The plot thickens...Hat tip to Larisa...
Raw Story:
Lawyer declines to say how he found out witness didn’t talk to Justice Department
Karl Rove’s latest attempt to proclaim his innocence and demand apologies from those who have accused him of being behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman may backfire if it turns out that Rove was improperly receiving inside information after leaving his position as Deputy White House Chief of Staff.
“For more than two years,” Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal, “House Judiciary Committee Democrats and the New York Times editorial board have argued that I personally arranged for Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman to be prosecuted in 2004 for corruption and ordered the removal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 for failing to investigate Democrats. The Washington Post editorial board also echoed this last charge. The Times and the Post have published a combined 18 editorials on these issues, which were also catnip to House Judiciary Committee Democrats.”
Rove then goes on to attack Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama Republican lawyer turned whistleblower who has linked him to the Siegelman prosecution. In doing so, however, he raises serious questions of impropriety by revealing that he has received confidential information from both the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice.
“Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness,” Rove says of Simpson. “I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony.”
Fresh questions about the Department of Justice
Asked if Rove’s claims were true and if her former client had in fact refused to cooperate with OPR, Duncan said yes. But her revelations about why Simpson had refused to cooperate raise additional questions of impropriety by the Department of Justice.
According to documents supplied by Duncan to Raw Story — two of which are emails between Duncan and the DOJ and are quoted below — the OPR appears to have been investigating Simpson herself rather than the US Attorneys whom Simpson had alleged were involved in political prosecution of Don Siegelman.
Duncan says, “My client refused to cooperate in an investigation that had nothing to do with her allegations, but were entirely focused on her personal life.”
On September 19, 2008, an OPR attorney — Lisa Howard — sent this email to Duncan, requesting Simpson’s cooperation:
From: Howard, Lisa (OPR)
To: XXXXXX
Sent: 9/19/2008 12:33:48 PM
Subject: Jill Simpson
Ms. Duncan - I am an attorney with the Office of Professional Responsibility at the U.S. Department of Justice involved in investigating allegations that former Alabama governor Don Siegelman’s prosecution was politically motivated. I have learned that you represented Ms. Simpson when she was interviewed by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.
I would like to contact Ms. Simpson by letter to ask her to agree to an interview with OPR about the Siegelman matter. Do you still represent her, or can you tell me if she is represented by someone else? If she is unrepresented, can you tell me her mailing address? You can call me to discuss my request at 202-305-2544. Thank you.”
By this time, Simpson had been told by a former client, an ex-husband, and a former close friend that officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the DOJ had approached them asking questions about Simpson’s private life, including her adopted daughter, her sexual behavior, and her business practices.
“No one was asked about Siegelman or any of the allegations,” Duncan said.
When Duncan learned of these interviews, she refused to let her client meet with OPR because “it became clear they were not investigating anyone but Jill.”
“They only asked me if Jill had anything more to add outside of her testimony and that was that,” Duncan added.
In response to the DOJ’s questioning of Simpson’s family and friends, Duncan wrote an email to Lisa Howard:
From: Priscilla Duncan
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:56 PM
To: Howard, Lisa (OPR)
Subject: RE: Jill Simpson
Dear Ms. Howard:
My client and I have been waiting for your OPR report on Gov. Siegelman’s case with interest.
To our understanding, the only efforts your office put forth in this matter were to hire Jim Sullivan, the criminal division chief for discredited U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and William Causey, from your office, to attempt to badger Miss Simpson’s former client, a husband she has not seen in 12 years and an old girlfriend into saying something to discredit her.
(redacted material)
It was the suspicion that this sort of “investigation” was what your office had in mind that convinced Ms. Simpson not to participate in this sham investigation. Any attempts to discredit Ms. Simpson by your office will be met with litigation against the individuals involved. Since there is no remote connection with your charge in this inquiry, you and your minions have no hope of claiming prosecutory privilege.
Columbia law professor and legal contributor to Harper’s Magazine, Scott Horton, who has been investigating the matter, confirms part of Duncan’s account.
“Rove’s claim that Simpson failed to cooperate with the DOJ investigation is untruthful — and this is a point I have studied,” Horton wrote in an email to Raw Story.
“In fact what happened was this: DOJ investigators contacted Simpson’s attorney and asked her whether Simpson had any information to share beyond her testimony and the documents she produced to Congress. She said “no.” That was the end of it. Simpson was entirely willing to meet and discuss the matter with the investigators — unlike Rove. And also unlike Rove, she had already testified and been crossexamined under oath and had produced her documents, so it was not really necessary.”
Lisa Howard of OPR did not return calls for comment.
Raw Story:
Lawyer declines to say how he found out witness didn’t talk to Justice Department
Karl Rove’s latest attempt to proclaim his innocence and demand apologies from those who have accused him of being behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman may backfire if it turns out that Rove was improperly receiving inside information after leaving his position as Deputy White House Chief of Staff.
“For more than two years,” Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal, “House Judiciary Committee Democrats and the New York Times editorial board have argued that I personally arranged for Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman to be prosecuted in 2004 for corruption and ordered the removal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 for failing to investigate Democrats. The Washington Post editorial board also echoed this last charge. The Times and the Post have published a combined 18 editorials on these issues, which were also catnip to House Judiciary Committee Democrats.”
Rove then goes on to attack Dana Jill Simpson, an Alabama Republican lawyer turned whistleblower who has linked him to the Siegelman prosecution. In doing so, however, he raises serious questions of impropriety by revealing that he has received confidential information from both the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice.
“Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness,” Rove says of Simpson. “I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony.”
Fresh questions about the Department of Justice
Asked if Rove’s claims were true and if her former client had in fact refused to cooperate with OPR, Duncan said yes. But her revelations about why Simpson had refused to cooperate raise additional questions of impropriety by the Department of Justice.
According to documents supplied by Duncan to Raw Story — two of which are emails between Duncan and the DOJ and are quoted below — the OPR appears to have been investigating Simpson herself rather than the US Attorneys whom Simpson had alleged were involved in political prosecution of Don Siegelman.
Duncan says, “My client refused to cooperate in an investigation that had nothing to do with her allegations, but were entirely focused on her personal life.”
On September 19, 2008, an OPR attorney — Lisa Howard — sent this email to Duncan, requesting Simpson’s cooperation:
From: Howard, Lisa (OPR)
To: XXXXXX
Sent: 9/19/2008 12:33:48 PM
Subject: Jill Simpson
Ms. Duncan - I am an attorney with the Office of Professional Responsibility at the U.S. Department of Justice involved in investigating allegations that former Alabama governor Don Siegelman’s prosecution was politically motivated. I have learned that you represented Ms. Simpson when she was interviewed by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.
I would like to contact Ms. Simpson by letter to ask her to agree to an interview with OPR about the Siegelman matter. Do you still represent her, or can you tell me if she is represented by someone else? If she is unrepresented, can you tell me her mailing address? You can call me to discuss my request at 202-305-2544. Thank you.”
By this time, Simpson had been told by a former client, an ex-husband, and a former close friend that officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the DOJ had approached them asking questions about Simpson’s private life, including her adopted daughter, her sexual behavior, and her business practices.
“No one was asked about Siegelman or any of the allegations,” Duncan said.
When Duncan learned of these interviews, she refused to let her client meet with OPR because “it became clear they were not investigating anyone but Jill.”
“They only asked me if Jill had anything more to add outside of her testimony and that was that,” Duncan added.
In response to the DOJ’s questioning of Simpson’s family and friends, Duncan wrote an email to Lisa Howard:
From: Priscilla Duncan
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:56 PM
To: Howard, Lisa (OPR)
Subject: RE: Jill Simpson
Dear Ms. Howard:
My client and I have been waiting for your OPR report on Gov. Siegelman’s case with interest.
To our understanding, the only efforts your office put forth in this matter were to hire Jim Sullivan, the criminal division chief for discredited U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and William Causey, from your office, to attempt to badger Miss Simpson’s former client, a husband she has not seen in 12 years and an old girlfriend into saying something to discredit her.
(redacted material)
It was the suspicion that this sort of “investigation” was what your office had in mind that convinced Ms. Simpson not to participate in this sham investigation. Any attempts to discredit Ms. Simpson by your office will be met with litigation against the individuals involved. Since there is no remote connection with your charge in this inquiry, you and your minions have no hope of claiming prosecutory privilege.
Columbia law professor and legal contributor to Harper’s Magazine, Scott Horton, who has been investigating the matter, confirms part of Duncan’s account.
“Rove’s claim that Simpson failed to cooperate with the DOJ investigation is untruthful — and this is a point I have studied,” Horton wrote in an email to Raw Story.
“In fact what happened was this: DOJ investigators contacted Simpson’s attorney and asked her whether Simpson had any information to share beyond her testimony and the documents she produced to Congress. She said “no.” That was the end of it. Simpson was entirely willing to meet and discuss the matter with the investigators — unlike Rove. And also unlike Rove, she had already testified and been crossexamined under oath and had produced her documents, so it was not really necessary.”
Lisa Howard of OPR did not return calls for comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment