Larisa Alexandrovna: Lawyer - Rove Knew Who DoJ Was Interviewing & Which Witnesses Were Cooperating

(Mods: Reproduced in entirety with permission.)

Pricilla Duncan, Simpson’s former attorney, said during a Thursday morning phone interview that she was concerned and wanted to know “how Rove could possibly know who the (Department of Justice) was interviewing and which witnesses were cooperating or not?”

Rove op-ed reveals he had inside information about probe

BY LARISA ALEXANDROVNA

Published: August 20, 2009
Updated 1 hour ago

Lawyer declines to say how he found out accuser didn’t talk to Justice Department

Karl Rove’s latest attempt to proclaim his innocence and demand apologies from those who have accused him of being behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman may backfire if it turns out that Rove was improperly receiving inside information after leaving his position as Deputy White House Chief of Staff.

“For more than two years,” Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal, “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.”

Rove then goes on to attack Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama Republican lawyer turned whistleblower who has linked him to the Siegelman prosecution. In doing so, however, he raises serious questions of impropriety by revealing that he has received confidential information from both the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice.

“Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness,” Rove says of Simpson. “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.”

Simpson’s allegations

Simpson — who worked for then-Republican Congressman Bob Riley as an opposition researcher during his successful 2002 campaign to unseat then-Governor Don Siegelman — alleged in a 2007 affidavit that Riley’s campaign staff had used unscrupulous means to force Siegelman not to contest the outcome of the election and also stated that “Karl” had taken a personal interest in the matter.

In even more explosive testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Simpson further described a conference call during which Riley campaign advisor Bill Canary said that “Rove had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman and advised Riley’s staff “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor.

Canary is a longtime friend and business associate of Karl Rove, and the “girls” to whom he allegedly referred were his wife Leura Canary, who was US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and Alice Martin, who was US Attorney for the Northern District.

Siegelman had been the target of a series of investigations launched by his political opponents just a few weeks after the took office as governor in 1999, and those investigations were escalated from the state to the federal level by Bush Administration appointees in 2001. He was charged with corruption in 2005, just as he was attempting a political comeback, was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison, and is currently out on appeal.

Rove’s op-ed is intended in part to refute persistent claims, by Siegelman and others, that he was directly involved in the prosection.

The Office of Professional Responsibility

Simpson’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, along with other evidence, prompted an investigation into Leura Canary and Alice Martin by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which is tasked with investigating corruption allegations against attorneys employed by the Department of Justice.

Rove’s remarkable admission that he “understand(s) 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,” opens both Rove himself and and the OPR to questions of serious impropriety.

Pricilla Duncan, Simpson’s former attorney, said during a Thursday morning phone interview that she was concerned and wanted to know “how Rove could possibly know who the (Department of Justice) was interviewing and which witnesses were cooperating or not?”

When asked for comment, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, clarified Rove’s statement about Simpson refusing to cooperate. He wrote in an email to Raw Story, “I think he’s referring to the current round of hearings/interviews. You are correct that she provided an affidavit and interview previously. She did decline to cooperate with the OPR investigation at Justice.”

Luskin declined, however, to comment as to how he found out Simpson had not testified.

Fresh questions about the Department of Justice

Asked if Rove’s claims were true and if her former client had in fact refused to cooperate with OPR, Duncan said yes. But her revelations about why Simpson had refused to cooperate raise additional questions of impropriety by the Department of Justice.

According to documents supplied by Duncan to Raw Story — two of which are emails between Duncan and the DOJ and are quoted below — the OPR appears to have been investigating Simpson herself rather than the US Attorneys whom Simpson had alleged were involved in political prosecution of Don Siegelman.

Duncan says, “My client refused to cooperate in an investigation that had nothing to do with her allegations, but were entirely focused on her personal life.”

On September 19, 2008, an OPR attorney — Lisa Howard — sent this email to Duncan, requesting Simpson’s cooperation:


By this time, Simpson had been told by a former client, an ex-husband, and a former close friend that officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the DOJ had approached them asking questions about Simpson’s private life, including her adopted daughter, her sexual behavior, and her business practices.

“No one was asked about Siegelman or any of the allegations,” Duncan said.

When Duncan learned of these interviews, she refused to let her client meet with OPR because “it became clear they were not investigating anyone but Jill.”

“They only asked me if Jill had anything more to add outside of her testimony and that was that,” Duncan added.

In response to the DOJ’s questioning of Simpson’s family and friends, Duncan wrote an email to Lisa Howard:


Columbia law professor and legal contributor to Harper’s Magazine, Scott Horton, who has been investigating the matter, confirms part of Duncan’s account.

“Rove’s claim that Simpson failed to cooperate with the DOJ investigation is untruthful — and this is a point I have studied,” Horton wrote in an email to Raw Story.

“In fact what happened was this: DOJ investigators contacted Simpson’s attorney and asked her whether Simpson had any information to share beyond her testimony and the documents she produced to Congress. She said “no.” That was the end of it. Simpson was entirely willing to meet and discuss the matter with the investigators — unlike Rove. And also unlike Rove, she had already testified and been crossexamined under oath and had produced her documents, so it was not really necessary.”

Lisa Howard of OPR did not return calls for comment.

Rove’s claims of an inside source at the House Judiciary Committee

In addition to the claims relating to Ms. Simpson, Rove also wrote in his op-ed that “Committee staff confided to me that they considered an unreliable witness.”

In this reporter’s conversations with the House Judiciary Committee, Simpson was always described as a credible witness. Horton conforms that he has had much the same experience in his own dealings with HJC staffers.

“I have spoken repeatedly with Committee staff myself and formed exactly the opposite view,” wrote Horton in an email. “They consider Simpson a highly credible witness. Moreover, you don’t need to take my word for it since we have explicit evidence for just that proposition: they issued a report which relies, heavily and repeatedly, on Simpson’s testimony — not something which they would have done had they disbelieved her or found her testimony not credible,”

“What Rove means to say, perhaps, is this: “I have spoken with Republican staffers at the Judiciary Committee,…” And yes, it is clear that the job of Republican staffers on the committee was to challenge Simpson’s credibility. The peak of this effort came when Randy Forbes (R-VA) claimed that there was no evidence to corroborate Simpson’s claims of a telephone conference with Rob Riley’s office on a specific date. Recall that Artur Davis (D-AL) turned Forbes into a proverbial greasespot by whipping out the phone records and showing that they did, in fact, reflect exactly the call she discussed at the time she discussed it. The Republican staffers, as usual, did no research, resting instead on Rove’s “facts” as facts.

“But this shows just what I expected,” Horton continues, “namely that Rove was communicating with G.O.P. staffers throughout the process to get information about the investigation — a process that violated his understanding with the Committee. Just as he violated his agreement by giving “exclusive” interviews to the NY Times and Washington Post before the process was completed. What this shows is two-fold: Rove isn’t bothered in the slightest by breaking his agreements, and Rove is the master of the half-truth and the outright lie.”

Requests for comment to the House Judiciary Committee were not immediately returned.

Your comment may not have its intended meaning anymore. Sorry. I'm bad that way. :hi:

i should have made it more clear....:toast:

My original subject line made it sound like Larisa was stating something that the lawyer actually said.

:eyes:


And the beat goes on. They still walk.

:(

Promoted to Headline (H2) on 8/7/09:
Eric Holder's Conflict of Interest

by Dana Jill Simpson Page 1 of 1 page(s)


For months, we have been trying to get to the bottom of why Eric Holder would not really investigate the cases of Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, Mr. Minor, the two other judges in Mississippi and Charles Walker. Well, I finally have the answer . I got it from writing my Greg Craig article that was located on the Jason Leopold website Public record.

I got a tip and I researched it. And boy, was I shocked at what I learned. Seems Mr. Holder, before being selected Attorney General of the United States of America, worked for a firm called Covington and Burling. The tip I got was that the firm had a very important client whose name was George W. Bush and they represented a very important organization I am sure ya'll all have heard of - the Republican National Committee. I was in shock when I checked it and it was true. My favorite research item I ran across is when they were protecting the RNC from having to turn over Karl Rove's emails that were run on the RNC Servers. It shocked me. Plus I found it mighty interesting that AG Eric Holder never enlightened anyone about his conflict of coming from a big Washington DC law firm that represented the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush in the 2000 election contest.

But then, it all made sense to me. He would have had to appoint a special A.G. to be over the Stevens case, over the Tobin case, and over the Kott case, and over the Abramoff/Feeney case. But if he just kept his mouth shut maybe just maybe no one would catch him dismissing all those cases. Which no one did until the tip came in. It has long been reported that the expenses in those cases were picked up by the RNC. That same RNC that paid A.G. Holder's law firm, that same law firm then paid A.G. Holder over two million dollars last year. Shame on A.G. Holder! He had an ethical duty to tell the citizens of America he had a conflict in investigating all these cases and all the torture cases. Instead, he tried to ignore it or hide it instead of doing the right thing and getting out of the cases.

-snip

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Eric-Holder-s-Conflict-of-by-Dana-Jill-Simpson-090807-200.html

It didn't go over too well here the other day, but I think it's worth examining, especially knowing Holder hasn't acted on this case.

for criminal behavior, including GWB, Rove, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

They all need to be indicted.

Then indict Holder for perjury

Hawkeye-X

White House council, Sidley Austin partner, and defender of White House criminals.

But, the question is, are these conflicts of interest or an insider's advantage?
It wasn't Holder's firm, it was the firm employing Holder (and how many other lawyers?).

really!!

he sits through meetings where the firm's projects are discussed, and also as partner he has a vested interest in the firm, besides being close to others who work there. IANAL nor am I privileged to the working of this law firm, BUT I certainly think it is worth noting that Jill Simpson, not only a lawyer and a whistler blow (besides being a GOP insider) seems concerned enough to raise this issue so I certainly believe it is worth noting and investigating. Many of us have been scratching our heads and asking WTF? 75 former state AGs (of both parties BTW) seem concerned enough w the Siegelman case to question it, there has to be some reason why it isn't being addressed. It is certainly worth looking at this allegation-imho

in that particular order, I'd say. As a GOP insider, Simpson was apparently sufficiently part of a criminal act to need to protect her status as lawyer by following ethical guidelines and ratting out Rove and the other GOP insiders foolish enough to let her in on their conspiracy. The point I want to make is that she is still GOP. Don't forget that she has acted in her own self-interests by doing the necessary bit to exclude herself from being part of criminal conduct she perceived as ongoing. Don't expect her to act any less GOP!!

That said, I'd like to know why there is no DoJ house cleaning, why Bush USAs are still in place.

She is still volunteering information that should be used, especially in light of a bipartisan group of 75 former state AGs who question this case. I have no idea why Cenary or Martin was dumped day 1. I also want to know why Artur Davis, who I previously thought fought hard on the Judiciary has been silent. Because he's running for Gvernor? Does he really think that the GOP corrupted machine down there will ever allow for him to be elected? I haven't a clue why they are handling this case the way they are, but it's highly suspect-imho.

-- on Holder's part. I have difficulty believing that Holder's association, however brief, with Covington & Burling would have been overlooked. That firm is extremely well known. Even a brief employment there would have been a big resume item for Holer at some point. Are you sure about these facts? I'm sorry. I do not want to be personally disrespectful or rude, but I have difficulty believing this report. Ms. Simpson does not give the dates for Holder's alleged association with Covington & Burling. Is there any information on that? Was he allegedly associated with them at the time that they represented the RNC and GWB? If he worked for them years before that time there would probably be no problem.

Holder has a definite conflict of interest when it comes to Bush and Co.

Via listserv:

Dear Mr. Murdoch and all the editors at the Wall Street Journal

My Response to the article Closing in on Rove


I want to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for running Karl Rove's delusional article, Closing in on Rove, on August 20, 2009. The reason I want to thank you is that Mr. Rove has clearly lied about me in this article. You have captured and printed it without even checking to see if it is so or not. The lie he has told is and I quote, "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". In case you are unaware, I testified on September 14, 2007, before the House Judiciary Committee lawyers that were selected to question me. I most definitely gave sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Democrats. In fact, I gave over one hundred and forty three pages of testimony before the Judiciary Democratic and Republican lawyers. It is unfortunate that your paper does not give a rip about the truth or you would have checked out the bold-faced lie that Karl Rove put in his article before you printed it.

Further, I find it extremely tacky that you allow him to call me an eccentric Alabama lawyer. I ask, did you check with anyone other than Karl Rove who clearly hates me for telling on him? Karl also states in his article, "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". It was announced on May 15, 2009, that Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify by Nora Dannehy of the DOJ about the firing of the nine attorneys in a criminal matter. I would hardly call that willingly giving sworn testimony. Further, he pointedly refused to agree to give sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this summer and did not take a sworn oath before chatting with the House Judiciary lawyers that questioned him. I might add I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony Mr. Rove however has willfully misled the public in this article to think that I have refused to give sworn testimony to the DOJ in the case in which he was subpoenaed to testify. I have never been subpoenaed or contacted by Nora Dannehy to testify in the investigation she is conducting on Karl Rove. I believe the reason for this is the fact that she is appointed the special prosecutor solely for the nine fired United States attorneys. Anyone who has read the transcript of my testimony before the House Judiciary lawyers, my affidavit and watched the 60 Minutes piece would know I have never made a direct claim of having any personal knowledge about the fired United States Attorneys. What I believe Mr.. Rove is trying to do here is to confuse the public.

I would additionally like to state that I have had very limited contact with the Department of Justice since testifying before the House Judiciary lawyers. One contact is from Lisa Howard. She contacted my attorney in the fall of 2008 and contended that she was working at the DOJ for the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked about me possibly testifying and asked for my address. My attorney communicated to her that I had already told my story in an affidavit and given four hours of testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee and that both of these documents were readily available and represented all I knew about the prosecution of Don Siegelman. Ms. Howard did not ask for a copy of these documents nor has she every subpoenaed me or asked to interview me and been refused to the best of my knowledge.

In December of 2008, I was contacted by an individual I knew and her attorney about the OPR conducting an investigation on me and asking questions about my sex life and the adoption of my four-year-old daughter. I contacted the man they identified as working for the DOJ OPR, Jim Sullivan, who happens to work for Alice Martin. I asked him if I was the target of an investigation since he had conversations with the woman who contacted me about whether I had bought a baby for $300,000.00 after his asking her about it. He would not confirm or deny if I was a target to investigation on the ridiculous claim that I had bought a baby for $300,000.00 , which was untrue, but he admitted asking the questions the woman said he had asked her. Within a week or two, the woman contacted me again and said that a Mr. Causey, A Washington OPR attorney, had contacted her. I had my attorney write the DOJ OPR office and Ms. Howard about this matter to ask if this was the way they conduct investigations at the OPR. Further, it seemed quite odd at the time considering I do not work for the DOJ and I could not fathom the connection of my sex life and adoption of my four-year-old daughter having anything to do with the investigation of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. An OPR attorney, Judith Wish, contacted my attorney and asked her to provide the name of the individuals that their employees had contacted. They did ask me what their investigators learned and whom they had spoken with. We communicated back that they should ask them because Mr. Sullivan had already admitted to me that he had done it and could not tell me why. I had no desire to put into writing their ridiculous claims. Those are the only two contacts I have had with the DOJ. Neither involved me refusing to testify from being subpoenaed or interviewed on whether Mr. Siegelman had been persecuted or not as Karl Rove so claimed in the news article. I did however refuse to give them the names of the people they had contacted but gave them their employee’s names as they knew very well who they had contacted.

It has long been my belief that Karl Rove put the OPR up to asking these questions and I am still to this date waiting for an apology from the OPR and have never heard anything else from the DOJ since they got caught snooping around in my personal life. It is completely ridiculous for him to claim I refused to cooperate with them when I am still waiting for them to let me know why they were snooping in my personal life that had nothing to do with their investigations of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. Plus the allegations were so ridiculous as I had not bought my daughter. I would have thought they could have gotten to the bottom of this very fast. Never during any of that awful deal with DOJ did they ask me to testify and give a sworn statement. Further, how my sex life was involved in their investigation is beyond me but they had questions about it. I suspect this was done in an attempt to embarrass me. I suspect Karl Rove was behind those attempts to discredit me and again the stuff was just so ridiculous. Apparently that matter is lost as well at the DOJ as we never heard back from Ms. Judith WIsh after she contacted Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Causey.

However, after reading Mr. Rove's article today I am unclear but believe he may be claiming he made a sworn statement to OPR. I shall be writing to see if this is about my sex life and adoption. I would love to know if he is the one behind those ridiculous tales.

Mr. Rove also stated in the article that Committee staff considered me an unreliable witness but he fails to identify any of those unnamed individuals. What I find most interesting is he fails to mention the report that found my evidence credible enough to call him as a witness. He is truly a sad, pathetic individual trying to cover his behind from criminal prosecution.

It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.

Thank you Mr. Murdoch for printing his lies. Hopefully the American public will wake up and realize that Karl Rove is a liar. For too long he has been allowed to politically bully people and lie in the press. Today I socked him in the nose with the truth. As for his lies, please let him know lies do not hurt anyone except the person who tells them.

I am happy today to call Mr. Rove a liar and you have provided the cold hard proof. You, Mr. Murdoch, gave me that opportunity. I am thankful that you run a paper that apparently does not check for the truth.

Sincerely,
DANA JILL SIMPSON

bitch-slapping of turd-blossom too:)

:D

Will 'Bush's paper' print it?

:D

Onward!

Private E-mail accounts being used for Government Business and all records of them and their contents conveniently missing from any record or attempt at recreation of events of those disastrous days.

Those E-mails are somewhere, retrievable, and when they are found these mysteries will soon unravel. Bet on it.

unfortunately, that connection i was working died over Christmas. :(

is more of a liability than an asset he'll be going to the same "doctor" that tended to Ken Lay.

Why doesn't Obama get rid of these people????