How Do You Take "Sure" Out Of Context?
Funny stuff. So Karl Rove's lawyer, Donald "Gold Bars" Luskin, gave a statement to MSNBC's Dan Abrams saying that his client would be happy to testify in front of Congress as they investigate the imprisonment of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, which appears to have been politicized. Yesterday members of the House Judiciary Committee took Rove up on the offer, figuring that if he talks to GQ Magazine and Fox News regularly, he can chat with them about Siegelman. Suddenly, that offer dried up.
MSNBC provided Roll Call with an e-mail exchange with Luskin that the network broadcast in which a producer asked, “Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”
“Sure,” wrote Luskin, according to the e-mail. “Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”
But in an interview with Roll Call, Luskin said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.
“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.
Let's take a look again at what Luskin considers to have been taken out of context.
“Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”
“Sure. Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”
Man, we need to have a convention on the English language, because when the word "Sure" now doesn't mean "sure" because of context, clearly the words we use have lost all meaning. It's a Derrida-like universe! Differance!
Meanwhile, Karl Rove has no time to sit down with the HJC, but found a spare moment to write a 2,100 word letter to Dan Abrams accusing him of all sorts of perfidy by daring to suggest that the most nakedly political figure in recent memory might have had a political motive to investigate a Democrat. I especially enjoyed this part:
Did you inquire when and where (Dana Jill Simpson's) supposed 2001 meeting with me took place at which she was asked to follow Siegelman and photograph him? If so, did you make any effort to see if she could document her claim?
And if you were personally convinced by her answers that there was a good likelihood of such a meeting, did you try to figure out if there was any way that I was likely to have been available for such a meeting? Or is it merely enough for her to assert for you to repeat?
Like, did you call me and ask if I would give testimony to you? Did you? I wouldn't have responded, like I won't respond to John Conyers, but still, did you?
The whole letter's like that, by the way. Someone's worried, I'd say.