Good for Karl Rove. The liberal crazies have spent years trying to set him up as the second coming of Darth Vader, Rove’s crime, he put together the strategy that got George W. Bush elected twice.
For the past three years, the drive-by media has been accusing Rove of being the brains behind the political firing of eight US Attorneys (who serve at the discretion of the President). The Democrats in congress made this a major Issue accusing the Bush administration of politicizing the Justice Department. OMG, politicizing a political appointment, how could that happen? Ironically those same Democrats suffer from laryngitis when the Obama administration’s Justice Dept. made the “non political” decision of dropping the case against the New Black Panther Party who intimidated white voters in Philadelphia. They were also unable to speak out when President Obama fired Inspector General Walpin, because he was closing in on criminal activities committed by a friend of Mrs. Obama.
The House Judiciary has been conducting a witch hunt trying to tie Karl Rove to the firings, today they released Rove’s testimony saying that his involvement in the firings was minimal and appropriate.
Now that he has been exonerated by this House Kangaroo Court, Karl Rove is speaking out against his accusers:
By KARL ROVE
For more than two years, 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. Politico’s Ryan Grimm 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.”
To get to the bottom of these issues, the Obama administration brokered a deal with former President George W. Bush’s lawyers and the House Judiciary Committee to provide the committee with the information it wanted while protecting executive privilege. This resulted in me sitting down for a 12-hour, two-day interview last month. More than 500 pages of material, including interview transcripts (available at Rove.com), were released last week, tidbits of which made the front pages.
Judiciary Democrats had California Rep. Adam Schiff doggedly ask me about four-year-old phone logs, emails, meetings and conversations. What did the committee discover?
Judging from the evidence released, it uncovered facts that show that my role in the U.S. attorneys issue was minimal and entirely proper. I did not conceive of the idea of removing certain U.S. attorneys, did not select those to be removed, and did not see the lists of U.S. attorneys Justice was considering to replace. I had no idea who was on the final list until Justice sent it to the White House in November 2006. No fair-minded person can review the thousands of pages of documents and testimony and conclude that I drove the process.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at [email protected] or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.
Instead, the committee seems to have found only evidence that discredits the idea that I orchestrated the firings to protect Republicans or punish Democrats. The committee found nothing to indicate that I ordered U.S. attorneys in Arizona, California or Wisconsin to be removed to sabotage investigations of Republicans, as some Judiciary Democrats have alleged.
I told the committee—just as the White House acknowledged publicly in March 2007—that I had told the White House Counsel of complaints about David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. Those complaints included the allegation that he failed to do anything about voter fraud in the 2004 election, even though that fraud appeared to be so egregious that the Bernalillo County clerk (a Democrat) and sheriff (a Republican) as well as the Albuquerque Journal all called for a federal investigation.
I also told the White House Counsel about complaints that Mr. Iglesias bungled a high-profile corruption case by interfering with career prosecutors, and that he shelved an indictment involving corruption in the construction of the Bernalillo County Courthouse for months. The accusation was that he refused to file the indictments until after the 2006 election out of fear that he might offend Democrats he would need if he ran for office himself.
These were serious allegations. I didn’t know if they were true, but I had a responsibility to pass them to the appropriate officials. The Justice Department needed to determine if they were accurate and, if so, weigh them appropriately. The allegations about Mr. Iglesias were similar to those Judiciary Democrats and their media allies raised against me—that the judicial process had been manipulated for political reasons.
Committee Democrats also found evidence that I recommended Tim Griffin, a bright and capable lawyer, for a U.S. attorney position in Arkansas after I learned that the then-U.S. attorney was likely to leave his post. Mr. Griffin was well-qualified. He graduated from Tulane Law, practiced with an outstanding New Orleans firm, worked as an aide to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, was a special assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas, and served as an Army reserve officer in the Judge Advocate General corps in Iraq. Mr. Griffin had earlier been considered for a different U.S. attorney post and was the first choice of a Justice Department panel of career and noncareer officials.
Democrats have seized on an October 2006 email sent to me by White House staffer Scott Jennings that said Mr. Iglesias shouldn’t “be shy about doing his job” on state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, who was then running to unseat Republican Rep. Heather Wilson. Despite all their digging, Judiciary Democrats produced not a shred of evidence that I encouraged Mr. Iglesias to undertake a prosecution. And they found nothing that showed that I responded to Mr. Jennings’ email or understood what he meant by it.
Judiciary Democrats asked little about Don Siegelman’s bribery conviction, despite overheated assertions by the Times, Scott Pelley of CBS‘s “60 Minutes,” and various MSNBC talking heads that I was behind the prosecution of the former governor. 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. Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness. 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.
Unfazed by facts and left with nothing to support their suspicions, the Times and Post editorial boards and Judiciary Democrats now seem to hope that special prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who is looking into the U.S. attorneys removals, will dig up something that implicates me. I am confident her findings will confirm that my actions were limited and proper. Perhaps then Judiciary Democrats will focus on more important issues and the Times and Post will admit their mistakes. It would be the responsible thing to do.