The Washington Gadfly
Stonewall Miers: Supreme Court nominee ignores questions about illegal White House phone calls made by longtime colleagues

"I've heard stories about the White House threatening government contractors with the loss of contracts. If I do anything with your [dismissal] it would be as part of a pattern."
--New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth

"I have no comment [if the White House got you fired]. I have no comment until the end of time."
--Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz

Harriet Miers, just nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, can probably avoid questions about abortion with the usual dodge that that it would be improper for he to answer detailed questions about something that might come before the Supreme Court.

But one issue not likely to come before the Supreme Court is the legality of phone calls instigated by Karl Rove, possibly in cahoots with Jay Lefkowitz and David Frum, that preceded the departure from the Hudson Institute of two Jewish employees, including Marshall Wittmann, after they embarassed the Bush Administration.

It's easy enough to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe should be respecte. But what happens if Mears is asked did Louis E. Chimpstein take the fall for Karl Rove?

Is Chimpstein, the most illustrious Simean-American since Ham the Space Chimp (who was probably also Jewish albeit assimilated) likely to give Mears as much grief as the coke can did Clarence Thomas.

Remember: the coke can was only alleged. The phone calls are reported fact.

Miers has already stonewalled. And if the Washington Post and New York Times treat her to the same scrutiny as any other Supreme Court nominee with proximity to illegal she'll be raked over the coals.

When Ted Olson was nominated for Solicitor General his service on the American Spectator Board at the time of the magazine's Arkansas project was reported repeatedly by Salon and Tom Edsall in the Washington Post.

Edsall, who did the first story that quoted this writer calling Weyrich "a demented anti-Semite" and left the White House worried about the political fallout from this attack on Karl Rove's key ally for remarks he long ago renounced, admits, however, that he should have covered Chimpgate but has deliberately ignored it because he's a lazy slob, albeit an honest one.

Asked why he has ignored follow-ups that by the Washington Post's own standards and procedures should be published Edsall set forthrightly, "Because I choose to."

Similarly, New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote about Tim Goeglein in early 2004 but deliberately omitted the phone calls he made at the behest of Karl Rove. More recently, Kirkpatrick, who also inserted demonstrably false statements about the Christian Right into his Times copy, declined to do a related story when reached via cellphone because he was talking to his wife on the other line.

In mid-July 2005, Miers was faxed a copy of a letter sent to White House chief of staff Andy Card that asked a series of questions about Jay Lefkowitz and his possible complicity in illegal phone calls made at the behest of Karl Rove to the Hudson Institute, a government contractor with obvious financial incentive to maintain his good graces, that preceded the departure from the conservative think tank of two Jewish employees who had embarrassed the Bush Administration. Card did not respond. But just days after he would have received the fax (below) the e expected announcement of Lefkowitz's expected nomination for special human rights was suddenly canceled

It was finally announced some two months after New York Sun reporter Eli Lake promised; Lake let loose a stream of obscenities when asked why he refused to report the delay.

Why the delay? Suppose the expect nomination of another high-level official was delayed for two months. Reporters would probably be asking lots of questions. Why didn't they in this case?

Do I have some kind of smoking gun on Miers? People keep asking me for smoking guns. Reminder: I am not a prosecutor. I am a reporter.

Like any other, based on my own exclusive reporting, and an exhaustive review of publicly available documents I raise serious questions of possible wrongdoing by government officials that by the standards of Washington it is incumbent upon them to answer. Thus far, Jay Lefkowitz and David Frum, who both worked closely with Tim Goeglein when he made the phone calls don't even bother with non-denial denials when asked about their possible complicity. (Frum also just showed his true colors by praising CAIR to settle its dubious libel suit against him.)

Miers has worked at the White House since 2001. During that time, the White House, according to the New Republic, and New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth has made at least three illegal contacts to government contractors.

Paul Weyrich, has even implicated his own White House allies in illegal inquiries about "the matter" of the employment of the guy who embarrassed Karl Rove. He has stated in writing that the matter of his former detractor's employment was of great interest to a great many people.

Was she one of them?

What did Miers know and when did she know it?

What did she do with the faxed inquiry below? It was not a series of hypotheticals or inquiries about arcane points of law. It stipulated a series of facts that ethics experts might argue it was incumbent upon her to address.

What is her answer to the questions?

John DiIulio says the White House inquiries were quite possibly illegal.

What's her opinion?

Does she know who, if anyone else, made the phone calls?

   Evan Gahr, a former press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel, recently broke the story of a race discrimination lawsuit against the Washington Post. He has written for almost every major conservative publication.