Exclusive interviews with Jill Simpson, Scott Horton, and Don Siegelman
by Glynn Wilson
Updates below…
Jill Simpson breathes another sigh of consternation over the telephone from Rainsville as the news hits the blogs that Karl Rove has once again tried to deny influencing the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman — without raising his right hand and swearing to tell the truth under oath.
 |
| Glynn Wilson |
| Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on trial. We can finally now report that the woman in the background is Sephira Bailey Shuttlesworth, wife of Birmingham Civil Rights icon Fred Shuttlesworth, thanks to Bonnie Fountain, a photographer and copy editor in Birmingham. |
The Talking Points Memo out of Washington, D.C., is claiming an “EXCLUSIVE” Wednesday on a story under the headline:
Karl Rove Issues New Denials in Gov. Siegelman Prosecution in Written Answers to HJC (House Judiciary Committee). Other bloggers are commenting there that they had it first, however, so who knows.
But we can report this from an EXCLUSIVE interview today with Jill Simpson.
“They’ve tried to call me a liar the whole time, but I swore under oath,” Ms. Simpson said. “The moral of the story for Karl Rove is, if what he is saying is true, then why won’t he go testify?”
The news, if it is news, is that the House Judiciary Committee received a copy of Rove’s written responses to questions from the ranking minority member of the committee, a Republican from Texas. Rove is trying to delay and/or avoid contempt charges by substituting a written denial that is not signed or sworn under oath.
Questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, R.-Texas, are now online, along with Rove’s answers, submitted by his lawyer, Robert Luskin.
One way Rove tries to deal with the 14 questions from Smith is to deny without really denying certain key things, which in Washington politics, as opposed to a court of law, is called a “non-denial denial.”
Smith’s Question: Before former Alabama Governor Donald E. Siegelman’s initial indictment in May 2005, did you ever communicate with any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual other than Dana Jill Simpson, Esq., regarding Governor Siegelman’s investigation or potential prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, and means of the communication, the official or individual with whom you communicated, and the content of the communication.
Rove’s Answer: 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. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.
But if he had said that under oath, a lawyer or a Congressman could say, “but what about that phone record we have here as exhibit X?”
Or maybe: Was your friend Bill Canary, head of the conservative Business Council of Alabama, just lying about that? Perhaps we should get him up here to testify as a rebuttal witness?
Ms. Simpson’s position is that the written responses are nothing more than what Rove has said already in other forums, and the questions have been “asked and answered.” But they are not the key questions and they have certainly not been answered under oath.
From talking to attorneys, Ms. Simpson believes Rep. Smith wanted to have her subpoenaed to testify along with Rove — if the committee goes forward with the full contempt citation and takes the extraordinary step of having Rove arrested.
“But he doesn’t have the votes,” she said, since the committee is made up of a majority of Democrats since the 2006 election.
The Republicans on the committee who questioned Ms. Simpson last year were not very prepared for the interview, she said, “So they regret not asking me a bunch of questions.”
And the bottom line for Rove is, he wants to know what other evidence Ms. Simpson has about the relationship, evidence that has so far not been revealed in sworn testimony. And typical of lawyers, until a case gets into court, and everybody is under oath, the entire case is not going to be laid out.
“Karl Rove can go do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, but he has a duty to testify,” Ms. Simpson said.
While the story so far has included the line that he is operating under a broad claim of executive privilege since the events occurred when he was still working in the White House as President George W. Bush’s chief political aide, conversations with the president are supposed to be kept confidential. But now other bloggers are reporting that Bush never actually exempted Rove from testifying under executive privilege, probably because Bush doesn’t want to reveal that he was in the loop on the Siegelman case.
So the story today amounts to the same old spin from the spin master himself, according to Washington political experts.
According to Scott Horton, a New York attorney and writer who has followed the case closely and blogged about it himself for the Harper’s magazine Website, if Rove indeed had no discussions with anyone about Siegelman, then he had no need to refuse to appear and answer questions under oath.
“But the questions and answers are both very carefully tailored to look comprehensive while they are not,” he said. “If Rove were to appear, his relationship and dealings with Bill Pryor, whom he served as a paid political advisor as Pryor was assembling a case against Siegelman, would be fair game and he would be compelled to answer them; similarly, he would be forced to enumerate and discuss his dealings with Bill Canary, his wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and Bob and Rob Riley.”
“Second,” he said, “his final pages consist of an extended effort to trash Jill Simpson with rank falsehood and innuendo, largely drawn from Rove’s own sock puppets. In the end the main point remains this: Rove needs to take an oath and submit to the Committee’s questions, just as Jill Simpson did. His contempt of Congress is obvious, and the reason he won’t testify is also increasingly plain.”
Ad 1: After appearing on Verdict with Dan Abrams on MSNBC Wednesday night, Siegelman said this in an e-mail interview:
“Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary. Canary and Rove’s client started investigating me in 1999,” Siegelman said. “Rove’s partner’s wife accelerated the case federally in 2001. Rove’s partner’s wife indicted me during the 2006 campaign and brought me to trial less than four weeks before the Democratic primary.
“There is sworn testimony that Rove’s partner said that he had it worked out with Karl to destroy me and that two Alabama U.S. attorneys would do the job. Both those U.S. attorneys did in fact indict me. And now, Rove refuses to deny that he talked to Bill Canary about prosecuting me.
“Does anyone believe all this is circumstantial? How much more proof do you need? They sent me to prison on less evidence than this.”
Other breaking news out on this subject from Wednesday:
AP: Siegelman Supporters Call for Expanded Probe
AG Says Siegelman Findings to be Released
Six Questions for Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias
One from the archives, important facts and clues for the newbies on this story: The Nation: A Whistleblower’s Tale
