Curious about Karl

Forget the on-again off-again Rove crucifixion, the ‘what did Rove tell whom?" story, I want to know what he is doing there in the first place.

Admittedly I’m still very green when it comes to the complexities of US politics, but I do know there is a demarcation in most democratic institutions, a not too fine line between administration and politics.

Not the politicians of course, although there are restrictions on using the trappings of office for political purposes.

That means, for example, canvassing letters, postage, phone calls etc. are the responsibility of the politician and must not be taken from office supplies.
On the other hand, information letters, which might come very close to canvassing, are allowed.

The same goes for personnel, and in the past 12 months a number of US politicians have suffered the consequences of using office staff for political purposes.

Yes, it seems the concept does exist in the US, that a politician’s staff are to be used purely to assist in the functions related to the elected official’s responsibilities.

So when Bolton took over the reigns of the White House skivvies, our Karl’s position was spelled out in the general reshuffle.
According to an NBC report at the time, among many: Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

An administration source told NBC that the shift was "an acknowledgement of the tough political climate."

Now I recall reading that back then, but I don’t recall ever hearing anyone from the White House saying that it was not true. So we can safely assume that Rove’s primary function is political.
Now that’s fine if he’s not being paid by the government, that’s the people.
But if he is, it surely crosses the line between the functions of political office and straight politics.

Out of curiosity I looked up a few Rove quotes:

"Somebody gets to be smart and somebody gets to be dumb. If we win, it'll be because of the president. And if we lose, it'll be because of me."

"At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views of the world."

"Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real antiwar movement. No serious politician, with anything to do with anything, would show his face at an antiwar rally."

"Many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview."

"I think it's dawning on some Democrats that obstructing the Patriot Act, like they've been obstructing everything else, is bad for them politically."

Oh and: "We will f**k him. Do you hear me? We will f**k him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever f**ked him." -to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him.

Those are not the public words of a man advising on policy, but then it seems there has never really been any pretence.
I simply ask the question; why do some politicians go to jail for misusing their office in similar ways, yet your president is never even queried on the matter?