An Apology for Rove?

Karl Rove today wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal demanding an apology from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.

Rove writes:

Judging from the evidence released, it uncovered facts that show that my role in the U.S. attorneys issue was minimal and entirely proper. I did not conceive of the idea of removing certain U.S. attorneys, did not select those to be removed, and did not see the lists of U.S. attorneys Justice was considering to replace. I had no idea who was on the final list until Justice sent it to the White House in November 2006. No fair-minded person can review the thousands of pages of documents and testimony and conclude that I drove the process.

If he had asked us for an apology, we would have said: No, you, Mr. Rove, need to apologize!

Taking a closer look at his words, they are not the "whole" truth. Rove may not have conceived the idea but he surely approved of the idea. He may not have selected those to be removed but his staff gladly took suggestions from others. Rove may have not seen the list of replacements but he knew damn sure they were more "loyal" than those being given the boot. As Rove tries to spin the media, we think the independent investigator that is still on the case will conclude otherwise. To us, Karl Rove and the entire Rove Republican Racket turned the U.S. Department of Justice into a political arm of the Republican Party to prosecute Democratic leaders.

Maybe Karl Rove didn't turn on the light switch, but he made sure the electricity was running.

Vague Argument

The Jackson Free Press points out today that the broad and vague argument used by the U.S. Attorneys who wrongfully convicted Paul S. Minor could be used against anyone who donates to a judicial campaign.

The Rove Republican Racket that targeted the Democratic fundraiser changed jury instructions on a re-trial after losing round one.

The same three-judge panel that deferred the furlough decisions [about Minor] to the Bureau of Prisons is currently reviewing Minor’s appeal, and voicing doubts about irregular jury instructions granted by ...U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate during Minor’s 2007 trial. Wingate had presided over the prosecution’s failure to convict Minor and three other judges in 2005. Wingate removed the necessity of quid pro quo proof of bribery in the 2007 re-trial, however, and instructed the jury that they did not have to find any proof of bribery, or even find that the judges’ rulings were illogical. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Collery recently informed the panel that prosecutors settled for a vague corruption arrangement. “The agreement,” Collery affirmed, “was you will take this money and in some future case you will rule dishonestly for me,” even though there was apparently no guarantee that the candidate would win the election or even preside over a Minor case.The lack of detail made convicting Minor a cinch, although [Minor's attorney]—who helped devise modern U.S. corruption laws—argued that the same argument could be fashioned to convict just about anyone who donates money to a judge’s campaign. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, donates millions of dollars to judicial candidates who favor plaintiffs and corporations, making the supreme courts of many southern
states a suit-free haven for businesses.