Rove lied when denying the 60-Minutes accusations

As we know, 60-Minutes presented a story saying that Karl Rove was an instigator of the trumped up Department of Justice charges that caused the Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, to be removed from office and imprisoned on charges that did not reach the level of any kind of crime. The contents of the 60-Minutes story have been well-leaked in advance, and widely discussed.

A key witness against Karl Rove is Jill Simpson who has testified that she heard discussions among Alabama Republicans that Rove was pushing the Department of Justice to bring charges against Governor Siegelman, and particularly Ms. Simpson has testified that Karl Rove specifically asked her to "find" evidence that the Governor was unfaithful to his wife. Rove wanted her to get compromising photos of Siegelman having sex with one of his aides, something she says she was unable do. She states that she was unable to ever find any evidence supporting the charges that were brought against Governor Siegelman and that the charges which were brought against him were trumped up for political purposes.

This was written about in an Associated Press story Thursday, Feb 21st. The author of that story, Ben Evans, contacted Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, for a comment and was told:

"Mr. Rove never made such a request to her or anyone else," Luskin said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Had '60 Minutes' taken the trouble to contact Mr. Rove before circulating this falsehood, he would have told them the same thing."

Scott Horton wrote a piece, published February 22 by Harper's which states that he personally knows that what Luskin said in Rove's defense is false.

First, Scott Horton reports that he has personal knowledge that Ms. Simpson had previously made those same statements about Rove attempting to manufacture evidence against Governor Siegelman. He takes Ben Evan's reporting to task:

Ben Evans writes: “She has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters.” Evans is dead wrong on this. If he had written “It has not previously been reported that she said that Rove…” he would be fine. I interviewed Simpson in July and she recounted this to me; and I believe she recounted it to two other reporters as well, one with another major national publication, but I’ll let them speak for themselves. She requested that I not write it up or report it without her prior okay, and I abided by her request. My understanding is that she also gave this information to congressional investigators when they initially interviewed her. So Evans is incorrect.

Then Horton points out Luskin's falsehood and its apparent genesis from Rove himself:

In fact, Rove was contacted by CBS and did speak with CBS about the allegations. Rove insisted that his comments could not be used in any way without his prior permission.

I have no idea what Rove said in that discussion, but I do know that the discussion occurred.

So I’m wondering: did Rove mislead his lawyer about what happened? As we enter the coverage of the Siegelman story with the CBS exposé, much will turn on Rove’s truthfulness. And he has started the process with a predictable pattern: he lies when he thinks he can get away with it, or even better, he has others lie in his stead.

So, has Karl rove committed perjury in his own sworn Grand Jury testimony?

I doubt that we will know as long as the Bush administration controls the Department of Justice. The question is, will the Democrats have to cojones to continue the investigation after taking over the White House in January of 2009?

The history of Democratic leadership wimpihood does not give me any real reason to hope for justice in this case, which would basically mean releasing Siegelman from prison with an apology and putting Rove in to replace him.

One thing that this morning's announcement by Ralph Nadar that he is again running for President did point out is that there really is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in their leadership and their policies. What is different is that the Republicans are willing to take unreasonable risks and then lie about it, assuming they will never be caught, while the Democrats seem to think that as long as they let the Republicans get away with their corruption and lies then the Democrats will get to keep their cushy power jobs for life. Governor Siegelman's imprisonment is apparently just a bit of collateral damage as the leaders of both major parties carefully watch out for their own personal well-being and ignore the American people.

---

Addendum01 Feb 25, 2008 10:45AM
Go watch the 60 Minute story at TPM Muckraker. Notice that:

• The two most prominent on air accusers claiming that the prosecution of Governor Siegelman was a political prosecution trumped up by the Bush Republican politicized Department of Justice are, themselves, Republicans.
• The Department of Justice is stonewalling. They are not announcing any investigation and are refusing to turn over any documents which have been requested, with no reason giving.

Stonewalling implies guilt, and the natural allies of the Republican Department of Justice are among the accusers willing to present their story to the public.

This story isn't going away, and this is a Presidential election year.