« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Agreement Sets Stage For Rove Testimony On US Attorney Firings
The House Judiciary committee just announced an agreement that it says will secure Karl Rove's testimony about the US Attorney firings.
The committee says in a press release that it has forged a deal with the Bush White House which will see Rove and Harriet Miers conduct transcribed interviews before the committee, under penalty of perjury, on the subject of what they know the about the White House's role in the firings. If the committee wants to follow up by with public testimony by requiring public testimony, it has reserved the right to do so.
By the terms of the agreement, Rove and Miers' ability to invoke executive privilege -- a privilege that President Bush has been claiming exists in perpetuity even after a president leaves office -- will be "significantly limited", though the announcement does not indicate the nature of those limitations.
The interviews won't technically be under oath. But since the criminal penalties for lying to Congressional investigators are the same whether or not the interview is conducted under oath, that's not seen as a major hurdle in getting to the truth.
In addition:
The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.
And:
[I] the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.
Committee chair John Conyers called the agreement a victory:
I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom.
Today was the deadline a court had set for the Obama administration to file a brief in the Miers-Bolten case, indicating whether or not it supports the Bush White House's claim of executive privilege. White House counsel Greg Craig has reportedly been working with the Judiciary committee and with former Bush White House officials to forge a deal.
Late Update: It's worth noting that TPMDC's Matt Cooper pointed to something like this outcome in a post from January...
Josh
Zachary
Going to hang fire to see what this agreement amounts to vis-a vis- future hearing appearances by these two inner sanctum Bushites (I could use more descriptive terminology for the Blossom & Lil' Harriet, but will demure to other commenters).
March 4, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to set-up a drinking game involving "I don't recall", "to the best of my knowledge", "I wish to plead the fifth" etc.
March 4, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove no doubt thinks himself capable of being as smartly slippery as Addington before HJC. But he isn't, so the drinking game writes itself.
In case these depos/appearances actually happen, let's hope Lil' Harriet goes first.
March 4, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Harriet first. Before she croaks.
Mitty might be right, but Conyers has had a long time to contemplate the slipperyness and is no dummy.
He may well have some tricks left up his sleeve and knows damned well what to expect.
Honestly though, I'm not opposed to watching the drinking game played out.
March 4, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress -- and Conyers, and the House's Oversight Committee chair -- have more documentation on the Bushit criminal enterprise than even Rove and Miers know.
Put them under oath -- other reports say they agreed to it, and there were no caveats reported -- and let them lie through their teeth.
March 5, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what did they give up for this? Prosecutions on the torture policy?
March 4, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my first question. The story says they "made a deal" but then only says that Rove/Meiers agreed to come in. What did they get in return?
March 4, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does this testimony need to entail more deals, arrangements, qualifications, limitations and technicalities than signing a nuclear nonproliferation pact?
What's to negotiate? Just get your ass in here, under oath, or go directly to jail. Why do Karl and Harriet deserve any room to weasel out of full cooperation?
March 4, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They got, in return, testifying in closed session -- non-publicly. But Congress retained the right to have them testify publicly.
March 5, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good, I suppose, but....
... at this point, why should the House Judiciary Committee offer any concessions to Rove or Miers at all? Concessions are what you offer before they force you to compel appearance, not after.
March 4, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this means that executive priveledge WILL be evoked in the future, since congress is now implying (and will, when the session occurs) agree that it is lawful.
Good for the crooks, but once again, congress has decided the public no longer matters... as well as the constitution. Protecting those in power comes before ALL else...
March 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lawyer here.
Frankly, I am not sure I have a problem with transcribed testimony, with two exceptions. There is something about the spotlight of a committee room that makes wishy-washiness harder for a witness who does not want to look like he is being wishy-washy or squirrely. Imagine Schlozman's testimony under oath. Not nearly as damning toward Bradley as public testimony. So there is the YouTube factor I am sure Karl and Harriet want to avoid.
However, there is perhaps also something to be said by the fact that the committee members will also not be under the spotlight, and will actually have focused questions rather than speechification.
All in all, however, the key is the "under oath" provision. Couple that with what I hope is experienced and rock-solid majority counsel crafting questions for two rather slippery characters, and there may be something to learn here.
As to the issue of the limitation on a claim of privilege, it seems to me the only way to limit it is to limit it by category. What those categories are is, of course, a mystery. I think there should be pressure to find out what's what here.
Finally, regarding the concern that there will be a lot of "I don't recalls" and "I can't remembers," bank on it. I have had some downright retarded witnesses in my day, and even the oafish of lummoxes are smart enough to retreat to the dark recesses of failed human memory.
That is why it is important that the committee get document well in advance of the depositions--er, questioning. Because when one retreats to 'I don't recall," the only way to pry them out--short of exceptional questioning ability--is by showing them documents and asking them about them.
In the end, though, if Karl says "I dion't recall" as much as Gonzales did, who's going to call him on it? Leahy? Conyers? I doubt it.
March 4, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with Conyers, that this is a victory even if only to force them into 'not recalling'... for the record.
Let the denials and memory losses begin.
March 4, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars,
here's the scenario I see:
Conyers to Rove; 7 years ago, in 2002 you were at a meeting in the Oval Office and you suggested a legal, ethical review of the current Assistant US Attorneys?
Rove; Yes, after a breakfast of pancakes, sausage, whole wheat toast and glass of prune juice I went to the meeting about 10:30 and I was adamant, I wanted it to be ethical and lawful, and I pressed the President to make sure of this...and he agreed."
Conyers; Now, 3 days ago you told Dick Cheney you were happy you got rid of Valerie Plame as a way of getting back at her husband Joe.
Rove; Um, I have no recollection of that call.
These people are weasels and I have little trust in Conyers, Leahy or the rest of the windbags to get to the truth. This will be Kabuki Theater.
March 5, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is somehow a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight? Really? Seriously?
Not only do they do the whole thing behind closed doors, but it's not even technically under oath.
March 4, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
and as I understand it, Rove has always agreed to a meeting like this, with certain conditions, as long as it wasn't under oath.
The whole concept of bargaining with someone, anyone after they blew off two subpoenas, it's just pathetic.
March 4, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Under penalty of perjury" is the same thing as "under oath."
March 4, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
could you explain that?
March 4, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. The Federal perjury statute makes no distinction between under/not under oath with respect to congressional depositions. The oath is just a formality, and doesn't actually mean anything at all from a legal standpoint in this case. So, unless you think that Rove/Meiers have some moral or ethical compunction about lying after they've put their hand on a Bible, the only barrier to them lying (the law) is still in place. Personally, I don't think they have moral/ethical compunctions on any subject whatsoever, so I'm OK with this setup. My only concern is what this means for the executive privilege argument in general...seems they sidestepped it.
March 4, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they were truly the same, why would Rove make this demand? Is it possible that the penalties are the same but maybe their administration is different and Rove knows that he's less likely to get in trouble for one rather than the other?
For example, if Patrick Fitzgerald was in charge of oath violations while John Conyers did the perjury cases, it would make perfect sense because Karl has no fear of twenty years of sternly worded letters.
March 4, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. The charges are the same either way, and would be handled the same.
March 4, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deal he originally agreed to was without a transcript - big difference.
March 4, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if vertical.
March 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well look on the bright side Mr. Rove, pinstripes are slimming.
March 4, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oopers!
Only if vertical.
March 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooo, does the lowly public get to see the resulting transcripts or no? Seems an important detail left out.
March 4, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statement doesn't say if the transcribed testimony will be disclosed to the public. Can TPM follow up with Rep. Conyers and see if it will be disclosed?
March 4, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the congressional committees require the testimonies of Myers and Rove to be given separately rather than together, the contradictions will prove to be more than interesting - they will be devastating!
In fact, the entire scheme will become unraveled.
March 4, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the article:The interviews won't technically be under oath. But since the criminal penalties for lying to Congressional investigators are the same whether or not the interview is conducted under oath, that's not seen as a major hurdle in getting to the truth.
*****In which country ?Not in the good ole' USA ?Ask yourselves then why is Bradley Scholzman(sp) walking free as a bird after lying to Senate judiciary committee.
March 4, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does CNN REALLY not understand the difference between testifying, and "meeting with Congress to explain" the firings. Why are they not informing the public of the seriousness of this testimony?
March 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
this article needs to be edited: i think you mean to say "former bush administration advisors" instead of "the bush white house" and "the white house's role in the firings". lest we forget, the bush white house is no more, and karl rove and harriet miers do not work for the white house in any capacity.
March 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink