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

[rich3324]

You think Bush will pardon Rove for all crimes that he could be charged with. I could see he would be really scared if a Obama or Clinton gets into office.

[Citizenofreality]

Mr. Rove has a history of always being in the vicinity when dirty deeds occur, do not let him off the hook. I have faith that one fine day he will answer for all the harm he has done, not only to innocent people but to our nation and Constitution. Kudos to you Mr. Abrams you are doing the work of a patriot.

[magen]

Keep digging Dan.

But remember, you're playing by the RULES with the ultimate LIAR, CHEATER and SPINSTER.

The pigman lives in a sty, and he'll dig something up on YOU to shut you up.

I hope you can get him on this.

If there was real justice in this world instead of just-us, he would be sentenced to live the rest of his life not in a maximum security prison, but a real pig sty.

[ReelBusy]

Smack.
That was the sound of the public bitch-slapping Dan just gave Karl.
And Karl knows he can't respond because the truth might come out and that would be bad for Rove....

[PADDYWHACK]

Will wonders never cease,a lawyer doing good,I applaud you,we can only hope one of these crooks is nailed.

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Isn't that the truth. Perry Mason lives.

[rwt1138]

You do, of course, realize that his comments weren't reflective of any particular opinion or set of beliefs on his part; that is not their purpose. Rove and his ilk remain submerged and generally ignore the press, unless they need to surface to manipulate it. If you have observed the pattern of this administration and it's operatives, they only make statements to provide the right wing bloggers and footsoldiers their talking points for how to rebut and refute any assertion or story they don't like. He has no interest in answering your questions or those of a jury, and will now go dark on the subject unless it ever appears that the media (you guys) have any shot at drawing public attention to it.
In that case, they will resurface, fire off a few more factually inaccurate counterclaims, and disappear again--leaving the malkins and hewitts to muddy the waters with the new "facts". It's called "introducing a new narrative", or, once upon a time, "lying to cover your ass".
His comments are not for you, or me, or anyone interested in the facts about the Siegelman case. His comments are for the people who specifically and consciously DO NOT WANT information about the Siegelman case, and need rationalizations to help them avoid stepping in any. The 30% who still think Rove and his team did, and are doing, a great job.

[jcorrington]

Well done Dan. However, we wont be holding our breaths to see The Evil One investigated.



del8300
ie7

[Durango]

Classic. Absolutely classic. Destroy or hide the evidence and then, while not answering any questions, claim not one document . . .

BTW Privilege, Executive or other privileges, does not protect evidence of criminal activity. In other words if Rove engaged in a criminal conspiracy to influence the Justice Department decisions that material would not be privileged.

There is NO absolute privilege of any stripe. All claims of privilege are conditional.

[MatanP]

Dan! Great job. You're pretty, too!

[enoughalready]

There will be no good investigation into this situation till January 2009 when our long national justice crisis comes to an end and a Democrat becomes President of our country. God forbid John McCain would win in November for he will not correct/investigate the Bush justice department. We as a country need to do the investigation to know that our courts are just and not political tools of any administration that sees fit to use them that way.

Karl Rove should be put on notice by Congress that this situation will be examined very closely.

[Lemeritus]

Mr. Abrams, please forgive me for saying you've come a little late to the party because I want you to know I'm very grateful you've come at all. The Don Siegelman situation has finally given "legs" to a story that has somehow been unable to capture or keep the national attention and I hope you will put it in its larger context -- the U.S. attorneys scandal.

Though it may theoretically be true that U.S. District attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president", what we've witnessed is the appointment of political hitmen tasked to target leading Democratic office holders; Don Siegelman, for example, though there are others. Very few of the U.S. District attorneys who were replaced were dismissed due to poor performance or misconduct. What followed was not only the railroading of Gov. Siegelman, but the discrediting of the U.S. Attorney General's office (with the resignation of Gonzales) and contempt of Congress by members of the Bush "administration" (which has yet to be resolved and which is another story I think you would do well to get "in front of").

Bush has largely been given a free ride in the media; honor and ratings to the network that can bite his back side and hold on.

[fiatpax]

Please explain how if Rove answered whether he communicated with the Justice Department, the US Attorneys in Alabama, or Bill Canary about this matter, it would be "hearsay"?

[nancytheragingliberal]

Dan,

Thanks for doing what you do and your show at 9:00 p.m. is excellent. I would like to see more of this story, and think this man was given a raw deal and in the U.S.A., which is frightening. Karl Rove is a nightmare, and has been perfecting his act for more than 30 years. He and his WH vampires will never be held accountable, at least no here on earth.

[beautifuldisaster]

Dan Abrams: Brawns, Brains & Beauty.

I didn't even know about this story until I started watching your show. Continue to keep us posted. Not only this is interesting but it's a little scary as well...

[mamacat]

Thanks to you for pursueing this, Mr. Abrams.

It seems that Rove is trying to hold you to a very high journalistic standard. Maybe he should talk to the folks at Faux News! They act like any "journalistic standards" would just get in the way of their lies and smears.
Just kidding. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he writes scripts for the Faux Reporters over at Faux News.

[clarkbarr]

The truth is that Republicans are above the law. Rove will never be held accountable for the crimes he has committed. Bush will give him a blanket pardon and he'll just laugh at us.

[vlebje]

It may be true that Bush will pardon Rove. But let history show that this administration was criminal, and that criminals try to protect one another. Rove is a lying piece of guana, amoral in character, and Nazi-like in his behavior. I expect to see a federal indictment handed down sometime soon, taking this little dough-like boy out of action. Yes, he may escape untimate responsibility on earth, but there is a sure reaconing coming, I can assure you. But the Concgress ought to take this little pugdy pedophile out of action for a year or more.

[enoughalready]

How do you give a pardon to someone that is not convicted prior to Bush leaving office?

Any trials should be put off till after January 2009. Then there's a new sheriff in town!

[AtticusinPa]

Pardon before conviction? Of course, just as Gerry did for DIck! One need not follow the other.