« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

The Scudder Memo: Half A Loaf Better Than None?
Here's one other key aspect of the Rove-Miers testimony agreement that's worth noting...
The agreement declares that the famous "Scudder memo" will be made available "for Committee review only". In other words, the committee won't get to keep a copy, nor will it be able to release the memo publicly.
That seems at first like a significant concession.
The Scudder memo, to refresh your memories, appears to be a key piece of evidence in the effort to get to the bottom of the White House's role in the firings. Michael Scudder, an associate White House counsel, was tasked by White House staff with conducting an internal inquiry fully documenting the White House's involvement in the affair. He interviewed numerous White House and DOJ officials, including Rove. In their report on the firings released last year, Justice Department investigators identified the Scudder memo as one of the most crucial documents to which they lacked access, that might have helped them uncover the truth.
But it's not quite that simple. In an emailed statement to TPMmuckraker, a committee source explained why the committee settled for being able to review the memo only:
The Scudder memo was identified by OIG/OPR as a critical document even they could not get, and we would not have accepted a settlement that did not get us full use of the document in the interviews. At the same time, we do respect the need for White House lawyers to investigate rising controversies, and so we think the agreement works a fair compromise that won't limit our investigation or unduly burden any future Administration.
In other words, it sounds like one or both of the Bush and Obama White Houses were concerned, perhaps legitimately, about maintaining the ability to conduct internal reviews of controversial issues with the confidence that the results will remain confidential. And the committee felt willing to compromise on that point, as long as it was given adequate time to review the memo before it questioned Rove and Miers.
And of course, when transcripts of the testimony are released, we'll likely learn the key facts included in the memo anyway-- since they'll presumably be included in the committee's questioning and in the witnesses' responses.
On the related subject of the Obama White House's role in the deal, here's the cover letter that went with the agreement, written by Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, and sent to Judiciary chair John Conyers, and President Bush's lawyer, Emmet Flood.
The letter, which notes that "both the Bush administration and the House Judiciary Committee have confirmed to me orally and in writing that they have accepted the terms of the enclosed Agreement."
In other words, as recent reports have suggested, the Obama White House was intimately involved in shaping this agreement -- a fact that would appear to explain the concern for maintaining the White House's ongoing ability to conduct confidential internal inquiries.

















White House Counsel Greg Craig Asked to ‘Step Down’
March 2nd, 2009
Jill Simpson Alleges Conflict of Interest by Obama’s Attorney
Exclusive
by Glynn Wilson
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — North Alabama attorney and GOP whistle-blower Jill Simpson is asking that White House Counsel Greg Craig recuse himself from consulting with President Obama on his legal position over executive privilege in the case of Karl Rove, the former political adviser to President Bush who is still defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and other crimes.
Citing the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, Ms. Simpson’s attorney Priscilla Black Duncan writes in a letter dated Feb. 22 that Craig should “step down” from his position as White House Counsel, “at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration.”
In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, Craig represented Rove in his recent book deal, while Craig’s law partner, close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood, is representing Bush in executive privilege matters before the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, where Bush administration officials have been charged with the political firings of U.S. attorneys for failing to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections.
Furthermore, Craig had been in contact with Ms. Simpson on the pretense of possibly representing her in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee legal team a year and a half ago, but declined to represent her only after getting her to reveal her entire case against Mr. Rove.
“You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Ms. Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict,” Duncan writes in the letter. “You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge.”
More @ http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/03/02/white-house-couns... /
March 5, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeesh, appointees that can't do their taxes correctly, until prompted by publicity, and a new Alberto/Harriot in the White House. Sounds like Craig not only has a conflict of interest but also a major ethics problem.
Maybe Obama should just issue TEMP badges to staffers.
March 5, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Passe,
as a friend of mine says "They're all in it together."
March 5, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is about power, not partisanship.
March 5, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goes to show that "Going along to get along," got us nothing ,and got us nowhere-except more of the same old,same old.
SOSDD----Same old s--t,different day.
March 5, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anything preventing committee members from reading the Scudder memo aloud during the interviews, thereby putting the contents on the record?
(Other than practical considerations, if the memo is very long.)
March 5, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,hey,Reber,now that's using your noggin!
For an alternative plan,how about Dems using the Scudder memo in case of a Repub filibuster down the line?
LOL!
March 5, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink