Bringing in Rove

What Karl Rove Fears Most

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, May 2, 2008; 1:18 PM



Former White House political guru Karl Rove may be the reigning champion when it comes to the Bush administration's practice of giving the superficial impression of answering a question, while in fact dodging, weaving and spinning to the point of misdirection.

When he's in situations where he knows his statements won't be challenged -- lectures, op-eds, appearances on Fox News -- the alleged master of political dirty tricks is happy to deny various accusations that have been made against him. On the subject of the possibly politically-motivated prosecution of a former Democratic official, for instance, he's been all over the media, vaguely denying involvement.

There is, however, one thing that Rove avoids at all cost: being forced to answer a direct question -- especially under oath. So it's not surprising that he refuses to do so before the Congressional committee investigating what actually happened to that Democratic official.

But things could be coming to a head.

Ben Evans writes for the Associated Press: "The House Judiciary Committee threatened Thursday to subpoena former White House adviser Karl Rove if he does not agree by May 12 to testify about former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman's corruption case.

"In a letter to Rove's attorney, committee Democrats called it 'completely unacceptable' that the Republican political strategist has rejected the panel's request for sworn testimony even as he discusses the matter publicly through the media.

"'We can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the committee,' the letter states. 'We urge you and your client to reconsider . . . or we will have no choice but to consider the use of compulsory process.'

"Committee Democrats are investigating whether Rove and Republican appointees at the Justice Department influenced Siegelman's prosecution to kill his chances for re-election. It is part of a broader inquiry into whether U.S. attorneys were fired for not aggressively pursuing cases against Democrats."

This, of course, is only the latest development in a long standoff between Bush and Congress over testimony from current and former White House staffers. See my Mar. 11 column, Playing Constitutional Chicken, and Tuesday's column, Cheney's Total Impunity.

Here's yesterday's announcement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

On April 7, MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams reported that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Rove would agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case.

Ten days later, committee members invited Rove to appear, citing among other things Rove's interview with GQ magazine. In that interview, Rove hurled insults at CBS News for airing a 60 Minutes segment on the Siegelman case, called his chief accuser a "lunatic" -- but didn't specifically deny any of the accusations.

In an April 29 letter back to the committee, Luskin wrote that Rove would only appear under the following conditions: "Mr. Rove is prepared to make himself available for an interview on this specific issue with Committee staff. Mr. Rove would speak candidly and truthfully about this matter, but the interview would not be transcribed nor would Mr. Rove be under oath."

Yesterday, Conyers and three colleagues fired back: "[A]n interview conducted without a transcript and not under oath would frustrate a full and fair inquiry. An interview without a transcript is an invitation to confusion and will not permit us to obtain a straightforward and clear record, as several of us have explained in response to a similar offer by White House counsel Fred Fielding in the U.S. Attorney matter. . . .

"We simply do not understand why anyone who is prepared to tell the truth would object to an oath and a record of what is said. This is particularly true in this case, where Mr. Rove has already spoken on the record on this subject."

As I wrote in my April 22 column, a letter Rove himself sent to MSBNC's Dan Abrams -- the only network anchor who's devoted substantial time to the Siegelman case -- was a classic.

Rove likes questions as long as he's asking them -- he raised 59 of them, most of them argumentative, about Abrams's coverage. But at the same time, he answered none of the obvious questions about his own conduct. The closest he came to an actual denial was this carefully phrased declaration: "I certainly didn't meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman." But did he talk to anyone, or e-mail them? Did any of his subordinates? Did he express interest in prosecuting Siegelman to anyone, in any way?

Abrams wrote back, appropriately enough: "Your letter poses questions that you believe I should have asked as part of our coverage, but many of the most significant ones only you can answer. . . . You accuse me of 'diminishing the search for facts and evidence,' yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search."

Another Rove Mention

Andrew Stern writes for Reuters: "A witness at the trial of political fundraiser Antoin Rezko testified on Thursday that then-White House aide Karl Rove was asked to replace the federal prosecutor in Chicago to abort a probe of Illinois corruption.

"Rove has denied knowledge of any discussion to replace Patrick Fitzgerald, the widely respected U.S. attorney in Chicago, when Rove was one of President George W. Bush's top advisers."

Prosecution witness Ali Ata "said Rezko told him in 2004 when the FBI's investigation of Rezko became public, that 'there will be a change in the U.S. attorney's office' and the probe would end. . . .

"Robert Kjellander, a leading Illinois Republican and former treasurer of the Republican National Committee, is a friend of Rove's. . . .

"Asked by the prosecutor how Ata imagined Rezko could engineer the change, Ata said Rezko told him, 'Mr. Kjellander will talk to Karl Rove and make a change in the U.S. attorney's office.' . . .

"When prosecutors revealed that Ata would testify about the supposed plot to remove Fitzgerald, Kjellander and Rove both denied the allegation, saying there was nothing to it."

I don't know exactly when in 2004 this allegedly happened, but as I chronicled in my Mar. 16, 2007, column, The Politics of Distraction, we do know that in January 2005, Rove stopped by the White House counsel's office to float the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys.

source