The mere mention of Karl Rove’s name sends many on the left into fits of frenzy. When Hillary defeated Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary, left-wing bloggers (and even the New York Times) were quick to call her tactics torn “right from Karl Rove’s playbook.” (Ms. Hillary herself has leveled that very accusation against her Illinois rival).
Yet, so obsessed are these people with Karl Rove that they forget that the Clintons’ have been playing this kind of attack politics long before the “architect” of President Bush’s 2004 victory helped his client win election to the Texas Governor’s mansion in 1994.
Now the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, “intends to investigate” the testimony of a witness in the fraud and extortion trial of Chicago developer and fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko. That witness, former “Illinois state official Ali Ata[,] is expected to testify about a conversation he had with Rezko in which the developer alleged Rove was “working with” a top Illinois Republican [Bob Kjellander] to remove the Chicago U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.”
So, let’s unpack this. A top House Democrat thinks he’s onto something when person 1 (Ali Ata) says person 2 (Rezko, under indictment so not the most reliable source) saying person 3 (Kjellander) told him that person 4 (Rove) had plans to remove U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. With person 3, the one who supposedly heard Rove talk about firing the federal prosecutor denying it took place, it seems a pretty tenuous thread. But that won’t prevent some Democrats from getting all atwitter about it.
Talk about he said/she said, this is he said that he said he said that he said. I think we called that hearsay in law school. (Or in this case, hearhearhearsay.)
And person 1 (Ata) has already “pleaded guilty to lying to federal law enforcement officials and to one tax count,” hence his cooperation “with federal prosecutors.” (Check that post for more on Ata and the charges against him.)
Well, here, there is actually evidence that Rove actually knew the person* who supposedly heard him say something scandalous; “Rove and Kjellander have been friends since college.” I’m still not sure what relevance this has to the Rezko cause (unless Patrick Fitzgerald has some “need” to prove Rove’s venality).
How eager are so many to link Karl Rove is scandalous behavior that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee seeks to investigate a comment made by a witness in a trial to a man indicted for fraud.
Look for them to get so excited if, say, the former top political aide to the president gets stopped for driving under the influence, but could not be prosecuted for a charge more serious than drunk driving because the arresting office was called to serve in Iraq and thus could not testify at trial. They might say Bush took us to war just to keep his aide out of the klink.
Oh, wait a minute, that actually happened to Clinton hatchet man, Sidney Blumenthal, arrested for driving under the influence in New Hampshire.
And the left accuses the Clinton campaign of using Rovian tactics. Hmm, there does now seem to be a link between Rove and the Clinton campaign. Is Blumenthal then perhaps Rove secret master? Or vice versa. We’ll never know.
Is the Rove playbook really then the Blumenthal one?
Maybe the netroots has reason to hate Mrs. Clinton. There may just be a secret cabal between the Clinton and Bush campaigns.
*Sometimes those in the MSM seem to find Rove’s fingerprints on anything, even when there’s no evidence Rove ever talked to the party making allegations against him as in the “60 Minutes” story on his alleged investigation of then-Alabama Democratic governor Don Siegelman. Read more about it here and here.