Dan Abrams Answers Karl Rove at Huffington Post: (Re: Siegelman Case "You Have Refused To Answer")

Hissyspit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-21-08 05:37 PM
Original message

Dan Abrams Answers Karl Rove at Huffington Post: (Re: Siegelman Case "You Have Refused To Answer")

Edited on Mon Apr-21-08 05:44 PM by Hissyspit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-abrams/a-letter-to-karl-rove_b_97815.html

Dan Abrams: A Letter To Karl Rove

April 21, 2008

Dear Mr. Rove:

I write in response to your letter about my coverage of the Siegelman case -- a case we have been covering extensively. Its potential significance to the American justice system extends well beyond the halls of the Alabama Statehouse.

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. I address your specific critique below, but I begin by wondering, based on many of your questions, whether you actually saw, or reviewed, all of our coverage. Or perhaps, as you put it, "you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good fable."

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.

In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.

In your letter, you ask:

Does it bother you, as your coverage asserts, as Governor Siegelman summarized it in his April 7th appearance on your program, that he is the victim of a vast conspiracy involving two US Attorneys, the Alabama Attorney General, unnamed career officials in the Public Integrity Unit at the U.S. Justice Department, unnamed higher ups in the Justice Department, and, oh yes, Karl Rove and that there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who's come forward, not one credible witness to the workings of a conspiracy?

First, my coverage never "asserted" that Governor Siegelman is "the victim of a vast conspiracy," or even that he is necessarily innocent. I do not, and did not, feel comfortable passing judgment on that ultimate question. I repeatedly stated that on the air. Reading your letter, one would falsely presume that I have blindly accepted all of his claims at face value.

This is a prosecution, however, that led over 50 former Attorneys General from around the nation -- Democrats and Republicans -- to express their concern to Congress about the basic fairness of the case. I share many of those concerns. I too have serious questions about the way the case was handled. Given that, is it your contention that it's journalistically unsound to allow the former Governor of the state of Alabama to even state his position on the air?

Or would you expect a responsible journalist to say something like this to the Governor: "Anyone looking at the record would say, 'wait a second, you were convicted by a jury of seven counts.' This is, you know, a jury of 12 ordinary folks who looked at the evidence with regard to bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and said, 'Governor Siegelman is guilty.'" That I did in my interview with Governor Siegelman on April 7, 2008.

And would you expect a good journalist to seek out and read the denial from Karl Rove's attorney? That I did as well.

And maybe even to have said, "Governor, it sounds like you are alleging corruption on so many different levels. I mean -- I think some people can accept the notion that, you know, there are certain Republicans who are out to get you, etc, but as we talk more about this, there are more people involved and it sounds like you're saying that the corruption here was pretty deep?" I also did that. But maybe my questions do not fit with, as you put it, your "pre-selected" story line?

My "pre-selected story line" was not pre-selected at all. It was my considered conclusion -- and my only conclusion -- after assessing a number of troubling aspects about the case and the prosecution of it, that the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta should order the release of the former Governor pending his appeal. The appeals court did just that over the objection of the trial judge. The appellate judges cited "substantial questions of law and fact."

I too have substantial questions of law and fact about the case and some of them involve you.

You seem particularly incensed that I interviewed Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican who had volunteered for the campaign of Siegelman's opponent and claimed, in sworn testimony, that she heard conversations about you and your involvement.

MORE