Rove Questions Abrams - *Updated*
Update: A reader has posted in comments below the text of a response from Dan Abrams which can also be found on the interwebs here.
Karl Rove wrote a letter last week to Dan Abrams of MSNBC that raised questions related to Abrams’ broadcasts on the subject of Rove’s alleged involvement in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Brett Blackledge referred to the letter today in the Birmingham News.
If the version I received in email Friday is correct, here is the text of the letter:
Karl Rove
April 13, 2008
Mr. Dan Abrams
MSNBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
Dear Mr. Abrams:
On April 7th, you again devoted a substantial part of your show to the claim of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that I was behind his prosecution. Your continued coverage of this issue raises questions about your journalistic standards and those of MSNBC and NBC. During your broadcast, Mr. Siegelman referred to Ms. Dana Jill Simpson as a “respected Republican political operative,” a reference it seems you accept because of the frequent attention you give her in your broadcasts.
Have you, during your coverage of Ms. Simpson, ever actually looked into her claims? For example, have you ever asked her what campaigns she worked as “an operative” with me?
And if so, did you check out what she said by calling the candidates who were my clients or their campaign managers to ask if she was involved in those campaigns? Did you review campaign expenditure reports to see if her name appeared as a paid operative? Or did you check with the DeKalb County Republican chairman or activists (such as the Moore campaign chairman, an effort she told the Judiciary Committee she was active in) to see if she really was a “respected Republican political operative?”
Did you inquire when it was that I first asked her to undertake unnamed campaign tasks, as she alleged happened in the years before 2001? And did you try to ascertain whether she was telling the truth about those requests?
Did you inquire when and where her supposed 2001 meeting with me took place at which she was asked to follow Siegelman and photograph him? If so, did you make any effort to see if she could document her claim?
And if you were personally convinced by her answers that there was a good likelihood of such a meeting, did you try to figure out if there was any way that I was likely to have been available for such a meeting? Or is it merely enough for her to assert for you to repeat?
Didn’t it strike you as foolish for me to ask someone with no particular experience to undertake a task requiring adroit surveillance and shadowing skills, a mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces?
Then consider Ms. Simpson’s September 14, 2007 interview with the House Judiciary Committee that followed an earlier extensive interview by a Democratic committee lawyer. Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story that you then repeated on February 25th? After all, wouldn’t that be something Congressman John Conyer’s people would find interesting?
Don’t you find it odd that in 143 pages of testimony in September she said nothing about having worked with me in campaigns, nothing about being asked by me to undertake various tasks, nothing about my supposedly having asked her to follow Governor Siegelman and photograph him in a compromising position, nothing about having had meetings with me? In fact, she never says she knows me or has met me. Don’t you find that odd? Or were these considerations that got lost as you attempted to catch-up with CBS on the story? Did the pressure of competition lead you to discard tough questions and sober reflection?
In fact, did you even read the transcript of Dana Jill Simpson’s testimony? Did you try to ascertain if there was any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the claims she made to the Judiciary Committee staff about Don Siegelman, Terry Butts, Judge Fuller and others were likely to be accurate? Did it matter to you that following the release of her interview, as one observer has written, that “every single person whose name Simpson invokes as she spins her stories says that she is either lying or deluded?” Are you aware that the list of people denying her claims includes Don Siegelman, whom she claims repeatedly urged her to provide her original affidavit?
Did you try to discover whether there was any evidence she did in fact shadow Don Siegelman? Did you ask for travel records, itineraries, or expense reports that showed Ms. Simpson’s travel from Northeastern Alabama matched up with the Governor’s schedule?
Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera? Did you talk with the Alabama Department of Public Safety?
In fact, did you ever ask her how she attempted to find him in a compromising position? Was it her practice to follow him from his events and shadow him late at night when he was on the road? Peek through hotel windows? Hang out down the hallway from his hotel room? Were you satisfied she actually did what she was supposedly asked to do?
In your February 25th broadcast, she said she had phone records of calls to “Virginia and Washington” that corroborate her charges. Have you made an effort to review those records and ascertain what they point to? Since I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. in 2001, I can’t imagine what her cryptic reference to Virginia could mean. The Bush/Cheney transition office (where I was rarely, working instead in Austin) was in Virginia until late 2000, before the transition was moved to a government building near the White House before year’s end. But what number and who was she calling in Virginia (presumably) later in 2001 when she was being asked to shadow Siegelman? And what were those Washington numbers? Did you ask her? Or was it good enough for you that she said had them so you were content to let the matter drop?
In fact, what did you do to ascertain if anything she told you and that you repeated or relied upon was accurate? Or is it good enough for you to simply repeat her charges without examining them personally to satisfy yourself that she is – and has done – what she says she did?
Does it bother you that 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 U.S. 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 came forward, not one credible witness to the workings of the conspiracy?
And do you really believe such a scheme could be operated so efficiently and effectively that it would manipulate the career prosecutor who brought the case so that he did not understand he was doing the bidding of this vast conspiracy? And that the FBI agents who conducted the investigation could similarly be so easily and subtly subverted?
In fact, it seems you believe that the absence of any concrete evidence is itself evidence of the conspiracy. If you don’t have any proof Karl Rove did it, that absence is proof enough. I am that good.
And is it your habit not to challenge a guest, as long as he is following your chosen theme for the night? For example, let’s take your December 13, 2007 broadcast.
Scott Horton said “We don’t have all the links in place but we do know that certainly beginning from 2002, Karl Rove out of the White House was deeply involved in the election of Rob [sic] Riley, structuring it, raising money for it, putting together a strategy for it. A part of that strategy involved the criminal justice system nailing charges, landing charging [sic] on Siegelman on some sort. As we know that it involved at some point, consultation with the Justice Department and also two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama…”
Just how does Mr. Horton know all this “certainly”? Did you ask him what proof he had that I was deeply involved in Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid? What evidence does he have that I structured it, raised money for it, put together a strategy for it? What evidence does he have that “my” strategy included indicting Siegelman? With whom and when did I consult with the Justice Department about this “strategy?” When did I consult with the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about it? He said, “we do know that certainly” this all happened. If you consider yourself a journalist or even a lawyer, wouldn’t this be the point where you should have asked Mr. Horton, how do you know that, what evidence do you have?
What about you? Did you review campaign spending and news report to identify the Riley campaign consultants or ad team and call them to see if I played a role? Did you do some sleuthing of your own, phoning Republicans in Alabama who might have been in a position to know? Did you call any major donors to Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid and ask if they were contacted by me and encouraged to give money? Did you talk with your colleagues in NBC covering the White House and ask them how credible the argument might be that I was serving as the political consultant and campaign manager of a candidate for Governor of Alabama in 2002 while also serving as Senior Advisor to the President of the United States? Or because Mr. Horton’s assertions fit your story line for the night, did you think he didn’t need to prove anything he claimed and you didn’t need to do any work?
As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than “structuring” a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate, calling people to raise money for his race, and going through the arduous task of “putting together a strategy.” And 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. My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.
It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?
I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but don’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?
People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires. For example, while you do ask Siegelman what evidence he had to back up his charges, you did not press him when he said “We don’t have the knife with Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over it, but we’ve got the glove, and the glove fits.”
The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “The glove fits! The glove fits!” - only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line (”Bush Justice”) and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable. You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts. You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review. You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your producers slapped on your segment, created the nifty graphic for and promoted in the ads before your appearances.
Sincerely,
Karl Rove
CC: Jeff Zucker
Steve Capus
Phil Griffin
Tim Russert
Robert Luskin
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.
You ask why only later did she claim that you asked her to follow the Governor to attempt to take compromising photos. Specifically, you wrote, “Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story, that you then repeated on February 25th?”
Fair question. Which is why I asked her the following on February 25, 2008:
ABRAMS: And why have you never mentioned before the allegations of Rove and the pictures?
SIMPSON: Oh, I mentioned it to people. They just did not use it. Because nobody wanted to go into the fact that I had been following Don Siegelman trying to get pictures of him cheating on his wife.
ABRAMS: But some of your critics have said, “You know, in front of Congress she had a lot of opportunities. Why didn’t she mention this before?”
SIMPSON: Well, let me explain something to you. I talked to congressional investigators, Dan. And when I talked to those congressional investigators I told them that I had followed Don Siegelman and tried to get pictures of him cheating on his wife. However, they suggested to me that that was not relevant because there was nothing illegal about that and they’d just prefer that not come up at the hearing that day.
We repeatedly offered your attorney a chance to rebut the claims. Dana Jill Simpson testified under oath about this case while thus far you have refused to do so. If she is lying, she should be prosecuted. But as a journalist isn’t it fair to ask why you don’t welcome the opportunity to testify as well? With sworn false testimony, there are repercussions. Without it, there is no accountability.
You ask, “do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests. . .” Anyone who actually saw or even read the transcript of my coverage would have seen that I asked the Governor a whole series of pointed questions including this one: “You’re not hinging this all, though, on Dana Jill Simpson are you? Because there have been a lot of people who have questioned how she could have been at certain meetings, how many times she actually met with people, where she was at the time, etc. I mean your allegations that Rove- you believe Rove is behind this does not hinge entirely on the credibility of Dana Jill Simpson?” I also asked his daughter a similar question in a separate interview on February 27, 2008.
But many of their answers come back to you – to your relationships with various Alabama officials, to the timing of the prosecution, to why new charges were filed after the first ones were dismissed. It seems that since they have not provided definitive documentary evidence to prove their contentions, many of which involve what they say they witnessed, heard or experienced, you think either I should not have interviewed them on air or dismissed their allegations out of hand.
In the end, the real answer to those questions can only come from a congressional investigation and an under-oath statement, not from some decision by me. In that respect, I am aware that you have been requested by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about these issues. You can be sure that I will report fairly and in detail whatever is said before that committee—particularly if you appear before it.
In the wake of the U.S. Attorney controversy and all of the questions surrounding this case, it is more than fair to ask—in fact I would say its my journalistic duty to ask – whether Karl Rove had any role in instigating the prosecution of a prominent Alabama Democrat given that you knew many of the players, and in a state where you had significant political connections. With that in mind, and in light of our seemingly shared desire to mine for the truth, I would invite you to answer some crucial questions about this case on my program or in a written response:
You say you “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.” Did you talk to, or otherwise communicate with, any of them about it even if you did not meet? Did you have any discussions with any of them about this topic?
What about your old friend Bill Canary, whose wife initially led the prosecution? Are you denying that you spoke with him about anything related to the case?
You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?
Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?
Do you know why your lawyer told us that you would testify about this case if you were subpoenaed but now, after you have been invited to do so, he states that there are issues of executive privilege: “Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide” he said.
You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible “executive privilege?”
You ask why I did not further question one of my guests when he discussed your effort to help now Governor Riley in his campaign. Did you consult in any way with Riley or anyone else working with him on the campaign?
Did you ever discuss, with anyone, the possibility of media leaks about the Siegelman case? Did you speak with any members of the media about Siegelman during his campaign?
Rather than continuing a spin campaign against the media and me, I hope you join me in attempting to restore faith in a hallmark of this nation; our apolitical Department of Justice now understandably and regrettably enveloped in a cloud of suspicion.
Sincerely,
Dan Abrams
Comment by Abrams Response — April 22, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
There is nothing to this bull%^&$ Rove could care less about Don. He had bigger fish to fry. Don did himself in - get over it folks.
Comment by JBoner — April 22, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Siegelman? ……. Yawn
Comment by JT — April 22, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Governor Siegelman attended the Scott Horton event in Huntsville tonight, as did Nancy Worley. Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register drove from Mobile to represent himself and challenge Horton’s characterizations of his work. Jill Simpson, the “true American hero” (according to The Don) was also there.
I think that ‘Locust Fork’ and ‘Left in Alabama’ were there too. I know ‘Flashpoint’ was there.
Horton gave an hour-long speech to about 200 people (including reporters) at UAH, followed by an hour-long Q&A. His theme was that Alabama print media is broken. He stated that AL newspapers were “uncritical” and incurious - no argument from me there - but he thinks that the “national media” has done a better job of reporting the Siegelman story - bah.
IMO Horton gave a decent speech (half history / half Siegelman), but as his exchange with Curran showed, he doesn’t seem to check his facts (while complaining that newspapers are incurious and don’t check facts - the irony was certainly lost on the crowd).
BTW, Curran was shouted down and insulted by some of those tolerant free-speech loving lefties. And he says he’s a “liberal” who “voted for Siegelman”…
Comment by Reactionary — April 22, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Curran made an ass of himself. His first outburst was at a point Horton was making about the B’ham paper having access to the grand jury testimony and he took it personally. He literally yelled out interrupting Horton’s talk. He was crude, rude, and seems to think the world revolves around him. Curran needs a shrink badly.
Comment by Anonymous — April 23, 2008 @ 1:11 am
Perhaps Curran needs a shrink. Don has needed one for years, starting with his section 8 discharge from the military in 1969 when he was ruled “highly mentally unstable.” Don’t know if that is pertinent, it was just too good an opportunity to let pass . . . .
Comment by Freud — April 23, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Sounds like a meeting with a lot of those present wearing tinfoil hats.
A covey of quail, a herd of cattle, a school of fish.
What then is this room full of Nuts called?
Comment by JD — April 23, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Agreed. This is such old news. Who gives a darn about siegelman and his whining. If you break the law - you go to jail folks. Right wing conspiracy my @#$. Grow up folks - we have some real issues to work on in this state.
Comment by JT — April 23, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
This is an intriguing affair. I an’t wait to find out what happens.
Comment by PJR — April 29, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Nothing will ever come of this because there is no there ..there
Comment by BoobyBear — May 23, 2008 @ 8:03 am