144 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 12 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Rove and Siegelman

Message Scott Horton
By: Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine
February 22, 2008

In the flurry of pieces running about the pending 60 Minutes exposé on Karl Rove's involvement in the political prosecution of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, one passage in the AP story by Ben Evans really stuck out. It was Karl Rove's response.
And it was a flat-out lie. It showed up last night, and I assumed that, by now, it would
be corrected, but it seems that Rove decided to stick with his lie. Rove does not speak directly, but through his attorney, Robert Luskin, who most recently steered Rove through the shoals of Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation. As you will recall, Karl Rove's varying versions of the facts in different grand jury proceedings put him in considerable jeopardy.

Simpson testified to congressional investigators last year that she overheard conversations among Republicans in 2002 indicating that Rove was involved in the Justice Department's prosecution of Siegelman. 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.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, denied the allegation.
"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."
There is a big inaccuracy in this reporting. First 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. Or, more to the point, he assumes
in his writing more than he could possibly know.

But second, Robert Luskin states that CBS never spoke to Rove directly about this.
Now let's look at the CBS teaser on the piece. It addresses this question:
Rove would not speak to 60 Minutes, but elsewhere has denied being involved in efforts to
discredit Siegelman.
So it suggests that Rove was contacted and refused to speak.

Well, Luskin's statement is wrong. And the CBS statement is true only in the way that
a butler announces to an unwanted caller that "Madam is not at home" is true: it's a formulation that covers a different set of facts which those in the news business understand. 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.
Reprinted with permission by the author 
Rate It | View Ratings

Scott Horton 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

Scott Horton is a contributor to Harper's Magazine and writes No Comment for this website, www.harpers.org. A New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict, (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     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

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

The Guantánamo "Suicides": A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle

Does Dick Cheney Want to be Prosecuted?

America's Corruption Racket in Central Asia

What the Justice Department is Hiding

Bread, Circuses, and the Edwards Prosecution

Palin's Talent Scout

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend