Share

How Rove Said He'd Answer Siegelman Prosecution Queries

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Karl Rove continues to be a subject of congressional investigations. (Photo: Getty Images)

    While the details of Karl Rove's eight-hour deposition Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee remain unknown, Rove has provided insight into how he said he intended to answer the panel's questions. The deposition concerned Rove's role in the firings of nine US attorneys and the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

    In March, during a little-known interview on Fox News, where Rove is a contributor, Rove told Chris Wallace that he has already responded to questions about Siegelman's prosecution and has posted his answers to written questions on his web site, Rove.com.

    "My understanding is I am going to be questioned both about the US attorneys [dismissals] and about the allegations that I was responsible for the prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman ... a lot of these answers, particularly with regard to Siegelman, are already on my web site," Rove said in the March 8 interview.

    Last December, Rove obtained a copy of an e-mail Siegelman had sent to his supporters who contributed to his legal defense fund. Rove blogged about it under a headline in which he portrayed himself as a victim: "Personal Responsibility: Who Needs It When You Can Blame Karl Rove?" www.rove.com/notes?page=4 (sixth item down from the top).

    "Below is a fundraising letter sent out by Friends of Don Siegelman 2008. Despite that it has no basis in fact, I thought you might find it amusing. In case you're interested, visit these links for the facts," Rove wrote.

    Rove then posted links to four documents on his web site, one of which was his response to questions posed to him last July by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Smith, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, has been a vocal critic of the panel's chairman John Conyers's attempts to force Rove to comply with numerous congressional subpoenas about the firings of federal prosecutors and the prosecution of Siegelman. Rove subsequently defied the subpoenas on executive privilege grounds.

    Smith sent a letter to Rove's longtime attorney, Robert Luskin, on July 15, 2008, excoriating Conyers for not accepting an offer to have Rove respond to questions about the Siegelman prosecution in a private setting and not under oath. Smith did not inform Conyers or other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee that he had sent the letter.

    "The Committee's goal should not be the unnecessary persecution of witnesses with compulsory congressional process and needless contempt proceedings," Smith wrote. "Because written answers to written questions about the Siegelman matter would serve the Committee's proper objective, I am accepting by this letter your offer to provide those answers."

    About a week later, during a committee hearing on the matter last year, while Conyers and other Democrats were considering whether to hold Rove in contempt, Smith announced that he had obtained Rove's responses to lingering questions about his alleged role in Siegelman's prosecution. Smith then submitted the written question-and-answer exchange with Rove into the Congressional record.

    In a July 22, 2008, letter accompanying Rove's response to Smith's questions, Rove's longtime attorney, Robert Luskin, wrote:

    "As you know, Mr. Rove has never asserted any personal privileges in response to the Committee's subpoena, but remains obligated to follow the direction of the President. We simply cannot understand the Committee's interest in provoking a confrontation with Mr. Rove while the precise legal issue that is presented by his subpoena is subject to a pending action in District Court.

    "We have struggled instead to find a method by which Mr. Rove could answer the Committee's questions while at the same time respecting the prerogatives of the President. We thank you for providing such an opportunity, and we trust that Mr. Rove's answers will assist the Committee in resolving these utterly unfounded allegations."

    Claims that Rove never asserted "personal privileges" is a familiar line Luskin has used as recently as February, when Conyers subpoenaed Rove for the third time this year to try to compel him to testify about Siegelman's prosecution and the US attorney firings. In March, Conyers's committee, with the help of White House Counsel Gregory Craig, brokered a deal that resulted in Rove agreeing to testify before the committee privately.

    But Rove indicated during his Fox News interview that he doesn't intend to stray from the responses to questions he had already provided to Smith, which were clearly written to elicit denials from Rove about his involvement in Siegelman's prosecution.

    In his written responses to Smith's 14 questions, Rove denied speaking to anyone "either directly or indirectly" at the Justice Department or to Alabama state officials about bringing corruption charges against Siegelman.

    "I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf," Rove wrote. "I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters."

    Rove responded to eight other questions with the exact same response.

    Rove said the Judiciary Committee should press Siegelman to justify his allegations about Rove's interference in the case.

    "The committee should require Siegelman to substantiate his allegations about my 'involvement' in his prosecution - something he has failed to do in either media interviews or court filings," Rove wrote.

    Siegelman was convicted of corruption in 2006, but was released from prison on bond in March 2008 after an appeals court ruled that "substantial questions" about the case could very well result in either a new trial or a dismissal. In March, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld Siegelman's bribery conviction but threw out two lesser charges. The panel ordered a new sentencing date for the former governor, who has been urging Attorney General Eric Holder to look into specific evidence that would appear to suggest that he was the victim of a partisan witch hunt.

    In an interview with The Anniston Star on May 18, 2008, Siegelman said Rove first targeted him in 1998.

    "It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, [disgraced lobbyist] Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998," Siegelman told the newspaper. "Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation.

    "In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a US Attorney and started a federal investigation.... It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election ... but, yeah, it's all part of the same case."

    In March when a US Appeals Court upheld many of the corruption charges against Siegelman, Rove once again directed his supporters to the documents on his web site containing his answers to Smith's questions about the matter.

    "Honoring the President's executive privilege and acting with White House approval, Karl Rove responded to Judiciary Committee questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman," Rove wrote.

    Conyers did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

    When his panel reached an agreement with Rove on March 5, Conyers said, "I am determined to have it known whether US attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for improper political reasons, and if so, by whom."

    In a statement released to NBC News Tuesday Luskin said, "The agreement setting up the interviews contemplated that they would remain entirely confidential until all the interviews were complete. Out of respect for that term of the agreement, Mr. Rove is not commenting."

  

»


Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I congratulate Mr. Conyers

I congratulate Mr. Conyers for his zeal. However, there doesn't seem to be much stomach for prosecution of crimes committed by the Bush administration, in this crowd in Washington. They just want to sweep all the rot and ruin under the rug: "Not look back." So I don't think this will go anywhere. Sadly, the American people will again be treated to the same fare dished up by Bush: the laws apply to you, not us! Only the "little people" get prosecuted! We have a professor of Constitutional law as a President. I'm waiting to see him defend the Constitution and bring these criminals to justice. I want him to look back. Our democracy demands it.

Who would believe anything

Who would believe anything that came out of Rove's mouth?

Anyone with intelligence

Anyone with intelligence knows that Rove, along with Cheney and Bush in their upcoming books, are rewriting history. If Hitler had prevailed, our children would be reading about what a great humanitarian he was. Personally, I hope they all leave the country so they can be arrested for crimes against humanity and made to stand trial in the Hague which is not permeated by American political intrigues. Maybe then we'll find out just a tidbit of what they accomplished in their infamous historic roles.

Mr. Sigelman's situation has

Mr. Sigelman's situation has not been amusing as perhaps Mr. Rove and his cohorts have found it. I do think that Karl Rove should be subjected to the laws of the land as is everyone else. He appears to feel that he can call the shots. His veracity is certainly in question.

This group of so called

This group of so called elected officials who are supposed to be representing the citizens of America are no better than the ones who were in office before them. They are all out to scratch each others backs while trying to deceive the public into believing they are trying to do somethig to bring justice but it is only acting! They don't intend to come against one of their own unless he\she fails to hold the status quo then they will brng them down because they dared to step out of line. These people are merely out to pass laws to further control and enslave us to the elitist! Its time to wake up America and stop believing these people are out for your good! They only serve themselves and their buddies inWashington! The sooner we all realize this the better off we will all be and only then will be see any real justice done! They have the courts in their pockets to so that also means those judges who are in their pockets will also need to be removed!

I agree with the opinion "I

I agree with the opinion "I congratulate Mr. Conyers" It is DISGUSTING that the Bush, et al criminals who have been responsible for SO much death and destruction as well as the destruction of people's careers for political gain get away with literally MURDER. Scooter Libby is the ONLY one to be held even MINIMALLY accountable and even he was let off with a get out of jail free card. These bastards are responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS and the dismemberment of nearly everything they touched whether it was the Constitution or 9/11 or Iraq they botched it all. I only hope history judges this administration as the worst EVER in US history and one of the worst leadership in the modern world ever. If there is a hell SURELY there is a place for most of them. I hope they experience it and I damn them to it!

Destructive Political

Destructive Political Sophistry Must Be Defined As A High Crime Political destruction of the communal wealth of the nation for minority interests of greed by allowing organized political sophists to masquerade as legitimate political movements is the dilemma of both the Republican Party and to a lesser degree the Democratic Party that presently exists in the United States. Political sophistry must be defined by law as a high crime, a felony, that is punishable by death or life imprisonment, death for greater offenses and life imprisonment for lesser offenses; political sophistry that resulted in the collapse of the economy, as is the current case in the United States has ramifications that are a threat to the National Security, and to the greater majority of the people of the nation that are much greater than the death of a single person, and must be punished more severely than just for the death of a single individual. The RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT is a movement of political sophists, the results of the political sophistry of this movement, and the people involved as sophists in the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are all known, and the results of their political sophistry is known, can be collected as proof of intent and used to execute and imprison the responsible political sophists as an example to political sophists in the future; we as a nation must have the resolve to make this happen.

Unfortunately, Rove is a

Unfortunately, Rove is a skilled sophist, and the vast majority of the public, government, and journalists seem incapable of stepping back from his intellectual circles to call his bloviating what it is: a distraction from the truth.

Nothing more will come of

Nothing more will come of this charade than the same pseudo-psycho-babble self vindication they felt was achieved when Oliver North (lie instruction coach at his side) closed the book on any doubt what-so-ever Congress or for that matter government personnel period fundamentally understood there is/was a major intended difference between what was drafted into the Constitution as beyond reproach & the flawed ideology that twisted this into Titanium Mulligan Immunity!

I thought the answer was ,

I thought the answer was , "Oink" Same thing, but it works every time against the flummoxed Dems. Think I will change back to independent. Are there any pols besides Kucinich (who also seems to have given up in exhaustion, like me) with cajones? Even little ones?

Conyers can't restore

Conyers can't restore constitutional government to the U.S. all by himself. A huge part of the wave of hope that swept Obama into office was the hope that Obama would restore constitutional government. Right now we have an oligarchy, with people like Rove acting as its henchmen. If Obama is unwilling to take on the oligarchy, then he should step down.

I am starting to think it

I am starting to think it would be better to choose a Judiciary committee from a random pick of people on the street that what comes through the electoral process. Our electoral process is broken. Top priority, over every other issue should be to find another one that works better, and that eliminates the need for big amounts of money.

Only a few Democrats have a

Only a few Democrats have a clean enough background to prosecute anyone, about anything, without their own party members being implicated.

Connect the dots: massive

Connect the dots: massive surveillance of communications (needed to control/blackmail/bribe opposition such as E. Spitzer), dirty tricks and illegal activities by an uncontrollable CIA, the MIC, and toothless/spineless/corrupt Democrats unable and unwilling to restore democracy.

First the big money

First the big money corporate lawyers figured out how to stack the jury. Now they just put the guy they need on the bench. Sounds like a fair and impartial Justice system to me, huh? OMG, if there are no prosecutions, we are scr&#d, any real justice will only be by accident. It’s already pretty much like that. BTW, I believe there is more truth written in the comments before me than you’ll find in the mainstream media in a month.

Rove is NOT answerable to

Rove is NOT answerable to the American people. SO, NA NA NA NA NA NA. YOU CAN'T CATCH HIM! (chanted to the melody of "ring around the rosie")

its amazing that lamar smith

its amazing that lamar smith in his limited capacity would usurp the committee head with this letter. has to be part of the ongoing bush texas connection still at work. also at work here is the spineless ness of the corrupt democratic majority. mr. smith should be removed from his seat for this but i doubt anyone will be angry over this.

So many of us voted for

So many of us voted for Obama thinking (hoping) that he would defend our Contitution and that he would restore justice to America but he is proving that he isn't the one to save our country from the Bushes and the Roves ( there aren[t many but they have the money and the power. He has joined them or maybe he was always one of them and he just lied to us to get elected. What do we do about this? We can't just continue to write angry e-mails. What do we do America? I for one say we need to tell those we hired (elected) to work for us that if they only work for those who pay them more than we do i.e. make "campaign contributions, i.e. bribe them, that we will not vote for them again. How about starting some recall movements? We MUST do something!