Larisa Alexandrovna Interviews Don Siegelman: Rove Will Never Testify Truthfully

[Hissyspit]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Siegelman_Rove_will_never_testify_truthfully_0223.html

Siegelman believes Rove will never testify truthfully

Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Monday February 23, 2009

Former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman is trying to get answers as to why he was targeted for prosecution by the Department of Justice.

In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Siegelman expresses his concerns about the negotiations taking place between former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Congress over Rove’s failure to appear before the US House Judiciary Committee and testify about Siegelman’s case. Rove has denied any involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution and has offered to testify to Congress about the matter but has failed to appear when subpoenaed.

Rove received a third subpoena on February 13 relating to Siegelman and his alleged involvement in the firing of US Attorneys, and is scheduled to appear today. The House Judiciary Committee, the White House and Rove are said to be in negotiations.

Siegelman believes that the topic of these negotiations is Rove's demand for immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. He does not believe that Rove would risk showing up and testifying under oath and answer truthfully without immunity.

“Rove will never show up under oath and answer truthfully," Siegelman said. "He can't because he is guilty as sin.”

“He should ultimately go to jail for contempt, for perjury or for his abuse of power,” the ex-governor added. “He must not be granted immunity. Giving him immunity will just ensure that he will not tell the whole truth.”

- snip -

Interview

Larisa Alexandrovna: Governor Siegelman, we have seen the back and forth between Congress and Karl Rove for quite some time now. Adding to that, the White House has now gotten involved in asking for Rove and Congress to reach an agreement on Rove testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee. What do you make of the recent developments and do you see hope in your case?

Don Siegelman: I don't think Eric Holder has control over DOJ yet. Don't forget Rove had eight long years to get his people in place. The DOJ has been part of the problem and has been responsible for much of the cover up and delays in the Judiciary's attempt to get to the truth.

LA: What do you mean by his people?

DS: Rove has followers, just like Rove was a follower of Don Segretti in the Nixon White House. Rove has his admirers, young Federalist Society want-to-bes, people who have done and who will do his bidding in his absence.

LA: What compromise do you think Rove is seeking? I have heard rumors of immunity in exchange for his testimony or he won’t show up at all.

DS: Rove will never show up under oath and answer truthfully. He can't because his is guilty as sin. He should ultimately go to jail for contempt, for perjury or for his abuse of power. He must not be granted immunity. Giving him immunity will just ensure that he will not tell the whole truth.

LA: Wait, are you saying that you know he is seeking immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony?

DS: Of course Rove is seeking immunity! That's why he has a good criminal lawyer negotiating for him.

LA: What do you make of Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin’s statement that with regard to you and your case, his client won’t seek Fifth Amendment privileges?

DS: Rove will never testify under oath about my case. He will try to get immunity, not show up, lie or take the Fifth.

LA: Have you considered a civil suit?

DS: I just want the truth to be told. I will keep fighting to restore justice in this country and to preserve our American democracy. It must start with the truth and holding accountable those who abused their power for political purposes.

LA: Yes, but what if Congress continues to hold no one accountable. Then what? What I am saying is, do you see a civil suit as a viable alternative for getting at the truth?

DS: A viable civil suit would need to come after Congress forces discovery of documents and testimony.

LA: Let’s talk about the concept of Executive Privilege. You are an attorney and perhaps I do not fully understand this concept, so I am interested on your take. Rove is being asked to provide testimony about conversations with officials in the Department of Justice, and others, some not even in government about your case and other alleged political prosecutions and US Attorney firings. My understanding is that Executive Privilege relates only to conversations with the President and only under certain conditions. Is my understanding accurate?

DS: The US Supreme Court was clear. Executive Privilege does not protect anyone from a Congressional investigation of a crime and secondly it covers military and diplomatic secrets; it covers matters where the president of the United States is involved. It does not cover or protect the kinds of abuse that Congress is investigating.

MORE

[bleever]

1. The K and the R.

:thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

2. Sadly, Siegelman's probably right. Rec'd for eyes. nt

[Peace Patriot]

3. What is this unemployed civilian doing in "negotiations with the White House"?

Is he a foreign country or what?

He seems to be some sort of independent power, outside of our laws, outside of Congress' jurisdiction, even outside of the jurisdiction of the White House. Why isn't the Obama White House simply ordering him to testify? End. Of. Story.

Rove's position in the Bush Junta was NOT, oh...head of the CIA, or National Security Adviser, or Secretary of State. Presumably--at least prior to the Junta--his duties involved domestic politics. So I don't understand on what grounds Rove is "in negotiations with the White House" over the subpoena issued by a SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT--Congress. First of all. And, secondly, what does Rove's testimony on the DoJ have to do with any issue of executive privilege? A White House political operative's potentially criminal interference with the DoJ is simply not covered by "executive privilege." "Executive privilege" does not include crimes. And thirdly: "Executive privilege" does not include the ordering of a crime by the President or anyone else (including VP Cheney who claimed to be a separate branch of government unto himself)--as established when Nixon ordered the Watergate coverup.

What we are--the White House, Congress and us poor peon citizens--dancing around here, in my opinion, is some kind of insider deal that granted Bush Junta principles immunity from impeachment and prosecution, in exchange for something. I think the somethings were, a) no nuking of Iran; b) leaving the White House peacefully when the time came, and possibly c) getting rid of Rumsfeld. I think The Deal occurred circa late 2006. And I think this is why, after the Democratic victories in 2006, Pelosi said, "impeachment is off the table," apropos of nothing. (WHAT table?) And I think Daddy Bush was part of that negotiation. His purpose was to protect Bush Jr. and all Bush Cartel essential operations and entities. Cheney had to be included because he knows too much about Bush Jr. (He was definitely an "independent foreign power" within the Junta.) And I think there were other, more well-meaning participants--from our military and intelligence services, some big insider politicos, and probably some major corpos--a mixed bag of motives, some good, some bad--who saw the necessity of curtailing Cheney and Rumsfeld.

So-o-o-o, the issue may be: Was Rove included in The Deal? We are talking here about "made men"? Was he "made"? Does he have the Bush mafia's protection? The issue does not seem to be entirely settled.

I think we suffered a coup, then a counter-coup, and what we are seeing now is the coverup of both. And this puts Obama in a dicey position, indeed. He cannot govern without the countercoup's support. He is probably president because of the countercoup's support (since rightwing Bushwhack corporations control the 'TRADE SECRET' code in all the voting machines). (I'm not saying Obama wasn't elected--I think he was, although neither he nor I nor anyone else can prove it--so non-transparent is our voting system. I think he WAS elected, but his mandate was significantly and fraudulently shaved, which--along with other controls on Obama--means no real reform, and of course no significant exposure of the Junta). I think Obama has agreed to these conditions in order to achieve power and that he is generally well-intentioned. So he has the problem of, this particular scandal will not go away, and a separate branch of government has asserted its own power in this instance. If he believes in his oath to uphold the Constitution*--and I think he does--this puts him in a bind. The questions may be: Can Rove testify without revealing impeachable/prosecutable offenses by "made man" Bush (or some other "made man")? Was Rove included in The Deal? (Is he a "made man" Bush designee?) Or, was there some ambiguous part to The Deal, regarding how far the immunity extended (to whom)? And, if he wasn't included in The Deal, what independent power--say blackmail dossiers?--does he possess that is currently causing the White House to treat him as if he were "an independent foreign government"?

---------


*(--or to uphold the appearance of believing in his oath to the Constitution--which may be a more accurate way to put it. With Obama, I'm not saying he's totally hypocritical. I think that, in some cases--his included--the intention of suppressing Bush Junta accountability may be to keep the country stable, or to try to put it back on a stable course. I'm not saying I agree. I don't. I'm just saying I think that's what motivating some leaders.)

[Hissyspit]

kick nt

[Hissyspit]

4. .

[gratuitous]

5. Grants of immunity come with huge strings attached

Any failure to tell the whole truth leads to a revocation of the grant.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Grant him limited immunity

However, the first question should be: Did you or did you not order the fuckups of Siegelman and Minor?

If Rove says no, order the revocation of the immunity and grill him to the hilt.

Hawkeye-X

[Hawkeye-X]

6. Conyers should order the Sergeant At Arms to locate and ARREST Rove

and throw him in prison for the rest of his natural life with the worst possible scum.

3 subponea attempts, 3 ignores, Enough is enough. Arrest the FUCKING BASTARD!

Hawkeye-X

[BlooInBloo]

10. That would unacceptably interfere with his Strongly Worded Letter writing.

[lala_rawraw]

8. Paul Minor update

he actually had 2 hours with his wife, but she was not conscience during that time, so they did not say goodbye. he called me from the hospice begging to stay until she wakes... as though I had any power. how do these monsters sleep at night?:((

[BlooInBloo]

9. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! REAAALLLY????

:rofl:

[dmr]

11. I wonder how much blackmail is involved here

With Rove's unsavory history, he should never have passed the vetting process to work in the WH, let alone have a security clearance, access to governmental agencies and the Bush* sycophants out to please.

Heaven only knows what personal, business, and family private matters he has amassed through his years in the WH in regards to political enemies. Guess that's one reason why all those emails 'disappeared'.

Personally, I loved to see a wide-latitude search warrant executed on the guy, his homes, bank vaults, office, etc.

The guy is slick. I'd like to know who is paying his very expensive attorney fees and if it has to be reported as income, and if so, are taxes being paid on this income?

[dysfunctional press]

12. kkkarl rove will never spend one day in jail or prison.

mark my words.