Karl Rove's Non-Denials About the Siegelman Case Segue Into Lies in the Wall Street Journal
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.
Rove gives himself away in his nonsensical lies regarding the inquiry into the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
The allegation that Rove took action to influence the prosecution is pretty straightforward. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a former Republican operative, testified about a conversation she had in early 2005 with Rob Riley, the son of current Alabama governor Bob Riley. Rob Riley told Simpson that Karl Rove had contacted the head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, to make sure that Gov. Siegelman would be indicted for political corruption. The alleged motivation was to take Siegelman, a popular Democrat, out of the running for the 2006 governor's race.
Rove either contacted the head of the Public Integrity Section -- at that time it was Noel Hillman, who was later appointed to the Federal bench by Bush -- or he didn't. Rove either contacted someone else in the Justice Department regarding the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman or he didn't. Rove either directed someone else to discuss the matter with the Justice Department or he didn't.
Rove is not a lawyer, but he's not stupid either. He, like any lawyer, would know that a political figure contacting the Justice Department to get someone prosecuted is a really big deal, and for any lawyer it would set off all kinds of ethical bells and whistles. Even if you're a really busy and important guy like Rove, it's not the sort of thing you would just forget.
After Simpson gave her sworn testimony for the House Judiciary Committee in September 2007, Rove had plenty of time for jog his memory and confer with his lawyer, Bob Luskin.
Rove gave a lot of deliberation on the matter prior to submitting a written statement, offered as a stalling tactic to avoid direct questioning, to Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-Tex.) in July 2008. At that time, Rove's denial was categorical.
But when Rove finally sat down for direct questioning by the House Judiciary Committee, he acted like he just fell of the cabbage truck.
Q: Have you ever had any conversations with Noel Hillman in the public -- then in the public integrity section of the Department of Justice?
A: I'm familiar with the name but I -- and I had -- I may have had some -- I can't remember whether this was an issue regarding the appointment of Noel Hillman -- is Hillman a potential-Q: For the record, he has later become nominated for and approved as a Federal judge, if that helps you.
A: Right. Yeah. I think that is the context in which I recognize the name.
Q: Do you recall ever having any communications with him while he was at the Department of Justice?
A: Not that I recall, no.
Among other things, Noel Hillman oversaw the Justice Department investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal, in which Rove and his allies were deeply implicated. That's why Rove's, "I'm familiar with the name..." routine is so transparent. What would you think if someone asked Hillary Clinton, "Have you had any conversations with Kenneth Starr?" and she prefaced her answer with, "I'm familiar with the name..." before saying, "Not that I recall"?
Rove's "Not that I recall..." phrasing is a standard disclaimer used to inoculate against perjury charges. Go to the reporting by Roger Shuler, TPM and Locust Fork Journal for cogent analyses.
Those nondenials segued into his rant on the editorial pages of the Journal, where Rove can lie with impunity.
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. Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness. 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.
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.
For a good, lawyerly analysis of the latest problems with the case, check out Andrew Kreig's pieces on Huffington Post here and here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When History is written the sheer number of criminals the simpleton George W Bush surrounded himself with will amaze historians. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfield.
Talk about an "Axis of Evil"
12 comments in over a day. Glad this is not important.
How much evidence to the American people need to recognize the presence of psychopaths in our government?
hey - ollie north didn't see a prison cell, either.
these guys are good.
Rove is a degenerate liar. He can not help himself. He likes to put himself in the best light, as well. He may have been well coached enough by his lawyers to avoid perjury charges, but simply by being Rove he had to tell a few doozies. I hope Rove left enough room for prosecutors to prosecute him. Clearly, there is evidence that he interfered with the internal machinations of the Justice Department for illegal reasons.
Interesting. I read his piece. It was straightforward to me and backed by facts.
I wonder who might have pressured Tom Ridge to raise the alert level for political reasons prior to the 2004 election? White House Political Director and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, maybe?
And, of course, then there was this:
"The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that top GOP operatives who feel there is a double-standard of only reporting republican [sic] shame believe they are holding an ace card: New White House recruit Sidney Blumenthal has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up ...
"There are court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife," one influential republican [sic], who demanded anonymity, tells the DRUDGE REPORT.
"If they begin to use Sipple and his problems against us, against the Republican Party ... to show hypocrisy, Blumenthal would become fair game. Wasn't it Clinton who signed the Violence Against Women Act? ..."
Not the phrase "fair game." Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase since this false -- and later retracted -- Drudge Report item appeared on August 11, 1997?
WAS KARL ROVE A SOURCE FOR THAT FALSE AND COMTEMPTIBLE 1997 DEFAMATION OF JACQUELINE AND SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL?
The only other person this voice possibly sounds like, to me anyway, is Tom DeLay. I would be curious to know if anyone else thinks they recognize who may have been the source for that false and defamatory 1997 Drudge report.
The mother of the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas was the go between for Rove .
That is why son got the U.S. Attorney appointments with almost NO Resume except for working for the Republican Party in the Flordia 2000 Election >!!!!!!!!!!!
To summarize. There was an investigation. It found no evidence of any wrongdoing let alone anything illegal. However, I dont like him so i shall smear him.
Dunno why you needed a whole blog for that,
Absolutely not! The fact that we don't like him and the fact that he is a fat lying piece of scum has nothing to do with why he is not guilty as sin in these dealings and a myriad of other back stabbin', cork screwin' horn swogglin' and just plan illegal crap that he has pulled since his days as a drop out flunky at the University of Utah. There is no smear going on here from this side. Talk to the U.S. attorneys and Don Siegelman if you want insight into a smear campaign. Rovey is the king of smear tactics. I can't wait to hear the bacon frying. I wonder how long it will take for him to get used to the feeling of no toilet seat and that cold stainless steel on his fat behind for the next decade or even two if there is real justice.
So when does the trial begin? If people thought the O.J. trial was quality entertainment, they are going to love this.
I don't think Karl Rove would recognize truth if it hit him in the face. I begin to think he is a pathological liar. Certainly, ever since he was a school debater who showed up with boxes and boxes of materials that, in fact, were blank cards, he has made a living out of deception.
Can we try Bushco for high crimes and treasons?
any conviction would be overturned by the partisans on the supreme court.
Fortunately, the Rethuglicans defender, McFlip-Flop is running interference for any prosecution &/or defense of the Constitution.
There is no doubt in my mind that our Founding Fathers were both courageous idealists and visionaries and at the same time men completely grounded in the reality of politics and power and the failings of human character. Considering all the despicable acts committed by Bush, Cheney and Rove, I doubt any of those acts would have come as a surprise to the Fathers. But given that they completely anticipated the potential of their ilk and put such thought into creating within the Constitution safeguards against them and tools to stop them, I have the conviction that they would be sickened with astonishment that we did nothing to stop them and are doing nothing in any way, shape or form to hold them accountable to any degree. Iraq, the attorney general firings, Don Siegelman, Valerie Plame, the links of Enron to energy policy and California's electricity crisis, among others - no accountability for any of it. There's been more outrage about illegal acts of steroids use in professional sports than illegal acts by our President and his henchmen. When we've lost a craving for justice, where do we find the future for this country?
Well put. Sadly to say this is the future of our country. Actually, for our whole human culture," the world". I am a disappointed Pee-on.
This is really a very informative post!
this seems to give relevant ideas, and information which really informs the readers well about what is happening on the latest update in the community.
http://hos
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
