Below is part of the letter Dan Abrams wrote in response to a letter he received from Karl Rove regarding Verdict's coverage of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's legal case. The letter is quite long and I have abreviated it. I refer you to the MSNBC link posted above the letter for the full version. My commentary follows the letter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Dear Mr. Rove:
I write in response to your letter about my coverage of the Siegelman case — a case we have been covering extensively. Its potential significance to the American justice system extends well beyond the halls of the Alabama Statehouse.
Your letter poses questions that you believe I should have asked as part of our coverage, but many of the most significant ones only you can answer. I address your specific critique below, but I begin by wondering, based on many of your questions, whether you actually saw, or reviewed, all of our coverage. Or perhaps, as you put it, "you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable."
*You accuse me of "diminishing the search for facts and evidence," yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search.
*In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.
The letter continues:
In the end, the real answer to those questions can only come from a congressional investigation and an under-oath statement, not from some decision by me. In that respect, I am aware that you have been requested by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about these issues. You can be sure that I will report fairly and in detail whatever is said before that committee—particularly if you appear before it.
*You say you "certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. 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?
*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?
*You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?
*Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?
*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.
*You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"
*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?
*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?
Rather than continuing a spin campaign against the media and me, I hope you join me in attempting to restore faith in a hallmark of this nation; our apolitical Department of Justice now understandably and regrettably enveloped in a cloud of suspicion.
Sincerely,
Dan Abrams
Bravo to Dan Abrams for sticking to his guns and for sticking it to Karl Rove. "Turdblossom" must be desperate because earlier in the year, when he was still strapped to Bush's ass, he would never have even bothered to answer Abrams, let alone Henry Waxman's committee or Pat Leahy's committee. From the begining of the Siegelman case in regard to the Governors accusations, Rove promised to testify under oath and has since recanted, offering written testimony, not under oath and in secret. What is Mr. Rove hiding? Why the sudden change of heart about testifying?
The old adage applies. If you have nothing to hide, testify under oath and let your words be your redemption. Mr Rove has decided to do otherwise, falsely claiming "Executive Priveledge" regarding a case which does not involve national security and a case that the president supposedly was not informed about.....one can only imagine why Mr. Rove suddenly does not want to appear under oath!
Any Ideas KOSsack's?????????