http://www.atlargely.com/2008/04/rove-caught-in.htmlRove caught in his own worst nightmare...Apparently Karl Rove's interest in going after whistle-blower Dana Jill Simpson has gotten him so unhinged that he has stepped straight into a trap that he himself would have laid not too long ago - when he had the power to do so - against a political "enemy." Now he has stepped into a trap laid for him by the reality of the situation, that is, by his own ego, in an interview with GQ.
GQ decided to go interview Rove - for reasons I am still trying to grasp, given that Rove is not much of a cover-seller. I have it on good authority, however, that Rove was adamant that GQ ask questions about Jill Simpson - and guess what? They asked him about Ms. Simpson:
"(rolls his eyes) Will you do me a favor and go on Power Line and Google "Dana Jill Simpson" {the Republican lawyer who told 60 Minutes that Rove asked her to take a picture of Governor Siegelman cheating on his wife]}? She's a complete lunatic. I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her. And what the media has done on this… No one has read the 143-page deposition that she gave congressional investigators—143 pages. When she shows up to give her explanation of all this, do you know how many times my name appears? Zero times. Nobody checked!"
No, it appears twice actually and both times as "Karl," once in a handwritten memo from Rob Riley Jr. (Governor Bob Riley's son) on a FEMA letter to Simpson and once in Simpson's discussion of the November 2002 conversation in which Bill Canary is alleged to have discussed Siegelman with "Karl." GQ clearly has no fact-checkers it seems. Onwards:
"Because CBS is a shoddy operation. They said, "Hey, if we can say 'Karl Rove,' 'Siegelman,' that'll be good for ratings. Let's hype it. We'll put out a news release on Thursday and then promo the hell out of it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." And Scott Pelley—the question is, Did <60 Minutes correspondent> Scott Pelley say to this woman, "You say you met with him. Where? And you say that he gave you other assignments earlier. When did he begin giving you assignments, and what campaigns did you work with him in? What evidence? I mean, this woman, she said she met with him: Okay, you met with him—where?
Did you fly to Washington?" Now she says that she talked to me on the phone and she's got phone records. Of calls to Washington and Virginia. But what's Virginia? I don't live in Virginia. And it's 2001. What is in Virginia? It's not the Bush headquarters; that was in Austin, Texas. What is in Virginia? So—but look, she's a loon."
She never made allegations that she talked to Rove on the phone and has phone records to prove it. That is to say, she said she had met with Rove, but she was not asked nor did she say in what venue or how they communicated. In addition, Rove - who has an astounding memory for facts and particulars - suddenly confuses the phone records she referred to with his just-in time lie. Not entirely clever, given that these things are easily provable via documents. What Ms. Simpson testified is that she had talked to Bill Canary on the phone and she provided Congress with those records. That conversation took place in November of 2002, during which Canary is alleged to have said that his "girls" will handle Siegelman. In fact, here is exactly what Ms. Simpson stated and under oath by the way:
"Simpson testified on Sept. 14 before lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee and dropped a bombshell revelation. In this additional testimony, Simpson described a conference call among Bill Canary, Governor Riley's son Rob and other Riley campaign aides, which she said took place on November 18, 2002 -- the same day Don Siegelman conceded the election. Simpson alleged that Canary had said that “Rove had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman and had also advised Riley's staff “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor."
It is for this phone call that Ms. Simpson had the phone records and which she has handed over to Congress.
But here is my question,
does Rove not seem entirely too defensive here? I mean for someone who managed to giggle off the CIA leak scandal, this seems to have unhinged him like no other. Why?
For someone who claims to "I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her,"
he sure seems very interested in talking about her, lying about her allegations, demanding that the interviewer ask him about her, and decrying her to be a lunatic. Think about this too, the proof that Simpson communicated with Canary in November of 2002 is in the public record. Simpson and Rob Riley Jr. went to college together. Simpson ran against Riley Jr. in the college elections. Rob Riley Jr. writes out the name "Karl" on a FEMA memo to Simpson. Yet Rove says that he "has yet to find anyone who knows her." Is Rove saying that he is certain that neither Canary or Rob Riley Jr. know Simpson? Is he sure about this? Would he be willing to testify to it under oath? Oh wait, he ignored his subpoena from Congress. Simpson testified under oath. Enough said about that for now.
What is most intriguing to me is that each time Rove responds to questions about Simpson or Siegelman he inadvertently adds more information, information incriminating himself, like:1. He read the court documents closely enough to count the pages and know the allegations, but not closely enough to identify his own name. Here is a man with a famed memory and yet he misses something basic like his own name? Does that sound believable? Not likely.
2. He knew about the allegations, but confused himself and Bill Canary in the allegations. Again, does this sound remotely believable? Nope.
3. He claims not to have known her, met her, talked to her ever, or found anyone who knew her, but then goes to great lengths to demand that the publication ask him about her and then goes to great lengths to attack her in response to his own planted questions. If you are going to plant questions, would you not at least prep for the answers? Does anyone think someone so controlling and with such a lust for revenge would not have prepped with facts? Right.
Finally, and most importantly, I happen to know what the other questions were and what the other answers were. Clearly, someone at GQ had the sense to not run the rest of the interview as it pertains to Simpson, but boy if they had, then Rove would have hanged himself on a noose of his own making.
Let us just say that he knew a good deal about her private life (marriages, career, etc.), her family (including some rather personal information about one member), and her children. Not surprisingly, he twisted the facts of what he knew (somehow) into outright lies anyway. The things he lied about too would normally be laughable, but coming from him seem strangely obsessive. As I was thinking about his
I am thinking that we will soon see those allegations - which apparently did not make the editorial cut at GQ - appear on right-wing blogs. My guess is that Powerline will be first, since it is the one Rove keeps telling everyone to read. When you do see those allegations about Ms. Simpson surface - and I have no doubt you will - remember, Rove tried to plant it at GQ first.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
