by Glynn Wilson

Karl Rove admits having a “senior moment” in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, dancing around the key allegations that he had direct knowledge and an active role in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the firings of U.S. attorneys. He takes what Washington insiders call the Ronald Reagan defense, a.k.a. the “Alzheimer’s defense,” as in “I don’t recall.”

In other words, and in contradiction with other published reports that Rove once again denied his role in manipulating the justice system from the White House, Rove’s testimony is what we call in the news business, “a non-denial denial.”

In transcripts and documents released Tuesday by the committee, Rove freely admits his friendship with former Alabama Attorney General William “Bill” Pryor, who started the first investigation of Siegelman in 1998.

Rove admits the role he and his campaign operation played in turning Alabama’s Supreme Court Republican. He admits knowing Bill Canary of the Business Council all the way back to the days when he worked for George Herbert Walker Bush, and to communicating with Canary “maybe a dozen times” while Rove was the top political adviser to President George W. Bush in the White House

Under questioning from Elliot Mincberg, majority chief counsel for investigations and oversight, Rove admits meeting Bill Canary’s wife Leura Canary, the federal prosecutor who first brought the second case against Siegelman in Montgomery.

“I’m pretty sure I’ve met her, but I don’t have any great familiarity,” Rove testifies. Then later, when asked how he communicated with her, “in person or on the phone,” he says, “I’m sure I had contact with her, but I literally couldn’t tell you if I have ever talked to her or if I have ever seen her in person. I believe I met her at something in Alabama, but — I am sure Bill has introduced me to her, but I don’t know. It may have been to the White House holiday party or something. But I don’t recall.”

Right.

Rove admits he most likely advocated for her to get the nod as U.S. attorney initially, “If she passed the process with Justice.”

When asked if the issue of political corruption in Alabama ever came up during her confirmation process, Rove answered: “Not that I recall.” When asked if the issue of Governor Siegelman ever came up in his conversations with her, he testified: “Not that I recall.”

According to legal analyst Scott Horton, a contributor to Harper’s magazine and a lecturer at Columbia, “the documents collectively make it clear that Karl Rove was not only at the center of the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys, but also exercised close oversight over other matters at the Justice Department. The case in New Mexico seems clearly to be one where the dismissal of a U.S. attorney occurred in order to corruptly influence a criminal investigation.”

Rove admits knowing and communicating with Rob Riley, the son and former campaign manager of Governor Bob Riley, “a handful” of times, although he “doesn’t recall” whether they specifically discussed the case against Siegelman. Yet when asked if Riley ever lobbied him or asked for his advice, Rove testified, “Not that I recall.”

When asked if anyone connected to Riley ever lobbied him or sought his advice, he said. “I’m not aware of somebody. There may have been somebody who was a legal client of his who was lobbying the White House, but I don’t specifically recall.”

When asked about being contacted by Stewart Hall, who is connected to Riley and worked with the Federalist Group, Rove testified: “I know his partner or his former partner…. But I think I met Mr. Hall.”

When pressed about Hall’s partner, Rove stops and says, “It will come to me in just a minute. I am having a senior moment here … Wayne Berman.”

Perhaps the committee didn’t know that Berman is one’s of Rove’s best friends in Washington, who he pushed on Stewart Hall to hire at the Federalist Group, a Republican lobbying outfit that has since changed its name. Berman’s wife is Lea Berman, former White House Social Secretary. So it would be impossible for them not to know each other.

Mr. Rove then admits being approached by Berman, although he tried to confuse the issue with a bit of redirection.

“I’m not certain that is a matter connected with Stewart Hall,” he says. “It may be connected to Rob Riley.”

Rove admits helping to coordinate fund-raisers for Bob Riley with the president, placing him in direct involvement in the political race between Siegelman and Riley in 2006, but he can’t seem to remember if he accompanied Bush on several trips to Alabama in 2002 and 2005, He admits, though, “it would be normal and customary I would accompany … we were generally focused on trying to elect Republicans to Democrat seats…”

Duh.

Rove denies any conversations about the Siegelman case with Noel Hillman with the Department of Justice’s ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility, although he later advocated for Hillman’s appointment as a federal judge. Rove goes on to deny communicating with anyone in the U.S. attorney’s offices in Alabama, then he does his Alzheimer’s two-step again. “Not that I’m aware of,” he testifies.

When asked if he communicated with anyone at the Alabama attorney general’s office or any law enforcement agency, Rove hesitates.

“I may — I don’t know when Bill Pryor was attorney general. I may have had a conversation about Siegelman at some time about him,” although he says it was because of “something bubbling up in the press.”

Rove’s political consulting firm ran Pryor’s campaign for attorney general in 1998, the same year Siegelman was elected governor. Pryor announced an investigation of Siegelman, but ended it saying he could not unearth enough evidence to bring charges. Bush appointed Pryor to a federal judgeship with the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003.

When asked about the failed prosecution of Siegelman by Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney in Birmingham, and its impact on Siegelman’s reelection chances, Rove indicated his view was that it would be “pretty damaging” to Siegelman. But he just could not recall any specific communications on his part, and he claims he learned everything he knew about it from press coverage.

When the committee produced e-mail messages showing he had communicated about the race by sending a story in the Southern Political Report to Susan Ralston and Matt Schlapp of the Office of Political Affairs, he just claimed to be sharing it with them and that he was not really interested in the Alabama campaign — even though he admitted his political consulting firm ran campaigns in Alabama in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

When asked about other e-mails showing he communicated with Kitty McClullough at the RNC and Sara Taylor about “doing some digging” on the Riley-Siegelman race, he sidestepped the question, but admitted the information he got came from Toby Roth, Riley’s chief of staff.

When asked directly if he had any dealings with Roth, Rove hemmed and hawed again.

“Not that I recall,” Rove testifies. But then: “I probably did talk to him during his time as chief of staff, but I don’t recall specifically when or what subject.”

Rove’s practiced testimony includes his defense of a statement he made to the Birmingham News that everything he knew about the Siegelman case came from what he read in the press.

“Read about it in the newspaper,” he says. Yet we know for a fact he and prosecutor Alice Martin communicated with the Birmingham News about this case before. But again, Rove testified, “If it doesn’t appear in the press, I don’t know about it.”

Right.

When asked again if he discussed Siegelman with Riley or Canary, Rove dodges the question. “I may have had conversations with Kitty McCullough,” he says.

“I’m not aware that I had a conversation, but I wouldn’t — I don’t want to — there could have coincidentally been such,” Rove says. “I just don’t recall.”

In another e-mail from Sara Taylor to Rove and Taylor Hughes, Rove learns of the Siegelman conviction third-hand from Jason Huntsberry, who quotes Toby Roth.

Once again Rove testifies he doesn’t remember the e-mail, but declares he must have read it. He then dances around when he learned of the conviction, claiming he simply heard about it from the “evening news,” not political operatives, although he quips: “Marvelous thing, this Internet.”

He admits receiving an e-mail message about Siegelman’s conviction on his political Blackberry, not his White House desktop computer, but he downplays its importance in showing that he was in direct touch with political operatives in Alabama and clearly following developments in the case.

Then Rove says he “doesn’t recall” talking to whistle-blower Jill Simpson about the Siegelman case, although the committee never presses him on the phone records that prove they were in direct communication.

“I have no recollection of meeting her or talking to her,” Rove testifies, in what must be another one of Rove’s “senior moments,” since the committee is in possession of direct evidence that they did talk.

Rove’s testimony contradicts the sworn affidavit Rob Riley gave to the committee in lieu of being called as a witness. In fact, Rove denies any knowledge of talking to Riley about a FEMA contract. That’s the very reason Riley gives in his affidavit for talking to Rove, when he denied the phone conversation Jill Simpson overheard indicating Siegelman’s prosecution was a done deal — after Siegelman announced he would run for governor against Bob Riley in the 2006 campaign.

Finally, Mincberg asks, “Under penalty of prosecution, do you stand by your statements that you had no communications, other than the one’s you’ve generally testified to today relating to possible investigation, prosecution, or criminal acts by Governor Siegelman?”

“I stand by my statement,” Rove concluded.

Horton said in an e-mail interview that Rove’s testimony proves he was “obviously keenly following the prosecution of Don Siegelman. The key is his relationship with his close friend Billy Canary, whose wife brought and managed the prosecution, up to its conclusion.”

There is no clear indication as of deadline whether the House Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation further, whether there will be public hearings or charges filed. Legal experts who have followed the case from the beginning say Rove appears to have perjured himself on two fronts.

Jill Simpson declined to comment for this article, although she hinted that due to the lack of follow-up by the committee in seeking the testimony of the political players in Alabama, including Bill Canary and Rob Riley, that would seem to indicate that the committee does not have the motivation to get the whole truth in the case.

Alabama Whistle-Blower Says Rove Should Be Charged

President George Bush comforts Karl Rove on the day he was forced to resign from the White House in August, 2007.

by Glynn Wilson

The master of spin from the Bush years, Karl Rove, is at it again, even as he testified before the House Judiciary Committee for the second time Thursday about his role in manipulating America’s judicial system from his office in the West Wing of the White House.

While the transcript of Rove’s testimony might be released in August and the committee may hold a public hearing on White House involvement in the political firing of U.S. attorneys and other executive branch intrusions into the judicial branch, including the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Rove had already granted interviews with the New York Times and Washington Post to spin the story his way in what may constitute an act of obstruction of justice. Rove even selectively released a few e-mail messages to the papers to bolster his case, although what was reported seems to indicate he was just as involved as we have been reporting for the past two years.

Here’s how the Washington Post played the story.

Political adviser Karl Rove and other high-ranking figures in the Bush White House played a greater role than previously understood in the firing of federal prosecutors almost three years ago, according to e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, in a scandal that led to mass Justice Department resignations and an ongoing criminal probe.

Rove Had Heavier Hand in Prosecutor Firings Than Previously Known

In the exclusive interviews Rove granted to the Post and the Times earlier this month, Rove described himself as a “conduit” of grievances from lawmakers and others about the performance of certain prosecutors.

“The e-mails and interview were provided on the condition that they not be released until Rove’s House testimony concluded,” according to the Post.

Rove said he did not recall several events because of his “busy job” and asserted that he had done nothing to influence criminal cases, “an allegation by Democrats that has dogged him for years,” the Post reports, even though the Post has not been the lead news organization investigating Rove.

The Post allows itself to be used by Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin, who asserts that “there was never any point where Karl was trying to get a particular prosecution advanced or retarded.”

“Yes, I was a recipient of complaints, and I passed them on to the counsel’s office to be passed onto Justice,” Rove told the papers in what appears to be a total distortion of what actually happened. This will most likely come out in the end in either the congressional probe or an ongoing criminal case.

Rove injects a canard about “weak enforcement of voter fraud laws and public corruption,” which he says “had the sound of authenticity to me. If what I’m told is accurate, it’s really troublesome.”

What the two top newspapers in the land don’t seem to realize is that this is an attempt by Rove to not only snake his way out of culpability in politicizing the Justice Department, but to actually try and make it appear as if he gives a damn about the problems he created as Bush’s lead political brain and attack dog. Every single decision made by the Bush administration was filtered through Rove to make sure it met political muster, and the administration aggressively pursued a strategy of taking over the country by the Republican Party. Rove often promised his GOP buddies that his mission was to keep the Republicans in charge of the country “for a generation.”

So why does this come as a surprise to the Post and the Times at this late date?

In the Times version of this fiction, Mr. Rove said he “played only a peripheral role in the removal of the prosecutors.”

Right…

A statement from the Judiciary Committee on Thursday suggested that Mr. Rove might not have fully described his role in the firing of U.S. attorneys in the earlier interviews with the papers.

But we learn from the Times version of the story that Mr. Rove “provided a selection of office e-mail messages about the issue.”

“It’s hardly surprising that Mr. Rove would minimize his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings or that selectively leaked documents would serve his version of events,” the statement says. “The Judiciary Committee intends to honor its agreement to maintain the confidentiality of this process until its work is complete. While not describing the contents of the documents or interviews, the committee believes that the full record will show Mr. Rove’s role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys was more substantial than his statements to the media indicate.”

Rove Says His Role in Prosecutor Firings Was Small

But as one of the e-mails reported by the Times shows, Rove was obviously heavily involved.

“Give me a report on what U.S. attorneys slots are vacant or expected to be open soon,” he wrote to his deputy, J. Scott Jennings, in a late evening e-mail message on Nov. 25, 2006. Mr. Jennings replied with a curt, “Yes, sir.”

Nah, he wasn’t involved…

Reacting to the news, the key whistle-blower in the case against Rove for his involvement in the Siegelman prosecution, Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, said this morning that Rove breached his agreement with the committee by leaking information to the papers, just as her testimony was leaked after she testified last fall.

“He and Rep. Lamar Smith breached my agreement also with congress by leaking my testimony to Rob Riley,” she said. “I even have an apology letter from Conyer’s for their behavior.”

“Clearly Karl cannot honor any agreement even with Congress and the White House,” she said. “I think it is important that he has obstructed justice now for the second time due to his desire to leak and spin in a congressional investigation where he agreed to remain silent. They should charge him with obstruction of justice. Bless his little black heart he just could not help himself.”

The penalty is five years, she said, and he clearly had a written agreement worked out by his lawyer with the White House, Congress and the former president.

“He violated the congressional investigation by talking to the newspapers,” she said. “The statute is clear. See chapter 73 section 1505, the second paragraph. I think we have a bingo.”

by Glynn Wilson

In response to a new story in The Huffington Post Wednesday about a conflict of interest on the part of the judge who presided in the federal case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, attorney and whistle-blower Jill Simpson issued a rare, lengthy public statement today calling on the Obama Justice Department to immediately set aside the convictions of Siegelman and release his co-defendant Richard Scrushy from prison.

In her statement, included in full in the comments below, she details misdeeds on the part of the Bush Justice Department’s Public Integrity Division, including hiding evidence, and comes to this conclusion.

“As a result of these misdeeds the DOJ should immediately release Mr. Scrushy and file motions to set aside the convictions. To do anything less is just plain wrong,” she said. “It is important for our Justice Department to seek Justice, not just to seek to win. Justice will only be served at this point by the release of Mr. Scrushy and by the convictions being set aside.”

Based on her research into the case, and an affidavit filed by another attorney named Paul Weeks, she says once again that Fuller had a conflict of interest that was never disclosed to Siegelman’s attorneys and that he should have recused himself form sitting in judgment in the case.

She revealed her knowledge of a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Fuller to me in the very first story written about this nearly two years ago.

Weeks detailed a political vendetta on the part of Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller against Siegelman dating back to Siegelman’s term as governor and Fuller’s days as a local district attorney from Enterprise, all in an affidavit that was in the possession of the Bush Justice Department but completely ignored by the Public Integrity Division investigating the case.

“The time has come for those at the Department of Justice to admit their wrong doings by accepting responsibility for not providing the Weeks affidavit, and for allowing an attorney who is supposed to be over investigating a complaint on a judge to defend that judge in another matter without ever disclosing his conflict,” she said.

She indicated she was exercising her First Amendment right as a citizen to speak out on the injustice that has occurred at the U.S. Department of Justice in the Siegelman-Scrushy case because it was the right thing to do.

“Not to speak out in my opinion would be wrong because it will allow this ridiculous injustice to continue,” she said.

From his reporting on the case, attorney and investigative reporter Andrew Kreig has stored a number of the documents in the case on his Web site, including some of the most relevant exhibits here.

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman urges supporters in Rainsville at his 63rd birthday party to keep the pressure on Congress to continue the investigation of Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, who perverted justice for political reasons not only in his case, but in cases across the country.

by Glynn Wilson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers once again made it clear that he and his committee are not going to allow the corruption of the Justice Department on Bush’s watch to be swept under the proverbial “let’s just move forward” rug.

There is still some serious business to attend to, and at the top of the list, in the lead of Conyers’ press release, is a brand spanking new subpoena for Mr. Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove, demanding that he appear in person before the committee and “testify regarding his role in the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.”

The subpoena calls for Mr. Rove to appear for a deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.

Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates — and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as “completely misguided.”

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Mr. Conyers said. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added: “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

Click here for the page with the link to a copy of the subpoena.

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman reacted quickly from his iPhone via a Google Gmail account: “Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of Karl Rove gives hope to those who want to know the extent of Karl Rove’s abuse of power and his misuse of the Department of Justice as a way to win elections.

“Chairman Conyers’ action gives meaning to the change that has been ushered in by the election of President Obama,” he said. “I am sure that I speak for millions of U.S. Citizens when I say that I am grateful for Mr. Conyers’ determination to seek the truth.”

“Those who abused their power must be held accountable, otherwise their misuse of power will be more likely to happen again,” he wrote. “Our democracy has been threatened by the use of the Department of Justice as a political weapon. Chairman Conyers’ action will serve to protect our democracy and restore people’s faith that no man is above the law.”

North Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, who came forward as a whistle-blower last summer and provided the key evidence for starting an investigation showing Siegelman’s case was political, said she was happy to hear about the subpoena.

“Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail on April 16, 1963 said in a letter: ‘An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I am glad that John Conyers understands what Dr. King meant, because it is important for our country that no man be above the law.”

And the fact is, she said: “An injustice occurred in the summer when Mr. Rove was allowed to thumb his nose at a Congressional subpoena. It has been a threat to justice ever since.”

Maybe now, she said, “Mr. Rove will raise his right hand and swear to God to tell the truth — as any normal citizen is required to do when facing a subpoena. It is my hope that justice is restored to the justice system in this country.”

Pam Miles, a staunch Siegelman Democrat, responded with a quote from her favorite late night comedian: “It a great day in America!”

“I knew this day was coming,” she said. “I had total faith in Congressman John Conyers. I personally witnessed Congressman Conyers looking into Governor Siegelman’s face and promising him that this was going to happen and that he ‘was not through with him (Rove) yet.’”

“I never doubted Conyers word,” she said. “I knew also, from getting to know some of his staff members (having called DC numerous times) that this would happen sooner rather than later.

“It a great day in America…”

According to Roll Call:

Conyers has released information he believes implicates Rove in the prosecution and conviction of Siegelman on corruption charges for political reasons. Rove has been accused of hatching a plan to prosecute Siegelman because he didn’t back down from contesting the 2001 gubernatorial election results that handed the office to Republican Bob Riley.

No word from Birmingham Congressman Artur Davis, who led the charge in last year’s hearings on Siegelman’s case. He no longer serves on the House Judiciary Committee and says he’s planning to run for governor of Alabama.

AP: House Judiciary Chairman Subpoenas Karl Rove