Good morning Christy

sure hope they end up testifying in public.

I sure hope the committee is smart enough to allow counsel to ask the bulk of the questions and walk both of them through a fairly brisk, deposition-style q&a.

a most eXcellent point!

better answers that way instead of the showboating questions we’d get with a televised hearing. But I still want to see him in the hot seat in front of cameras

Also, meant to say this above — but never underestimate the power of persuasion that a change of administration can bring in terms of who is now looking into the Abramoff and other messes in public corruption and criminal prosecutions divisions. Recall that Susan Ralston, former Abramoff staffer became Roves top aide…and that she would likely know a few useful bits of information that, were she to feel pressured on one legal avenue, she might cough up in another.

And that chain goes all through the Bush WH in terms of Sampson, Goodling, Taylor, and any number of others as well whose prior testimony may be at odds with factual information uncovered along the way…which then opens them to pressure for perjury charges, etc.

If you don’t have cronies to cover your backside any longer and the law is applied evenly instead of with a partisan thumb on the scales, suddenly your memory may get a wee bit more clear, if you know what I mean…

Remember this?

A princess visits an island inhabited by two tribes. Members of one tribe always tell the truth, and members of the other tribe always lie.

The princess comes to a fork in the road. She needs to know which road leads to the castle so as to avoid the fire-breathing dragon and rescue the prince from the wizard holding him captive in the castle. (Although the princess doesn’t know it, the south road leads to the castle and the north road leads to the dragon.)

Standing at this fork in the road is a member of each tribe, but the princess can’t tell which tribe each belongs to. What question should she ask to find the road to the castle?

For some reason the face in the pic looks awfully familiar.

Quick OT

Christy, did you see that SCOTUS ruled 6-3 against Wyeth?

I thought that pix was hilarious. Same look that our kitty gets when you dangle a freshly-filled catnip mouse in her direction. *g*

Hey, Christy, nice linkies! *g*

Hmm, any chance we’ll get to see all the docs that McCain sequestered on the tribal deals etc ?

McCain’s Missing Documents

Indeed, the Abramoff scandal seems to have become “The Case of the Amazing Vanishing Corruption Investigation”, as Scott Horton recently described it in Harper’s.

While the Committee never heard from the principals in the case, what it did receive were their records. As Committee Chairman, John McCain made shrewd use of Senate rules to subpoena 750,000 pages of documents related to Abramoff’s lobbying — literally tons of Abramoff scandal documents – billing records, memos, appointment calendars — keeping 99.7 percent of them out of the record, and buried the rest in locked files in the basement of the Hart Senate Office Building .

Yes — I did. Wyeth’s defense was utter crap on that — had they succeeded, it would have gutted tort claims for injured plaintiffs on a number of fronts. It was a huge victory for the little guy against corporate cover-up interests.

you know, I have tons of questions for rove and exposing our covert assets but he’s not there for that, for the life of me I can’t think of a question that he’s not entitled to say;

“to the best of my memory, I had nothing to do with that decision”

“to the best of my knowledge bush had nothing to do with that”

“I can’t say I recall one way or another”

“that might incriminate me and I have been instructed to refuse on those grounds by my lawyers”

you see “to the best of my memory and knowledge” is a huge hedge

anyway, I would like to see some suggestions for questions as well but I can’t come up with any substative and penetrating

Hey CHS. Didn’t get to comment yesterday. Good one on EFCA.

I can think of some wiseass stuff but , hmmmmmm… good question. Nothing springs to mind (excpet wise ass stuff). I’ll think about it.

“Have you ever made a mistake?” *g*

With Roberts & Alito on the bench, I never expected Wyeth would lose. It is great news.

The wise-ass stuff would still be fun. *g*

to rove;

“Have you ever made a mistake?”

[rove];

“to the best of my knowledge, I might have made a mistake, I know one time I thought I was wrong but I wasn’t so that was at least one mistake I made”

Oh, well, then, this allows for open season on Turd Blossom and Lemon Lips.

Who, within DOJ, and elsewhere within the Executive Branch, had any discussions with the US Attorney’s office in Alabama prior to the filing of charges against Siegelman? List all conversations, participants and topics.

Question should be for both Rove and Miers for any general knowledge they have on discussions and then drilled to specifics for any discussions to which they were a party.

OT – live webcam from WMNF Tampa. Florida Folk Show. The best little radio station on the planet.

Sorry, Christy.

np — thanks for the link!

you know, they have been very good at marketing their theme, that law suits cost us money raising the price of goods

we have not been as good with the fact that law suits save us money, in lives saved, limbs not lost, cancer not acquired

without lawsuits cars would blow up when you started them, bumpers from trucks would match up to your daughters rear window instead of her bumper, doors would open when in an accident, cars would explode when tapped from behinds, cancer would be dumped in your moms water and cigarettes would be sold as health therapy

we need a better marketing team

Were (incriminating) documents purged, deleted, shredded, buried, burned, hidden, eaten, off-shored, disguised, composted, flushed and/or rendered inaccessible and/or unreadable?

Basement Cat’s gonna toy with Rove, then eat him up! Rove iz cheezburger!

Very true — but it’s funny, when someone gets injured no matter their politics, who do they turn to? Their lawyer. Including corporations who allege contract breach or defective parts or whatever.

It’s an incredibly hypocritical thing for a corporation to cry foul when a regular person litigates an injury when they are the first to call their attorney and ask for legal redress when they feel they have been wronged. That needs much more emphasis, in my opinion.

Where are ALL the emails relating to governing the country?

I can haz Fat Boy?

I’ve not read all the comments above, so this may have already been noted. There is a doc coming out about the attorney firings scandal. The article link contains a ten minute clip from this doc.

In new film, ex-U.S. Attorney Iglesias says Alberto Gonzales lied under oath
http://newmexicoindependent.co…..under-oath

barbara chuckles

ooohhh, I like that

his answer would be;

“if documents were shredded, as far as I know it was in keeping with national security, as to whether or not incriminating, I would not be the person to judge that, I couldn’t say because I am not a lawyer”

Very true — but it’s funny, when someone gets injured no matter their politics, who do they turn to? Their lawyer.

Exhinit A: Robert Bork

You’re scary! You could be writing Republican talking points! *g*

So, how is everyone this morning? My daffodil leaves are up and I’ve even got a few buds peeping out as well. No display of yellow blooms just yet, but…I don’t care if it is cold outside, I’m pretending its spring anyway.

Am I the only one who thinks this thing is going to be a waste of time? If they put him under oath, which they better damn well do, maybe we’ll get him on perjury in a few years. Otherwise, this thing is more DC theatre for politicians. Rove will dance and weave while our Congresspeople strut and preen.

I want the missing WH emails, I want Karl’s Blackberry I want the names of the reporters he leaked to I want Karl’s computer. Why because I trust nothing he says.
I want him to be asked in Congress if he planted the story about McCain’s kid being black.
I expect Karl to lie. I wonder how McCain will react this might push him our way.
I want to know about the justice dept did he come up with, know about the illegal firings of US Attorney’s of the hiring of Loyal Bushies in civi service jobs, of plans to inbed political appointees in civil service jobs?

Chris Christie (US ATTY-NJ) directed a $50+ million oversight (deferred prosecution agreement – Zimmer) engagement to John Ashcroft’s consulting firm.

I believe it was no-bid sole sourced.

Since any actions by Bushco US ATTYS or the Bushco DOJ are suspect, the question is what did KR or the WH have to do with this?

Please note that Christie may be opposing an unpopular Jon Corzine for NJ Gov.

BTW, I believe that the depostion style questioning is a win for Conyers if he lets experienced interlocutors do it.

windje

I’ve seen enough of his arrogant pasty face to last a life time; don’t care if I ever see it again.

I’d sure like to know if they actually believed they could institute a one-party government and shred our constitution and traditions without it ever coming to an end. I mean are they really that delusional? Or is the Obama admin just an aberration, an interregnum during which they recharge their batteries and come out in 2012 for another election stealing orgy of disregarding the votes and wishes of the American people?

we have one hope;

fitz has demonstrated rove is not good at lying when under oath

rove in fact understands he is no good at lying, that’s why he called fitz any number of times to change his lie.

rove might roll if properly cornered, I am hoping congress has the smarts to get fitz to offer some advice on questions and follow ups

I want his investment portfolio GOPers love cash. I would look at the timing on his buy and sell orders and see if he got lucky buying before government contracts were announced.
Or just lucky in general with the government tapping our phones its hard to believe that cash first Bushies would not listen to Wallstreet for inside tips.
Bill Frist has shown blind trusts are not so blind.

What a nasty hairball it will leave…in HELL.

Maybe. Or maybe he’ll trip himself up. Or maybe Miers testimony will directly contradict his, in which case he’ll have to testify again under penalty of perjury to clear things up. Or perhaps Miers will let something slip. Or both of their testimony will fail to match up with prior testimony given by aides, which can then be used to pressure things on those aides for more forthcoming discussion. Or maybe the testimony will give a clue to the special prosecutor working this case at a grand jury level for particularized questioning before the G/J. Or….well, you see where I’m going. You never know — which is why you ask the questions and see where it gets you or not.

If you don’t ask, then there is no chance you’ll know any more than you already do. I’m not asking for a miracle, I just want more sunshine.

And, frankly, I’m pretty proud of Conyers for continuing to push this to the bitter end — he could have given up on this ages ago and refused to do so. The Beltway folks certainly spent a lot of time telling him comity was a better option and he didn’t waver on pushing this — so good for him. Plan on calling his office to say so a little later, too. Carrot instead of stick for a change. *g*

I’m thinking, the fact that meirs is a lawyer might be her downfall

she understands questions and their implications more then rove, she also understands the ramifications if found out that she was not forthwith

she might be a push over

Were you behind the brooks brothers riot that stopped the recount? Did yo talk to Jeb to make sure no police would be around to interfer?

Christy,
This seems like a pretty good compromise. IANAL, but from what I read at FDL, having the staff do the Qs in private is a better plan than grandstanding pols doing it in public. So here’s what I want to know. Is this W throwing his loyalists under the bus?

I’ve been wondering that, too. And, more importantly, will Miers see this as Shrub throwing all her loyalty and cute cards under the bus to keep his own ass clean? And, if so, how does that make her feel? Chatty?

Love the way Siegelman’s been fighting back on this. Saw him at NetRoots last summer and was very impressed.

We should have Rove talk first and have Meirs listen then ask Meirs if she thought, not if she was sure if Rove was lying?
Then we ask her what do you think Rove might be lying about?

I would certainly hope that they would be questioned separately and not together. That way there can be no coordinated testimony on the fly. I always insisted on separate questioning at all times for that reason.

But that would be foolish. Oh, wait…W…never mind.

Question are you aware of anyone who might have left the WH because they did not like what was going on?
We have to find these people then and interview them.

Back to Scott McClellan?

and thank goodness for that!

So glad he stood up to the RoveBushCo machine

FWIW, David said as much during an appearance here for his book salon as well, as I recall. So much surrounding the entire USAtty mess is so shameful — not the least of which is that some truly decent and hard-working USAttys had their names dragged through the professional mud so certain folks at DOJ and the WH could try and cover their incompetent asses.

Meirs seems like a nebbish, and that is so different from my personality, I can’t project how she’ll react. I hope you are right. As for Rove, I’d guess he’s trying to retain the illusion that his relationship with the greatest prez ever is unchanged, and could be too clever by half to preserve his emotional bubble. Maybe a wish expressed as a forecast.

In addition to clearing Iglesias’s name, I’d like to see some exoneration for Carol Lam (think that is the right name: West Coast USAtty).

Yes, and while they’re being questioned, Rove and Miers should be asked whether they met to coordinate their stories.

I’m off. BBL.

If Rove and Miers were just picked sure Christy but I’m worried that they have had months to get their story straight.
I’m trying to correct for that with my plan by giving Miers a chance to get brownie points with Congress for cooperating and fingering Rove.
Do you think that she would squeal? If not then we have to hope that Rove and Miers did not rehearse coordinated answers.
Maybe we should compare their answers to see if they are too similar?

He’s been very up front on a lot of this. Sadly, I think that because this has tainted his political aspirations on such an enormous way, it has freed him to be more forthcoming than he would have been able to be had they remained intact. I’d think being a Dem in Alabama would be tough enough in this day and age. But to be a successful one, you’d have to walk a mighty thin public tightrope in terms of statements and such.

He doesn’t have to worry about that at this point, which allows him to be brutally honest. Frankly, I’d prefer that to the political doublespeak we too often get from folks, to be perfectly honest. But I do understand the reality of having to do it — I just wish the American public would prize honesty over spin a bit more.

http://mine.icanhascheezburger…..id=1547975

Barbra @51 Yes him and everyone else we can get even the secretaries and janitors.

*waves*

bwahahahahahahaha!

Jon Dean might have some questions I wonder what he thinks?

What would Colin Powell do under oath?

Get Valerie Palme find out what she would ask please!

Question are you aware of anyone who might have left the WH because they did not like what was going on?

his lawyer would object as a second party, rove couldn’t testify why a person was leaving, if his lawyer didn’t object to the question rove could simply say he has no idea why anyone left, why they said they are leaving is hear say and do not have to be indicative to their real motives since they are not under oath

ianal

I was thinking the same but this investigation is regarding the attorney scandal, it’s off subpeona

ianal

I don’t know to what extent this would be possible, but it seems to me that the roots of Rove’s relationship with Bush – even with their conversations off the table – might be useful if the questioners want to establish a pattern for Rove’s ugly behavior.

In that regard, Rove might be questioned about his use of the FBI to investigate false information planted by Rove way back in his Texas days. When my pal Jim Hightower was standing for re-election as Agriculture Commissioner for Texas, his opponent was Rick Perry, unhappily now Governor and always a staunch Bush henchman.

This line of questioning might be useful in establishing when and how R came to W’s notice, and when, along with Hughes, he became one of W’s two most trusted advisors. What Rove did to Seigelman and Iglesias and the other AUSAs was but the continuation of a pattern he learned early on in Texas.

And it is a hallmark as to the way that W has always operated, hiding behing his advisors, claiming never to know nothing, until it all comes out with the dirty laundry – witness the Plame outing.

This may be a specific question, and maybe my memory is incorrect, but I’d like to know who initiated the pressure Sen. Domenici put to have David Iglasius removed?

Was this Dominici’s own undertaking or was this a response to Rove’s involvement?

Ask if Rove and Miers believe that lying for a good cause is justified under any circumstances even if its lying under oath.
We can leak that to the press after we catch them lying.
The GOP leaked stuff all the time.
Hey we should ask about all the leaks of top secret information to the press,
lies to the press, lies to destroy Valerie Palme, General Shinseki, lies about global warming,

Christy,

question from a presently undercaffeinated brain –

does the Committee have access to the fired USAA’s files/papers ? (those that weren’t destroyed anyway)

Miers was WH lawyer what about Dick Cheney’s secret meetings with energy companies?

Sadly, I think that because this has tainted his political aspirations on such an enormous way, it has freed him to be more forthcoming than he would have been able to be had they remained intact.

Very true. Trial by fire put fire into his belly. He’s been through so much…his wife was in a horrible car accident (hit by a drunk driver) a few years before all of *this* even happened.

Rove and Miers had been resisting congressional subpoenas about the matter since the House Judiciary Committee
GOD I hope its a trap

Perris @ 68 just the US Attorney scandal (sob) but there is so much I want to ask …with a crowbar.

Were the new hires as US attorney’s more qualified and in what way what criteria was used to hire them?
What criteria was used to fire the US Attorney’s.
If they say I don’t recall, I don’t know ask if there was any criteria
If they still can’t recall ask if they talked with lawyers to prepare for testimony.
Ask them what they and their lawyers thought they were going to be asked about today.

Jane’s up. “Kiss the cyst.” *g*

Was not Finding vote fraud cases before the election a reason for firing the US Attorney’s?
Was their any talk of ACORN because McCain seemed to bring that nonissue up out of nowhere like he was expecting it to pan out and pay for him but it never did.

Mr. Rove,

Do you believe the function of the Executive Branch and all of it’s agencies should be ran on the basis of supporting and re-electing a certain political party?

Why did you and your staff knowingly and repeatedly violate the Hatch act?

Is it acceptable to compromise a CIA operative in order to play politics?

Why did it take you 5 times to testify in front of a Grand Jury to tell the truth?

Explain how you respect the United States judicial system?

I’m no attorney and I’m not up to speed as much as some on Rove but I think I’d have to ask about the US Atty who called Spitzer to give him a heads up about what they knew about his personal life. The whole Spitzer story just screams politics and I’d like to know what Rove knew about it.

On a side note I’d like to promote a diary I posted on Daily kos today. I very seldom write diaries and I hope some people from here will at least post a comment today so that I’m not totally embarrassed by not getting any comments. lol

Bush Administration’s Craven Misuse Of The USS Bataan

Pretty sure they do have some access to that — and that some of the documents are up on the House Judiciary website, in terms of e-mails that were placed in the files by Sampson, Goodling and others, in particular. Obviously, private personnel matters aren’t up there, but a lot of the e-mails and other correspondence and testimony are.

Am hoping to get time to go back through an annotate bits of this to formulate a few questions myself to suggest.

thanks!

Iglesias says that and more in the film clip, which also has Bogden, Charlton, McKay and Cummins in new interviews for the doc. The entire time I watched the clip all I could think was that these were the ones to call on for questioning of Rove and Meiers, they certainly know what to ask. How good will the questioning be from the House committee? Based on the hearings I’ve seen it’s rather hit and miss on quality and substance.

pmorlan, you should crosspost that here at Oxdown.

Depends on who will be doing the most questioning and how that will be done. If it’s committee counsel for the most part, I think it could be quite good. And without the cameras rolling, I think eCAHN is right that there will be less of a call for grandstanding. I don’t know all the details on how this was lined out — but am trying to find out to the extent I can.

I’m serious about hoping that committee counsel does the bulk of this — they’ve done a lot of that with other staffer depositions and the Q&A on some of those was quite thorough.

Good morning, Cbl.

What do you mean?

Put it up here
and note it’s crosspoted a dkos

write a diary link

@CHS:

I certainly hope it is fruitful, but after watching our Congress at work, I’m not optimistic.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

To Harriet:

What did you promise Bush in return for your Supreme Court nomination?

To Karl:

Please describe exactly what your job was under Bush and did you report to any other authority?

Fresh snarky goodness up top, if anyone wants some…

I doubt this question can be made to the point, exactly–but how is it that Rove was being paid by the U.S. taxpayer for a job that served a particular political party?

Off the cuff for Miers -
The President’s spokespersons said that (from Snow) the President did not make any decisions to fire any US Attys:

The President “made no recommendations on specific individuals,” Snow said.
“We don’t have anything to indicate the president made any calls on specific us attorneys.”

28 USC Sec 541 provides that removal of USAttys may be done by the President.

Was Tony Snow misstating the facts when he said the President was not involved in any recommendations to fire any USAttys?

If not, who had authority to fire USAttys other than the President under Sec 541? On what grounds? Pursuant to what delegation? Pursuant to what written evidences of grounds and delegation?

Were USAttys fired without Presidential recommendation, as stated by Snow?

Are you familiar with case of Humphrey’s Executor? Is the power of the President to fire limitless?

Does the power to fire for any reason or no reason also include the power to fire for an illegal reason?

Is threatening to fire a prosecutor for failing to file charges or refrain from filing charges an obstruction of justice?

Was any legal research done on any of the above points by OLC, DOJ, or the WH or OVP? With whom was such research shared?

Where there discussions involving removal of Fitzgerald? With whom? When? For what reasons. To your knowledge, was the scope or mandate of Fitzgerald’s appointment to investigate the Plame matter ever limited, withdrawn, or was his discretion ever overruled by DOJ after the delegation by Comey to Margolis of oversight? Was such oversight ever vested in anyone other than Margolis?

Are you aware of determination by Paul Clement that the President’s ability to fire is not delegable? Do you agree? Is the WH bound by that determination?

What would be the appropriate remedy if USAttys were removed illegally and without recommendation by the President?

Is there any way to determine whether or not the removal took place at the recommendation of the President (and so was legal or illegal) without providing Congress with access to internal deliberations and/or without obtaining testimony from the President?

Did you indeed originate the idea of removing all USAttys without a review?

that kind of thing

For Rove, all the Siegalman stuff needs to be hit hard, but also including questions as to whether or not anyone in WH, OVP or DOJ ever indicated to him that his participation in meetings on who to remove, etc. was improper. He done wrong, but if he’s sitting in a room full of top DOJ officials and no one kicks his butt out, he’s not exactly the guy who did the most wrong.

QUESTION TO KARL ROVE:
Mr. Rove, what conversations, communications, and correspondences did you have–and with whom–regarding former US Attorney General David Iglesias in the time between your 2006 phone call with New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (to discuss the problem of lackluster voter fraud prosecutions in New Mexico) and the end of Mr. Iglesias’ stint as a US Attorney General?

IANAL but the question I’d love Rove to be asked is, “Do you want the upper or lower bunk ?”

Not quite a question but curious: I recall Rove received and/or sent a surprising number of emails.
Wondering if someone can find the estimate and then figure out how quickly one would have to read or type to keep up with the deluge. It made me think maybe Rove’s email account was shared, or that everyone knew to cc him for everything done in the WH.

Way late to the party here . . .

I’d be very curious to learn more about Mr. Rove’s contacts with the offices of Senators Bond and Domenici. The KC USA mess hasn’t gotten nearly the coverage as Iglesias in NM, but there are definitely some problems here to be uncovered, relative to Bond and his staff.

Some have suggested that Bond’s decision to retire might be in part because of a staffer’s guilty plea in the Abramoff scandal, but I’m wondering if there’s more to Bond’s participation in the USAtty scandal yet to be uncovered.

For instance, the KC Star’s blog in May 2007 puts Bond in the middle of the departure of Todd Graves. Bond’s explanation is that it was because Graves was tied in with a scandal-ridden patronage program in MO for collecting state fees. Kraske notes, though, that other explanations have also been suggested:

McClatchy Newspapers has reported that Graves was one of at least 12 U.S. attorneys targeted by the Justice Department. The communication from Bond’s office could help explain, at least in part, why Graves ended up on the removal list.

Other explanations include Graves’ alleged reluctance to pursue voter fraud cases and the possibility that Graves, like the other dispatched prosecutors, was not, in the words of one Justice official’s e-mail, a “loyal Bushie.”

While he doesn’t think the communication or fee office scandal were directly responsible for Graves’ departure, Bond said he doesn’t know why Graves was pushed out. “I really couldn’t speculate about any administration list,” he said. “You would have to ask them about that.”

What a good idea.

“Mr. Rove, what contacts did you have with Senator Bond and/or members of his staff, relative to the conduct of Todd Graves as US Attorney for Western Missouri? . . .”

The followup questions could be very, very interesting. Especially since this is a House and not a Senate investigation.

Whoops.

The KC Star item cited above was written by Dave Helling, not Steve Kraske.

but the use of the plural there makes me wonder what else the committee may have gathered and saved up for just this sort of special under threat of perjury occasion.

Paul Minor? Sue Schmidt? Cyril Wecht?

David Iglesias via the Muck:

Today’s agreement represents true progress in this matter which has been on-going for over two years. I trust that the initial private testimony of Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will become public at the soonest possible date.

I would ask about the narrowing down of the list of Attorneys fired. What about number 8, 9 and ten, those on the bubble who did not get fired. What acts or deeds did they ultimately perform to retain their jobs?

Another question:

Do you mind if we hook you up to this lie detector machine?”

Hey! Long time, no see! Good to see ya…

Do you mind if we hook you up to this lie detector machine?”

Perfect! Bwahhhhahahahahaha

What Christy said!!

Still not seeing any discussion of the Greg Craig conflict of interest issues.

Though this is out today on the WMR, it contains material from a February post and the letter “letter sent by former Alabama GOP political adviser Dana Jill Simpson, whose testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about the role of Rove and other top Republicans in the prosecution of Siegelman resulted in the House Judiciary Committee’s probe of Rove.”

—————

March 5, 2009 — Simpson lawyer’s letter to Greg Craig, White House Counsel, on Rove matter

On February 20, 2009, WMR reported on White House Counsel Greg Craig’s conflict-of-interest in his relationship with Karl Rove in matters dealing with Craig’s intervention with the House Judiciary Committee on Rove’s testimony on matters dealing with the political prosecution of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

The February 20, 2009, article stated: “WMR has now learned from extremely well-placed sources that Craig has major conflicts-of-interest in representing Barack Obama and the White House in the Rove matter. Bush’s attorney in the executive privilege case involving not only Rove but former Bush White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers, is Emmet Flood, a partner with Craig’s former law firm Williams & Connolly in Washington, DC. Moreover, Flood was special counsel to President Bush who ordered the Republican National Committee to withhold e-mails from the House Judiciary Committee on the U.S. Attorneys firings investigation.”

The following is the letter sent by former Alabama GOP political adviser Dana Jill Simpson, whose testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about the role of Rove and other top Republicans in the prosecution of Siegelman resulted in the House Judiciary Committee’s probe of Rove.

Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

February 22, 2009

RE: Your position regarding advising the President on the pending testimony of Karl Rove

Dear Attorney Craig:

I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.

In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn’t represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.

8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.

Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.

You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.

Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.

We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.

Sincerely,
Priscilla Black Duncan
Attorney for Jill Simpson

Sorry…should have been clearer…

WMR is Wayne Madsen Report, and the site is at http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/, though certain breaking items are for members’ eyes only, respecting a 48 hour hold, which is waived occasionally.

It appears, you have missed this post from emptywheel on that exact issue.

You are right, I had missed that. Sorry for the redundancy.

… This line of questioning might be useful in establishing when and how R came to W’s notice, and when, along with Hughes, he became one of W’s two most trusted advisors. …

The Rest of the Story

The aggressive tactics won the 22-year-old Rove a walk-on role in the Watergate saga that was consuming the nation. A report was published in the Washington Post on August 10, 1973, titled “[Republican party] Probes Official as Teacher of Tricks”, gave an account, based on tape recordings, of how Rove and a colleague had been touring the country giving young Republicans political combat training, in which they recalled their feats of derring-do, such as Rove’s Chicago heist at the Dixon headquarters.

At the time, Rove claimed the tape had been doctored to exclude a warning to the audience not to try to emulate any of his past misdeeds. Others present simply remember a caution not to get caught. The publicity forced the intervention of the Republican National Committee and its chairman, a former Texas congressman clinging on to his political career: George Herbert Walker Bush. After considering the case, Bush Sr took action. He drove Edgeworth out of the party on suspicion of having leaked the tapes, and hired Rove, bringing him to Washington.

The incident marked the genesis of the Rove-Bush axis and it was in Washington that Rove met the younger Bush. He fell, politically speaking, in love. “Huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma – you know, wow,” Rove recalled years later. In 1977, Rove was sent to Texas, in theory to run a political action committee, but according to one Texan political consultant who knew him at the time, “It was really to baby-sit Bush back when Bush was drinking”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..s2004.usa1