Did Jill Simpson Swear that Karl Rove Was Behind the Prosecution of Don Siegelman? The L.A. Times Says Yes — So What Do *You* Think the Truth Is??
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee inquires into allegations that Karl Rove was the driving force behind the corruption prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democrat Governor of Alabama. To hear leftists tell it, a Republican lawyer signed an affidavit in June that unequivocally alleged that Rove was behind the prosecution. The L.A. Times made this claim in June:
Just this month, a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Rove was preparing to politically neutralize the popular Siegelman.
. . . .
This month another Republican activist, lawyer Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Ala., filed a sworn statement saying that she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary’s “girls” and “Karl” would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.
You can read the affidavit here. The relevant passage is on page three, and reads as follows:
That language doesn’t say that Rove was behind the investigation. It could also be interpreted as a report that Rove had simply heard that the investigation into Siegelman had commenced.
You don’t believe me? Then maybe you’ll believe Jill Simpson, who executed the affidavit — because she says the same thing:
An affidavit cited as proof that White House strategist Karl Rove helped arrange the Justice Department prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman doesn’t actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn’t stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.
Jill Simpson, the Republican Rainsville lawyer who wrote the affidavit, said in an interview that she is not responsible for how others interpret her sworn statement. She said she tried to accurately represent a conference call she heard in which Rove’s name came up, and she said no one definitively said in that call that Rove arranged for Siegelman’s investigation.
It’s not clear if Rove was being identified in the call as the person behind the investigation or as someone who heard Siegelman already was under investigation, Simpson said.
“You can read it both ways,” Simpson said in the interview Friday. “I did it as best I could to factually write it down as exactly as to what was said. And there’s two interpretations to it, there’s no doubt about that.”
It’s true, as the article later says, that Simpson “personally believes” that Rove “had a role in the federal investigation of Siegelman.” (All emphasis mine.) She also believes Siegelman, who was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery by a unanimous jury, was “politically persecuted.” She recently reiterated to the Judicary Committee in an interview (summarized here) that “[w]hat I understood, or what I believed Mr. Canary to be saying” was that Rove was behind the prosecution.
But even she admits that her sworn affidavit doesn’t claim that she unequivocally heard that Rove was behind the prosecution.
As you read reports of Tuesday’s hearings, keep that in mind.
Is he guilty of what he was convicted of? ‘Nuff said.dave (0606c0) — 10/20/2007 @ 4:17 pm
So now it’s political persecution to be found guilty of a crime by a jury of your peers? Where does that leave us on the Libby matter?Antimedia (bdfa48) — 10/20/2007 @ 5:02 pm
Third hand ambiguous hearsay in other words.SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/20/2007 @ 5:53 pm
The Los Angeles Times is correct and your posting is very out of date. All this ground was covered in detail when Simpson’s testified before the House Judiciary Committee–“Karl” referred to “Karl Rove” and there was never any ambiguity about it. In fact there are now a mountain of further documents in evidence demonstrating Rove’s involvement, and this incident turned out to be only one of several in which Rove appears, including direct meetings between Simpson and Rove. The Birmingham News article you cite was written by Brett Blackledge, who was the prosectuion’s mouthpiece throughout the Siegelman case. The full Simpson transcript can be viewed at al.com.Diogenes (c36902) — 10/20/2007 @ 6:56 pm
Alternative source for Simpson transcript, without the documents. 143 pages with everything you ever wanted to know about Karl Rove and politically directed prosecutions.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=833Diogenes (c36902) — 10/20/2007 @ 7:04 pm
I offer the following link so you can hear Simpson herself during an interview discuss this issue. Go to this link, look for post that says Simpson, in her own words, audio tapes of her statements.
http://blog.al.com/bn/documents/Factoid (414a70) — 10/21/2007 @ 4:52 am
The Judicial committee will probably not get down to indictments for at least 14 months. Karl Rove, Gonzales, their aids and Noel Hillman are definitely on borrowed time. Hiding on the grounds of executive privileges will soon no longer be an option for them to escape prosecution. Once the first is indited, names of conspirators will be flow like it did with Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon to get reduced prison time. Jill Simpson’s testimony will only be used to support what other evidence is provided by the Federal agents and the jailhouse confessions of those who are going to prison. I believe that once the first conviction is made that the names of many Alabamans will be revealed as part of this corruption.Reverend Bob Richards (e86d7a) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:21 am
Reverend Bob Richards: PUT DOWN THE PIPE!dave (0606c0) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:25 am
Indeed, Richards, whatever you are smoking, you should get rehab.
The “Judicial committee” can’t indict anyone.SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:29 am
The Judicial Committee is part of this, too. They have been splitting the dirty Halliburton money among themselves. It’s all a sham and a whitewash.nk (da3e6b) — 10/21/2007 @ 10:34 am
The Los Angeles Times is correct and your posting is very out of date. All this ground was covered in detail when Simpson’s testified before the House Judiciary Committee–”Karl” referred to “Karl Rove” and there was never any ambiguity about it. In fact there are now a mountain of further documents in evidence demonstrating Rove’s involvement, and this incident turned out to be only one of several in which Rove appears, including direct meetings between Simpson and Rove. The Birmingham News article you cite was written by Brett Blackledge, who was the prosectuion’s mouthpiece throughout the Siegelman case. The full Simpson transcript can be viewed at al.com.
The full Simpson transcript can be viewed by clicking on the link I already provided in my allegedly out of date post.
How can my posting be out of date when I link the transcript? Which I accurately quote in the post?
And how can the LAT be right, and me wrong, when I simply agree with Simpson’s characterization of her affidavit?Patterico (bad89b) — 10/21/2007 @ 11:01 am
It should be pointed out, Patterico, that Simpson is now saying someone on the call that she described in her May affidavit said more about Rove and explained during the call that Rove actually met with Public Integrity officials at Justice Department on the Siegelman case. She said this in congressional testimony, pretty interesting details that she left out of the affidavit.Ibid (414a70) — 10/21/2007 @ 12:33 pm
And, Al Capone was convicted of how many murders?Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/21/2007 @ 1:24 pm
I’m not sure who Capone is in this last post == Simpson or Rove or Siegelman?Ibid (414a70) — 10/21/2007 @ 4:05 pm
Ironic how in may of 2006 (6 months before the midterm elections) Karl Rove was thought to soon be under inictment. Now 2 years later, with a little over 8 months to the election, he’s again in possible legal trouble. Is this a set up? If the house judiciary calls for any hearings then I will be the first to wonder… If Karl is so bad, why does he always get caught just before an election? Seems like somebody is trying to take the Republicans top political strategists attention away from the election.Bourbon (c70dfc) — 2/25/2008 @ 11:15 am