House Judiciary

Why Harriet's Got What the HJC Wants

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 5:41PM

Now that we have a partial decision on House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al. , maybe it's a good time for a little refresher on why the HJC wanted White House documents and Miers' testimony in the first place.

Miers name came up repeatedly over the course of congressional investigations into the U.S. attorney firing scandal, over her communications with former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson.

Those communications revealed that Sampson and Miers began exchanging emails discussing the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, almost two years before those attorneys were purged from the department in December 2007. In March 2006, Sampson famously sent an email to Miers, ranking all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in order of "loyalty to the Attorney General."

Though Miers initially suggested that all 93 U.S. attorneys be dismissed, Sampson vetoed that idea, with the approval of the Attorney General, and arranged for limited dismissals, ultimately providing Miers with a seven person list of targeted candidates to be considered for removal.

Outside of the emails, others were observing politicization first hand. In the late summer of 2006, U.S. Attorney John McKay, who would be requested to resign just a few months later, described sitting down with Miers and others for an interview on a federal judgeship. McKay was asked, "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry" with him in regards to his failure to prosecute allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race.

A few months before the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign, in September of 2006, Sampson again emailed Miers another list of possibilities, this time with nine people listed.

The majority of this information and correspondence came out in the testimony of Sampson and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the spring of 2007.

Naturally all of this piqued the interest of the House Judiciary Committee, who were also investigating the U.S. attorney firings. They subpoenaed Miers to testify, and requested relevant documents from the White House. Miers and Bolten, on behalf of the White House, both claimed executive privilege in late June, with Miers even refused to show up to the Congressional hearing.

This ticked off House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) who held both Miers and Bolten in contempt. As we discussed yesterday, the contempt vote then went to the full House for a vote, where it was upheld, and the lawsuit was filed.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, Kyle Sampson, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

BREAKING: HJC Wins Round One of Contempt of Congress Case

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 11:12AM

The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

From the order:

Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate.

and that. . .

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date

The ruling is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.

After looking over the Opinion, Federal Judge John Bates lays out protocol for Congressional subpoenas, stating that while there may be perfectly legitimate claims of executive privilege, a subpoena from Congress can't just be ignored-- and if it is, Congress has a right to sue for failure to respond.

But as far as those claims of executive privilege go, the questions of their validity is still on the table. The Opinion specifically states that the Court "expresses no view on such claims," but it does go so far as to demand that the White House produce specific descriptions of all documents that relate to the claim of executive privilege. This list of descriptions, often called a "privilege log," helps lift the veil on the swath of documents that are being considered under the Administration's privilege claim.

So in short, the White House can continue to claim executive privilege, and Congress can continue to sue them on the legitimacy of the claims. Unless the two parties can work something out, around and around we go.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (43) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, U.S. Attorneys

Karl Rove

What's Next for Karl Rove?

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 3:15PM

For those in a quandary about what the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citation of Karl Rove means, we refer you to the currently pending House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers, et al.

Following the path of Miers, we see that after the committee votes on contempt, the resolution is then passed to the entire House. If the House approves the contempt of Congress resolutions, it goes to the DOJ for action.

But since Rove is claiming executive privilege, it is unlikely the DOJ will take any action -- at least they certainly didn't for Miers.

After the predicted DOJ demurring occurs, the House has passed a resolution that allows the HJC to file suit against the parties held in contempt-- which brings us back around to where we started: HJC v. Miers.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (34) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove

Karl Rove

In Contempt Vote on Karl Rove, the Ayes Have It

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 10:50AM

The House Judiciary Committee has just voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt for failing to respond to a subpoena to face questioning from the Committee on the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

The final vote was 20 ayes and 14 nays. With Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) voting "absolutely, 100% aye."

In a memo on the Full Committee meeting, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) summarized the facts surrounding Rove's refusal to even appear before the committee and assert executive privilege:

Mr. Rove has refused even to appear before the Committee and assert whatever privileges that he believes may apply to his testimony, relying on excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of "absolute immunity" - never recognized by any court - in declining to appear.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (89) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (34)
Topics: Don Siegelman, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Karl Rove

House Judiciary

Conyers Committee To Vote on Rove Contempt

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 9:14AM

The House Judiciary Committee's ongoing battle with Karl Rove continues today, with a vote on holding the former White House Chief of Staff in contempt.

Rove has refused to answer to a subpoena to testify before Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) committee, answering only in writing to questions from the minority representation of the HJC.

The vote is the first thing on the committee's agenda for their meeting today which starts at 10:15 AM ET. Be sure to check back for updates on the outcome of the proceedings.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (11) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Conyers, Karl Rove

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Conyers Considers "Criminal Referral" For Gonzales, Other DOJ Officials

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 12:43PM

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are talking about a criminal investigation for DOJ officials -- Alberto Gonzales included.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today's report about politicization in at the DOJ suggests that former AG Alberto Gonzales and other Justice officials may have given false statements under oath before Congress.

Conyers said in a statement this morning:

The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for perjury is needed."

A spokesman for the committee said the committee's lawyers are currently looking over the report and past testimony on the Hill.

That's probably not as dramatic as it sounds. Any criminal referral would be passed on to DOJ, which has so far refused to appoint a special prosecutor for the matter. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said he's not going to pursue contempt referrals from Congress.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (32) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Kyle Sampson, Michael Mukasey, Monica Goodling

Hans von Spakovsky

Ellison Slams von Spakovsky Over Disenfranchised Nuns and U.S. Attorneys

Kate Klonick | July 24, 2008, 6:41PM

It's been a slow burn at the hearing on the 2004 elections at the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. With two separate panels, Hans von Spakovsky didn't get around to testifying until 5:00 PM ET.

But Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) made it all worth it.

Ellison threw tact to the wind in questioning von Spakovsky, berating him for the disenfranchisement of a group of a dozen elderly nuns and battering him with inquiries on his communications with U.S. attorneys on voter fraud prosecutions. We have video coming, but to tide you over, here's the transcript:

ELLISON: Now here's something that happened on the May 7th Indiana election. A dozen nuns and another unknown number of students were turned away from the polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the United State Supreme Court. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wanna stop nuns from voting?

VON SPAKOVSKY: [silence]

ELLISON: Why don't you want nuns to vote, Mr. von Spakovsky?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Congressman Ellison, uh-

ELLISON: I'm just curious to know.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Those individuals, uh, were told, were- knew that they had to get an ID, they could have easily done so. They could have voted, uh, by absentee ballot- uh, nursing homes under the law are able to get-

ELLISON: . . . Mr. von Spakovsky, are you aware that a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a-

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all had passports-

ELLISON: Excuse me.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They had expired passports which meant that they could have gotten-

ELLISON: Mr. von Spakovsky, do you know a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a sister who's in her order and who knew her, but had to turn her away because she didn't have a government-issued ID? That's okay with you?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Yes. . .

And once he was done making von Spakovsky look like a guy who won't help an old lady across the street to get to her polling place, Ellison started in on his communications with the U.S. attorneys. All that and more, after the jump.

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (21) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (41)
Topics: Hans von Spakovsky, House Judiciary, U.S. Attorneys

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky and Ken Blackwell Set to Testify Tomorrow

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 6:07PM

The thorn in the FEC's side, Hans von Spakovsky, will be testifying tomorrow in front of the House Judiciary Committee on the 2004 Elections.

And who will be joining him? None other than Ohio's controversial former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R).

The hearing starts at 1:00 PM ET tomorrow, and we'll be here, doing what we do best. . . which is to say watching an inordinate amount of CSPAN.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Hans von Spakovsky, House Judiciary, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

Mukasey: Gitmo Detainees are Coming for Your Children

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 5:24PM

We posted on Monday about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's controversial suggestion that Congress pick up the slack for the federal courts on detainee rights.

But one of the other interesting things that came out of Mukasey's speech, was his scare-mongering on what would happen if was up to the courts alone to deal with the detainees . . . they could be released! . . . in the United States! . . . [cue horror music]

In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, he broached this topic again during questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA):

LUNGREN: . . .It seems to me those are unsettled questions- whether the court would be able to order the government to bring detainees in the United States and release them here. Uh, clearly that has not been decided, yet I believe the court is inviting the Congress to outline the parameters of that and I would suggest- make it impossible for that to happen.

MUKASEY: The Court has left that matter open, and the fact- it has said that at the end of the day it must be open to a decsion maker to direct release. Now, um, the fact is that all of these people, every single one of them are aliens captured abroad, in essentially battle conditions um, who had absolutely no right to be here, and there's no good reason to have a court bring somebody here for purposes of release and release them to our communitities- people who could pose a significant danger. Um, we want that particular possibility cut off. Um, we don't want to face it, we shouldn't have to face it.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Detainees, Guantanamo, House Judiciary, Michael Mukasey

Karl Rove

EXCLUSIVE: Karl Rove Issues New Denials in Gov. Siegelman Prosecution in Written Answers to HJC

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 2:08PM

Karl Rove has categorically denied any involvement whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, in written responses to questions from the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, entered into the Congressional record today and obtained this afternoon by TPMmuckraker.

The questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and the answers submitted by Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, are available here. More soon.

Below is a sample of the Q&A. Rove's answer is in italics, and is emblematic of his response to all 14 questions raised by Smith.

1. Before former Alabama Governor Donald E. Siegelman's initial indictment in May 2005, did you ever communicate with any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual other than Dana Jill Simpson, Esq., regarding Governor Siegelman's investigation or potential prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, and means of the communication, the official or individual with whom you communicated, and the content of the communication.

I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

Rove has long refused to comply with a committee subpoena about his role in the Siegelman prosecution, claiming executive privilege. Instead, he's offered to respond to written questions from the Democrat-controlled committee.

So Smith sent Rove's attorney, Luskin, a sycophantic letter on July 15, requesting that he make good on his promise and answer some questions from the committee:

The Committee majority, as before, declined your offer when it was renewed on July 9th. This unnecessarily forced up on your client the Hobson's choice of obeying the limitations placed upon him by the President or obeying the demand of the majority that he appear and testify at a July 10, 2008 hearing before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The forcing of this issue did not obtain information for the Committee. Rather, it simply provoked partisan spectacle and gratuitously exposed your client to potential legal jeopardy.

Luskin, graciously accepted the request, and conveyed his bafflement at the committees' prosecution in his cover letter with his client's answers:

We simply cannot understand the Committee's interest in provoking a confrontation with Mr. Rove while the precise legal issue that is presented by his subpoena is subject to a pending action in District Court. We have struggled instead to find a method by which Mr. Rove could answer the Committee's questions while at the same time respecting the prerogatives of the President. We thank you for providing such an opportunity, and we trust that Mr. Rove's answers will assist the Committee in resolving these utterly unfounded allegations.

Late Update: The majority of the Q&A refutes the affidavit of attorney Jill Simpson, not that that's anything new. As you might remember, Simpson spoke before the HJC in October of last year and testified to Rove's involvement of Siegelman's prosecution. From what I can tell, the documents spend nine pages detailing the ways in which Rove does not know Simpson.

For the record, Karl Rove has never "communicated, directly or directly with Simpson." He does not and has "never known Simpson personally." He has "never worked with her." He is "not the Karl referenced" in the email on the FEMA contract. He never told Simpson to take "compromising pictures" of Siegelman.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (49) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (19)
Topics: Don Siegelman, House Judiciary, Karl Rove

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey Testimony Free and Easy Without Oath

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 12:33PM

In a rather odd bit of procedural maneuvering, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), neglected to swear Attorney General Michael Mukasey before he testified to the committee today.

Mukasey seemed perplexed, and mentioned the omission before questioning began by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):

CONYERS: The Chair recognizes, to begin the questioning, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York.

MUKASEY: I'm sorry, um, Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to raise a matter that's none of my business, but I haven't been placed under oath. Did you want me to take an oath?

CONYERS: No, I do not require that.

We're no strangers to hearings here at TPM, but we're not quite sure what's going on with this. Our best guess? Conyers is trying to ensure quality testimony from Mukasey by relaxing the hearing. Readers have any other guesses?

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (17) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Conyers, Michael Mukasey

Michael Mukasey

Play It Again, Mike, Once More, For Old Time's Sake

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 9:58AM

In what looks to be his final appearance on the Hill, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is set to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oversight at the Department of Justice.

It starts at 10:15 AM ET, and we'll be watching diligently and bringing you all the latest from Conyers and his gang.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (0) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: House Judiciary, Michael Mukasey

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey to Testify Again on Hill

Kate Klonick | July 21, 2008, 11:55AM

We just received confirmation that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at 10:15 AM ET.

The hearing, titled "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" is thought to be Mukasey's final appearance on the Hill. Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will be presiding.

We'll be covering this on Wednesday, so make sure to check back for the final details on the head of DOJ's final oversight soliloquy.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: House Judiciary, Michael Mukasey

John Ashcroft

Ashcroft Cites Executive Privilege, Discusses Waterboarding with House Judiciary

Kate Klonick | July 18, 2008, 12:45PM

As we've reported , former Attorney General John Ashcroft was on the Hill yesterday, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.

Ashcroft's testimony called into question the timeline of the CIA interrogations and suggested that perhaps torture began before it was authorized by the DOJ. But it also shed some light on the DOJ's thought process about the authorization of the interrogations to begin with.

It was during Ashcroft's years as attorney general that the infamous "torture" memos were written. The memos approved the use of waterboarding and other forms of interrogation as long as they did not "cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure."

While Ashcroft approved the memos initially, he later withdrew them out of concern that they overstepped the bounds of executive authority, a decision that he described this way:

It wasn't a hard decision for me to - when they came to me, and I came to the conclusion that these were genuine concerns - get about the business of correcting it.

Just one week ago the committee was host to the current Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

And just like Mukasey, Ashcroft was ever the artful dodger, citing a lack of memory, executive privilege or the classified nature of the information as reasons why he could not answer lawmakers' questions.

When asked asked repeatedly about waterboarding, Ashcroft described it as "very valuable," "not torture," and claimed that it "has happened three times."

"I have been aware of waterboarding," he stated in answer to questions on how he learned that the interrogation technique was being used. "I'm not sure how I am aware."

The former attorney general conceded his lack of recall as to the events in question during his opening remarks.

"It's been difficult . . . to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others," he said.

And indeed throughout the hearing, Ashcroft informed the committee that he couldn't remember. . . and that even if he could remember, he wouldn't tell them because of executive privilege.

One particularly rapid-fire stonewalling occurred during Rep. Linda Sanchez's (D-CA) five minutes of interrogation. It really can't be summed into words, so we have the clip here. Enjoy.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (11) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Torture

John Ashcroft

Ashcroft Testimony Brings CIA Interrogation Timeline Into Question

Kate Klonick | July 18, 2008, 10:47AM

Did the CIA start using torture before the DOJ authorized it in the infamous torture memos?

That's what it sounded like according to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was on the Hill yesterday testifying on interrogation techniques before the House Judiciary Committee.

It was during Ashcroft's years as attorney general that the infamous "torture" memos were written. The memos approved the use of waterboarding and other forms of interrogation as long as they did not "cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure." The first memo-- often called the Bybee memo -- was dated August 1, 2002 and was written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, who also testified before the Judiciary Committee in an earlier hearing in the series on torture.

But at least four months prior to the publication of that memo, the CIA captured al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah on March 28, 2002. Zubaydah's detention and interrogation has garnered much publicity, as it was thought to be especially brutal and involved waterboarding.

The CIA has long denied employing harsh interrogation techniques before it received authorization via the legal memos provided by the DOJ, but Ashcroft's testimony yesterday called that timeline into question, and raised the possibility that "the CIA started torturing at least one detainee before any of the memos were even written."

From Salon's War Room:

But during questioning, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pointed out that the abuse of Zubaydah had reportedly begun weeks, if not months, earlier. "Did you offer legal approval of interrogation methods used at that time ... prior to August 2002?"

"I have no recollection of doing that at all," Ashcroft responded. He added that he did not remember anyone else at the Justice Department doing so either. He said later in the hearing that Zubaydah's interrogation "was done without the opinion that was issued on the first of August."

Video of the exchange below:

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Torture

House Judiciary

Ashcroft: Sometimes I Confuse What People Tell Me With Reality

Kate Klonick | July 17, 2008, 11:32AM

If this doesn't set the tone for former Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on interrogation methods at Guantanamo, I don't know what does.

In his opening statement, Ashcroft admitted that he had "limited recollection" of the events pertinent to the committee's inquiry. Specifically, "it's been difficult . . . to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others."

Before these hearings commenced, I had but a limited recollection of many of the events pertinent to your inquiry. In attempting to prepare for this hearing, I have reviewed testimony from prior hearings, I've read portions of publications recounting some of the timely events, and I must admit, it's been difficult for me sometimes to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others. As a result, what I hope, what I say will be of value to the committee. Reliance on my statements and observations aught to be tempered by these awarenesses.

For smart guys, there sure seems to be an awful lot of lack of recall in the Bush administration.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (57) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (15)
Topics: Guantanamo, House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Torture

John Ashcroft

White House Insisted On Bush Loyalists For Top DOJ Posts In 2003

Andrew Tilghman | July 17, 2008, 10:01AM

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft left the Department of Justice more than three years ago, but he's still in the news and will be up on Capitol Hill this morning for testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

This morning's Washington Post takes us back to to 2003 and shows how the White House insisted on getting its own man inside the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft offered the White House a list of five candidates to lead the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel in early 2003, but top administration officials summarily rejected them in favor of installing a loyalist who would provide the legal footing needed to continue coercive interrogation techniques and broadly interpret executive power, according to two former administration officials.

In an angry phone call hours after Ashcroft's list reached the White House, President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., quickly dismissed the candidates, all Republican lawyers with impeccable credentials, the sources said. He and White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales insisted that Ashcroft promote John Yoo, a onetime OLC deputy who had worked closely with Gonzales and vice presidential adviser David S. Addington to draft memos supporting a controversial warrantless wiretapping plan and detainee questioning techniques.

Ashcroft's refusal created a tense standoff and was the only time in the attorney general's tenure that Bush was called upon to resolve a personnel dispute, the sources said.

Ashcroft's testimony starts at 10 AM ET. We'll be watching and posting, so stay tuned for updates.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (12)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, John Yoo

Douglas Feith

Feith Denies, Denies, Denies

Kate Klonick | July 15, 2008, 4:06PM

Doug Feith was on the Hill today to testify about the interrogation techniques in Guantanamo. Joining him before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties was his nemesis, Philippe Sands, who goes back a ways with Feith.

As Spencer Ackerman blogs at the Washington Independent, Feith started off the hearing denying the statements made in Sand's book, and then got right down to alleging that the Guantanamo interrogators were rogue agents:

After going back and forth with Feith--in which Feith conceded there were indeed abuses in Defense Dept. detention and interrogation operations-- Rep. Bobby Scott (D.-Va) asked why the abusers might think they could torture detainees. "I don't believe they necessarily did think they did" had authority to torture, Feith said. "Some people do bad things."

[Late Update]: According to Ackerman, Feith also spent a fair amount of time, detailing the "great care" given to the interpretation of the 2002 memo written by Jim Haynes:

"I imagine one could apply these things in an inhumane fashion," Feith replied. "'Removal of clothing' is different from 'naked.' ... It could be done in a humane way. . . They could be used in a way that could violate the [Geneva] Convention," he explained, "they could be used in a way consistent with the Convention."

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Topics: Douglas Feith, Guantanamo, House Judiciary, Torture

Douglas Feith

Feith and Sands Set to Testify Today

Kate Klonick | July 15, 2008, 10:08AM

Doug Feith is set to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties today at 10 AM ET, to discuss interrogation techniques used on detainees. Feith has a history of not showing up for this Committee, so we'll see how it goes this time around.

Phillipe Sands, author of "Torture Team," reported in a recent Vanity Fair article that Feith boasted to him that he was a "real player" in the Guantanamo interrogation policy. Feith later defended himself, saying he'd been misquoted-- but Sands countered with the tapes from the interview. Sands will also be before the committee to testify.

We'll be covering the hearing as it happens, so stay tuned for updates.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Douglas Feith, House Judiciary

Karl Rove

Rove Is a No Show at House Judiciary

Kate Klonick | July 10, 2008, 10:54AM

Karl Rove stood by his claim last week that he wouldn't be showing up to testify about anything to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, despite its subpoena, on the grounds of executive privilege.

The Subcommittee quickly passed a motion to reject Rove's claim of privilege, with Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking minority member, the lone voice of dissent. Since Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) threatened contempt last week, we're expecting a vote on that in the near future, but it won't be happening today.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (64) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Conyers, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Karl Rove

Rove Refuses House Judiciary Subpoena

Kate Klonick | July 4, 2008, 1:41PM

Just last week, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) subpoenaed a big chunk of the Bush Administration to talk to the Committee about the Valerie Plame leak scandal. Among those listed to testify: Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.

And, predictably, Rove is the first one to thumb his nose at the Committee.

In a letter from Rove's attorney to Chairman Conyers, Robert Luskin writes:

While I understand that you would prefer-- and the Congress has taken the position in the pending litigation-- that Mr. Rove appear in person and assert any applicable privileges on a question by question basis, Mr. Rove is simply not free to accede to the Committee's view and take a position inconsistent with that asserted by the White House in the litigation. Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to subpoena directed to this subject.

Our old friend executive privilege, rears its head again.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (27) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: House Judiciary, Karl Rove