A Letter to Karl Rove

April 21, 2008

Dear Mr. Rove:

I write in response to your letter about my coverage of the Siegelman case -- a case we have been covering extensively. Its potential significance to the American justice system extends well beyond the halls of the Alabama Statehouse.

Your letter poses questions that you believe I should have asked as part of our coverage, but many of the most significant ones only you can answer. I address your specific critique below, but I begin by wondering, based on many of your questions, whether you actually saw, or reviewed, all of our coverage. Or perhaps, as you put it, "you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good fable."

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.

In your letter, you ask:

Does it bother you, as your coverage asserts, as Governor Siegelman summarized it in his April 7th appearance on your program, that he is the victim of a vast conspiracy involving two US Attorneys, the Alabama Attorney General, unnamed career officials in the Public Integrity Unit at the U.S. Justice Department, unnamed higher ups in the Justice Department, and, oh yes, Karl Rove and that there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who's come forward, not one credible witness to the workings of a conspiracy?

First, my coverage never "asserted" that Governor Siegelman is "the victim of a vast conspiracy," or even that he is necessarily innocent. I do not, and did not, feel comfortable passing judgment on that ultimate question. I repeatedly stated that on the air. Reading your letter, one would falsely presume that I have blindly accepted all of his claims at face value.

This is a prosecution, however, that led over 50 former Attorneys General from around the nation -- Democrats and Republicans -- to express their concern to Congress about the basic fairness of the case. I share many of those concerns. I too have serious questions about the way the case was handled. Given that, is it your contention that it's journalistically unsound to allow the former Governor of the state of Alabama to even state his position on the air?

Or would you expect a responsible journalist to say something like this to the Governor: "Anyone looking at the record would say, 'wait a second, you were convicted by a jury of seven counts.' This is, you know, a jury of 12 ordinary folks who looked at the evidence with regard to bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and said, 'Governor Siegelman is guilty.'" That I did in my interview with Governor Siegelman on April 7, 2008.

And would you expect a good journalist to seek out and read the denial from Karl Rove's attorney? That I did as well.

And maybe even to have said, "Governor, it sounds like you are alleging corruption on so many different levels. I mean -- I think some people can accept the notion that, you know, there are certain Republicans who are out to get you, etc, but as we talk more about this, there are more people involved and it sounds like you're saying that the corruption here was pretty deep?" I also did that. But maybe my questions do not fit with, as you put it, your "pre-selected" story line?

My "pre-selected story line" was not pre-selected at all. 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.

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.

You ask, "do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests..." Anyone who actually saw or even read the transcript of my coverage would have seen that I asked the Governor a whole series of pointed questions including this one: "You're not hinging this all, though, on Dana Jill Simpson are you? Because there have been a lot of people who have questioned how she could have been at certain meetings, how many times she actually met with people, where she was at the time, etc. I mean your allegations that Rove -- you believe Rove is behind this does not hinge entirely on the credibility of Dana Jill Simpson?" I also asked his daughter a similar question in a separate interview on February 27, 2008.

But many of their answers come back to you -- to your relationships with various Alabama officials, to the timing of the prosecution, to why new charges were filed after the first ones were dismissed. It seems that since they have not provided definitive documentary evidence to prove their contentions, many of which involve what they say they witnessed, heard or experienced, you think either I should not have interviewed them on air or dismissed their allegations out of hand.

In the end, the real answer to those questions can only come from a congressional investigation and an under-oath statement, not from some decision by me. In that respect, I am aware that you have been requested by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about these issues. You can be sure that I will report fairly and in detail whatever is said before that committee -- particularly if you appear before it.

In the wake of the US Attorney controversy and all of the questions surrounding this case, it is more than fair to ask -- in fact I would say its my journalistic duty to ask -- whether Karl Rove had any role in instigating the prosecution of a prominent Alabama Democrat given that you knew many of the players, and in a state where you had significant political connections. With that in mind, and in light of our seemingly shared desire to mine for the truth, I would invite you to answer some crucial questions about this case on my program or in a written response:

1) You say you "certainly didn't meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two US attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman." Did you talk to, or otherwise communicate with, any of them about it even if you did not meet? Did you have any discussions with any of them about this topic?

2) What about your old friend Bill Canary, whose wife initially led the prosecution? Are you denying that you spoke with him about anything related to the case?

3) You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?

4) Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?

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?"

7) You ask why I did not further question one of my guests when he discussed your effort to help now Governor Riley in his campaign. Did you consult in any way with Riley or anyone else working with him on the campaign?

8) Did you ever discuss, with anyone, the possibility of media leaks about the Siegelman case? Did you speak with any members of the media about Siegelman during his campaign?

Rather than continuing a spin campaign against the media and me, I hope you join me in attempting to restore faith in a hallmark of this nation; our apolitical Department of Justice now understandably and regrettably enveloped in a cloud of suspicion.

Sincerely,
Dan Abrams

Comments

[Aanya]

Dan Abrams is a Godsend! How frightening the Siegelman case has been. For the past 7 years we've lived with the worry that the Bushco would do exactly what they've done here. They have engineered every single aspect of what the people in this country see! I don't know how Bush will ever mass pardon every person connected to him, but I'm sure he will! Until January 20, 2009 and we see Bush walking to the hellicopter to ride off into the sunset, I'm not believing it will ever end. I can see a war with Iran start, martial law declared, and George W crowned King! Things nightmares are made of! Blackwater is not discussed enough. It's Bush's stealth, shadow army waiting in the wings. The one that will take charge of the martial law. Blackwater isn't in their last 9 months of existence, they are training and recruiting fast and furious as we speak. When you have the opportunity Dan, quite a few of us would love you to find out what Blackwater is really about!

[rjpryor]

This case has bothered me for quite some time. However, living in Illinois, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Rove has had a hand in what has now become a serious case. I'm refering or course to the Rezco case invoving Rod Blagoievich. With the implication of this case for Barack Obama, I can't help but think Rove had something to do with it.

[UnbiasView]

Dan, if this is the same guy that you had on your show a couple weeks back I would ask why you are persuing this still. I think you're a smart guy but the Alabama Gov. that you had on seemed to have no idea what he was speaking about and he bumbled/stumbled his way through the interview. If Karl Rove had anything to do with this guy being in jail, the victim himself didn't know where to start and was just throwing random accusations out here without any proof.

If there is a new development contine your exculsive if not I would let this one die, like I said the Gov. seemed to have no idea what was going on but just kept throwing Krazy Karl's name out there.

[castlerider]

How about the fact that Alberto Gonzales can't find a job, and now after remaining loyal to the Bush machine, even to the point of lying and obfuscating to Congress in front of the country and the world for this administration, neocons and the whole right wing legal world is distancing themselves and leaving him out in the cold.
Nobody seems to be willing to report on this.. Now that would have taken some balls to report on. If Alberto had any integrity or balls himself, he'd go back to Congress and say- "Hey you know those things I didn't recall? Guess what- I remember now!!" He'd then have his phone ringing off the hook!! Go figure..
The fact that Pillsbury doughboy-meets Hermann Goering by way of a bald John Denver doesn't even begin to have the balls to testify in front of Congress, much less a jury tells any person with half a brain that this guy is nothing more then a sanctimonious LOSER whose words aren't worth the trash bag they come in.

Thanks for a great post, Dan. Please don't be such a stranger, come back soon.

[castlerider]

My apologies to John Denver, who was actually a pretty cool guy. Just couldn't think of another white guy with glasses right off the bat.

[Marlyn]

More POWER to you, DAN ABRAMS.

[buckbuck11]

Rove and his ilk are impervious to logic, reason and facts. You know he's lying when he says, "there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who's come forward," Of course, no evidence like this exists because it's all been shredded or erased with a "seven level sweep." Nobody dares comes forward to testify because they know what happens to those who do - remember Valerie Plame Wilson?

But keep fighting the good fight, Dan. I admire you greatly. Soon this long national nightmare will be over...if Bush doesn't start Armageddon before next January.

[UnbiasView]

I don't know if this is the good fight, Karl Rove is guilty of a lot of things but from what I have seen on the DA show himself . . . . the Gov. seems to be losing it a bit.

[BillyT]

DAN ABRAMS = A TOOL in HILLARY'S SHED.

(and not a very sharp or heavyweight one, either.)

[Titonwan]

I'm convinced no one really grows up after high school. They just get older. Case in point- Bush: rich kid, no respect for authority. Ron Paul: quiet smart kid, not one to cover you, in a fight, but good to have for math test. Bill Clinton: camaro driving jock (god's gift to chicks). John McCain: another rich kid with a mean streak. Hillary: bookworm that hates the cheerleaders. Karl Rove (Rush Limbaugh): fat kid that quietly schemes.

[RavagesOfTime]

Does that make Barack the popular black guy that people always invoke when they say "I have black friends!"?

[Marlyn]

Oh Titonwan, GROW UP!

[ProfessorDuh]

I'm afraid your analogy doesn't quite cut it. To do justice to the Bush administration, it would have to include the typical high school sociopath who keeps the bodies of his torture victims buried in the basement.

[zendem1]

Bill Clinton was hardly a camaro driving jock. He was a fat, sax playing geek who was scared of girls. Then, after he got elected, he found out women like to drop their knickers for anything resembling power and prestige, and he was in like Flynn. A kid with a new toy, literally.

[UnbiasView]

And the chicks he went after weren't even hot . . . I would expect more from a man with that kind of power. Maybe Spitzer should give him the number he called.

[RealityBaseCamp]

zendem1 posted:

"Bill Clinton was hardly a camaro driving jock."

Right! Remember? He said he had an El Camino!

Hope everybody can forgive me for this, but: "If your Camaro is an El Camino, you may be a redneck."

[PatA]

MR Abrams, I respect you so very much. Always have, since I saw you a hundred years ago. :-)
About Mr. Rove, he has proven to us thousands of times that he isn't going to do anything that will slow down his path on the Republican slip and slide. He is where he is because he has no moral fiber and isn't planning on buying any anytime soon.
Keep up the good work! Wish I had cable so I could see your show!

[DouginCT]

Well done Mr Abrams.

Karl Rove is an ammoral actor. He prides himself in his sociopathic politics, and he is smart.

The only upside is Karl loves to hear himself talk, and loves the bully-pulpit on Fox News....maybe he'll eventually put his foot in his mouth.

[Jason357]

Good journalist??? Who's Abrams talking about? He's surely not saying MSNBC is a model of good journalism. **laughter erupts** Why does he and other MSM think people flood to Jon Stewart??

Most of us know the truth, Dan, ALL prosecutions are political. Just ask the deputy sheriff who recently got off the hook on a statutory rape charge or a cop let off of a bad shoot, or the state trooper who blazes down a 65 mph speed limit at a speed he's given other people tickets for. Ask the commonwealth attorney or DA who's gotten a family member or friend out of a DUI charge. Justice is a joke in the US. "Justice" is the US courts depends on what you own, who you know in government. Let's not try to kid ourselves here.

[Marlyn]

Justice is a joke in the US because of people like Karl Rove. I think Dan is VERY brave. When we find he's lost his job, we'll know why.

[Eoin45]

Last time I looked John Stewart, whom you site as an example of a good journalist was on MSNBC - as is Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann. Dan Abrams is off and on in terms of quality, but he's been one of the few to have Siegalman on his show and he has twice confronted Rove. As for your statement that ALL prosecutions are political: Untrue and a broad generalization. SOME prosecutions are political - probably Siegelman's.

[Pepper14]

Nobody cares about this story or any other story that the idiots on MSNBC come up with. They are so jealeous of Fox and Karl Rove that they foam at the mouth all the time about the two. Fox is the number one cable show and they can't stand it between Olberman and Dan they both look like little boys crying around because they are not number one. Get over it if Karl Rove has done anything that should land him in jail it would have been done by now. The problem with Dan is that he thinks he is a lot more important than he really is. There are know two bigger liars and crooks than the Clinton's but the dems seem to think that what they do is ok.

[Yukon Jack]

Both Abrams and Olbermann are trying to bolster their well-deserved last place in the ratings by picking on their obvious superior, FOXNews Networks.

Good luck, suckers!

[dawlishgal]

When will the gullible dopes who still believe in Faux Newz realize that just because it is where the majority of pissed-off gullible morons gather, that doesn't make its crapola true? And will they even admit it that they have been ROYALLY had by well-paid psychopaths? The really hilarious thing is their glee at their own stupidity, just because other stupids behave the same way as they do. Everybody I know who watches Faux was some kind of reject in high school and later, a lot of them because they were dimwits and bullies. Obviously, they have found a home at Faux.

A few days ago there were a few personal accounts from people who have seen the light and now feel embarrassed and ashamed by the way they were taken in by Hannity and O'Reilly and the rest of the thugs.

I

[AtticusinPa]

Pepper:

Here is an interesting game: read posts and try to calculate the age of the poster by content, spelling, punctuation and grammar. When I do this with your post, hmmmm, you come out somewhere about eighth or ninth grade? Say, thirteen or fourteen years old? Maybe fifteen if you were held back a year or so. It pays to judge the writer by the content and the content by the writer. Next time you try to take on Dan, learn to read, write and spell first. It really helps.

[Eoin45]

Got to agree. Needs to learn to read and right - and then think.

[BIllyDelyon]

Goodness gracious no kiddin AtticusinPa..

Couple tomatoes short of a thick sauce that one is...

Yikes.

[dotmafia]

Mr. Abrams,

A very noble effort, but... I don't understand why you are being nice? You don't get anywhere with these elitists by being nice. These neocons only understand the exact same thing they believe Muslim people only understand -- force. No holds barred, no pulling punches. Brutally honest.

Because you've gotta be brutal when fighting against America's domestic terrorists, moreso than any external threats -- for it is the so-called patriots who hide their true selves behind the flag who can do the most damage to America.

[abellofgrace]

Thanks Dan for making this man who seems to have no conscience sweat. The fact that he took the time to respond to you with a 5 page letter, makes it even more obvious he is guilty as hell. keep up the important work you're doing, you have a multitude of people behind you. God Bless!

[Titonwan]

I second that! Good comment!

[ann1]

Dan, don't let Karl Rove bully you into backing down off this story. Please stay on top of it. The American people applaud you for your courage.