so simpson is simply wrong or making things up.

and we should believe rove over simpson because...

Is page 3 of the documents redacted, just missing, or a problem with my browser?

And we should believe him, because????

In each any every question Rove is asked if he communicated with DOJ, State of Alabama or "any other official."

And each time Rove responds that he did not comminicate with DOJ, he did not communicate with State of Alabama and did not ask(ed) any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf.

Asking someone to 'communicate on his behalf' in the case versus Rove 'communicating with someone else' are two different things, so in effect Rove is not shutting the door that he may have talked to Bill Canary about Siegelman's prosecution.

He also oddly referse to Dana Simpson as just "Simpson." That is odd construction. He could in effect be denying he ever spoke to a different Simpson, maybe OJ for example.

Very slippery.

If they have evidence, then they should bust him ASAP. If not, then why are we wasting tax money on this fool? Were they hoping he'd admit to a crime or something?

It would be more interesting to see which questions Rove didn't answer or refuses to answer. Or which questions were purposely not asked.

Unfortunately, the scope of this document may be limited, yet it allows Rove to claim that he's answered every question he's been asked.

this is nothing more than gop softball to Rove...I find conyers still complicit with the bushies for not arresting rove and the others and here is another round of him sticking to it to conyers w/ absolutely nothing being done about it! Conyers is such a bad deal...a real tragic man and worse a dirty politician....

But, say that a third party intercepted the questions, so Mr. Rove never saw them. And answered them as if were were Mr. Rove, but innocent. And returned them to the lawyer, so that he never knew
(a) that Karl Rove hadn't seen the questions, and
(b) that someone else had answered them falsely.

Mr. Rove isn't under any obligation to correct -- or even follow -- false news stories about himself, so this is where they can let the matter rest.

Amazing exclusive. Except that it was posted on Emptywheel earlier.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/23/hjc-testimony-michael-mukasey-three/

I must say its refreshing to hear anyone associated with this Administration be unequivocal about something. They're usually full of mealy-mouthed non-denials.

Of course, he's still full of sh*t.

We've got him in writing now.

Rove must be really gambling these guys don't have the goods on him.

Either that, or he knows Bush will pardon him---Libby-style.

Interesting. Still not under oath...

I hate to burst the bubble here, but this is absolutely brilliant strategy by Rove's lawyers. He's not on the hook for anything. Here is why:

It is true that under 18 USC 1001(a) says (in material part)

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

What (a) giveth, (c)(2) taketh away:

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

That's the rub. Lamar Smith is not the chairman of the judiciary committee. He has no authority to compel anyone to answer anything. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit's construction of "jurisdiction" is a narrow one. They tossed out an indictment of a member allegedly lying to the House Clerk under 1001. United States v. Oakar, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 104 (1997). Thus, suppose Lamar sends Rove a letter, and Rove responds with a pack of lies. No jurisdiciton, no foul. He's not acting with the authority of the committee.

I freely admit that I could be wrong about this, but I wonder whether you folks have the document that went -out- to Karl and his lawyer?

Ask Scotty McClellan about Karl Rove's truthfulness and integrity.

Just because it's in the Congressional Record doesn't make it any more (or less) truthful.

As long as a Senator or Congressman submits it, it goes in the Congressional Record. Linday Graham and John Kyl submitted a fictitious debate back in 2006 - and it was printed. The record made it seem as though a debate happened - but it never did. Graham and Kyl never uttered a word.

a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801685.html

Same thing at work here.

Karl always parses cleverly.
He must think he comes out on the better end of the Cheney/Bush morality code with this carefully parsed balderdash (so similar to the carefully parsed denials re the Plame "outing").
It's a simple morality code for simple people.
"Will I get away with it, or will I get caught?"
It would be nice if somebody would make a better show of pretending to catch them, IMHO.

Executive Privilege means never having to testify under oath?

No. But at the risk of redundant posting, royal privilege does.

Isn't there a quote somewhere about Conservatism boiling down to the desire to return to a monarchy? The current dominant theory of government does seem to be a kind of neo-feudalism. We are not citizens, entitled to inherent rights; we are subjects, entitled only to the rights granted to us by Higher Authority. In a feudal system, the subjects exist to serve the warrior nobility rather than vice versa, providing them social privilege and material support in return for their protection. We've more or less split off the actual war makers from the class that automatically enjoys the wealth and benefits of war making, but it's not that big a split--the "military-industrial complex," after all, and lots and lots of profiteering since 9/11. Anyway, that's always a tendency in feudal societies.

And of course in this kind of system, royal favorites enjoy the aura of special protection extending from the monarch.

But like I said, once the people are deprived of their king--i.e., we elect a Democratic president--all of this will revert to somewhere to the right of status quo ante, I have no doubt. President Obama won't enjoy anything like this degree of immunity from oversight, but the needle has been permanently moved quite a bit and there are plenty of signs he doesn't want to work particularly hard to move it back (FISA cave-in, anyone?). We're still a good bit short of being a hollowed out fake republic with an elected quasi-military Dictator for Life with a full-blown police-state security apparatus at his disposal being used blatantly for domestic political purposes. But we're a hell of a lot closer than we were 8 years ago (Clinton's own moves in this direction notwithstanding). At the current rate I'm guessing we'll be there by 2020 or so.

Ms. Klonick,
Rove must not have thought this through. He claimed to not be able to testify due to the President invoking executive priviledge. He has now answered a bunch of questions in writing(not under oath, mind you), which negates his rationale for refusing to appear in the first place. If there were real executive priviledge he would not be able to answer at all, his first argument.
Since he has now shot himself in the foot, it is time to invoke Inherenet Contempt, and take him to jail til he testifies.
When will some brainiac Committee member put 2+2 together to come up with 4?