Posts

DanA to TurdB: Yes, I Recognize Cheap Parsing When I See It

/36 Comments/in /by

So Dan Abrams took none too kindly to being accused of constructing fables by the Walt Disney of the Conservative Movement. In a response that is about twice as long as the Turdblossom’s tome, Abrams provides quote after quote to demonstrate that he had done the work Rove accused him of shirking. Abrams repeatedly pointed to the parts of his interviews where he challenged Don Siegelman and Dana Jill Simpson. Most of all, I like where Abrams provided a set of questions designed to expose Rove’s cheap parsing for what it is.

1) You say you "certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two US 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?

2) 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?

3) You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?

4) Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?

5) 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.

6) You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"

7) 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?

8) 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? [my emphasis]

Read more →

Conyers Calls Luskin’s Bluff on Rove Testimony

/38 Comments/in /by

Well, that didn’t take long.

ThinkProgress reports that Robert Luskin is already backing off his PR gambit promise to have Rove testify before Congress.

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI), joined by members Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), wrote to Rove and requested that he testify before the committee about the politicization of the Justice Department, including the prosecution of Siegelman.

But now Luskin is saying that Rove won’t testify unless the White House says he can, claiming that MSNBC took his comments “out of context.” Roll Call reports:

MSNBC provided Roll Call with an e-mail exchange with Luskin that the network broadcast in which a producer asked, “Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”

“Sure,” wrote Luskin, according to the e-mail. “Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”

But in an interview with Roll Call, Luskin said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.

“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.

See, Luskin, it’s not so easy to roll the press when someone can call you on your claims publicly.

Any bets how long it takes Conyers to get the subpoena pulled together? Hours? Days?

This also raises the likelihood that Solicitor General Paul Clement is hard at work inventing reasons why Rove can invoke executive privilege on an issue that he feels free to blab about in the press.