Reply #9: There are questions at bottom that I want Birm News to answer...

[lala_rawraw]

Please write to them and demand they answer these questions... here is the bottom of the post above:

##
I will refrain from posting the rest of their idiocy here. But I will issue a challenge to the editors of the Birmingham News to address some of the questions that I and many others have. This is an open letter:

1. Are 52 State Attorney Generals - of both parties - all lying about the problems with the trial? Are they simply wrong? How do you account for what they cite vs. what you have reported?

2. Are Scott Horton and I both lying? If so, please provide specific, point-by-point proof of this.

3. Is the Alabama GOP and/or Governor Bob Riley and/or Karl Rove in discussions about this case with the paper? If so, what is the subject of those discussions?

4. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Governor Siegelman got a fair trial? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

5. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Dana Jill Simpson is lying? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

6. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that the prosecution had no knowledge that Nick Bailey was lying? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

7. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Lanny Young's testimony against Siegelman was credible, even though his allegations against Republicans, Senator Jeff Sessions and Judge William Pryor were dismissed by the prosecutors? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

8. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Karl Rove had no involvement in the investigation, indictment, trial, and imprisonment of Don Siegelman? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

9. Is the paper willing to say that they know for a fact that Bill Canary had nothing to do with the investigation and trial of Don Siegelman? If so, please provide reasons for this belief. If not, please remove your editorials and apologize to your readers.

10. Is the paper willing to say that should evidence prove them wrong on their "facts" (much like Karl Rove's math), they will be honorable and retract all of their previous false reporting and opining on this case and apologize to their readers? f the answer is no, please make that answer public, apologize to your readers, and quit pretending to be journalists.

That is my challenge. A think 7 days from today should be enough time. I also ask your help in making sure that the Birmingham News understands the amount of interest the public has in getting these answers.

You can email them as follows:

Tom Scarritt
Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Hunter George
Executive Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Bob Blalock
Editorial Page Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Pamela Dugan
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Chuck Clark
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Scott Walker
Assistant Managing Editor
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]