The NYT goes after Karl Rove on the flimsiest of evidence

without mentioning just how weak that evidence is.

Yesterday's Times had an editorial demanding that Rove testify under oath about the Siegelman affair:

In a recent appearance on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Karl Rove was asked if he had a role in the Justice Department’s decision to prosecute Don Siegelman. The former Democratic governor of Alabama was convicted and sentenced to more than seven years, quite possibly for political reasons, and there is evidence that Mr. Rove may have been pulling the strings.

And what was that evidence? Later in the article, the Times gets around to mentioning that:

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.

In light of this, Ms. Simpson's credibility, or lack thereof, becomes crucial. What is remarkable about the Times' editorial is that it ignores the extensive evidence that Ms. Simpson cannot be believed.

Power Line detailed that evidence in a March post here. One highlight:

Simpson has told her story to 60 Minutes and to congressional investigators. But there are discrepancies.

* What was the nature of the dirty trick she was allegedly pulling on Siegelman. According to 60 minutes, she was trying to photograph him in sexually compromising positions. But a search for the letters "sex" in her lengthy congressional testimony about the affair comes up empty. Which version is correct?
* Did Simpson ever meet Rove, or not? She told 60 minutes that she had. And 60 minutes said that he had personally asked her to go after Siegelman. But in her congressional testimony linked above, she never mentioned any personal meeting with Rove. Instead, she talks about getting requests from Rob Riley and Bill Canary, whom she believed had received the requests from Rove. Again, which is it?

Not only that, but every single person with knowledge of her allegations says they are not true. Even Don Siegelman.

I've only scratched the surface here of reasons why Simpson is not a credible witness. Power Line goes into much more detail.

At any rate, the point is -- if the New York Times is going to use Simpson's "evidence" as a reason to demand testimony under oath from Rove, it owes it to its readers to check out her credibility. Furthermore, according to Power Line, several NYT employees read that blog -- so the NYT ought to have known since March that Simpson's testimony is simply not believable.