This morning the House Judiciary Committee is taking a look at allegations of political prosecutions at the Department of Justice, including the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), who has long claimed his party affiliation triggered the charges against him.

Noticeably absent today is the key witness, Dana Jill Simpson, who offered traction to Siegelman's claims that politics were behind his case. Simpson claimed in an affidavit that during a 2002 Gov. Bob Riley (R-AL) campaign phone call, she heard that Karl Rove had a hand in a Siegelman investigation. A few weeks ago, Simpson met with House investigators and offered more expansive testimony about her knowledge of the case.

Alabama Republicans, including Riley's son, Rob Riley, have attacked Simpson's character, particularly for saying more to investigators than she did in her affidavit. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) voiced the same complaint this morning during the judiciary hearing, accusing Simpson of "contradicting" herself during the interview with investigators. He went even further, saying that she'd "shredded" her credibility "beyond repair," called her allegations "fabrications" and said that the Justice Department should investigate her.

Update: An excerpt from Forbes' opening statement is below.

In its zeal to make mountains out of molehills, the majority is questioning the conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Seigelman [sic], who was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery, mail fraud and conspiracy by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison.

Governor Seigelman was found to be a corrupt politician who sold his public office for money. He was prosecuted by career prosecutors, found guilty by a jury of his peers, and sentenced by a federal judge with a record of fairness. I ask unanimous consent that statements by U.S. Attorney Leura Garrett Canary and Acting U.S. Attorney Louis V. Franklin be submitted for the record.

Like any defendant who has been found guilty and sentenced to jail, Seigelman is now alleging that he was prosecuted for political reasons. His credibility is no different than any other common criminal with a motive to say anything to get out of prison.
What is unusual today is that the majority is conducting an investigation based on these claims.

The majority’s misguided reliance on these claims is proven by their decision not to call Jill Simpson as a witness in this hearing. She is the sole witness who made the initial allegation about a single telephone call 5 years after the fact, 11 months after Seigelman’s conviction, and one month before his sentencing. Two individuals who she alleged were on the telephone have submitted affidavits contradicting her claim, and I ask unanimous consent that these statements be included in the record. I also ask unanimous consent that the statement of Governor Riley’s election attorney be submitted for the record.

The Judiciary Committee staff questioned Simpson for hours about her allegations. Her credibility was shredded beyond repair. Her statements during the interview were misleading, and unbelievable. In my view, the Committee should consider referring her to the Justice Department for further examination.

Simpson swore out an affidavit in May 2007 about an alleged telephone conversation in November 2002 – a conversation that she did not memorialize, nor tell anyone about until years later.

In her affidavit, she alleged that Siegelman conceded the election because of a controversy surrounding a KKK rally. When interviewed, Simpson changed her story. She claimed, for the first time, that Siegelman also conceded the election after receiving assurances that he would not be prosecuted.

Continuing her fabrications, Simpson alleged, for the first time in her interview, two additional conversations regarding Siegelman’s concession and prosecution.

Finally, in her effort to tie Karl Rove to the Siegelman prosecution, Simpson identified the name “Karl” on an email discussing a FEMA contract as Karl Rove. We have since learned that the “Karl” referred to on the email is Atlanta attorney Karl Dix, contrary to Simpson’s assertion. That’s why the majority did not want her here today.