Earlier this month a statement signed by a Republican lawyer surfaced, tying Karl Rove to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D). (The affidavit is available here.)

With just a few days left before he faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, Siegelman released a statement highlighting how his case has raised a number of serious questions that have all gone unanswered. Siegelman was found guilty of pushing HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to contribute $500,000 to a state lottery fund in exchange for reappointment to a hospital board. The first puzzle he lists is: Why was the wife of a well-known Republican operative who had worked on Siegelman's opponent's campaign allowed to initiate the investigation:

Why did Leura Canary get anywhere near my case knowing her husbands’ ties to my campaign opponents? Why did she have to be “outed” before her undocumented “recusal” after driving the case for 8 months?

In the affidavit of the Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, she makes this decision even more questionable. The affidavit is a description of a conference call amongst several top strategists on the Bob Riley (R) gubernatorial campaign in 2002. Simpson said they discussed possible ways to force Riley's opponent, Siegelman, to concede the hotly contested election.

Simpson said that GOP operative and friend to Rove, William Canary, mentioned he had spoken with Karl Rove about getting the Department of Justice on Siegelman. Canary also said his “girls would take care of him,” referring to two US attorneys in the state, one of whom is his wife, Leura Canary, who was responsible for the initial Seigelman investigation.

Leura Canary eventually recused herself from the case, but her office still brought the prosecution. Siegelman's statemet asks why the case stayed in her office:

After her phantom “recusal” why did the case remain in Canary’s office, with her assistants, and with the same investigators on the case.

The assistant US attorney, Louis Franklin, who prosecuted the case claims he was completely independent, saying that the decision to investigate and prosecute Siegelman was exclusively his decision -- however, he did not come onto the case until after Canary was forced to recuse herself.

One question Siegelman didn't ask, but still lingers is: Why would Dana Jill Simpson lie? What would cause a lifelong Republican to make up a story about William Canary claiming Karl Rove had promised to get the Justice Department on Siegelman?

The House Judiciary Committee has a copy of Simpson's affidavit for review, but has not scheduled a date for a hearing on the issue.