Karl Rove Launches a Slimy Spin Campaign

Karl Rove never has been one to let the law stand in the way of his political ambitions. Now we discover that Rove won't let the facts stand in the way of his political spin.

The Wall Street Journal and The Birmingham News on Thursday both ran op-ed pieces that essentially said Rove had proven himself clean in the U.S. attorney firings and the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The WSJ piece was written by Rove, and The Birmingham News piece might as well have been. It raises pretty much the same points, and repeats the same lies, as the Rove-written piece.

Is it coincidence that two of the most right-wing editorial pages in the country ran pro-Rove op-ed pieces on the same day? I doubt it. It appears to be part of an orchestrated spin campaign--one that clearly is detached from reality.

Rove's WSJ piece borders on the delusional. Rove says his Congressional testimony showed he had little to do with the U.S. attorney firings; in fact, it showed he was right in the middle of them. Rove says he willingly gave sworn testimony; in fact, he had to be forced into giving testimony that was not under oath and was not in public; Rove says Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson did not testify before the House Judiciary Committee; in fact, she did just that in fall 2007.

Does anyone edit the slop that goes on the WSJ's editorial page?

David Fiderer provides an excellent summation of Rove's scribblings at Huffington Post:

Karl Rove can't help himself. The more he talks the more he suggests that he's guilty as sin. His throw-crap-against-the-wall-and-hope-it-sticks piece in The Wall Street Journal constitutes his latest non-denial about corrupt dealings with the Justice Department.

Fiderer then expertly exposes Rove's lies in the WSJ piece:

Rove's lies could not be more blatant. Simpson gave sworn testimony for the House Judiciary Committee, with questioning by Democratic staffers, on September 14, 2007. Gov. Siegelman was never called to testify by any agency or committee. Rove never testified for a Justice Department review of the Siegelman case. In fact, there's no indication that the Justice Department has considered the prima facie evidence of lying, concealment of evidence and witness intimidation by federal prosecutors.

Larisa Alexandrovna reports at Raw Story that Rove's piece indicates he might have improperly received inside information from the Department of Justice:

Rove’s remarkable admission that he “understand[s] that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony,” opens both Rove himself and and the OPR to questions of serious impropriety.

Pricilla Duncan, Simpson’s former attorney, said during a Thursday morning phone interview that she was concerned and wanted to know “how Rove could possibly know who the [Department of Justice] was interviewing and which witnesses were cooperating or not?”

U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says the Rove op-ed raises serious questions about the ethics of The Wall Street Journal:

When Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal, substantial concerns were raised about the number of media properties he owned and the right wing bias of his news ventures. Many questioned whether the Wall Street Journal would become just another New York Post or, worse, Fox News.

While the Journal’s editorial page had been conservative for some time, the news division had been largely balanced and thorough. (Indeed, the reporter’s online piece is balanced and thorough.) Many wondered whether Murdoch would put his right wing slant on the news pages as well.

The Journal’s handling of this chapter of the USA scandal seems to bring that question to a head—is it a sign that the editorial staff of the Journal’s news division—or at least its editing—has taken on Murdoch’s right-wing bias?

As for The Birmingham News, there never has been much doubt about its status as a right-wing mouthpiece. And that is only confirmed with its most recent editorial about Rove and the Siegelman prosecution.

The paper states, in essence, that Rove raised his right hand and testified under oath, so Siegelman should do the same thing. Never mind that Rove did not testify under oath, and Siegelman never has been called by Congress to testify at all. Just consider the News' statement that Siegelman should testify about something . . . anything:

We're not talking about requiring him to testify about the criminal charges against him; that would be unconstitutional, and wrong. We're talking about him giving sworn testimony about the political conspiracy he alleges is behind his conviction.

How nonsensical is this? Siegelman alleges that he was the VICTIM of a political conspiracy. The whole point of a conspiracy is to keep the victim in the dark about what is happening. So what is Siegelman supposed to know and say about actions that were hidden from him?

Thursday's writings reveal Rove and his Birmingham compatriots to be borderline unbalanced. Is this how people express themselves when they are feeling significant heat?

If so, perhaps these op-ed pieces are a good sign.

Jill Simpson Fires Back at Rove and The Wall Street Journal

Former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove threw a number of low blows in his op-ed piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.

Several of them were aimed at Alabama attorney and Don Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Rove calls Simpson an "eccentric Alabama lawyer," says Congressional staff members consider her "an unreliable witness," and says Simpson refused to cooperate with a Department of Justice inquiry into the Siegelman allegations.

Simpson showed a long time ago that she is willing to go toe-to-toe with Rove. And she fires back, in serious fashion, at both "Bush's Brain" and the WSJ. In a letter to Publisher Rupert Murdoch and the editors of The Wall Street Journal, Simpson writes:

It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article, and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job, and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.

And that's just a nugget from Simpson. Here is her complete letter:

Dear Mr. Murdoch and all the editors at the Wall Street Journal

My Response to the article "Closing in on Rove"

I want to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for running Karl Rove's delusional article, "Closing in on Rove," on August 20, 2009. The reason I want to thank you is that Mr. Rove has clearly lied about me in this article. You have captured and printed it without even checking to see if it is so or not. The lie he has told is and I quote, "Judiciary Democrats didn't get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer, who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations." In case you are unaware, I testified on September 14, 2007, before the House Judiciary Committee lawyers that were selected to question me. I most definitely gave sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Democrats. In fact, I gave over one hundred and forty three pages of testimony before the Judiciary Democratic and Republican lawyers. It is unfortunate that your paper does not give a rip about the truth or you would have checked out the bold-faced lie that Karl Rove put in his article before you printed it.

Further, I find it extremely tacky that you allow him to call me an eccentric Alabama lawyer. I ask, did you check with anyone other than Karl Rove, who clearly hates me for telling on him? Karl also states in his article, "I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony." It was announced on May 15, 2009, that Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify by Nora Dannehy of the DOJ about the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys in a criminal matter. I would hardly call that willingly giving sworn testimony. Further, he pointedly refused to agree to give sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this summer and did not take a sworn oath before chatting with the House Judiciary lawyers that questioned him. I might add that I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony. Mr. Rove, however, has willfully misled the public in this article into thinking that I have refused to give sworn testimony to the DOJ in the case in which he was subpoenaed to testify. I have never been subpoenaed or contacted by Nora Dannehy to testify in the investigation she is conducting on Karl Rove. I believe the reason for this is the fact that she is appointed the special prosecutor solely for the nine fired United States attorneys. Anyone who has read the transcript of my testimony before the House Judiciary lawyers, my affidavit, and watched the 60 Minutes piece would know I have never made a direct claim of having any personal knowledge about the fired United States attorneys. What I believe Mr. Rove is trying to do here is to confuse the public.

I would additionally like to state that I have had very limited contact with the Department of Justice since testifying before the House Judiciary lawyers. One contact is from Lisa Howard. She contacted my attorney in the fall of 2008 and contended that she was working at the DOJ for the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked about me possibly testifying and asked for my address. My attorney communicated to her that I had already told my story in an affidavit and given four hours of testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee and that both of these documents were readily available and represented all I knew about the prosecution of Don Siegelman. Ms. Howard did not ask for a copy of these documents nor has she every subpoenaed me or asked to interview me, and been refused, to the best of my knowledge.

In December of 2008, I was contacted by an individual I knew and her attorney about the OPR conducting an investigation on me and asking questions about my sex life and the adoption of my four-year-old daughter. I contacted the man they identified as working for the DOJ's OPR, Jim Sullivan, who happens to work for Alice Martin. I asked him if I was the target of an investigation since he had conversations with the woman who contacted me about whether I had bought a baby for $300,000 after his asking her about it. He would not confirm or deny if I was a target to investigation on the ridiculous claim that I had bought a baby for $300,000, which was untrue, but he admitted asking the questions the woman said he had asked her. Within a week or two, the woman contacted me again and said that a Mr. Causey, A Washington OPR attorney, had contacted her. I had my attorney write the DOJ's OPR office and Ms. Howard about this matter to ask if this was the way they conduct investigations at the OPR. Further, it seemed quite odd at the time considering I do not work for the DOJ, and I could not fathom the connection of my sex life and adoption of my four-year-old daughter having anything to do with the investigation of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. An OPR attorney, Judith Wish, contacted my attorney and asked her to provide the name of the individuals that their employees had contacted. They did ask me what their investigators learned and whom they had spoken with. We communicated back that they should ask them because Mr. Sullivan had already admitted to me that he had done it and could not tell me why. I had no desire to put into writing their ridiculous claims. Those are the only two contacts I have had with the DOJ. Neither involved me refusing to testify from being subpoenaed or interviewed on whether Mr. Siegelman had been persecuted or not, as Karl Rove so claimed in the news article. I did, however, refuse to give them the names of the people they had contacted but gave them their employee’s names as they knew very well who they had contacted.

It has long been my belief that Karl Rove put the OPR up to asking these questions, and I am still to this date waiting for an apology from the OPR and have never heard anything else from the DOJ since they got caught snooping around in my personal life. It is completely ridiculous for Rove to claim I refused to cooperate with them when I am still waiting for them to let me know why they were snooping in my personal life (for information) that had nothing to do with their investigations of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. Plus, the allegations were ridiculous, as I had not "bought" my daughter. I would have thought they could have gotten to the bottom of this very quickly. Never during any of that awful deal with DOJ did they ask me to testify and give a sworn statement. Further, how my sex life was involved in their investigation is beyond me, but they had questions about it. I suspect this was done in an attempt to embarrass me. I suspect Karl Rove was behind those attempts to discredit me and again the stuff was just so ridiculous. Apparently that matter is lost as well at the DOJ, as we never heard back from Ms. Judith Wish after she contacted Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Causey.

After reading Mr. Rove's article today, it is unclear, but I believe he may be claiming he made a sworn statement to OPR. I shall be writing to see if this is about my sex life and adoption. I would love to know if he is the one behind those ridiculous tales.

Mr. Rove also stated in the article that committee staff considered me an unreliable witness, but he fails to identify any of those unnamed individuals. What I find most interesting is he fails to mention the report that found my evidence was credible enough to call him as a witness. He is truly a sad, pathetic individual trying to cover his behind from criminal prosecution.

It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article, and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job, and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.

Thank you, Mr. Murdoch, for printing his lies. Hopefully the American public will wake up and realize that Karl Rove is a liar. For too long he has been allowed to politically bully people and lie in the press. Today I socked him in the nose with the truth. As for his lies, please let him know lies do not hurt anyone except the person who tells them.

I am happy today to call Mr. Rove a liar, and you have provided the cold hard proof. You, Mr. Murdoch, gave me that opportunity. I am thankful that you run a paper that apparently does not check for the truth.

Sincerely,

DANA JILL SIMPSON

Karl Rove and Some Curious Ground Rules

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee chose to take unsworn testimony from former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove in a private session so that members could have ample time to question him, according to a published report.

But an Alabama attorney and Republican Party whistleblower says Rove's unsworn testimony will be worthless for the purposes of law enforcement.

Two aides to the House Judiciary Committee told Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story that the decision to have Rove testify behind closed doors was not a concession to the Bush administration:

According to two Judiciary Committee aides, the committee opted for the private testimony so that they could depose Rove for an extended period of time. During a public hearing, each committee member would have only a few minutes to ask questions.

“We could question him for 12 hours if we choose to,” said one of the aides.

The two aides confirmed that Rove would not be sworn in for his testimony, but they said testimony before Congress is de facto sworn, meaning any false statements could bring perjury charges:

Asked why in that case Congress bothers to swear people in during public hearings, one of the aides quipped, “Because it looks good.”

That argument did not sit well with Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, whose sworn testimony about a conference call involving GOP operatives indicated Rove was involved in a plan to bring a bogus prosecution against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

"It is important for Karl Rove to be sworn under oath because others may assert he wasn't, and therefore the testimony isn't admissible in a court of law against them," Simpson says. "Congress is a fool not to swear Mr Rove under oath. I, however, suspect they know exactly why it was agreed he not be sworn."

Simpson has repeatedly pointed a finger of suspicion at Greg Craig, White House Counsel for the Obama administration and a former member of Williams & Connolly, a major Washington, D.C., law firm. Craig represented Rove on a book deal and has been friendly socially with the former Bush advisor, Simpson says. Also, Williams & Connolly represents a number of former Bush administration officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"I am sure that Greg Craig would know that unsworn testimony isn't worth the paper it is written on in a court of law," Simpson says. "Maybe we should hear from Mr Craig, as President Obama's lawyer, and from his former partner (Emmet Flood), who is President Bush's lawyer.

"They are the ones who struck the deal for Karl Rove to testify unsworn. What were they thinking, and why was this done in this fashion? Who are they protecting by taking unsworn testimony from Karl Rove?"

Simpson had one final thought about the ground rules for Rove's testimony:

"Since the aide for the House Judiciary Committee says the oath to tell the truth is for show only, then why don't they, for show, have Karl Rove take the oath? After all, why would he avoid it? If it truly is just for show, then Rove could take the oath, and that would once and for all put this issue behind him.

"Karl has repeatedly spouted off that he can't wait for the grilling, so why would he not agree to testify under oath? That way, there would be no question about his testimony."

Siegelman and the Rove Testimony: Where Do We Go From Here?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee took an important first step by interviewing former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove. But the truth about the Don Siegelman case will not come out unless Congress conducts a thorough investigation and uses that information to confront Rove, and others, with much tougher questions than have been posed so far.

That's the opinion of a central figure in the Siegelman case, which was overshadowed by the U.S. attorney firings in documents released this week by the House Judiciary Committee.

Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson said she was disappointed in the questioning of Rove. She said the questions were too soft, and they were not built on a strong investigation. But the inquiry could be a useful first step if Congress follows up in a thorough and aggressive manner.

"(The questioners) clearly were unprepared, and I had warned folks ahead of time that Mr. Rove and his lawyer might try to practice the art of distraction in the interview--and on several key questions he did just that," Simpson said. "He was even assisted by President Bush's lawyer, Emmett Flood. But it is to be expected, since Mr. Rove has a great deal of experience answering questions when potential criminal charges are looming in front of him."

The key to moving forward, Simpson says, is building a strong base of evidence. "I was disappointed that the House Judiciary Committee had not taken steps to subpoena the phone records of the numerous folks I testified about. I would have liked to have seen the Congressional investigators have the e-mail and phone records of Leura Canary; her U.S. attorney's office in Montgomery; the office of her husband, Bill Canary; their home records; the records of Governor Bob Riley and his son, Rob Riley; Noel Hillman (Public Integrity Section director) and Stewart Hall (head of Ogilvy/Federalist Group).

"Further I think before questioning Mr. Rove they should have questioned former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. Maybe they should have subpoenaed Pryor's phone and e-mail records.

"For whatever reason, they elected to do no investigation of these key people--as is clear from the line of questions."

Simpson was baffled that no questions were based on her sworn testimony before Congress in fall 2007. "I'm not sure they even reread my affidavit or testimony because there were not any questions regarding what I said in my affidavit or testimony, specifically. I really had expected there would be, but there was not."

Simpson testified that she overhead Bill Canary and other GOP operatives planning a political prosecution of Siegelman and that they had worked it out with "Karl," an apparent reference to Rove. "One good question for Mr. Rove would have been, 'Did Bill Canary speak to you about actions of the Department of Justice, and if he did not, then why do you think he said he did? But they did not press that issue."

Is it possible that the Rove inquiry was a whitewash, with no intention of determining what really happened in the Siegelman case? Simpson fears the answer might be yes. But she does see some hopeful signs.

"I think a few important things came out of this. Clearly there was evidence about Mr. Rove watching the races down here in Alabama--and being involved; he just couldn't recall a single detail, best I could tell from his answers. I think it is clear that Mr Rove appears to be having senior moments that need to be checked out--or he is lying through his teeth. I have my opinion about that, but time will tell. . . .

"The evidence also clearly showed he had a friendship with Bill Canary. But Mr. Rove couldn't recall the name of Canary's wife, the Siegelman prosecutor. Does anyone buy that? Clearly he knew all the Alabama players, and many of them had claimed to barely knowing him in the summer of 2007, when my affidavit surfaced in the Time magazine article by Adam Zagorin. But Mr. Rove couldn't recall one detailed instance of seeing these people in person. That's ridiculous."

Simpson said the Rove testimony reminded her of an ancient Arabian proverb. "If the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow, so the tale goes. And before long, all the people sleeping in the tent will be run out into the cold.

"Karl Rove was the camel who stuck his nose into matters at the Justice Department. Before you knew it, he was in the tent and running the whole show, forcing the good honest folks out of the tent."

The key, Simpson says, is to understand how the camel got his nose under the DOJ tent--and to make sure it never happens again. After all, Simpson says with some colorful language, camels like Karl Rove leave an ungodly mess that is hard to clean up.

"We should never allow political camels like Karl Rove in the DOJ tent because their s**t is really hard to clean up. It is hard to restore a tent that has been s**t in by such an unruly camel.

"Always remember: Camel s**t doesn't bother the camel, only the people who have to smell it."

Jill Simpson Takes on National Review

Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson is demanding a retraction from National Review for false and misleading statements in an August 5 editorial.

Priscilla Duncan, Simpson's Montgomery-based attorney, says National Review made numerous false statements in its piece, "Unappealing Power Play." The article addresses efforts by Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials to avoid testifying before Congress.

Here are some of the statements with which Duncan takes issue:

NR: A House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the Don Siegelman prosecution is "based solely on the testimony of one Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama GOP campaign volunteer."

PD: "She was one of several persons who have testified regarding the political aspects of (Siegelman's) prosecution. Included among them were law professor Scott Horton and former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones. Conyers inquiry was not solely based on her statement as you stated."

NR: Simpson testified to Conyers "in a private interview."

PD: "She did not testify to Conyers in a private interview--where do you people get this stuff? The hearing was in the form of a deposition to majority and minority counsel--three each. She was questioned for four hours, sworn to tell the truth and there were no restrictions on inquiry."

NR: Simpson's stories are "pure hearsay, they keep changing . . . "

PD: "Ms. Simpson's account has never changed, only the questions."

Duncan raises a potential motivation for Rove, one I had never thought of. She says Rove might intentionally be trying to get Simpson to bring a defamation action against him so he can find out what she knows in the civil discovery process and avoid a perjury trap before Congress. Pretty crafty on Turd Blossom's part.

Finally, Duncan tells National Review how "the hog ate the cabbage." (To use a good Southern term.)

As Ms. Simpson says, "Slander is the ultimate revenge of a coward." Rove has trampled through government like a wild boar in a turnip patch for too many years. Now that he's being hunted, he is hiding in the woods from the House Judiciary Committee. He needs to come out in the sunshine, tell the truth and stop being terrified of Ms. Simpson.

That it takes a small town lawyer in Alabama to do it, casts shame on all you puffed up big-city pundits. Barry Goldwater would be embarrassed by you and so would William F. Buckley.

I love it! In fact, I love it so much that I want to run the entire letter. Schnauzer readers ought to enjoy this:

A comprehensive statement of Karl Rove's use of the media to attack Jill Simpson--
Priscilla Duncan
helzphar@mindspring.com

Subject: RE: Unappealing Power Play

A Response To the Editors of The National Review
Dear Editors:

I am the legal counsel for Dana Jill Simpson, and we are demanding a retraction for the false and misleading statements in your August 5 editorial.

Ms. Simpson wrote an affidavit that was released just before Gov. Don Siegelman sentenced last year. She was only the first of several persons who have testified regarding the political aspects of his prosecution. Included among them were law professor Scott Horton and former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones. Conyers' inquiry was not solely based on her statement as you stated.

Ms. Simpson's sworn testimony to the Judiciary Committee was structured exactly as Conyers and Lamar Smith requested. That testimony was backed up with about four pounds of Ms. Simpson's documents, which you apparently haven't taken time to examine.

She did not testify to Conyers in a private interview -- where do you people get this stuff??-- The hearing was in the form of a deposition to majority and minority counsel -- three each. She was questioned four hours, sworn to tell the truth and there were no restrictions on inquiry. Ms. Simpson and I even offered to Republicans to answer questions over the telephone prior to the inquiry, but they evinced no interest.

During the time we were in Washington, we never met with Conyers or any member of the Committee or any member of Congress for that matter. Ms. Simpson has never met Conyers.

Ms. Simpson's account has never changed, only the questions. Many of the "stories" as you refer to them, were detailed earlier to journalists or lawyers, but were not released due to their selection of topic. Other issues simply were not explored. 60 Minutes interviewed Ms. Simpson in three cities for more than 6 hours and telephoned numerous times on fine points. The two minutes of Ms. Simpson's interview that 60 Minutes chose to use was not selected by Ms. Simpson. If there really were inconsistencies in her testimony, Karl would have something else to offer besides calling her "a lunatic," a word Google associates with Rove 99,800 times.

In her Congressional testimony Rove is mentioned 16 times. Obviously, no one on your staff has read it, and you are repeating false information vomited out by Mr. Rove and his henchmen. Rove attacks Ms. Simpson because he knows she knows more. Her information about such matters is vast. Rove can't afford to testify without knowing it all, and for this reason he has attempted to lure her into a defamation action against him for the scurrilous lies he has told about her in GQ, Weekly Standard , Powerline , News Busters and now The National Review.

I am sure Rove has steadily cursed the Republican counsel in the Judiciary Committee for not grilling Ms. Simpson with more gusto last fall -- but then, Rove ran out of Washington like a scalded dog two weeks before Ms. Simpson testified on Sept. 14. He resigned Aug. 31.

As Ms. Simpson says, "Slander is the ultimate revenge of a coward." Rove has trampled through government like a wild boar in a turnip patch for too many years. Now that he's being hunted, he is hiding in the woods from the House Judiciary Committee. He needs to come out in the sunshine, tell the truth and stop being terrified of Ms. Simpson.

That it takes a small town lawyer in Alabama to do it, casts shame on all you puffed up big-city pundits.Barry Goldwater would be embarrassed by you and so would William F. Buckley.

Priscilla Duncan

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjczMDRhNWY3NDA0ZDMxNDViNDhmZGFlMzEzM2JkZmE

Siegelman Comes Out Counterpunching Against Rove

We don't know details about Karl Rove's testimony last week before staff attorneys of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After all, "Turd Blossom's" eight-hour deposition was conducted behind closed doors.

But thanks to the reporting of Jason Leopold at The Public Record, we have a pretty good idea of what Rove said. And thanks to a press release from Don Siegelman, we know that the former Alabama governor landed several crisp e-counterpunches to Rove's chubby chin.

Leopold reports that Rove, in an interview on Fox News back in March, said he already has responded to questions about the Siegelman prosecution and posted answers on his Web site, Rove.com.

How did Rove manage to do that? He received written questions last July from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee. Without consulting committee chairman John Conyers, Smith submitted Rove's responses into the Congressional record.

In his written response to Smith's 14 questions, Rove stated:

"I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf," Rove wrote. "I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters."

Leopold reports that Rove responded to eight other questions with the exact same answer.

In a written statement released yesterday, Siegelman pounced on Rove's not-so subtle end run around the truth. First, the former governor notes that Rove did not answer the question that was put to him:

“That wasn’t the question. The question was, “have you talked to anyone about prosecuting Siegelman.

“Rove’s answer cleverly leaves open that he could have talked to his best friend, the U. S. Attorney’s husband, Bill Canary. In fact that is precisely what Dana Jill Simpson says in her affidavit and in her sworn testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Nor does Rove deny talking directly to the U.S. Attorney herself, or to my opponent or his son or Rove’s then partner in Alabama, Kitty McCullough (AKA Kelly Kimbrough).

Here is another one of Rove's answers, regarding Republican whistleblower and Alabama attorney Jill Simpson:

ROVE: “I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Simpson (Dana Jill Simpson) about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman . . . "

The former governor was ready for that one, too:

Rove answers truthfully here because that was not the basis of the allegation: no one ever said he was on the phone with Dana Jill Simpson. She was on the phone with the husband of my prosecutor, Bill Canary, who announced to all on the conference call: “Stop worrying about Siegelman. I have talked to Karl and Karl has already got the Justice department pursuing Siegelman, and besides, my girls are going to take care of him.” (His girls having been defined as his wife, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama and Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney from the Northern District. Both of whom initiated charges [against Siegelman] in rapid succession as the 2006 election neared).

It's easy to see why Rove wanted to answer questions in writing, without having to face pesky followups. It's also easy to see how Rove planned to hoodwink the House Judiciary Committee staff.

Was he able to pull it off? Time will tell. But it doesn't look like Siegelman plans to let Rove walk quietly into the good night.

The Birmingham News Has No Shame

Any notion that The Birmingham News is a real newspaper, making even the slightest effort to report the news in an objective fashion, can officially be pitched out the window today.

Regular readers of Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org almost certainly decided some time ago that the News is little more than a right-wing mouthpiece. Anyone with lingering doubt needs to check out today's Brett Blackledge special in the "Riley/Rove Gazette."

The headline says "Siegelman report cited by defense in two-year college case." At the heart of the story is this: Lawyers for State Rep. Sue Schmitz, who faces fraud charges, have moved that her case be dismissed on the grounds that she, like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, is the victim of a political prosecution. Schmitz' lawyers cite last week's report from the majority staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which called for further investigation into the Siegelman case and other federal prosecutions that appear to have been driven by politics.

This seems to throw our guy Brett into some sort of spasm. His story devolves into a trashing of the U.S. House report that sounds like it was authored by the Republican National Committee.

Let's examine some of the contentions Blackledge makes in his piece:

* "The Democratic report issued last week on the Siegelman case frequently cites Internet postings by partisan bloggers working with Siegelman and his allies as evidence of growing public outrage . . . "--The overwhelming majority of citations in the report are to mainstream publications--The New York Times, Time magazine, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Huntsville Times, Mobile Press-Register, etc. Blackledge doesn't identify the "bloggers" he is referring to, so we are left to guess. But Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, is the only "blogger" cited for more than one article in the report. So it seems safe to assume that Blackledge is referring to Horton. Blackledge evidently doesn't want his readers to know that Horton writes for Harper's, one of America's most respected periodicals. He doesn't want us to know that Horton is a law professor at Columbia University and a native of Alabama, who knows and cares about the territory. Bottom line? Blackledge has no evidence to support his claim that the report is driven by "partisan bloggers," so he doesn't present any. We can just trust Brett.

* "In raising concerns about politics affecting prosecutions, the Democrats committee report repeats disputed claims about Washington interference in Siegelman's case."--Disputed by whom, and in what forum? Have any of the key players disputed the claims under oath? Have any of them submitted to questioning under oath? I didn't think so.

* "Former White House adviser Karl Rove's connection to the case, for example, relies on Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson's statements, which have changed at least twice."--Blackledge just can't resist dragging out this tired old chestnut. So let's get something straight: Simpson has told her story in three different forms or venues--a sworn affidavit, sworn testimony under bipartisan questioning from Congressional staff, and media interviews. She has given her story in three different forums. That doesn't mean she has changed her story. The truth? Simpson has made sworn statements and answered questions both under oath and the glare of media floodlights. Have any of her detractors done the same? I didn't think so.

* "(Bill) Canary and others Simpson said were on the 2002 conference call have denied discussing the case with Rove and have denied her allegations that Rove was discussed on a phone call with her."--Have these out-and-out denials come under oath? Nope. Is Blackledge going to mention the carefully hedged "lawyer's" language in the affidavits filed by Rob Riley and two others? Nope.

This one is good for a laugh, so make sure you don't have a mouthful of water:

* "The Democrats' report on Siegelman's case, which serves as the basis for a demand that Rove testify before Congress on the matter, states Rove publicly has not addressed 'the main charge that he had pressed the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Siegelman.' But last month, Rove did just that in an interview with The News, stating, 'There is absolutely no evidence for that at all. I did not pressure the Justice Department on anything.'"--Oh well, gee, that settles it. Karl Rove gives an interview to our guy Brett, and that equals sworn testimony before Congress. And we can be sure that our guy Brett really pressured Turd Blossom with some serious followup questions. If the Pulitzer committee doesn't take away Blackledge's Pulitzer Prize for writing that paragraph, then there is no reason to hold much respect for that storied outfit.

What an embarrassment for the journalism profession. But, as we said, The Birmingham News has no shame.

Prosecutors Resort to Fabrications in Siegelman Case

Federal prosecutors in Alabama apparently felt the need to create a fantasy world in their efforts to prevent a new trial in the Don Siegelman case.

In a document dated August 27, 2009, the government responds to a Motion for a New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence that had been filed by Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy.

Prosecutors' response contains statements that are clearly false related to several critical issues. Specifically, prosecutors make numerous misstatements about Karl Rove's Congressional testimony. They also mischaracterize the contents of affidavits that were designed to counter the sworn statements of Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson.

Regarding Rove, prosecutors state that the former Bush White House adviser denied contacting anyone at the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case. In fact, Rove did no such thing. He either contradicted himself or used hedge language ("not that I recall," "not to my knowledge") in all of his answers to questions about his possible involvement in the Siegelman case.

Early in his testimony, Rove did deny contacting anyone at the Justice Department about the case. But when asked if he had contacted Noel Hillman, then head of the Public Integrity Section (which is part of the Justice Department), Rove hedged: "No, not that I recall."

And as we reported on August 13, Rove certainly did not deny that someone working for him might have contacted the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case:

When asked if anyone from the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA), Republican National Committee (RNC), or Republican Governors' Association (RGA) communicated with the Justice Department, Rove's answer is "not to the best of my knowledge."

Under questioning from House Judiciary Committee Counsel Elliot Mincberg, Rove also did not deny that he or someone working for him might have contacted any number of key officials in Alabama, including those working for the Justice Department:

Mincberg goes on to ask if Rove or anyone from any GOP-connected groups had communicated about Siegelman with:

* Any Alabama U.S. attorney's office;

* The Alabama attorney general's office or any other state law-enforcement agency;

* Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama;

* Bob Riley, Rob Riley, or anyone in the Riley administration; or

* Members of the media or press.

Rove's answers were "not that I'm aware of" or "not that I recall."

As we noted in our previous post, Mincberg hit Rove with a couple of "money questions," which covered the entire Siegelman episode. Here was one of them:

Q Again, in the period of time between Governor Siegelman's election and the end of 2002, did you or anyone working for you ever have any communications with anyone about a possible criminal investigation, prosecution, or illegal acts by Governor Siegelman?

A Not that I'm aware of.

The bottom line? Did Karl Rove, as the government contends, deny having contact with anyone at the Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case? Not even close.

What about efforts to counter Jill Simpson's testimony? The government is deceitful about that, as well.

In its response to the Siegelman/Scrushy motion, prosecutors state:

The Conyers Report itself acknowledges that the only other parties who should have firsthand knowledge of these allegations-Rob Riley, Bill Canary, and Terry Butts, as well as another person present with Riley on November 18, 2002, Matt Lembke-have all denied Simpson’s accusations including that such a phone conversation ever occurred, in sworn affidavits submitted to the House Committee.

In fact, Bill Canary presented no sworn statement to the House Committee. Riley, Butts, and Lembke did present affidavits, but they did not deny Simpson's allegations or that a phone call took place.

Here is how we characterized the Riley/Butts/Lembke affidavits in a post dated October 23, 2007:

All three affidavits have a fair amount of what I would call "hedge" language in them--

Riley
"I have no memory of being on a phone call . . ."

"I do not believe a phone call occurred . . ."

"I do not believe that I have ever met or spoken with Judge Mark Fuller . . ."


Butts
". . . nor do I recall, any conference call occurring with Ms. Simpson . . . "

"As I recall, none of us were ever outside each other's presence on that day . . . "

"Again, I neither recall any such call, nor do I believe any such call/conversation . . . ever took place."


Lembke
"I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place between her . . . "

"I do not believe that I was out of Justice Butts' and Rob Riley's presence for 11 consecutive minutes . . . "

So is the government's statement accurate--that four key people denied Jill Simpson's allegations and denied that a phone call even took place? Again, not even close.

To use blunt language, federal prosecutors resort to repeated lies in their efforts to prevent a new trial in the Siegelman/Scrushy case. And the lies are not related to an arcane, minor element of the case. The false statements pertain to the Siegelman/Scrushy claims of a selective prosecution--the very heart of the matter.

The government notes that the two essential elements of such a claim are: (1) Discriminatory effect (a showing that the government “has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated to the defendant”); and (2) Discriminatory intent.

The falsehoods noted above come in the section where prosecutors try to counter the Siegelman/Scrushy claims that the government acted with discriminatory intent.

A reasonable person might ask: Why would prosecutors resort to lying in their argument about discriminatory intent in the Siegelman/Scrushy matter?

A reasonable person might answer: Maybe it's because prosecutors know they acted with discriminatory intent and don't have a legitimate answer for it.

Birmingham News' Credibility Hits Rock Bottom

In case anyone on the planet still doubts that Alabama's largest newspaper is a right-wing tool, The Birmingham News confirmed it over the Labor Day weekend.

Right there on page 5 of Sunday's editorial section was the Karl Rove column that ran in The Wall Street Journal on August 19. The Rove column does not appear to be on the News' Web site at al.com. But it was in Sunday's print edition, with this ironic headline, "Times, Post should admit errors."

The reference was to editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post suggesting that a full investigation should be conducted into Rove's possible role in the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove, of course, contends that his recent Congressional testimony proves he was not improperly involved in those matters. Never mind that his testimony did no such thing. The Birmingham News was more than happy to rerun a column that was almost three weeks old--and run it apparently without any copy editing or fact checking.

The News' allows Rove to state, once again, that he gave sworn testimony, when it is well established that he was not under oath. Rove repeats his canard that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson had not testified before Congress, when it is well established that she did just that in fall 2007.

In fact, the News ran a transcript of Simpson's testimony on October 10, 2007. And yet it runs an op-ed piece on Sunday in which Karl Rove claims that Simpson never testified before Congress?

Is anyone at The Birmingham News even awake? Is the newspaper capable of embarrassment or shame? Is the paper going to run a followup piece with this headline: "News admits errors"? Is the paper so intent on covering Karl Rove's slimy tracks that it is content to shred what little is left of its credibility?

Need more evidence of the News' "tooldom"? Here is an e-mail I sent on September 3 to columnist John Archibald, who has repeatedly in recent months stressed the importance of corruption investigations. I sent Archibald a link to an article about recent allegations that Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, had improperly (and perhaps unlawfully) tried to influence the Alabama Supreme Court on a gambling-related case:

John:

You've written numerous columns stating that public corruption cases must remain a priority for the Justice Department in Alabama. Are you and your colleagues at The News going to look into this case? Are you going to opine that the feds must get to the bottom of this?

Roger

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/09/did-alabamas-gop-governor-commit-crime.html

Have I received a response from Archibald? Nope. Of course, this is the same "journalist" who told me about a year ago that he was working on an investigation of serious wrongdoing in Shelby County, which is infested with GOP public officials. Has a word about that "investigation" ever appeared in the newspaper? Nope.

Tools, indeed.

Solzhenitsyn's Death Reveals the Moral Decay of Modern Conservatism

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the acclaimed Russian author and dissident, is viewed as a hero by many in the West.

Adherents of American conservatism particularly seem to hold Solzhenitsyn as an iconic figure. To conservatives, Solzhenitsyn undercut the moral standing of Soviet Communism by casting light on the brutal prison camps of Josef Stalin.

Throughout the 1970s and '80s, Ronald Reagan frequently quoted Solzhenitsyn, further cementing the Russian's exalted standing with the American right.

So it is supremely ironic that Solzhenitsyn's death last week helped reveal the moral rot at the center of modern conservatism.

A moral and ethical vacuum is readily apparent on the pages of National Review, the preeminent journal of the American right.

For the past week or so, National Review Online (NRO) has been filled with tributes to Solzhenitsyn. Here is a sampling:

* Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, R.I.P.

* Moral Giant

* Witness: Solzhenitsyn vs. Evil

What do the writers at NRO say about Solzhenitsyn?

The editors write: "There was no greater or more effective foe of Communism, or of totalitarianism in general."

Rich Lowry writes: "In his suffering, he gained insight into the twistedness of the human heart. 'Gradually it was disclosed to me,' he writes, 'that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either--but right through every human heart--and through all human hearts.'"

Paul Kengor writes: "Spared the martyrdom of the dead Russian believers who could not live to blow the whistle, it was left to him to witness to the outside world."

So NRO admires Solzhenitsyn for standing up to oppressive political states, for his insights on human evil, and for his willingness to be a witness against his persecutors.

How then, do we square these sentiments with the thoughts present in an NRO editorial titled "Unappealing Power Play?"

In their "Unappealing" piece, NRO's editors seem concerned that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the Office of the Inspector General might actually be getting somewhere in their investigations of the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). The editors seem particularly alarmed that the walls might be starting to close in on former White House strategist Karl Rove.

In their haste to protect Rove, the NRO editors trash Alabama Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, saying her "stories" (actually, sworn testimony) are "hearsay," that they "keep changing," and that "no one has ever corroborated them."

The editors, however, do not stop at defaming Simpson. They go so far as to provide legal strategy for Rove and his fellow loyal Bushies, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. "The best approach for Rove, Miers, and Bolten is to appeal," intones the NRO crowd. "An appeal would probably run out the clock on the current administration . . . "

Is it a sure sign of a warped mind when someone cannot even see the irony that drips from their own writings? If so, the collective mind of National Review must be warped beyond repair.

The NRO brain trust praises Solzhenitsyn for speaking out against an oppressive regime, for shining a light on evil, for being a witness to the truth.

But what about Jill Simpson, who at great personal cost has spoken out about evil in the Bush administration? What about her testimony regarding an evil that has so enveloped the Bushies that they actually have caused political opponents to be imprisoned?

And what about the truth? NRO apparently hasn't entertained the thought that Simpson's sworn testimony under oath might be true. And it even goes so far as to suggest how Rove & Company might go about ensuring that the truth never comes out.

NRO's editors, writing about Solzhenitsyn, throw around terms like "moral giant."

How in the world would they recognize one?

Why is Congress Treating Karl Rove and Roger Clemens Differently?

I can't even read Sports Illustrated these days without being reminded about our screwed-up justice system.

Consider the April 27 issue of SI, which includes "Fall From Grace," a story about the looming legal woes of baseball great Roger Clemens. I've never been a Clemens fan. While the big Texan is unquestionably one of baseball's all-time great pitchers, he has long come across as an arrogant jackass who cheated the game by using performance-enhancing drugs.

But SI now reveals that Congress treated Clemens in a much tougher way than it apparently plans to treat former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. Suddenly, Clemens seems like a sympathetic character.

We've known for weeks that Congress plans to let Rove testify unsworn, in a private setting, about apparent politicization of the Justice Department under Bush.

SI makes it clear that Clemens was offered no such accommodations when he testified before Congress in February 2008 about baseball's steroid problems.

Consider this passage from "Fall From Grace":

Flanked by his lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, Clemens entered room 2157 of the Rayburn Building, took the oath and promptly declared, "I have not used steroids or growth hormone." He repeated this denial, in various formulations, six times in the first 30 minutes of the exceedingly awkward meeting.

These were probably the most important sentences Clemens had ever uttered. The sworn statements were direct and unequivocal, and they were recorded verbatim. From that moment forward, if it were ever proved that Clemens had used steroids or HGH, he could be prosecuted for lying to Congress. For much of the deposition he sat silently while his lawyers spoke to the investigators, clarifying the pitcher's answers and bashing the methodology of the Mitchell Report. Clemens had eagerly looked forward to testifying. It was his chance to demonstrate resolve and, it seemed, to blow off steam.

We learn that the statements were sworn. And that's why Clemens is in such hot water now--because "he could be prosecuted for lying to Congress."

Congressional aides have tried to convince us that any testimony before Congress is de facto sworn testimony, meaning that Rove could face charges of lying to Congress. But that doesn't seem to square with SI's reporting on the Clemens case.

It also adds credence to Alabama lawyer (and Siegelman-case whistleblower) Jill Simpson and her contentions that Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig is trying to protect Rove.

After all, Rove is one of several former Bush officials who have been represented by Williams & Connolly, Craig's former law firm.

Clemens was represented by a couple of big hitters--Rusty Hardin, of Houston, and Lanny Breuer, of the D.C. firm Covington & Burling. President Obama has named Breuer to head the criminal division of the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder.

Breuer clearly has clout, but he's not a Williams & Connolly guy. Maybe that's where Clemens went wrong.

Plot Thickens On Siegelman Prosecution and Air Force Tanker Deal

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has confirmed that his prosecution probably was driven partly by the prolonged battle over a massive Air Force tanker contract.

Andrew Kreig, executive director of the Justice Integrity Project, shines new light on the Siegelman case--and its ties to major national stories, in a new piece at OpEd News. Here is how Kreig summarizes the latest on the Siegelman story:

Imprisoned businessman Richard Scrushy, a defendant in the most controversial federal prosecution of the decade, last week repeated his call for the presiding judge to remove himself, even as the disputes widened to include reported Supreme Court contender Elena Kagan, up to $50 billion in scandal-ridden Air Force contracts, and Karl Rove's best-selling new memoir.

Scrushy, who was Siegelman's codefendant, renewed his call for trial judge Mark Fuller to remove himself from the case. Reports Kreig:

Scrushy, now serving a seven-year sentence for arranging $500,000 in donations to a non-profit at the request of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, requested last week that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Montgomery rule on recusal requests filed last summer, or else withdraw.

Scrushy and Siegelman have argued that the judge is disqualified after being enriched by $300 million in Bush-era contracts via the judge's closely held company Doss Aviation for such services as refueling Air Force planes and training pilots.

Speaking of the Air Force, Kreig follows up on his report from last week about the Siegelman prosecution and its possible ties to a tanker contract that could be worth $50 billion. Alabama is expected to be the site of a major assembly plant if Europe-based EADS wins the contract over U.S.-based Boeing--and Kreig now provides insight from Siegelman himself. Writes Kreig:

The EADS-led plan would replace Boeing Corp., the previous tanker builder. Years ago, EADS used competitive intelligence agents to show that Boeing had bribed an Air Force procurement officer. My article noted that an EADS victory would enable an assembly plant in Alabama, as advocated by four European heads of state, major global financiers and some U.S. politicians.

"The ring of truth in the article," Siegelman wrote me last week after publication and follow-up, "is that Republicans wanted EADs, and I was close to Boeing because I had helped them expand their National Missile Defense Center in Huntsville and had them locate a manufacturing facility for the Delta IV and Delta II Rockets in Decatur, AL."

Kreig shows how the Siegelman case could have an impact on the process to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring John Paul Stevens. That's because one prominent contender, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, has taken controversial positions regarding the Siegelman matter. Writes Kreig:

A bipartisan group of 91 former state attorneys general from more than 40 states have since formed an unprecedented coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court and arguing it should hear Siegelman's case because his actions did not constitute a crime.

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing.

She cited technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors. Since the 2006 convictions DOJ has withstood complaints that include: political prosecution with Rove, judge-shopping, jury tampering, lying about the recusal of Alabama's top prosecutor, firing a DOJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DOJ tried to blackmail its central witness.

Karl Rove has stepped into the fray while promoting his new book. Writes Kreig:

Concurring with DOJ's view is former White House advisor Rove, now on book tour promoting his memoir "Courage and Consequence" that denies any improper role by him, others in the Bush White House, prosecutors or the judge.

Also, Rove mocks whistleblowers and congressional Democrats alike who have become involved in the Siegelman/Scrushy case.

One Rove target is California Congressman Adam Schiff, the House Judiciary Committee's chief interrogator last July asking Rove about his role in DOJ prosecutions. In his book, Rove says Schiff "was clearly not prepared."

Rove also attacks Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer who became a key whistleblower in the Siegelman case. Writes Kreig:

Rove wrote also in "Courage" that a Democratic committee staffer privately disparaged to him Republican whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson. She is an Alabama lawyer from rural Rainsville who had stepped forward to provide the committee in 2007 with sworn testimony and documentation of the court record on military contracting.

She alleged a plan by her fellow Republicans as early as 2002 to frame Siegelman, and later steer the case to Fuller. Her testimony said that Riley's son Robert confided to her in 2005 even before Siegelman was indicted in his second trial that Fuller hated Siegelman and would "hang" him. Robert Riley has issued a statement denying her claim, but has not been called to testify.

Simpson responds that the facts would become obvious if Congress for the first time summoned witnesses for a public hearing under oath, or if the Supreme Court would examine the court filings on Fuller's conflicts. Siegelman, released on bond in 2008 by federal appeals court Democrats promptly after CBS 60 Minutes alleged GOP misconduct, also seeks Supreme Court review and a first-ever congressional hearing.

Huntsville TV Station Shows How Journalism is Done

Huntsville television station WHNT shows that at least one mainstream Alabama news outfit can produce real journalism on the brewing Bush Justice Department scandal.

Reporter Greg Privett discusses former Governor Don Siegelman's efforts to see that Karl Rove is held accountable for his role in apparent political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.

Siegelman, Privett reports, has started ContemptForRove.com, an online archive of information about the use of the justice system for political purposes.

Drawing particular scorn from Siegelman was Rove's written answers this week to questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a former Rove client:

"Even his written non-answers were not under oath and clearly evasive," Siegelman told us. "Rove refused to deny that he had plotted with the U.S. Attorney's husband, Bill Canary."

WHNT then gets to the core of Siegelman's concerns about Rove's recent actions:

Siegelman accuses Rove of plotting with the Canary couple along with Alabama's Attorney General. Siegelman did not mention him by name; but, at the time, the A.G. was Bill Pryor. The Bush-appointee now sits as a judge on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his letter to the Judiciary Committee, Rove fails to detail other relationships. Specifically, Siegelman says Rove does not deny communicating with Rob Riley, Governor Riley's son.

"According to sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, both Bill Canary and Rob Riley were on the call in which Canary said that Karl had it worked out with Justice to destroy me," Siegelman explains. "A business associate of Rob Riley's in Florida told Time Magazine that Rob Riley always bragged about his relationship with Rove."

Siegelman tells NewsChannel 19 that Alabama is one of Rove's favorite political stomping grounds. "Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary." Governor Siegelman explained how Attorney General Pryor's office started investigating him in 1999, "right after I endorsed Al Gore," Siegelman said. "Leura Canary, accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006 campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the election."

Karl Rove's Bisexual Affair Might Have Sparked His Bizarre Rant on Fox News

Greta Van Susteren and Karl Rove

Karl Rove is having a bisexual affair with the president of a conservative bloggers' group, and concern about being outed sparked Rove's falsehood-filled diatribe last week on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News program.

Rove's lover is Ali Akbar, president of the National Bloggers Club, an umbrella group that grew from the activism of the late right-wing publisher and pundit Andrew Breitbart. A left-leaning Web site called Breitbart Unmasked recently disclosed that Akbar has a criminal record that includes convictions for credit-card fraud, theft, and burglary.

The stunning allegations about Rove and Akbar are included in a letter sent yesterday from Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson to Robert Bauer, counsel for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. The letter also includes an appeal for a presidential pardon on behalf of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove, appearing with Van Susteren on the June 20 edition of On the Record, took a question about the tax-exempt status of certain PACs and turned it into an attack on Simpson, Bauer, and Siegelman--who was the target of perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in U.S. history.

Simpson, a former GOP operative, is best known as a whistleblower in the Siegelman case. She has stated under oath and testified before Congress that she participated in a telephone conference call with prominent Alabama Republicans who discussed plans to bring bogus criminal charges against Siegelman, apparently with Rove's approval.

Rove told Van Susteren that Bauer represented Simpson in her 2007 testimony before Congress and that Simpson did not testify under oath. It's a matter of public record that Simpson made sworn statements about the Siegelman prosecution on multiple occasions. And Simpson included in her letter to Bauer yesterday an affidavit stating that he has never represented her, and the two have never met. (See the affidavit and letter at the end of this post.) Bauer has sent a letter to Rove demanding a retraction, according to a report in Huffington Post.

Ali Akbar

Why would Rove become so wildly disengaged from the truth, on a national television program where he was asked a question that had nothing to do with Jill Simpson? The Alabama lawyer says in her letter to Bauer that Rove became unhinged because he knew she had damaging information about his personal life--and it soon might become public knowledge.

At the heart of Rove's discomfort is his relationship with Ali Akbar. And how did that come to light? Simpson spells it out in her letter to Bauer:

About a week and a half ago, I was contacted by a political operative on the left who gave me a copy of Ali Akbar's advertisement on an adult website. This advertisement suggested that the National Bloggers Club President, Mr. Akbar, was looking for bisexual sex with men who were Republican, political, and loved to discuss politics and philosophy and just wanted to hang out and chill with them.

Simpson has an e-mail list on which she periodically shares inside information on politics and international affairs. The Akbar ad became a subject for discussion on the list. Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice-Integrity Project, briefly referenced the Akbar angle in a major piece about Rove's statements on the Van Susteren show. Kreig did not mention Akbar by name, but he did write the following:

In a similar vein, Rove critics active in the blogosphere have been claiming over the past week that one of Rove's colleagues is an ex-con who might be outed soon in a sex scandal. This is part of the ongoing back-and-forth war of nerves that political activists wage continually against one another, with lawsuits and claims of outrage by each side. Among the latter are GOP members of Congress seeking Justice Department prosecutions of liberal opponents. 

In this context, it made sense for Rove to deflect attacks by claiming to Fox listeners that he has been cleared from any suspicions by previous investigations and that critics are partisans allied unfairly against him.

In her letter to Bauer, Simpson says she took the Akbar ad and used it to unearth information about his ties to powerful Republicans. One of those, the letter suggests, is Rove:

I took [the information] back to my blogging group and showed them that Karl had gotten himself a new friend from the information and evidence I had received and that this guy was alleged to be the possible new boy wonder and lover of Karl Rove.

Simpson tells Bauer that she has no concerns about Rove's sexual preferences, but she is alarmed about his multiple false statements on Fox News:

It is believed by many of us that Karl thought we were going to use this for the benefit of President Obama, which was never the case. We do not care if [Rove] is bisexual or not and have many times ignored information that was given to us that suggested that he is. In fact, we find nothing wrong with being bisexual, as it means people just love both sexes at the same time. All of us are LBGTQ supporters, so we elected to not out this information on him. However, I think this is why he went berserk on national TV on Fox Network and said that I am a liar and have disappeared. He also lied when he said I had never testified under oath, as I have. It is Mr. Rove who insisted on executive privilege so as to not have to testify under oath about the Siegelman case.

Simpson states that something positive could come from Rove's appearance on the Van Susteren program:

With all that said, I am very grateful that Mr. Rove was hung up about having his alleged bisexuality possibly released that he pointed out on National TV, not once but twice, that you are a man who can possibly get things done in the Obama Administration. For that reason I am asking you to please consider joining us . . . [in] asking President Obama to pardon Don Siegelman. As you may recall, I was the individual that Karl Rove asked to follow Don Siegelman to a party in Alabama to try to catch him cheating with a gay man in his administration named Nick Bailey.

Does all of this have national implications? Simpson says the answer is yes, and she urges Bauer to take action:

In closing, I just want to say that I am sad you got dragged into this, but I am happy that you now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Karl Rove lied on you, me, and Mr. Siegelman. It is time that someone in the Obama Administration stopped this monster maniac from hurting innocent people--and I hope that man is you.

Simpson Bauer Letter

A Smashing Siegelman interview: Shining light on Charlton Heston, Jeff Sessions (gov. in '06?), and a new GOP whistleblower (in addition to Jill Simpson)

Don Siegelman
(Image by Marc Parker,
smashinginterviews.com)

A 2002 endorsement from actor and NRA president Charlton Heston might have been the spark that caused Republicans to concoct a political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Jeff Sessions, then a U.S. senator and now Trump attorney general, might have played a larger role in the Siegelman prosecution than generally is realized, partly because Sessions was interested in running for governor in 2006.

A new Republican whistleblower has emerged to state under oath that Alabama GOP officials scheduled a meeting to discuss a plan to indict Siegelman in the midst of the 2006 election; this sworn statement, which we have not yet seen, appears to largely confirm Jill Simpson's testimony about a similar meeting, involving Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and other GOP luminaries.

Those are three key takeaways from a fascinating new interview with Siegelman by Marc and Melissa Parker, who publish Smashing Interviews (SI) magazine from their base in Calera, Alabama. This interview truly is smashing, in the most positive sense of the word. It's one of  the most insightful interviews I've read or heard with Siegelman. The former governor seems most comfortable in the print-interview environment, where he can explain himself without commercial interruptions. The Parkers prove to be top-notch miners, searching for journalistic gold among the ruins of a once promising political career, hijacked by Karl Rove and other Republican thugs. They come away with a number of gleaming nuggets, items that are not widely known about the Siegelman odyssey. For example:

Charlton Heston is onboard

Siegelman became the only Democrat in 2002 to receive an endorsement from Charlton Heston. That, Siegelman believes, had major repercussions. Siegelman provides rather lengthy background on what led to the Heston endorsement. But the big story involves the possible fallout. From SI:

It’s a long story. But I honestly think that was when Rove said, “Get that son of a bitch! Kill him!” They were so shocked and could not believe I pulled that off.

My wife and I flew down to Mobile and met Charlton Heston at the hotel. The next morning, he stood before the cameras and endorsed me. I swear I think that’s when they went crazy and said, “We need to make sure we have plan B in place.” Plan B was to steal the election. Having done a pretty good job as governor and having woven my way through the political landmines, I thought it was time for me to challenge Bush on education, the economy and those stupid wars that he got us in that was going to bankrupt us and stir up a hornet’s nest. This was in December of 2002. I made the same speech to the Democratic Governors Association, but obviously I hadn’t been elected, but I was still determined.

Jeff Sessions for governor in 2006?

After Republican operatives stole the 2002 election for Bob Riley, the GOP governor promptly fell into disfavor because of his attempts at tax reform. With Riley cratering in the polls, another Republican thought about jumping into the breach for the 2006 race. That, Siegelman says, was U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions. Siegelman is asked, "So all the dots definitely connect back to Karl Rove?" Here, in part, is Siegelman's response:

All I can say is Karl Rove had to vet Bill Pryor for his judgeship for the Eleventh Circuit. Interestingly enough, as soon as he was appointed, Jeff Sessions made the comment, “We would’ve gotten Bill on the bench earlier, but we needed a Republican governor in place first.” That was 2003. You will remember that Bob Riley pushed his $2 billion tax bill and his popularity sank. My popularity rose. The political surveys in 2003 showed that I was going to just beat the stew out of him in 2006.

At that point, the state Republican Party chairman, Marty Connors, was summoned to Jeff Sessions’ office in Washington where they had a discussion about the parameters under which Jeff would run against me in 2006. Sessions told Connors, “I want a close field for the Republican primary. If Riley is out of there, I’ll leave my Senate seat. I’ll run for governor.” Maybe the discussion centered around who he’d appoint as governor to fill his unexpired term in the US Senate. At that point, Sessions was interested in running for governor in 2006.

Did Sessions want Siegelman out of the way to enhance his own ambitions for the governor's office? Siegelman doesn't go quite that far in the SI interview, but one gets the feeling he is holding some ammunition in reserve. Sessions already is reeling from his connections to Trump and RussiaGate. Being unmasked as a criminal conspirator in the Siegelman case could prove devastating for the man who is supposed to be the nation's top law-enforcement officer.

We suspect the name Marty Connors will come up again in the Siegelman story. He was Alabama GOP chair from 2001 to 2005. Our advice? Remember that name.


Move over Jill Simpson, here comes another GOP whistleblower

Siegelman is asked if Alabama Republicans launched his political prosecution or if it came from Washington, D.C., via orders from George W. Bush to Karl Rove. Here, in part, is Siegelman's reply:

I’m not sure what came first. I do know that Karl Rove said his job was to protect the president politically, and we’ve got sworn testimony that he had directed the Department of Justice to pursue me. There’s another Republican whistleblower that said Rove was invited to a meeting by the Alabama Republican Party chairman where it was to be discussed how they could use Leura Canary to indict me in the middle of the election. He said that Karl Rove was supposed to be in the meeting along with Bob Riley and some other people. I think he mentioned Michael Scanlon.

We think the identity of the second Republican whistleblower -- notice Siegelman's use of the pronoun "he" -- will become known before too long. The whistleblower's statement could become a central part of the former governor's effort to seek justice for having his career ruined and his life (and his family members' lives) turned upside down.

Why Is Karl Rove Planning to Visit the Backwoods of Alabama?

Enterprise, Alabama

Karl Rove will visit Alabama to give a speech in August. Nothing surprising about that. Rove made his national name in Alabama by joining with Bill Canary and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy state-court seats for "pro business" judges.

Rove visits our fair state regularly, usually in one of the prime population centers--Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile, or Huntsville. In August, however, the former White House strategist and current Fox News and Wall Street Journal contributor will visit a relative backwater. The location of Rove's upcoming speech should raise eyebrows for anyone who has followed the Don Siegelman case.

"An Evening With Karl Rove" will be August 18 at the civic center in Enterprise, Alabama. Sounds enticing, doesn't it? The evening begins with a reception at 5:30 and dinner at 6:30, followed by remarks from Rove. For those who can't wait, ticket information is available at (334) 494-2427 and RSVPs must be received by August 8.

Enterprise, to be sure, is a bit off the beaten path. A town of about 26,000 hardy souls, it is in Coffee County in southeast Alabama, just above the Florida line.

Why would one of the biggest names in Republican politics pay a visit to such an out-of-the-way place? Perhaps we should note that the event is sponsored by the Coffee County Republican Committee and follow up with these questions: Who used to be Coffee County's representative on the GOP's executive committee? Who used to be the elected district attorney for Coffee County before moving on to greener pastures during the George W. Bush administration?

The answer to both of those questions is Mark Fuller, now chief U.S. judge for the Middle District of Alabama. Fuller has served in that position since Bush appointed him in 2002--while Rove served as chief White House adviser.

And for what is Mark Fuller best known? Why, he was the judge who handled the case against former Democratic governor Don Siegelman, perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history. According to the sworn testimony of Alabama whistleblower and attorney Jill Simpson, that case was driven by GOP political operatives in Alabama, with assistance from Rove in Washington, D.C.

Why, exactly, is Karl Rove coming to Enterprise, Alabama? The answer is not clear at the moment. But to a reasonable observer, it looks like payback to a corrupt federal judge who helped make sure that Republicans would take over the governor's office for the foreseeable future.

Abrams Sends Rove Reeling

Don't know what response Karl Rove was expecting when he fired off a letter to MSNBC's Dan Abrams, unleashing a laundry list of criticisms regarding Abrams' coverage of the Don Siegelman story.

But if Rove was looking for a timid, chastened reply, he didn't get it.

No, Abrams fired back with a letter that surely put Turd Blossom on his heels. And he presented Rove with a challenge that the Republican guru almost certainly will not be willing to answer.

Hmmm, maybe writing Dan Abrams a letter and spreading it around the Web wasn't such a good idea.

Abrams hammers Rove right from the outset:

You accuse me of "diminishing the search for facts and evidence," yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search.


In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.

If this were a boxing match, Turd Blossom would need a standing eight count. And it's only the first round! But Abrams has more body blows on the way:

It was my considered conclusion -- and my only conclusion -- after assessing a number of troubling aspects about the case and the prosecution of it, that the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta should order the release of the former Governor pending his appeal. The appeals court did just that over the objection of the trial judge. The appellate judges cited "substantial questions of law and fact."

I too have substantial questions of law and fact about the case and some of them involve you.

Ow, that hurts! Another standing eight for Turd Blossom. This match is getting ugly in a hurry. But Abrams isn't letting up:

You seem particularly incensed that I interviewed Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican who had volunteered for the campaign of Siegelman's opponent and claimed, in sworn testimony, that she heard conversations about you and your involvement.

You ask why only later did she claim that you asked her to follow the Governor to attempt to take compromising photos. Specifically, you wrote, "Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story, that you then repeated on February 25th?"

Fair question. Which is why I asked her the following on February 25, 2008:

ABRAMS: And why have you never mentioned before the allegations of Rove and the pictures?

SIMPSON: Oh, I mentioned it to people. They just did not use it. Because nobody wanted to go into the fact that I had been following Don Siegelman trying to get pictures of him cheating on his wife.

ABRAMS: But some of your critics have said, "You know, in front of Congress she had a lot of opportunities. Why didn't she mention this before?"

SIMPSON: Well let me explain something to you. I talked to congressional investigators, Dan. And when I talked to those congressional investigators I told them that I had followed Don Siegelman and tried to get pictures of him cheating on his wife. However, they suggested to me that that was not relevant because there was nothing illegal about that and they'd just prefer that not come up at the hearing that day.

We repeatedly offered your attorney a chance to rebut the claims. Dana Jill Simpson testified under oath about this case while thus far you have refused to do so. If she is lying, she should be prosecuted. But as a journalist isn't it fair to ask why you don't welcome the opportunity to testify as well? With sworn false testimony, there are repercussions. Without it, there is no accountability.

Down goes Turd Blossom, down goes Turd Blossom! Will he get up? Yes, he will, but his corner can't let this go on much longer! Oh dear God, here comes Abrams with eight questions that he would like Turd Blossom to answer, either on Abrams show or in writing! And look at questions number 5 and 6!

5) Do you know why your lawyer told us that you would testify about this case if you were subpoenaed but now, after you have been invited to do so, he states that there are issues of executive privilege: "Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide" he said.

6) You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"

Thud!! That sound you hear is Turd Blossom hitting the canvas. And he's not getting up! He's not getting up!

Who said that this guy was a smooth political operator? Didn't look so smooth under the Abrams assault.

Now, let's all hold our breaths while we await Turd Blossom's reply to those eight questions.

Siegelman Prosecutors Lash Out at Whistleblower

The prosecution's response to a Motion for a New Trial in the Don Siegelman case is an ugly document, filled with irony, hypocrisy, distortion, and deceit.

Much of the ugliness is not aimed at Siegelman or codefendant Richard Scrushy; it's aimed at Tamarah Grimes, who lost her job after blowing the whistle on prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case.

No wonder prosecutors are uncomfortable with Grimes. She has shown the world what kind of dysfunctional ship U.S. Attorney Leura Canary has been running in the Middle District of Alabama.

Like most bullies, Canary's henchmen attack the person who stands up to them. But Grimes appears to be prepared to fight back. In a statement issued yesterday, Grimes said:

I have been advised that the response filed by the government late Thursday evening relies heavily on my alleged lack of credibility. From my perspective, this is nothing more than the latest attempt in a series of failed attempts by the government to impugn my integrity, beginning with the unsuccessful attempts to prosecute me in March and May 2008.

I challenge the government to make those allegations against my integrity under oath and to provide legally admissible evidence to support its allegations. I will do the same. I am certain of what I saw and heard. I will gladly provide testimony under oath to the appropriate oversight authorities.

What is the main beef that prosecutors seem to have with Grimes--other than the fact she has unmasked them as a bunch of rogues? It's--get this--that her allegations have not been made under oath.

Consider this attack on Grimes from the government's response:

Grimes’s new claims were set forth in a 10-page letter to Attorney General Eric Holder dated June 1, 2009, more than three years after Grimes’s limited involvement with the Siegelman/Scrushy team, and after she had retained Martin Adams, Scrushy’s son-in-law (and criminal defense attorney) to represent her. D. 486 (Adams becomes counsel of record for Scrushy on October 27, 2006). This recent letter makes clear that Grimes is prepared to make (or repeat) virtually any allegation against her former employer. But not under oath.

Notice that prosecutors seem to have a problem with Grimes being represented by Richard Scrushy's son-in-law. These are the same prosecutors who seem to have no problem with the Siegelman case being overseen by Leura Canary, the wife of one of the former governor's most prominent political opponents.

Prosecutors also portray Grimes as someone who is too cowardly to make statements under oath. Never mind that Grimes has made her allegations to multiple watchdogs in the U.S. Justice Department, as a federal employee is supposed to do. And she supported them with hard evidence, e-mails that showed that Canary remained involved with the case after her supposed recusal--and that jurors and prosecutors had improper contacts. Grimes also took her concerns right to the top--to Attorney General Eric Holder. And this apparently caused her to be terminated from her job.

Oh yeah, she's a coward all right.

Notice the government's obsession with sworn statements, when it comes to Grimes:

Even though one of Scrushy’s lawyers now represents Grimes, defendants apparently cannot persuade her to put her allegations in declaration form. Her unwillingness to swear to her allegations subject to the penalty of perjury or other criminal sanctions should lead this Court to dismiss summarily her allegations.

How two-faced are the prosecutors here? Consider their abundant praise for Karl Rove and his recent Congressional testimony:

Furthermore, in addition to his earlier denials of these allegations, Karl Rove has recently provided testimony to Congress, in which he has quite specifically denied contacting anyone at the Justice Department about the Siegelman prosecution. Rove told the House Judiciary Committee that he never spoke to anyone at the Justice Department about the Siegelman prosecution, and that he was not aware of any such communications by anyone else in the White House.

Never mind that the prosecutors' summation of Rove's testimony is false. Notice that they conveniently neglect to mention that Rove's statements were unsworn. And Rove only agreed to testify at all after receiving a deal that allowed him to avoid testifying under oath.

The prosecutors seem to have one set of rules for Karl Rove and another set for regular folks like Tamarah Grimes. Should we expect anything less from the loyal Bushies who remain entrenched in the U.S. Department of Justice?