SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Something’s rotten in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Heart of Dixie Edition, continued. Seems that the New York Times has now secured the full text of the affidavit which is quoted in the morning edition, and it’s far more explosive than first indicated. To the point, it fingers the White House operator who called the shots to line up a prosecution of Governor Siegelman, and his name is Karl Rove.
Canary said “not to worry — that he had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman,” the Simpson affidavit says.
So Karl Rove was in on a GOP scheme to secure the Montgomery Statehouse, the first step was to bring a prosecution against the incumbent Democratic governor, Rove gave the command, and the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham went marching merrily off to do his bidding. Why is this so unsurprising?
The Republican operative, William Canary, is of course the husband of the U.S. Attorney in Montgomery and a close friend of the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham. But more than this, he is also tied at the hip to Karl Rove.
Recall that after Rove had a severe falling out with his partner in Texas and got an ear-boxing from President Bush 41, he fled off to Alabama, where he was able to reignite his career with some very dark projects. His savior and bosom buddy was the same William Canary who figures so prominently in this affidavit. Their relationship was portrayed in an important article in the November 2004 Atlantic by Josh Green entitled “Karl Rove in a Corner.” Did Canary have access? Hell yes. Would Rove jump to his bidding? You betcha. Is this affidavit credible? Better than that.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”