Karl Rove, testimony coach

For Justice Department officials, testifying before Congress should be fairly easy, even when it comes to a scandal like the prosecutor purge. A witness has plenty of time to prepare, go over his or her notes, and review relevant documents. In fact, committees let witnesses know in advance lawmakers’ areas of interest, so they’ll be prepared to give accurate testimony.

The only time witnesses have to worry is when there’s actual wrongdoing involved. If so, they have to decide whether to tell the truth, whether previous comments were accurate, whether they’ll contradict others’ testimony, and how often they can get away with “I don’t recall.”

In the case of the Justice Department and the purge scandal, witnesses got a little help — from Karl Rove, who took on the role of testimony coach.

Deputy chief of staff Karl Rove participated in a hastily called meeting at the White House two months ago. The subject: The firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. The purpose: to coach a top Justice Department official heading to Capitol Hill to testify on the prosecutorial purge on what he should say.

Now some investigators are saying that Rove’s attendance at the meeting shows that the president’s chief political advisor may have been involved in an attempt to mislead Congress — one more reason they are demanding to see his emails and force him to testify under oath.

As Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff explained, Rove’s role in these coaching sessions was helping witnesses keep their stories straight. Specifically, Rove encouraged principal associate deputy attorney general William Moscella and deputy attorney general Paul McNulty to explain “what you did and why you did it.”

Except Rove didn’t reveal pertinent information about the White House’s role in the purge.

The problem, according to the Democratic aide, is that Rove and Kelley never told Moscella about the White House’s own role in pushing to have some U.S. attorneys fired in the first place. Moscella followed the coaching by Rove and others — and made no mention of White House involvement in the firings during his March 6, 2007 testimony to House Judiciary. “They let Moscella come up here without telling him the full story,” said the Democratic staffer.

Moscella at one point even appeared to specifically deny that Rove pushed to have one of his former aides, Timothy Griffin, installed at a top job at Justice. “I don’t know that he played any role,” Moscella said when asked by one committee member what Rove played in recommending Griffin to Justice. Since then, the Justice Department turned over to Congress a department email that showed Griffin was installed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas because it was viewed as “important” to Rove and then White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Asked specifically whether Rove had withheld pertinent information to Moscella, deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said, I’m not commenting about any meetings. If the Committee wants to learn about it, they can accept our offer.” (The offer, of course, being Rove talking to the Senate Judiciary Committee in private, without an oath, and without a transcript.)

We peel a layer and find another, each looking worse than the last. In this case, Rove appears to have coached witnesses to mislead Congress. Moreover, as Josh Marshall noted, it raises an even more basic question.

Why do you need to ‘agree on clear reasons why each prosecutor was fired’ if the reasons were actually clear when you did the firing and if the reasons can be stated publicly? Think about it. Why do Rove and the other heavies from the White House need to tell these guys how important it is to get their stories straight? If I fire someone, I know why I fired them. I don’t need to get my story straight unless the real reason can’t be stated and I need to come up with a defensible and plausible alternative explanation.

The irony of this scandal is that it should be the easiest controversy in the world to explain away. The Bush gang initiated an unprecedented purge of U.S. Attorneys. All they need to do is explain why — and then this whole mess goes away.

And yet, five months later, they can’t. For that matter, they need Karl Rove to coach them on keeping their stories straight, and they still can’t.

They’ve had to make a decision about which is worse — pretending not to know the truth or admitting the truth. The fact that the Bush gang prefers the prior tells us just how bad the truth must be.

Somebody thowing sand in the eyes of the umpire again??

  • Subpoena Hot Karl to appear before Congress and if he does not show frog-march the fat bastard to jail for contempt of Congress. I’ll volunteer to escort him myself! Where did I put my lucky blackjack? I bet a few days in the general population of a federal prison will change Karl’s mind. Anyone want to bet he won’t make it as long as Judy Miller?

  • MNProgressive: “I bet a few days in the general population of a federal prison will change Karl’s mind. Anyone want to bet he won’t make it as long as Judy Miller?”

    He’s so soft and round, almost Rubenesque; he’ll be very popular there…

  • My fellow Americans, the current residents and policy staffs of the WH are crooks and liars. Enough said. I am able to discern at this moment that this WH cabal was undermining the rule of law in my beloved country. Enough said. It seems at this moment my explanation is so much simpler and cleaner. I’ll go with it more than I’ll go with careening from reason to reason as to why capable and talented law-enforcers were summarily dismissed to make room for political ideologues who would no doubt politically corrupt the application of the rule of law. The issue is simple, one-party rule being promoted through political intrigue, and as I have surmised, criminal activity. These guy gotta go! -Kevo

  • CB – Shouldn’t the header for this story be “Karl Rove, Perjury Coach”?

  • These people were 2 steps away from politicizing the DoJ and the courts which would have led to controlling the vote and removing government oversight. This is how deep it goes. The Bush/Rove DoJ plan— Not only appoint the person but appoint the job the person will do such as go after Democrats, suppress any information contrary to their political agenda, support only those who contribute to the political agenda. If it weren’t for incompetence they would have pulled it off by 2008
    Notice this mode of operation applies to all federal agencies under this administration

  • The sister wrote:

    “gg – EWWWW. That’s just nasty. I need a shower now…”

    How about this?

    Federal prisoner: “Come here, Rove; I’ve got some polling for you to analyze…”

    Too much?

    Seriously, though, the D’s really need to start playing tough and rounding people up.

  • Special prosecutor, anyone?

    These people need to be hit and hit hard. You just don’t politicize the government to suit one party’s needs.

    How would Karl and Harriet feel if the tables were turned and they had to face eight years of audits for example and defend themselves against perjury and obstruction (and other) charges? What goes around comes around, dumbasses.

  • C’mon folks – Karl is going to LOVE it there, and not just fot the ick factors mentioned. My ‘dar tells me that Jeff Gannon was one of his bestest buddies.
    We just need to get him there ASAP, and keep his concact with the outside world at a minimum.

  • gg – you have such a dirty mind – that’s why I like you. 🙂

    You’re right thought – the longer the Dems wait, the longer the Repugs have to cover the tracks.

  • Comment by bjobotts — 5/4/2007 @ 12:01 pm “These people were 2 steps away from politicizing the DoJ and the courts”
    ———————
    Oh, I think it’s much worse than that, I think it was an attempted theocratic takeover of the SCOTUS: Slide your barely passable for DOJ staff Biblethumper U alumni into USA positions courtesy of the Patriot Act provision, wait for a Federal judgeship to open and you have your pod person set for life, waiting for a future compliant congress to confirm to the SCOTUS.

    Hasn’t anyone noticed how young the last 2 new Supremes are? I think someone should be looking at the appointments of Federal judges over the last 6 years too. I’m sure something stinks there too, in addition to the rest of the 150 Reagent alumni boasted about on their website working for the Bush admin.

    So far Krugman and Dahlia Lithwick have been the only ones noticing.

  • Essentially this is suborning perjury.

    Karl is insuring that everyone tells the same lies under oath.

    But I suppose it would be hard to make it stick in court.

  • Frogmarch Rove in front of television cameras and you’ll watch the dominos start falling.

  • I want to know when RICO kicks in! Don’t we have enough smoke to begin a serious investigation? Paging Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald……

  • I cannot forget John Dean’s report to Richard M. Nixon, “Mr. President, there is a cancer growing on the presidency.” Only now that cancer has metastasized throughout the Federal Government thanks to George W. Bush’s planting 150 graduates of well-known wingnut Pat Robertson’s half-assed “university” (?) in our government. Those right-wing-lunatic-fringe stealth termites are gnawing away at the First Amendment, and many other underpinnings of America.

    Who are they? We pay their salaries so I want to know. What are their names? What are their responsibilities? How much damage have they done so far? There have been some fishy decisions lately, including the US Department of Labor’s backing off and allowing a religious group to hire religious types exclusively with federal dollars in Pennsylvania.

    Let’s root all those right-wing Bible-thumping lunatic fringe characters out of government and keep them out. Monica Goodling is only the first one. LEt’s get them all!

  • Comments are closed.