham News story (or the Mobile Press-Register’s rather predictable editorial that will surely follow) at face value. The first problem is that there seems to be a lack of stealth or deception in this alleged unethical or corrupt example of cronyism. McKell was apparently not paid under the table or from slush funds or in any way that would suggest an improper situation, but moreover, when Siegelman left office, she stayed on for a few months under newly-elected Riley, and has said that she told Riley’s administration that she was paid by the two-year college system. And it should also be noted that she left Riley’s administration under her own volition, and was not fired or exposed for this supposed transgression. So the question must be asked: If Riley and his administration, who ran under a clean-government platform, didn’t expose or oust this Siegelman holdover, then why now? The second question is even more troublesome. The FBI investigated the Siegelman administration for six years. Six long years. It is more than likely that every single person who worked in or around Siegelman’s office was examined as to what their duties were, how much they were paid, where the money came from and that every little detail would have been explored, because after all, the government prosecutors maintained that the state was being run as a criminal enterprise. But the unlikely possibility that a suspicious relationship would slip through the FBI’s dragnet is not the only logic-defying aspect of this situation. Wouldn’t it be extremely likely that someone who has the name ‘Bailey’ in any part of her name would have been targeted for two or three double-takes? It doesn’t take any high-tech crime scene analysis to understand that the cousin of Nick Bailey, someone who has pled guilty to multiple crimes, would be subjected to a thorough and complete inquiry under the investigative microscope. But that didn’t happen and years passed.
So why now? Is it a coincidence that the hard-hitting investigative reporters of the Birmingham News happened to have found something on their desks years after the fact, and that the person at the center of the reporting happens to be one of the most vocal supporters of Don Siegelman. This page can be ripped right out of the Rove blueprint, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. Using smear and whisper campaigns to slow down or silence opposing voices is as old as politics. The story appeared a day after Jill Simpson raised the nervousness factor when she testified to Congress about her interaction with the Riley campaign as it might relate to Karl Rove and the prosecution of Siegelman. So here comes the kitchen sink; something that prosecutors in the Middle and Northern Districts of Alabama have some experience with, as they threw a six-year investigation, thirty-five counts and a couple defendants into an effort to get anything to stick to Siegelman. It wasn’t until they were able to parlay anger over Richard Scrushy’s acquittal in his 56 (originally eighty-something) count kitchen-sink-case into a tenuous conviction that they were finally able to make some old fog-producing media leaks bear fruit. There have been a number of claims, accusations and innuendo concerning Alabama’s two-year college system over the years: Some were unproven allegations, some were unsourced whispers, some were more meritorious and had the possibility of real ethical lapses; but following the deft fusing of Scrushy and an unrelated scandal onto the prosecution of Siegelman, it makes sense that after the public has been primed with years of various unconnected allegations, concerning the two-year college system, that the same mechanism that was used to bring down a governor could now be re-used to silence a questioning voice.
In the case and the investigation that is surely on the horizon, it appears that not only Feaga and Franklin are getting hot under the collar about a story that refuses to go away, but that members of the current administration might also be feeling the heat, so much so that they’re willing to dredge up years old dormant situations and rip up well-worn household fixtures to throw at those who would continue to ask questions.
Even if we don’t know exactly where Rove has been, or what Bill Canary’s been up to lately, it’s hard to ignore the implications of the kitchen sink.