The New York Times [Rove Talks, But Doesn’t Answer] presented two key summary statements about Rove’s alleged involvement with politically motivated prosecutions. In light of these disclosures, we must reconsider McClellan’s previous assurances the White House was not involved with anything that would interfere with a fair trial.

Neutralization Efforts

1. The DoD emails and McClellan’s book establish a link between the Vice President, the Department of Defense, and the White House public liaison offices to neutralize opposition to Presidential policies.

Common White House Offices

2. It’s been alleged the White House engaged in politically-motivated firings and prosecutions. There are three key White House offices involved in the DoD emails, US Attorney firings, and McClellan’s book: The White House political office, public relations, and legal offices. Subsets of these include the office in public affairs liaison whose job was to neutralize political opposition to the President.

Hannah Connected To Vice President and Key Names Linked With Feith

3. When Libby was indicted, John P. Hannah filled the position of the Vice President’s “Assistant for National Security.” [Richard W. Stevenson, “Cheney Fills Posts of Indicted Former Aide,” NYT, Nov 1, 2005. ] Hannah’s name surfaced as one of the associates indirectly linked with Feith, WHIG, and the propaganda efforts.

McClellan’s Parsing Points To Non-White House Locations, But Is Silent On White House Connected Personnel

4. Scott McClellan was asked about the personnel moves and Libby’s upcoming trial. McClellan responded, “We don’t want to do anything from here that would prejudice the opportunity for a fair trial.” Notice what McClellan said: “do anything _From here_” meaning, presumably, the White House. This leaves open the option that someone else would take action elsewhere.

5. Indeed, Rove, according to the affidavits, did take action elsewhere. The New York Times in an editorial reminds us is alleged to have interacted personally with the DOJ public integrity unit to

6.

"After Mr. Siegelman's conviction, Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer, swore in an affidavit that she had heard another G.O.P. political operative, Bill Canary, boast in a phone call that his wife would "take care" of Mr. Siegelman and that Mr. Rove was involved in the planning. Mr. Canary's wife is Leura Canary, the United States attorney for Montgomery, and her office prosecuted Mr. Siegelman."

From:

Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn't Answer, NYT June 2, 2008

Alleged Rove Personal Connection With DOJ Integrity Division

7.

"The House Judiciary Committee has prepared a report on the Siegelman case, and several other questionable prosecutions. Ms. Simpson told the committee staff under oath that Rob Riley -- the son of Alabama's Republican governor, Bob Riley -- told her that his father and Mr. Canary discussed the Siegelman case with Mr. Rove. She said the younger Mr. Riley also told her that Mr. Rove had spoken to the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section about getting Mr. Siegelman indicted."

From:

"Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn't Answer,"
New York Times, June 2, 2008

8. McClellan in his book disclosed Rove had been excluded from NSC because of an apparent conflict. What seems curious is despite this decision to exclude Rove from the NSC, Rove is reported to have allegedly directly contacted the DOJ Public Integrity Section. Why wasn’t there the same restriction on Rove in his dealings with DOJ as we’re led to believe prevented Rove from attending the NSC meetings? The truth is Rove wasn’t excluded access NSC meeting content, as evidenced by the DoD propaganda emails which show DoD was providing information to Feith; and that Libby and the Vice President were working through Feith to manage the information related to the Iraq WMD issues. Rove was really only “blocked” from attending the NSC meetings in name only; he was getting information from Libby, and was on the email lists, as we see in the DoD emails.

9. Rove isn’t a lawyer. DOJ Public integrity isn’t in the White House. How would Rove, not an attorney and not in DOJ, know to contact – directly – a specific unit within DoJ; that it would have a role or vote in what was prosecuted; and that this would relate to Siegelman?

10. Said another way: Why didn’t Rove have a lawyer in the White House work with DOJ Staff, and someone from DOJ OLC coordinate the details, and leave Rove out of the Picture?

11. Another way to ask this question: Given McCellan’s interactions with Addington, what role did Addington play in advising Rove on who in DoJ Rove should contact to affect the Siegelman prosecution?

12. It appears either Libby, Addington, or someone in the White House legal office informed Rove of the correct office in DoJ to work with. Whether this information came from DOJ OLC or the DOJ Staff seems of less importance: Rove is alleged to have visited, and did not delegate this task to someone in DOJ, the White House legal office, or an attorney.

13. The allegation is Rove directly contacted with DOJ Public integrity unit, did not rely on an intermediary, and was personally involved. Someone will need to close the loop on how Rove knew to contact a specific unit within DOJ that would have the proper role in affecting the Siegelman case.

Roves Alleged Involvement With DOJ Contradict McClellan’s Assurances

14. McClellan said in his book that there was a permanent campaign, and things were political. Yet, his book released in 2008 contradict what McClellan said, “If people want to try an politicize the process, that’s their business.” McClellan would ask us to believe that it was out of the question for anyone to accuse the White House of political maneuvering; yet, politics was behind the White House public affairs liaison office goal in neutralizing the media. McClellan’s disclosed denial that politics was involved do not square with his 2008 book, the DOD emails, or the President’s direction disclosed through the ACLU FOIAs on Guantanamo trials.

15. McClellan, at best, appears to have lied when he said, “We don’t want to do anything from here that would prejudice the opportunity for a fair trial.” He wasn’t concerned that there wasn’t going to be an unfair trial. He wanted to make sure that the White House didn’t comment on any issues or disclose any information. Recall, Addington admonished McClellan on making any statement about Libby or Rove. This appears to be related to Cheney’s hand written notes on Libby, who would take the fall.

16. McClellan’s statements about what may or may not prejudice a trial do not speak to what action Rove may or may not have taken through the DOJ Public Integrity.

It is well within the scope of possibility that the same crew – which said one thing, “We’re not involved,” but was involved through public integrity” – has done the same thing with the Wecht Trial: Publicly asked the world to believe that this was an isolated action, unrelated to the White House; but there were White House staff directly working with DOJ Staff to affect the prosecution.

We’ve shown:

A. The White House public statements do not match the alleged activity;
B. The White House publicly said they were not involved with any improper judicial conduct, but interested in ensuring there was justice. However, the staff allegedly does the opposite and directly works with DOJ public integrity to affect a prosecution.
C. There are allegations on the table that the White House staff did not work through DoJ channels, legal counsel, or senior DOJ Officials, but directly worked with personnel in the integrity unit
D. There is an affidavit alleging there was direct White House staff involvement; and that someone overhead a phone call of a spouse of a US prosecutor strongly suggesting there was politics involved; and McClellan’s public statement – that politics was up to someone else – was not reliable.
E. McClellan’s book of 2008 strongly supports the conclusion that there was politics involved; and McClellan was misleading the public about whether politics was or was not involved.
F. Rove’s alleged actions suggest McClellan’s statement – “We don’t want to do anything form here that could prejudice the opportunity for a fair trial” – is not supported by the record; is allegedly deceptive; and misleading.

There is evidence the White House civilian staff, unrelated to DOJ or the legal community, independently worked with DOJ Officials to affect a prosecution outcome. Given the above, it is not a stretch of the imagination to conclude someone in the White House worked with the FBI to gather information from the Wecht Jury; then directed the US Attorney to take responsibility for those interviews.

The problem for the White House is they cannot explain how they knew which of the potential jurors they knew to contact. The answer appears to be related to the electronic surveillance, digital data forensics.

By admitting – rightly or wrongly – that they had derived a list of seated jurors from the potential jurors, the attorneys showed they were engaging in activity they knew2 or should have known defied the court’s order. The truth appears to be the opposite: The US Attorney did not have any role in deriving the list of seated jurors – someone from the White House obtained that list through the Department of Justice digital data forensics personnel linked with the DOD emails and the NSA telecoms.

The NYT editorial highlights Rove’s alleged involvement with the Department of Justice Integrity Section, and raise doubts about McClellan’s assertions the White House would not take any action to meddle in prosecutions. McClellan’s earlier denial was not complete. Similarly, the denials in 2008 have not adequately explained why the FBI agents contacted seated jurors at their homes. A jury poll is something conducted to review how a jury is deliberating; it has nothing to do with a post-trial interview. The two are not the same.