In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove says that I — and others — owe him an apology for allegations that have been made about him during the course of the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the dismissal of United States Attorneys and related issues about the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions on this subject are simply inconsistent with the documents that the Judiciary Committee recently released and his claims have been discredited by the analysis of the documents and reporting on these matters by credible news outlets across the country. Anyone interested in the truth can read the documents for themselves (here) or the reporting on these matters from the top papers in the U.S. — The Washington Post (here) and The New York Times (here) — as well as alternative, independent news sites such as The Locust Fork News-Journal (here).

Mr. Rove’s points are largely a repeat of his prior discredited statements, and the purpose of this post is not to rehash Mr. Rove’s rehash.

What may be of broader interest is the apparent editorial decision of the Wall Street Journal to prominently feature Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions in its editorial pages, while burying and redacting the original story documenting the facts contained in these documents in the news pages.

On the day after the documents were released, the Journal‘s print edition relegated the story to its “News in Brief” section, running an item of six sentences — 193 words (by way of contrast, the next story in the same section about a college basketball coach impregnating a woman was eight paragraphs and 248 words).

Nothing in the Journal‘s print coverage of the Committee’s release quotes from any of the documents or from any Democrat or investigator about the specific evidence contained therein, even though the Journal used its apparently precious space to report that the Justice Department and White House declined to comment. (To be fair to the reporter, a longer piece appeared in the online edition).

At the same time, the print piece helpfully includes Mr. Rove’s full day-is-night quote asserting that the documents “show politics played no role in the Bush administration’s removal of U.S. attorneys” and other false assertions. And — in lieu of any quotes — it includes the assertion (also helpful to Mr. Rove) that “it remains far from certain whether the… documents released… contain information that would help prosecutors” without any further support or explanation, while omitting the reporter’s online analysis of the numerous specific documents and facts that, in the reporter’s words posted only online “appeared to bolster allegations that David Iglesias . . . was fired for partisan reasons.”

In contrast to the Journal‘s miserly allocation of column width for reporting on the document release, today’s opinion piece by Mr. Rove is 13 paragraphs and 968 words long. It is featured in all formats of the paper.

The point is not that I feel slighted. I have been a public official for more than 40 years and I have taken my fair share of shots from the media, and have seen worthy issues ignored before. The point is that the collective result of the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial decisions are that its readers are left unaware of the basic facts.

So, for example, when Mr, Rove claims that all he did with complaints from New Mexico Republicans about United States Attorney Iglesias’s unwillingness to prosecute Democrats for the purpose of providing an electoral advantage for Republicans was “pass them to the appropriate officials… to determine if they were accurate and weigh them appropriately,” Journal readers are left unaware that testimony from White House Counsel Harriet Miers and emails from others contradict Mr. Rove.

In the Committee documents, Ms. Miers describes an “agitated” Mr. Rove calling her from the road in new Mexico saying that something had to be done about Mr. Iglesias. Ms. Miers could not rule out that Mr. Rove expressly demanded that Mr. Iglesias should be fired. An email from a Rove deputy to Mr. Rove asked why Iglesias was “shy about doing his job on Madrid.” Patsy Madrid was a Democratic Congressional candidate at the time.

When Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal, substantial concerns were raised about the number of media properties he owned and the right wing bias of his news ventures. Many questioned whether the Wall Street Journal would become just another New York Post or, worse, Fox News.

While the Journal‘s editorial page had been conservative for some time, the news division had been largely balanced and thorough. (Indeed, the reporter’s online piece is balanced and thorough.) Many wondered whether Murdoch would put his right wing slant on the news pages as well.

The Journal‘s handling of this chapter of the USA scandal seems to bring that question to a head — is it a sign that the editorial staff of the Journal‘s news division — or at least its editing — has taken on Murdoch’s right-wing bias?

It is certainly true that editorial judgments are made for many reasons and that mistakes are made in the crush of time and, for the sake, of the many accomplished journalists who work at the Journal, I hope that this was simply a mistake. But there is reason to worry.

And with respect to the Journal‘s coverage and commentary on this particular matter, one thing at least is clear. If anyone is owed an apology, it is the Journal‘s readers who depend on the Journal for fair and accurate coverage of the news.

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

The report, titled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,” contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. Recommendations include calls for continued committee investigation, a blue ribbon commission to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

“Even after scores of hearings, investigations, and reports, we still do not have answers to some of the most fundamental questions left in the wake of Bush’s Imperial Presidency,” Conyers said. Pointing to allegations of torture and inhumane treatment, extraordinary rendition, warrantless domestic surveillance, the Valerie Plame Wilson-leak, and the U.S. attorney scandal, Conyers continued, “Investigations are not a matter of payback or political revenge – it is our responsibility to examine what has occurred and to set an appropriate baseline of conduct for future administrations.”

In addition to the set of recommendations, the report contains a foreword by Chairman Conyers and detailed discussions of: the administration’s legal approach to presidential power; the politicization of the Department of Justice; the administration’s far-reaching assaults on individual liberty (including torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance); the misuse of Executive Branch authority; the administration’s retribution against its critics; and the administration’s excessive secrecy, noncompliance with congressional oversight, and manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence.

For the full report, go to this page on the House Judiciary Committee Website.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and the House of Representatives took concrete steps in the first days of the 111th Congress to ensure a continuation of ongoing investigations of the Bush administration, specifically torture of detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and for politicizing the Department of Justice by firing independent prosecutors and wrongly prosecuting Democrats.

The details are just beginning to emerge on the House Judiciary Committee Website, but stories in the Las Vegas Sun, the TPMMuckraker, and Consortium News show that at least some members of Congress are not ready to move on and let bygones by bygones when it comes to potential crimes by Bush administration officials.

Conyers introduced a bill calling for a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties that will establish a “blue ribbon commission” comprised of experts outside government service to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush years, “undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers,” according to the press release.

Also, as part of a routine package of rules governing the opening of the new Congress, the House agreed to continue the lawsuit it brought last year after President George W. Bush’s former officials ignored subpoenas to produce documents and appear before the House Judiciary Committee. The action shows that the coming of a new Congress won’t stop House leaders from continuing their long-running effort to obtain documents and testimony about the U.S. attorney firings from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and especially former Bush political aide Karl Rove.

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas, primarily interested in the case of the firing of Nevada’s former U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden in the U.S. attorneys scandal, said the move by the Democratic-controlled House is an assertion of congressional authority after several years of what scholars see as executive branch overreach by the Bush administration.

“A very fine U.S. attorney from the state of Nevada was unceremoniously removed for no reason –- I would like to know why, I would like it to be made public and I would like those responsible punished,” Berkley said. “By passing this rule we have assured this will be done.”

There is no word from Birmingham Rep. Artur Davis on where he stands on the investigation of the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, although he told me for a story last month: “I’ll let John Conyers decide what to do about that.”

It looks like Montgomery Independent editor and publisher Bob Martin is finally catching up on his post-holiday reading, since an editorial published online today shows that he is now echoing our reporting from last month on a potential Davis candidacy for governor.

Siegelman said in an e-mail response he’s heard nothing from the House Judiciary Committee on the investigation of his case. But he said, “I trust John Conyers. He has been in Congress longer than most.”

Democratic Party activists have feared for the past few months that the new Obama administration might “turn the other cheek,” so to speak, and not take the time and effort to look back at the Bush administration’s legal failures. A wide array of groups, including the “aggressive progressives” at Democrats.com, have kept up the pressure on Conyers and others to hold the administration accountable, especially Karl Rove, who is still in defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify in Siegelman’s case.

With a New Day Dawning in D.C., Will Rove Escape Justice?

We have messages in to the House Judiciary Committee press office and Davis’s press office. We’ll add more to this story if and when we hear back.

The mainstream, corporate news media in Alabama still shows a serious deficiency in covering this story, although one Associated Press reporter in D.C. has weighed in a few times. Most other political blogs in Alabama also seem to completely ignore this story and its implications, with the exception of Roger Shuler at the Legal Schnauzer blog.

Mukasey was on the verge of being charged with contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena calling for the release of hundreds of pages of documents in a number of ongoing investigations, including military spying on U.S. citizens domestically and the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Mukasey and Conyers exchanged letters on the subject today. You can download them from the committee’s Website from this page.

Meanwhile Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel who has so far avoided testifying under a broad claim of executive privilege, is the sole witness listed on the committee’s site for Thursday’s scheduled noon hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, where the subject will be, the “continuing investigation into the U.S. attorneys controversy and related matters.”

We’ll report more when we know it…