at-Largely

Supreme Court vacates Siegelman decision

by Larisa Alexandrovna

In a surprise decision Tuesday morning, the United States Supreme Court vacated an earlier ruling by a lower court in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery and honest services fraud in 2006 in a case that has widely been criticized as politically motivated.

<snip>

Siegelman's attorney for the Supreme Court appeal, Sam Heldman, told Raw Story, "We are very pleased with the Court's ruling. This is an important step towards a complete victory for Governor Siegelman."

Siegelman's case will now be remanded back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for a second consideration.

Read the whole thing here

Supreme Court ruling may not help Democrats targeted by Bush US Attorneys

Decision might apply if cases are taken up by the Supreme Court on appeal; lawyers have mixed reactions

by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling last Thursday, which set aside the conviction of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling on a charge of honest-services wire fraud, may not help the cause of either former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman or Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, who were convicted on similar charges.

Siegelman and Minor have been the subject of an extensive Raw Story series exploring political prosecution in the southern United States.

The honest services fraud statute has routinely been used against public officials or corporate executives accused of using their positions to benefit themselves at the expense of the public or stockholders. The charge of theft of services has been widely regarded as too vaguely defined to constitute a crime, and the case involving Skilling had been closely watched for that reason.

---

Read the whole thing here.

Greg Craig has no problem exploiting his conflicts of interest

First, a reminder of why Craig is "interesting"

Let's take a look at a recent article I did on Craig and Rove:

A deal brokered by the Obama White House to obtain Karl Rove’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee contains a number of unusual provisions, prominent legal scholars say.

<snip>

Legal scholars consulted for this article have also expressed concern about the involvement of current White House Counsel Greg Craig last March in brokering a deal between Rove and Miers, on one hand, and the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), on the other. It was that deal which led to Miers’ testimony on June 15 and Rove’s on July 7.

Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean — who had previously served as chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee — told Raw Story, “This is not a deal that could have pleased the Obama White House or the House Judiciary Committee and if anyone got the better of the deal it was Rove and Miers.”

<snip>

Horton is less diplomatic when asked about the reason for Craig’s involvement.

“That’s a question for Greg Craig, since he has personally put himself on the line in this matter,” Horton said. “My sense is that they have a legitimate interest in privilege issues, but also that they have been far more deferential to Rove and Miers than the circumstances warrant. And in the background we have the troubling fact that Rove is a former client of Craig’s. Which explains why he should never have involved himself in this.”

Raw Story has been unable to confirm the widely-reported allegation that Craig served as Rove’s representative when he was with the law firm of Williams & Connolly, although an associate of Craig’s there did act as Rove’s agent in the sale of his memoir in 2007. However, a January 2009 New York Times article describes Mr. Craig as a friend of Mr. Rove’s:

“Yet in the time-honored way of Washington, Mr. Craig, who will quit his partnership in the upscale law firm Williams & Connolly for the $172,200-a-year White House job, has found a way to make friends with the other side. He counts Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political guru, as a friend; Mr. Rove said Mr. Craig would ‘serve the new president and the country with great integrity.’”

Now for the latest news:

Goldman Sachs is launching an aggressive response to its political and legal challenges with an unlikely ally at its side — President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, Gregory Craig.

The beleaguered Wall Street bank hired Craig — now in private practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — in recent weeks to help in navigate the halls of power in Washington, a source familiar with the firm told POLITICO.

“He is clearly an attorney of eminence and has a deep understanding of the legal process and the world of Washington,” the source said. “And those are important worlds for everybody in finance right now.”

Ethics is not his strong point. Goldman Sachs hired a guy who has no problem exploiting his conflicts of interest.

Innocence Project vs. Ambition and Corruption

Having covered and exposed prosecutorial corruption for the last few years, I have lost my once staunch belief in the justice system and those who claim to be working for the greater good. How can they be when their job is political? I have often been attacked for trying to expose prosecutorial misconduct. Bryan Smith shows us yet another example of such underhanded tactics by prosecutors more interested in politics than in justice:

"In their own ways, they have risen to stardom on a stage built from misery, two battlers who grapple with questions of life-and-death justice: Anita Alvarez, a Chicago native and career prosecutor with working-class roots, who dramatically emerged from a pack of formidable opponents to become the first woman and first person of Hispanic descent to hold the top job in the second-largest prosecutor’s office in the nation; and the Northwestern University professor David Protess, a crusader against wrongful convictions who has guided his students to find fresh evidence that helped free five people from death row and sprang six others from imprisonment for murders they did not commit—putting prosecutors on the defensive with each notch in his belt.

Over the more than two decades they built their careers, the two rarely crossed paths. That changed when Alvarez, who took office a little over a year ago, found herself dealing with the latest Protess cause: the claim that a man named Anthony McKinney had been wrongly jailed for more than 30 years."

Imagine if you found out that you were responsible for robbing 30 years from an innocent person? Imagine that in that time, the guilty party has been free? What would you reaction be? My first reaction would be grief, remorse, sadness. My second reaction would be to help free the person I had wronged. My third reaction would be to publicly apologize. Then, when all of that was done, I would resign my position. There is nothing special about me in having this series of reactions. Most decent people would respond in the same manner.

But some people are not decent and when they sit in positions of authority, holding the power of freedom, life, and justice in their hands, then they threaten the very fabric of democracy. This is the entire reason for a free press: to protect the governed from the government; to stand between those with power and those without. When a prosecutor uses that power to attack a journalist in retribution for doing what they are entrusted by the Constitution to do, the line crossed is so serious, it requires outrage from all.

Such has been the case with the Bush appointed prosecutors, whom the Obama administration has allowed to remain in their positions of power and authority . 

Not all prosecutors are corrupt of course, but enough are corrupt (and some aggressively so) to cause a significant breach of public trust. Some have even engaged in criminal activity to further their own political ambitions. An example of the latter is the still sitting US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, Leura Canary, who continues to remain in her post and do more damage.

Now we see the actions of Anita Alvarez, who needs to resign or be removed for her attacks on David Protess in particular and press freedoms in general:

"In this case, Alvarez turned the tables on Protess, challenging the motives and ethics of him and his students. In a court filing, her office has given voice to deeply unflattering, sometimes personal accusations: that some students may have paid a witness to recant; that other students “flirted” with witnesses, in effect, to persuade them to make incriminating statements; and that students may have been so driven to get an A that they twisted or suppressed evidence to suit their cause of freeing McKinney."

If that were the case, why have no charges been brought against the students? Why have statements such as these been made ONLY after the Innocence Project brought evidence that might free McKinney? Why has this been done instead:

"Meanwhile, outside court, her office has given at least two reporters a memo about a 1996 case as “background” information. The memo recounts scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims about the conduct of Protess and students who were working on an investigation that resulted in freeing two men from death row and two others from life sentences. “What on earth does [an old] memo based on lies and designed to smear my students have to do with the truth of whether Anthony McKinney was wrongfully convicted?” asks Protess."

David Protess is a highly regarded journalism professor who has devoted his life to freeing the innocent imprisoned in the US among the guilty. Alvarez cannot win this battle, not by a long shot. As I often urge you to do, protect your journalists. 

Not that it much matters to me, but I should tell you that Alvarez is a Democrat.

Court overturns main charges against attorney Paul Minor

My latest. If you are not familiar with the case, see links at bottom

##

by Larisa Alexandrovna

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an opinion on Friday overturning one of the main charges in the federal case against Mississippi trial attorney Paul Minor and judges John Whitfield and Wes Teel.

The three men were convicted on bribery and honest services fraud charges in 2007, in what many Minor supporters have called political prosecutions. In 2008, the Bush administration even opposed MInor's request to be released from prison long enough to visit his dying wife.

The Circuit Court began considering Minor’s appeal in May of this year. The three-judge panel expressed skepticism at the governments’ case during oral arguments.

Raw Story’s award-nominated series, The Permanent Republican Majority (see links below), exposed some of the issues in the cases of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel, who were prosecuted starting in 2003 by a Bush-appointed US Attorney, along with former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr.

Read the rest of the article here.

##

See more about Minor here, Siegelman, here and the full investigative series below.

The Permanent Republican Majority Series

Part One – The Political Prisoner

Part Two – Exclusive interview with jailed governor’s daughter, Dana Siegelman

Part Three – Running Elections from the White House

Part Four – How Bush pick helped prosecute top Democrat-backed judge

Part Five – Mississippi Justice: Bush US Attorney targeted my wife, supporters and friends

Part Six - Break-ins plague targets of US Attorneys

Part Seven - Justice for Sale: How Big Tobacco and the GOP teamed up to crush Democrats in the South

Updates to the PRM series

Judge who ruled on appeal of prosecuted Democrat was Karl Rove protege

Treasury Department investigating US Attorney for leaking state Supreme Court Justice's tax returns

House asked to name special prosecutor in case of jailed Democratic donor

Rove-connected judge recuses self from Minor case

Siegelman, SCOTUS, and Hon. Services Statute

More on what is going on with the statute here. More on Don Siegelman here. More on Paul Minor here.

Fredo's song and dance...

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -who helped discredit the DOJ, reducing it to nothing  more but a political tool of the state against its enemies - has some thoughts to share:

"It was cool to work in the White House."

What, is he five?

'The notion that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a result of the policies of the Bush administration I just think is totally ridiculous."

Policies permitting torture lead to people being tortured are not connected? M'kay.

"I think 90 percent of what happened to me is politics, pure and simple. It's tough to knock out a president. But if you can get someone who is viewed as close to the president, then that may be a good thing."

What happened to him is politics? What about what happened to Don Siegelman, Paul Minor and others? What should we call that?

"This may sound egotistical, but to me it is important that when I leave this earth, I would have made a difference — that people would know Al Gonzales lived, he touched lives, he made a difference, he left a mark."

How did that work out Fredo?

"Putting my lawyer hat aside, the notion that we'd have to get legalistic about torture, yeah, can be offensive to me. It's inconsistent with American values. But as a lawyer — as a lawyer — you have to try to put meaning to the words passed by Congress."

Inconsistent with American values? Yes, we all agree. But Gonzo did get legalistic about torture. That is the problem. He knows it. We all know it.

"We should have abandoned the idea of removing the U. S. attorneys once the Democrats took the Senate. Because at that point we could really not count on Republicans to cut off investigations or help us at all with investigations. We didn't see that at the Department of Justice. Nor did the White House see that. Karl didn't see it. If we could do something over again, that would be it."

Yes, getting caught is the problem, NOT the crime itself. Wow! And he said this on the record!

Karl Rove's buddy resigns post as WH Counsel

Greg Craig has finally been pushed out as White House Counsel. But we can thank him for all of his efforts in crafting what has come to be known as the "deal with the devil" - the deal between Karl Rove and the House Judiciary Committee.

Here are some snips from an article I did on the deal:

A deal brokered by the Obama White House to obtain Karl Rove’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee contains a number of unusual provisions, prominent legal scholars say.

Rove testified before the Judiciary Committee on July 7 concerning his alleged involvement in the December 2006 firings of seven US Attorneys and the prosecution of Don Siegelman. The Committee is being extremely tight-mouthed about the result, and Rove himself has also declined to comment.

The secrecy is in line with the agreement (pdf) worked out last March to secure testimony from Rove and from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, which guaranteed that no information would be released until the completion of all interviews. However, under the terms of that agreement it appears likely that certain crucial facts, especially about the US Attorney firings, may never come out.

Legal experts consulted for this article are also concerned about the role played by current White House Council Greg Craig, who negotiated the arrangement made by Miers and Rove with the House Judiciary Committee.

<snip>

Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean — who had previously served as chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee — told Raw Story, “This is not a deal that could have pleased the Obama White House or the House Judiciary Committee and if anyone got the better of the deal it was Rove and Miers.”

But even before this, there was concern about Craig and Rove:

Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, says Craig has serious conflicts regarding certain members of the Republican Party. And we're not talking about reputable, mainstream Republicans like Richard Lugar or Olympia Snowe. We're talking Dr. Evil himself--Karl Rove.

A February 22 letter, from Simpson attorney Priscilla Black Duncan to Craig, outlines several serious charges against the White House counsel. He has represented Rove in a book deal. His close associate and mentor represents the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues regarding the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

But most troubling is the possibility that Craig violated multiple ethical rules of the legal profession in his direct conversations with Simpson. The letter states that Craig held extensive discussions with Simpson about the possibility of representing her for her testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After hearing a complete account of Simpson's story, Craig informed her that he had a conflict involving U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and could not represent her.

The tone of the letter makes it clear that Simpson suspects Craig took privileged information he gleaned from her and shared it with Rove or individuals close to him. Such action would represent a serious breach of legal ethics, and my understanding is that Craig could face sanctions, perhaps disbarment, if such a breach were proven.

For those interested in purging political influence and corruption from our justice system, this is a good start. But the questions about Craig still remain unanswered. Has he been asked about his relationship with Karl Rove? We know at least that Rove strongly approved of Craig's appointment to the Obama White House - which alone should have set off red flags. Recall this little scooplet from January:

Yet in the time-honored way of Washington, Mr. Craig, who will quit his partnership in the upscale law firm Williams & Connolly for the $172,200-a-year White House job, has found a way to make friends with the other side. He counts Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political guru, as a friend; Mr. Rove said Mr. Craig would “serve the new president and the country with great integrity.”

And this did not set off alarm bells in the Obama camp?

Morons, your bus is leaving, again...

The election hysteria of 09 is remarkable for everything it is not about. It is as though someone mass injected spiked kool aid directly into the right-wing bloodstream over the last 48 hour period. Why yes, 2 + 2 does equal 5.  So much is this lunacy out of whack with reality,  that I feel as though I have to explain to a group of flatlanders that the earth is round.

• Some (read the far-right and MSM) have called it a referendum on Obama. It is not a referendum on Obama. Why? Because these are local elections with very specific issues unrelated to the current President, despite the spin that is being employed to tie him to this. The same people who have blamed Obama for everything from the lack of rain to the choices made by the Bush administration over the last 8 years, are trying once again to tie Obama to something, anything, to show him as a failure. Apparently the whole Obama=Stalin, Obama=Hitler, Obama=anti-Christ memes are not working. The latest meme is that a corrupt New Jersey governor lost to an even more corrupt New Jersey US Attorney is a win for the GOP and a loss for Obama.

• Some think that now-Governor Chris Christie is proof of a GOP comeback. It is not. It is proof of how corruption is no longer a hindrance to political office - so long as the person running parrots the right pro-war, pro-life talking points. There are a few of us who have spent years reporting on the US Attorney Scandal, corruption of the DOJ, and the use of federal office for political retaliation. Christie suddenly being thrust by his maker - Karl Rove - into an even more glaring spot-light is not a win for the GOP. It is a disaster.

In time, as is always the case, the excitement over the "R" after Christie's name will dissipate as Christie's various questionable (and probably illegal) activities will begin to emerge. We have seen these types elected before. Where their faux stand on social issues initially energizes the glue-sniffing base, and then fades as the corruption allegations begin to emerge.

Tom Delay, for example, was the face of the GOP, until that face became the image of corruption itself. Christie's problems are being overlooked now, but it will all unravel just in time for the Presidential election and taint the GOP just as Jack Abramoff and his gang tainted the Republican party during a critical election.

If the GOP is serious about winning Congressional seats, they should consider running candidates not on socially conservative issues, but on actual standards tied to the actual party platform of small government, clean government, and fiscal responsibility - which for the last 8 years have been nothing but talking points. 

On the other hand, if the GOP wishes to continue its slide toward irrelevancy and continue being the definition of corruption and cover-up, then by all means, run candidates like Christie for glue-sniffers to vote for. In other words, by all means, destroy yourselves.

• Some of the delusional right-wing are claiming that the NY-23 GOP loss is actually a win, despite the fact that it was a solid Republican seat since the 19th century. Losing something as solid as that seat is an indication of monumental damage to the party, which the far-right refuses to accept. The reason that Rush Limbaugh, Sarah, Palin, and the rest of the glue-sniffing community refuse to accept responsibility for the damage they have caused to their own is the same reason the GOP is a regional, out-dated political cult rather than a national party.

They seek to impose their extremist beliefs on the rest of the nation through whatever means necessary. If they admit defeat in NY-23, then they admit that they are a liability rather than anything of value to the GOP. If the GOP is serious about winning elections on a national level, they need to purge themselves of this virus and do so very openly. In the meantime, I am enjoying watching Rush-Oxy play fool for the even more foolish.

As it stands, the GOP has won a NJ governor's seat that will soon be vacated because of the character and history of the candidate they chose. The scandal will diminish their chances in more important elections.  They lost a solid GOP Congressional seat too, so solid, that it was a a given that a Republican would win. If that is success or a comeback, I fail to see it.

I often quote Bill Murray when attempting to sum up the glue-sniffers and their various adventures into decidedly crazy-land. So once again, and in short: "morons, your bus is leaving."

Much bigger than ACORN scandal...the Chamber of Commerce still not under investigation...

Following up on my post about the Chamber of Commerce and its leadership, here is the latest news on this corrupt, bloated, and criminal organization:

"The chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alleged Sunday that there is a White House campaign of "invectives" and "name-calling" against his organization, and said the business group is eager to ignore the heated rhetoric.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," longtime Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten said the group's relationship with the White House began to sour after differences of opinion developed about President Obama's health-care and economic agendas.

"Let's be clear, we haven't raised up the Cain. It came from their side of the street," Josten said, referring to the White House, which sits just across Lafayette Park from the Chamber's national headquarters.

"We intend to remain focused on our goals and our responsibilities to represent the American business," Josten said. "We're not going to take the bait and engage in a name-calling campaign here of invectives back and forth. We're going to stay focused."'

If Congress ever managed to free itself from the leash the Chamber has them on, they should consider an investigation into Jack Abramoff, money laundering, and the Chamber of Commerce. The corruption of a few low level workers at ACORN is but a pebble compared to the real scandal, the biggest scandal in our recent history of the way the Chamber has bought the law, bought government officials, and engaged in criminal activity on par with BCCI. I have always found it remarkable that the Abramoff probe stopped short of addressing the criminal activities that he was simply a smaller element of.

Tom Donohue, the Lewis Powell Memo, and the undermining of democracy

The Wall Street Journal has devoted an entire article to Tom Donohue's - the president of the US Chamber of Commerce - portraying him as a victim of the Obama White House, just like the propaganda outfit known as Fox News:

"One thing I can tell you: They can go out and chase me and chase the Chamber and put stuff in the newspaper. It only . . . drives more and more support. . . . You think we are going to blink because a couple of people are out shooting at us? Tell 'em to put their damn helmets on."

I happen to know a very good deal about Mr. Donohue because of his involvement indirectly with the political prosecutions of former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., attorney Paul Minor, and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. 

(more below the fold)

Second Siegelman whistle-blower interviewed...

Andrew Kreig interviews DOJ lawyer and whistle-blower Tamara Grimes. Before we get to the latest revelations, let's examine who Grimes is and what has happened with her whistle-blowing:

A U.S. Justice Department whistle-blower who accused prosecutors of misconduct in the closely watched federal corruption trial of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama has been fired, and claims that retaliation is the reason. The government denies that it was retaliating.

<snip>

Grimes filed her complaints in 2007 under whistle-blower protection laws, accusing prosecutors of several misdeeds. Included were improper communications with jurors and the continuing involvement of the U.S. attorney for Alabama, Leura G. Canary, long after Canary, a Republican, said she had removed herself from the case because of partisan ties.

Grimes received word of her firing on June 9 from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, according to a statement she issued.

We now know for a fact that Leura Canary did in fact communicate with her team after supposedly recusing herself. We know this from Canary's own emails to them. We also now know that there was jury tampering. 

One would think that Grimes would have gotten an award of some sort for exposing this corruption. Instead, the Holder DOJ fired her, while Canary remains US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. 

So now we come to the Kreig interview with Grimes. The big nugget of new information here is how Canary rewarded her employees who did not question their Stasi like orders and punished those who did:

"The first group, comprised of those willing to do whatever it took to succeed, received extraordinary rewards and preferential treatment with the full support of Mrs. Canary. The second group, comprised of those who opposed unethical and sometimes unlawful conduct, were subjected to harsh retaliation. The third and final group simply sought to keep their heads down and make it through the day without getting on the wrong side of the "right" people and losing their jobs. This is the reality of life in the Montgomery U.S. attorney's office for dozens of DoJ employees. As a consequence of observing harsh retaliation, it is difficult to find a single employee willing to risk his or her job to honestly discuss the matters without fear of reprisal. This is particularly true since they have seen me and the other employees who were willing to stand up for principles and ethics escorted from the building and terminated."

I ask again, why is Canary still in office? Why was Grimes fired? Why is no one asking these serious questions? As for Siegelman, the list of former Attorneys General - of both parties - who have now signed on in demanding that the US Supreme Court hear Siegelman's case has grown to 91. That is correct, 91 former state Attorneys General of both parties are demanding SCOTUS address this because Mr. Holder has not and will not seemingly.

You can also read Roger Shuler's excellent blog about this interview here.

If all of this makes no sense or is new to you, I would suggest you start with these series of articles below:

• Part 1: Political Prisoner
• Part 2: Siegelman's Daughter Speaks Out
• Part 3: Running Elections from the White House
• Part 4: Mississippi Prosecutions
• Part 5: Interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr.
• Part 6: Break-Ins Plague Targets of Political Prosecutions
  
• Part 7: Justice for Sale
• Judge who denied Paul Minor's release protoge of Karl Rove
• DOJ Investigating 2 US Attorneys in alleged political prosecutions
• 60 Minutes signal dropped in Alabama only during Siegelman portion
• Interview with Dana Jill Simpson on Karl Rove's alleged smears
• Karl Rove's next move: A Million Dollar House in Florida
• Abramoff said he had agreement with White House aid regarding communications
• Treasury Department investigating US Attorney for sharing private income tax returns of a case target

Also see my blog categories for Don Siegelman, US Attorney Scandal, and Paul Minor

Maddow responds to Rove's op-ed...

As you already know, Rove wrote and the Wall Street Murdoch published and op-ed in which he - Rove - proclaims himself a victim of a politics and left-leaning media. Facts of course never entered into this equation and the Wall Street Murdoch saw fit to print not only what was entirely false but also bordering on libel against certain individuals.

Earlier today, I reported on one element of Rove's op-ed or what by now should be called his very public mental break-down. This evening, Rachel Maddow  took an axe to the rest of it. Enjoy, spread and laugh:

Calderone, Karl Rove, and pretense at journalism...

Politico's Michael Calderone has this interesting little write up today:

Rove: NYT, WaPo should admit mistakes

"Karl Rove, in today's Wall Street Journal, slams the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post for overplaying his links in the 2006 U.S. attorney scandal and 2004 prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

The Times and the Post have published a combined 18 editorials on these issues, which were also catnip to House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Politico's Ryan Grim reported last year overhearing the Committee's chairman, John Conyers of Michigan, tell two others, "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Recently, Rove sat down a 12-hour, two-day interview, with over 500 pages of material available on his website. And following those interviews, he asks, “What did the committee discover?”

Rove writes that in the U.S. attorney scandal, his role was “minimal and entirely proper.” As for Siegelman, he contends to being innocent of the “overheated assertions by the Times, Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes," and various MSNBC talking heads.” The Times and Post, he writes, should “admit their mistakes.”

I’ve reached out to Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal and  Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt for comment, and will update when I have a response."

(more below the fold)

Rove op-ed reveals he had inside information about probe...

My latest

"Karl Rove’s latest attempt to proclaim his innocence and demand apologies from those who have accused him of being behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman may backfire if it turns out that Rove was improperly receiving inside information after leaving his position as Deputy White House Chief of Staff.

“For more than two years,” Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal, “House Judiciary Committee Democrats and the New York Times editorial board have argued that I personally arranged for Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman to be prosecuted in 2004 for corruption and ordered the removal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 for failing to investigate Democrats. The Washington Post editorial board also echoed this last charge. The Times and the Post have published a combined 18 editorials on these issues, which were also catnip to House Judiciary Committee Democrats.”'

<snip>

"Rove then goes on to attack Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama Republican lawyer turned whistleblower who has linked him to the Siegelman prosecution. In doing so, however, he raises serious questions of impropriety by revealing that he has received confidential information from both the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice.

“Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness,” Rove says of Simpson. “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.”'

<snip>

"Rove’s remarkable admission that he “understand[s] 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,” opens both Rove himself and and the OPR to questions of serious impropriety.

Pricilla Duncan, Simpson’s former attorney, said during a Thursday morning phone interview that she was concerned and wanted to know “how Rove could possibly know who the [Department of Justice] was interviewing and which witnesses were cooperating or not?”

When asked for comment, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, clarified Rove’s statement about Simpson refusing to cooperate. He wrote in an email to Raw Story, “I think he’s referring to the current round of hearings/interviews. You are correct that she provided an affidavit and interview previously. She did decline to cooperate with the OPR investigation at Justice.”

Luskin declined, however, to comment as to how he found out Simpson had not testified."

##

Read the whole thing here.

Rich Lowry has a whole lot of s'plaining to do...

Not that I think of the National Review as any sort of journalism outlet. The publication is nothing more than an ideological shill platform. But one hopes that even those individuals drowning in the passion of their confused convictions are expressing themselves for the publication and not for, say, an owner at the White House.

Enter Rich Lowry, who was willing to  crawl up Karl Rove's backside by offering his help in "catapulting the propaganda" and Zach Roth tells us all about it:

It looks like Rick Lowry of National Review offered the White House his services in doing some positive P.R. on behalf of Rove protege Tim Griffin, who the administration had sought to sought to muscle into the U.S. attorney job in Arkansas as a replacement for the fired Bud Cummins.

In a January 2007 email, White House political director Sara Taylor wrote:

Prior is going after Griffin. He's made this his cause.... We need to find some folks to defend Tim and his credentials, not to mention our policy.

Your thoughts? Rich Lowry offered to help Tim

The best part? Taylor went on to ask: "Anyone better?"

With nearly 6,000 pages released by the House Judiciary Committee into Rove's alleged involvement in the political firings of US Attorneys and political prosecutions of various Democrats seen as obstacles for the permanent Republican majority, I am confident more nuggets such as these are going to come out (cough).

As for Lowry, the only thing I can say is surprise, surprise!

Conyers surprises Rove...releases documents

So, there was a little agreement with the House Judiciary Committee and Karl Rove in exchange for the latter's testimony. The agreement made the entire testimony process secret in a way I had never before seen. Karl Rove decided to violate that agreement in his tale to the press. I was wondering what - if anything - Rep John Conyers (D-MI) would do. Looks like Conyers pretty much just bitch slapped Rove by a surprise release of nearly 6000 pages of documents:

“After all the delay and despite all the obfuscation, lies and spin, this basic truth can no longer be denied: Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons,” Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said in a statement.

Conyers said he has sent the material to a special prosecutor, who is investigating the firings on behalf of the Justice Department. 

Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, who was surprised by the release of the deposition and other documents, said there was “absolutely no proof at all” of political interference in the decision to remove certain U.S. attorneys."

Surprise, surprise. This is what happens when you double dog dare someone as Rove did with Conyers.

Rove's Efforts to "Spin" Take Him Into Criminal Territory

My buddy Roger Shuler has an excellent post up regarding Karl Rove's interviews with the media in apparent contradiction to his agreement with the House Judiciary Committee. I reported on the agreement here. Here is what Shuler writes:

"Did Karl Rove obstruct justice when he discussed his role in the the U.S. attorney firings with two major newspapers, violating an agreement he had with Congress?

Yes indeed, says Alabama lawyer and whistleblower Jill Simpson, who has testified under oath that Rove was part of a conspiracy to conduct a political prosecution against former Governor Don Siegelman.

Simpson says Rove violated 18 U.S. Code 1505 by granting interviews with The New York Times and the Washington Post, which ran last week after his second round of testimony before staff members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Rove also provided copies of selected e-mails to reporters, messages that apparently indicate his role in the U.S. attorney firings was small."

I expressed my own concerns about Rove's interviews in a post last week:

"So while the HJC and the Obama White House are busy shrouding everything about this scandal in secrecy as part of an agreement with Rove, he in turn is actually talking, despite his agreement with the HJC."

I also posted a snip of an email response from me to a White House staffer asking about the level of secrecy regarding Rove's testimony:

"That is why I have questions regarding the actual agreement, which I have read and re-read and also Mr. Craig's involvement in brokering it. For example, I am trying to understand what the "4 pages" of documents are that can only be described to Congress, but not seen by Congress? What could require such secrecy?"

The WH - the Obama WH - did not response to my questions. Nice, eh?

Rove says jump...Conyers and Obama jump...

For nearly a month I tried to find out what exactly Karl Rove admitted during his testimony behind closed doors - and not under oath - in front of the House Judiciary Committee. The HJC would not discuss or leak Rove's testimony, not any part of it. Nor would they confirm or deny anything. The reasons for this were stated to be an agreement - on which I reported last week - between Rove and the HJC.  Such was the level of secrecy that when I tried to get clarification on language used in the agreement, no one would provide it, all citing the confidentiality of the agreement itself. And this secrecy was not limited to the HJC either. The White House would not provide any comment either, which is odd since they helped broker the agreement.

So imagine my surprise when this bit of news came out:

"In a just-released interview conducted earlier this month with the New York Times and the Washington Post, former White House adviser Karl Rove appeared to be attempting to portray his involvement in the December 2006 firing of several US Attorneys as merely “peripheral” and not tied to any particular agenda.

The Times even headlined its story, “Rove Says His Role in Prosecutor Firings Was Small.”

However, all three of the US Attorney firings in which Rove has now admitted playing some role are linked by the common theme of allegations of voter fraud and by connections to a GOP front group known as the American Center for Voting Rights, which was formed in early 2005 to press the voter fraud issue. This suggests that Rove’s relationship to those three firings may not be as casual as he now claims."

So while the HJC and the Obama White House are busy shrouding everything about this scandal in secrecy as part of an agreement with Rove, he in turn is actually talking, despite his agreement with the HJC.

I actually reported on ACVR years ago. So I know a good deal about Rove's alleged role. But what Rove claims he testified to cannot be verified in any way. Moreover, even when (if) the HJC releases the testimony and documents relating to the US Attorney scandal, key documents and testimony will not be made public (see my article on the agreement). Again, there is really no way of knowing what Rove actually testified to.

But my interest in this testimony is entirely focused on the US Attorneys who were NOT fired and stayed on to conduct political prosecutions - like Leura Canary, the US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama who prosecuted former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Canary is still in office by the way as neither Obama or Holder seem interested in replacing someone this corrupt. So, as I asked both the White House and HJC staffers: "who are you protecting?" No answers.

Here is just a snip of an email response from me to a White House aid asking the reason for the secrecy:

"That is why I have questions regarding the actual agreement, which I have read and re-read and also Mr. Craig's involvement in brokering it. For example, I am trying to understand what the "4 pages" of documents are that can only be described to Congress, but not seen by Congress? What could require such secrecy?"

Crickets from the Dems, but Rove is talking.

Legal experts raise questions about Rove testimony deal

my latest:

A deal brokered by the Obama White House to obtain Karl Rove’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee contains a number of unusual provisions, prominent legal scholars say.

Rove testified before the Judiciary Committee on July 7 concerning his alleged involvement in the December 2006 firings of seven US Attorneys and the prosecution of Don Siegelman. The Committee is being extremely tight-mouthed about the result, and Rove himself has also declined to comment.

<snip>

A few days after the scandal broke in March 2007, an email exchange among White House officials was revealed which showed that Rove had been one of the first people to raise the idea in January 2005 of replacing all 93 US Attorneys.

A Senate Judiciary Committee report released last fall also indicated that “the list for firings was compiled with participation from the highest political ranks in the White House, including former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.”

<snip>

Perhaps the most mysterious clause in the agreement is a reference to four pages of material which Congress will not be allowed to see but will only have described to them: “With the exception of 4 pages of particularly sensitive privileged material (which will be described for Committee staff by a representative of the former President), Committee staff (majority and minority) will be allowed to review the documents for the period December 2004 through March 8, 2007.”

The House Judiciary Committee refused to comment or elaborate on this question.

However, Scott Horton, a Columbia Law School professor and contributor to Harper’s Magazine, believes the “4 pages” may relate to briefings of the former president on either the US Attorney firings or the Siegelman prosecution.

“My bet is that these four pages touch in some way on communications with the president and thus are close to the heart of the legitimate claim of executive privilege,” Horton explained in an email exchange. “The process of ‘describing’ [and] withhold has a legitimate basis [if these were presidential briefings.]”

Read the whole thing here.