LOL - apparently Rove's OPed piece "'Closing in on Rove'
Why John Conyers, the New York Times and the Washington Post owe me an apology" was published in the WSJ last week and Jill Simpson has taken issue with his version of the facts (and his description of her.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360500363745662.htmlWell, it didn't take long for Jill Simpson to respond.
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 U.S. 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 that I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony. Mr. Rove, however, has willfully misled the public in this article into thinking 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.
~snip~
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
Read her entire letter here
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/ - you'll enjoy it.
What a hoot, she definitely calls 'em as she (and the rest of us) sees 'em.
What is sad is the fact that the DOJ OPR has been investigating her personal life and going off of wacky rumors and innuendos trying to discredit her.
Obama/Holder need the purge of the DOJ and Holder's OPR will never do the right thing as long as he has the Bush appointees working for that division. As long as H. Marshall Jarrett is part of the DOJ the department will always be tainted, its prosecutions and investigations suspect. Jarrett needs his walking papers.