« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Anticipating Testimony, Rove Begins The Spin
In his first public comments about the deal to secure his testimony on the US Attorney firings, Karl Rove told Fox News.com:
I understand they may be the hors d'oeuvres, but I'm the main course. Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued.
But beyond that eye-catching quote, something far sneakier came out of the interview. Rove used a curious argument to defend his role in the firings, saying:
If White House contact with the Justice Department is inappropriate, then what are we doing by allowing anybody who has anything remotely to do with the political campaign -- like the general counsel of the Obama White House -- to have any contact with the Justice Department?. I mean, we named the Justice Department building after the campaign manager of the 1960 presidential campaign - Robert F. Kennedy.
Leave aside the shot at Bobby Kennedy. Rove seems to be arguing that the White House's coordination with the Justice Department over the firings is comparable to any contact that the White House counsel might have with the department.
But as Rove knows, one of the concerns that the firings scandal brought up was the fact that the Bush White House allowed numerous White House staffers to talk to DOJ officials about the case. Democrats responded with efforts to limit those contacts -- and Rove certainly has never before expressed the view that those efforts didn't go far enough.
And while we're on the subject of Rove's mendacity, here's another point worth noting: Yes, Rove will testify under penalty of perjury. But he appears to have shown in the past that he's perfectly capable of dissembling even under such conditions.
In 2006, there was fevered speculation that Rove would be indicted for perjury for lying to Pat Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame affair. Rove initially did not tell the grand jury about his conversation about Plame with Time's Matt Cooper (now at TPM!), claiming he forgot about it.
A New York Times story from 2006 lays out the details:
In his February 2004 testimony, Mr. Rove acknowledged talking to the columnist Robert D. Novak about Ms. Wilson, but he did not tell the grand jury about a second conversation he had about her with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter. Mr. Novak revealed her name and C.I.A. employment in a column on July 14, 2003.Critics of the Bush administration have asserted that the revelation was retaliation against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting some of the intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq.
Mr. Rove later voluntarily told the grand jury about the conversation with Mr. Cooper, and said that he had forgotten about it in the rush of his daily business. But Mr. Fitzgerald has long been skeptical of Mr. Rove's account of his forgetfulness, lawyers in the case say.
So it wouldn't run counter to precedent if Rove again walked right up to the line of inviting a perjury charge when he testifies.
Something for Conyers and his team to be aware of, perhaps.
Josh
Zachary
"Bush's Brain" was right, he does see himself as a political mastermind. Too bad he worked for an administration so pathetically incompetent that they couldn't even achieve their goal of total world domination. I don't have much hope for these testimonies, unless they can indict him on perjury charges, this is shaping up to be Alberto Gonzalez Redux.
March 5, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"some democrats would love to have me barbecued".
Rove thinks it's about him. A mere exacting of political revenge.
Because it couldn't possibly be about something much larger, much more consequential than him--say, our rule of law.
March 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove doesn't think it's about him. What he says and what he thinks are two entirely different things.
Rove says it's about him. That quote is just red meat spin for the Faux Noise consumer.
Rove knows exactly what this is about -- it's what you mentioned, and it's what he tried to destroy during his years with the White House and the Republican Party (and succeeded, I might add, to a significant degree).
But he's never gonna say that.
March 6, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact he had numerous chances to appear before the Grand Jury to 'clarify his testimony gives credence to the fact he was telling different stories. It wasn't until Luskin 'luckily found e-mails of some other information that permitted Rove to go back the last time and escape indictment. He allegedly was still under some jeopardy until he wasn't needed in the Libby trial. Amazingly Libby was the only one to fall. A covert NOC gets outed and Libby loses his law license. What a deal!
March 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Rove was allowed to return to the Grand Jury 4 or 5 times to adjust his testimony tells me Fitzgerald let him off the hook for perjury.
I think Fitzgerald knew that if he indicted Rove for perjury the whole Plame story would have come out and certainly Cheney and quite possibly Bush could have been indicted.
Fitzgerald's excuse that Libby threw sand in his eyes by lying is lame.
March 5, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know how much or how little evidence Fitzgerald had on Rove's ALLEGED perjury?
No, you don't. You are speculating, projecting your pseudo-sophisticated cynical view of gov't -- that they're "all crooks," even when there's no evidence for that smear.
March 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I understand this to mean they used political influence at DOJ, above and beyond appropriate contact?
March 5, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at it this way: All these enforcers and others in the govt rely on govt structure for their livelihood, even the darlings like Fitz and Obama. Oh sure most of them would do fine in the private sector, but with their govt connections, etc.
Now, along comes an opportunity to destroy that world from within, kinda like Sampson did with the temple, by speaking the truth. I mean truth exposing the whole sham as a crime syndicate and worse. Many inside could do that, but who would? Oh yes those few, the ones who get suicided. Anybody else?
March 5, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what else rove is engaged in - that he thinks everybody does!
Quick! Investigate this man!
March 5, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick died about 8 years ago.
March 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Rapido! Or Schnell! Or Vite!
March 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting how eager Karl is to use the media to catapult and spin, while simultaneously showing (hidden) eagarness to avoid talking to an actual, legally-binding body of authority. He really should be slimmer with all the frantic spinning he does.
March 5, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spit roasting might be a preferable option,that why you get really good crackling.
March 5, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
fat piece of shit
March 5, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress just gave up our right to ever prosecute a president again... no matter how evil that person may be.
Notice the kicker... executive priviledge has just been upheld... even AFTER leaving office and EVEN IF there is evidence of wrong doing or criminal behavior.
The two mobs are acting as one... protecting ALL the criminals at top levels from justice...
Sad that our nation no longer believes in equal justicew... The pigs have won... and our freedom has been defeated.... IMHO
March 5, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seemingly and/or possibly Sad, Appalling, Corrupt and Disgusting.
Seemingly or possibly the 'Same Pack of Lies' with the seemingly same disingenuous, deception and/or dishonesty within the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches (seemingly to include the so-called US Senate Truth Commission, etcetra) with the pre-exclusion!! of US Constitutional Bill of Rights mandated Testimony and to be held in (permanent!!??) undefined Secrecy and with apparently a pre-determined Press Release from the (initial??!!) Subpoenaed Individuals.
Also, it is presumably and seemingly expected from a reasonable person that a Democracy and Law is not consistent with the enactment of the Death Penalty, Torture (both Internationally and Domestically!!), Legal//Illegal Rendition (and/or unheard and disappearances), Legal//Illegal Secrecy (Wiretaps etcetra), Seemingly Fraudulent Signing Statements, Patriot Act, Illegal War(s), the illegal and/or un-constitutional etcetra abolishing of Habeas Corpus and numerous other seemingly allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors (and/or with Fraud, Waste and Abuse).
It seemingly appears clear and unmistakable and that a reasonable person would concur that there must be a full and complete endeavor and effort at these and this level of concern to have a unfettered application towards the Truth, Oversight and Accountability, Transparency and seemingly in the hopes for Truth, Redemption, Salvation (and seemingly therefore with proper and forthright efforts and endeavors towards forgiveness and penance concerns).
Finally and in closing, tpmreaders may recall a recent blog comment reply that I would presume found the recent President Obama 'State of the Union' address with all our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Leaders and Members Present seemingly to some extent disturbing and/or offensive to our great Country and Democracy.
Please note that as Senator Kennedy and President Obama are apparently meeting today in a highly publicized event in reference to Health Care, Education etcetra, I would expect that PROPER AND FORTHRIGHT!! consideration be given to Immigration as the Sunset of 245i on 12/15/1999 has now left approximately 30 million undocumented and/or (I presume legal term: alien) workers in our great country [example: (and that have also seemingly been directly and/or indirectly employed etcetra, to include by our US Government)(Katrina)].
Hopefully, TPM will allow me to offer corrections, modifications, explanations and/or removal of this blog comment reply as necessary and as it is not my intent to offend anyone.
Posted by tpmreader
March 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 5, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink