Tuesday, April 22, 2008

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.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's about time!
Remember when Bush and Rove nearly kissed goodbye as Rove left Washington to spend more time with his son who was away at college?
Bush had a tear in his eye as he thanked the blossom for his service.

It was all about this case; and I hope this case is the beginning of the revenge that the American people will take on this cabal.

Dan Abrams, Legal Schnauzer, Scott Horton, Oliver Diaz, Don Siegelman and the voices of dead assistant US attorneys speak for me.