Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H1'ed 8/21/09

My Response to the article "Closing in on Rove"

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   10 comments
Author 32689
Message Dana Jill Simpson
Dear Mr. Murdoch and all the editors at the Wall Street Journal

I want to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for running Karl Rove's delusional article, Closing in on Rove, on August 20, 2009. The reason I want to thank you is that Mr. Rove has clearly lied about me in this article. You have captured and printed it without even checking to see if it is so or not. The lie he has told is and I quote, "Judiciary Democrats didn't get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer, who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations". In case you are unaware, I testified on September 14, 2007, before the House Judiciary Committee lawyers that were selected to question me. I most definitely gave sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Democrats. In fact, I gave over one hundred and forty three pages of testimony before the Judiciary Democratic and Republican lawyers. It is unfortunate that your paper does not give a rip about the truth or you would have checked out the bold-faced lie that Karl Rove put in his article before you printed it.

Further, I find it extremely tacky that you allow him to call me an eccentric Alabama lawyer. I ask, did you check with anyone other than Karl Rove who clearly hates me for telling on him? Karl also states in his article, "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". It was announced on May 15, 2009, that Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify by Nora Dannehy of the DOJ about the firing of the nine attorneys in a criminal matter. I would hardly call that willingly giving sworn testimony.

Further, he pointedly refused to agree to give sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this summer and did not take a sworn oath before chatting with the House Judiciary lawyers that questioned him.

I might add: I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony. Mr. Rove however has willfully misled the public in this article to think that I have refused to give sworn testimony to the DOJ in the case in which he was subpoenaed to testify. I have never been subpoenaed or contacted by Nora Dannehy to testify in the investigation she is conducting on Karl Rove. I believe the reason for this is that she is appointed the special prosecutor solely for the nine fired United States attorneys. Anyone who has read the transcript of my testimony before the House Judiciary lawyers, read my affidavit, and watched the 60 Minutes piece would know I have never made a direct claim of having any personal knowledge about the fired United States Attorneys. What I believe Mr.. Rove is trying to do here is to confuse the public.

I would additionally like to state that I have had very limited contact with the Department of Justice since testifying before the House Judiciary lawyers. One contact is from Lisa Howard. She contacted my attorney in the fall of 2008 and contended that she was working at the DOJ for the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked about me possibly testifying and asked for my address. My attorney communicated to her that I had already told my story in an affidavit and given four hours of testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee and that both of these documents were readily available and represented all I knew about the prosecution of Don Siegelman. Ms. Howard did not ask for a copy of these documents nor has she ever subpoenaed me or asked to interview me and been refused to the best of my knowledge.

In December of 2008, I was contacted by an individual I knew and her attorney about the OPR conducting an investigation on me and asking questions about my sex life and the adoption of my four-year-old daughter. I contacted the man they identified as working for the DOJ OPR, Jim Sullivan, who happens to work for Alice Martin. I asked him if I was the target of an investigation since he had conversations with the woman who contacted me about whether I had bought a baby for $300,000.00 after his asking her about it. He would not confirm or deny if I was a target to investigation on the ridiculous claim that I had bought a baby for $300,000.00 , which was untrue, but he admitted asking the questions the woman said he had asked her. Within a week or two, the woman contacted me again and said that a Mr. Causey, A Washington OPR attorney, had contacted her. I had my attorney write the DOJ OPR office and Ms. Howard about this matter to ask if this was the way they conduct investigations at the OPR. Further, it seemed quite odd at the time considering I do not work for the DOJ and I could not fathom the connection of my sex life and adoption of my four-year-old daughter having anything to do with the investigation of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. An OPR attorney, Judith Wish, contacted my attorney and asked her to provide the name of the individuals that their employees had contacted. They did ask me what their investigators learned and whom they had spoken with. We communicated back that they should ask them because Mr. Sullivan had already admitted to me that he had done it and could not tell me why. I had no desire to put into writing their ridiculous claims. Those are the only two contacts I have had with the DOJ. Neither involved me refusing to testify from being subpoenaed or interviewed on whether Mr. Siegelman had been persecuted or not as Karl Rove so claimed in the news article. I did however refuse to give them the names of the people they had contacted but gave them their employee's names as they knew very well who they had contacted.

It has long been my belief that Karl Rove put the OPR up to asking these questions and I am still to this date waiting for an apology from the OPR and have never heard anything else from the DOJ since they got caught snooping around in my personal life. It is completely ridiculous for him to claim I refused to cooperate with them when I am still waiting for them to let me know why they were snooping in my personal life that had nothing to do with their investigations of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. Plus the allegations were so ridiculous as I had not bought my daughter. I would have thought they could have gotten to the bottom of this very fast. Never during any of that awful deal with DOJ did they ask me to testify and give a sworn statement. Further, how my sex life was involved in their investigation is beyond me but they had questions about it. I suspect this was done in an attempt to embarrass me. I suspect Karl Rove was behind those attempts to discredit me and again the stuff was just so ridiculous. Apparently that matter is lost as well at the DOJ as we never heard back from Ms. Judith Wish after she contacted Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Causey.

However, after reading Mr. Rove's article today I am unclear but believe he may be claiming he made a sworn statement to OPR. I shall be writing to see if this is about my sex life and adoption. I would love to know if he is the one behind those ridiculous tales.

Mr. Rove also stated in the article that Committee staff considered me an unreliable witness but he fails to identify any of those unnamed individuals. What I find most interesting is he fails to mention the report that found my evidence credible enough to call him as a witness. He is truly a sad, pathetic individual trying to cover his behind from criminal prosecution.

It is evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in the article you printed. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.

Thank you, Mr. Murdoch, for printing his lies. Hopefully, the American public will wake up and realize that Karl Rove is a liar. For too long he has been allowed to politically bully people and lie in the press. Today I socked him in the nose with the truth. As for his lies, please let him know lies do not hurt anyone except the person who tells them.

I am happy today to call Mr. Rove a liar and you have provided the cold hard proof. You, Mr. Murdoch, gave me that opportunity. I am thankful that you run a paper that apparently does not check for the truth.


Dana Jill Simpson


Must Read 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Dana Jill Simpson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Simpson is a country lawyer who resides in Rainsville, Alabama. She has appeared on 60 Minutes and Dan Abrams MSNBC. Stories were written in Time Magazine, Harpers Magazine, and the New York Times about her being a witness in the Don Siegelman case (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Eric Holder's Conflict of Interest

My Response to the article "Closing in on Rove"

A strange twist of fate for Richard Scrushy

Should Senator Jeff Sessions Serve On The the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Are Alabama Democrats being mislead into believing that Senator Shelby can block with a blue slip the appointment of an

Holder Has More Conflicts of Interest