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

[vat6948]

Dan, your old-man must be proud, keep the good work up.

[westbrooks01]

Dan:

Don't embarrass yourself trying to track down Karl, that's already been done by the author of "Bush's Brain."

Karl intellectually only graduated from high school. It does not take a person of much intelligence to perform the kind of politics that Rove has acquired. The "genius" lies in the fact that instead of using in-depth arguments, Karl creates more pieces in his shallow puddle of understanding and keeps the pieces moving in conflict on his two-dimensional mindscape. His high-school level of intelligence is exceedingly clear in that he, cannot leave his notes at home, because it's much harder to debate a trillion facts with absolutely no intellectual framework to keep those facts in place.

Karl's high-school intellect, combined with his mental pathology is what we see today, in his manipulation of adults in the political arena. Adults, like you, Dan. Karl has the mental depth to imagine people as game pieces, and the mental pathology to then manipulate those persons on their basic instincts. His level of understanding is like that of a porn producer that only knows that the human body has a carnal reaction to porn.

Dan, your questions are embarassing in that the answers would only produce more hearsay evidence. It's dumbfoundingly clear Karl is the embodiment of hearsay evidence, and to hear Dana and Gov. Seigelman lose their breath in trying to explain it is like someone gasping after they've lost all of their money on Enron stock.

Tony

[barugna]

Dear Tony,
I wished to give my review of a couple of misconceptions you seem to have about the mental life of a person such as Rove. First, his manipulations are not a product of his "intelligence" but rather an inventive mind freed from social restraint or any sense of fairnes or morality. That is called "psychopathic" or, in newer terms, "sociopathic" personality disorder. Personality disorders are severe warpings of the basic structure of the personality which seem to be caused by immense or chronic dysfunctional childhoods. For example if he had been repeatedly sexually abused by someone in the home and could not escape it over the course of several years.
Second, if he didn't get past high school, it speaks of limited education, not limited intelligence. However, without knowing for sure what his intelligence quotient IS actually, one might assume that his creations of political mayhem and disgusting performance art pieces on the international scene are due to a childhood of victimization with an overriding need to repeatedly heap cruelties upon others. In this I suspect he has a lot in common with his 'boss'. I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Ganon therapized them both during his long overnights at the W-House.

[realpolitic]

Rove could only get away with his machinations in the political arena, in any other field he would be in jail by now.

[mamacat]

If Rove were molested as a child, that would explain a lot.

[realpolitic]

Tony, I think you are so right. Karl's limited education makes him function as a high school student who may try to destroy another, more popular student by spreading gossip and innuendo about him. Only Karl has turned these smears into a living. His limited intellectual framework would come across in a debate where instead of debating a single narrative he would try to change the subject a million times or throw countless irrevalent facts at another to confuse him. He sees people as sort of like receptacles of propaganda and not as ends in themselves. His only real interest is persuasion where facts and the truth do not matter, as only the goal of one party rule is of consequence. By persuading less informed people to his ideology, Karl can overcome all the times he was picked on and the trauma he suffered as an unpopular child and adolescent. The harm he has done to our system is irreparable.

[sugarmoes]

it's not even so much just a highschool level intellect... it's his criminal/amoral mind... when you are willing to commit crimes against humanity... things become quite simple for the one committing the crimes. case-in-point - the 9/11 hijackers and their backers.

[circusfifthfloor]

More on the way on little karl's deeds. It will come from reliable sources, but Congress and Justice must grow some nuts to see it through. It won't take a brilliant mind to put the pieces together,but a bulldog's tenacity.

[ProFromOre]

Ask any veteran law enforcement officer or prosecutor. They will tell you time and again that sometimes what catches their attention is patterns - patterns of action, patterns of people involved, patterns of methodology. These patterns lead them to start investigating certain people, trying to put together a case.

No serious or experienced officer or prosecutor has investigated Rove. You just can't count the Plame case. Until Bush is out of office it will not be possible.

Something I've observed about Rove is that he will tell you a lot about his methods and how his mind works if you look at what he says. Case in point: "there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee" If they find no paper or person, it's because Rove is seemingly obsessed with leave no evidence behind. An example is how he handled email in his white house office. Then when it seemed like he had messed up and the RNC emails COULD be seized, suddenly there was an IT problem and they'd been lost.

Stupid criminals are the ones that get caught easily. The intelligent criminals frequently get away with it - depending on the tenacity & intelligence of the investigators.

Looking back at Rove's early tactics gives you a view into his morals & ethics - there's no denying the truth of them, he's bragged about some.

Amoral people don't change unless they find that morality gets

[barugna]

The reason the White House staff will get away with the crimes is not "intelligence" although a couple of them might actually be intelligent (it's not relevant to this issue) --- the reason they will get away with it is becaus they are extremely rich, have the presidential pardon power in their pockets, hired and placed all the current US Attorneys (and have dirt on them all), and finally because any President following them into the W-House will not have the courage and moral fiber to force the investigations that would be necessary. The next President will be too worried about getting re-elected (starting on Jan 21st) and too concerned about his or her OWN pecadillos past present and future.
The rich and powerful almost ALWAYS escape.

[dtrobert]

Go Dan!

You are probably one of the only real journalists on the air right now. And considering that you're not a trained journalist, but a lawyer, that's saying a lot!

[Diana]

'Does it bother you...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?'

----

Burning the evidence, plausable deniability, all that stuff of criminals, has been karl's stock in trade for some time now. His statement here is just mocking. He's convinced he--and the people he pimps for--will never spend a day in jail because he's always so careful to cover his tracks, especially by intimidation. And he's probably right. The ways things now stand, the whole lot of them will simply pack their bags of money to live out their days in the safety of dubai.

But perhaps Dan, after Keith, will start a trend in the MSM that will one day result in these dregs being held to account...we can always hope.

[robertlockwoodmills]

Let me answer for Karl Rove, who'll never tell you the truth, Dan. "Yes, I did."

[WinslowLeach]

If I ignore a subpoena, they send a warrant out for me.
The turd genius gets to be on TV and go where ever
he pleases. Who says no one is above the law?
How about some justice?

[oncethere]

Dan, you must have forgot, Republicans don't testify under oath. Can't you talk him to him behind closed doors or something, I'm sure Karl would be happy to set you straight. You remember how informative Atty. General Gonzalez was when he testified before the Committee. We must reserve the power of the subpoena to more substantial matters, like what kind of sex Bill Clinton had with Monica

You are absolutely correct in pushing Rove to give sworn testimony. He strikes me as a very arrogant person, someone who thinks he's smarter (read devious) than everyone in the room and who is well-practiced in the art of manuevering to get his way. My sense is that Rove, like most of these Bushies would crumble and fall when placed in any situation that he could not control.

Similarly, I suspect that McCain would lose it if really challenged by the press or a court.
s

[scepticalobserver]

Personally, I think your comments about Dana Jill Simpson should have included her assertion that when everyone was denying that she had ever worked for the Republican party she responded with a smile and said, (and I paraphrase because I don't have a transcript) "I have phone records that will document my assertions and I'd like hear Karl Rove say that under oath in front of a Senate panel."

If Rove isn't involved in this case, then we are looking at one of the most remarkable series of coincidences in recent history, Beginning with charges of election fraud and ending with the court's long delayed release of the trial transcript.

It reeks of corruption.

[nellie]

Mr. Abrams, I stand and applaud.

[AnnieinOR]

Why don't you hypocrites bring up Rendell with Farrakhan or Paul v Clinton in two days, or Hillary's terrorist ties? Or Hillary the movie or the Clinton Chronicles which will matter if Hillary is the nominee? WHY? Because you are all in it together to control the election

[Aelora]

Dan did bring up Rendell with Farrakhan. He was the only one in the MSM tonight to feature a segment and show some of the video.

[LBKN]

Well??????

Enlighten us, please. Some links would be helpful.

Trust me. I am in the mood to stomp rats where-ever they can be found.

The ball is in your court.

[jayburd]

Dan, why do you feel like you have to publically defend yourself from allegations of lacking journalistic integrity from a weasel like Karl Rove? Not that my opinion counts for much but it comes off seeming a bit wimpish to me. You know you were being fair, as does anybody who knows anything about the facts of this case and your involvement in investigating it. That should be enough. Now, please do your country a favor, continue your investigation, ignore his weak protests and slam dunk his ass...

[BrighterStar]

The reason he has to defend himself is because the story lacks any credible journalistic merit. One emotionally disturbed woman makes a statement that lacks all credibility and he makes serious charges against rove without even doing the simplest fact checking that would demonstrate how silly the whole accusation is. The problem is that Dan wants this story to be true so much that he is willing to overlook the fact that it is not true.

[k8k9]

and you are?

[newunderground]

They don't just let people out of prison to appeal their case unless the evidence of a wrongful conviction is overwn=helming. This could be the smoking gun.

[ptarantino]

Go Abrams! Keep it straight & see where this all goes.

[cariintexas]

Great job Dan. Keep it going and maybe just maybe real journalistic integrity will someday become something we can all respect again.

[ProFromOre]

The reason he brings it to the public is to counter the tactics of Rove, (a bully) to manipulate the issue behind the scenes. The other reason is if you're dealing with a bully, the best method is to call them out.

Rove is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. If he wasn't so messed up in the head he could actually become a memorable figure in history in a positive light. But his involvement in the Siegelman case will be the start of his complete ruination.

Everything comes out in the end, EVERYTHING. Just look at history.

[BrighterStar]

The problem is that you are high on innuendo and accusations and very low on facts. It appears the only piece of evidence you have against Rove is the testimony of a very incredible witness who began to make these allegations only recently. Can you see why Rove is unhappy?

[k8k9]

how do you figure you have facts at your disposal but Dan does not?

[BrighterStar]

If Dan has facts where are they?

[milo9]

This is only the beginning; wait until the telecom records surface. He'll be extremely unhappy while he's doing the "perp walk".

[milo9]

You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that the Architect did not have a peek at the illegal telecom spying records. The Siegelman affair brought to the fore what many people have been thinking all along: how much tellecom spying was to "protect us from terrorists" and how much was to perpetuate "The Permanent Republican Majority". This has only been increased by the Administration willingness to compromise on everything but Retroacrtive Immunity. His fear of transparency and Republicans historical affinity for spying on political enemies is enough for me to conclude that something stinks.

I would hope that Abrams would add the Retroactive Immunity Impasse to his inquiries.

But of course you two think that everything is as pure as the driven snow.

[Jjc2006]

Of course Rove was involved. That's a no brainer. I respect you Mr. Abrams for taking on the Bush Justice department. It does not undo my resentful feelings toward your networks and it's sexist mentality. But at least one of you can do some meaningful stuff.