Don Siegelman

In Testimony, Rove Hedged On Role In Siegelman Prosecution

Zachary Roth | August 13, 2009, 4:50PM

Hat tip to Roger Shuler at the Legal Schnauzer blog for this one...

It didn't get much attention, but the testimony from Karl Rove that was released this week concerned not just the U.S. attorney firings, but also another alleged instance of politicization of the Justice Department: the Don Siegelman prosecution.

Read more »

David Iglesias

Rove Aide: "I Would Really Like To Move Forward With Getting Rid Of" Iglesias

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 2:58PM

Here are two quick juicy parts from the just-released documents on the U.S. attorney firings, about the decision to fire David Igleisas of New Mexico -- as flagged in a House Judiciary committee press release:

• 2005 White House "Decision" to fire David Iglesias - It has previously been known that New Mexico Republicans pressed for Iglesias to be removed because they did not like his decisions on vote fraud cases. New White House documents show that Rove and his office were involved in this effort no later than May 2005 (months earlier than previously known) - for example, in May and June 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent emails to Tim Griffin (also in Rove's office) asking "what else I can do to move this process forward" and stressing that "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY." In June 2005, Harriet Miers emailed that a "decision" had been made to replace Iglesias. At this time, DOJ gave Iglesias top rankings, so this decision was clearly not just the result of the White House following the Department's lead as Rove and Miers have maintained.

• Iglesias criticized by Rove aide for not "doing his job on" Democratic Congressional Candidate Patricia Madrid - An October 2006 email chain begun by Representative Heather Wilson criticized David Iglesias for not bringing politically useful public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the 2006 elections. Scott Jennings forwarded Wilson's email to Karl Rove and complained that Iglesias had been "shy about doing his job on Madrid," Wilson's opponent in the 2006 Congressional race. Just weeks after this email, Iglesias' name was placed on the final firing list.

U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorney Firings: White House And RNC Docs Released

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 2:46PM

On the U.S. attorney firings, Congress has also released thousands of pages of White House and RNC emails and other documents pertaining to the firings.

Here are the White House documents. Here are the RNC documents.

Harriet Miers

Rove Testifies, But Next Steps In Probe Remain Murky

Zachary Roth | July 8, 2009, 12:36PM

The news that Karl Rove has finally testified before lawyers for the House Judiciary committee about his role in the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of Don Siegelman represents, in one sense, the culmination of years-long battle. That fight has pitted Congress, determined to get to the bottom of the firings, against the Bush White House, which has dragged its feet at virtually every stage. And yet, the path from here to a full public accounting of what happened remains unclear at best.

Rove's deposition put a cap on a protracted legal standoff between the committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and the Bush White House. Conyers, investigating the late 2006 firing of nine US Attorneys, had first subpoenaed Rove in 2007. Citing executive privilege, the White House refused to let Rove testify. That eventually prompted Congress to hold Rove in contempt, and ultimately to file a lawsuit seeking to compel Rove to testify. A district court ruled in Congress's favor last year, but the White House appealed that ruling, and Rove continued to be a no-show at several committee hearings to which he had been called to testify. Eventually, in March, lawyers for President Bush reached an agreement with the committee, securing Rove's and Harriet Miers' testimony. Even since then, though, it's taken over four months to arrange for Rove's sit-down. (Miers had hers last month.)

Read more »

John Conyers

Report: John Conyers Leads "Separate Life" From Corrupt Wife

Zachary Roth | July 6, 2009, 4:54PM

It looks like it's not just us and the local press asking questions about what Rep. John Conyers knew of the bribery scheme to which his wife pleaded guilty last week.

The Washington Post got in on the game yesterday -- but it also offered a bit of detail about John and Monica Conyers' marriage which may support the House Judiciary chair's claim that he was in the dark.

Read more »

John Conyers

UPDATED: What Did John Conyers Know About His Wife's Corruption?

Zachary Roth | June 29, 2009, 2:32PM

Ever since Monica Conyers, the president pro tem of the Detroit city council, pleaded guilty last week to bribery charges, our major interest here at TPMmuckraker has been in whether her husband, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, is implicated in his wife's confessed wrongdoing.

No evidence has emerged to suggest that he is -- but at a minimum, there's reason to take a close look.

Read more »

John Conyers

Conyers' Wife Pleads Guilty On Corruption Count

Zachary Roth | June 26, 2009, 10:50AM

Monica Conyers, the president pro tem of the Detroit city council -- and the wife of Rep. John Conyers, the powerful chair of the US House Judiciary committee -- has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, which is punishable by up to five years in prison.

The Detroit Free Press reports:

The federal plea document released today cites two instances in late 2007, in the days surrounding the approval of the now-infamous Synagro Technologies sludge-hauling contract, when Conyers accepted cash bribes from a Synagro consultant.

Read more »

John Conyers

Conyers' Wife Facing Scrutiny Over Bribery Scandal

Zachary Roth | June 17, 2009, 2:02PM

Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary committee, has played a prominent role in recent years exposing executive-branch muck, from the US Attorneys scandal to torture. So it's ironic that Conyers' wife is caught up in some serious muck of her own.

The scandal has been brewing for a while, but it reached boiling point Monday, when Rayford Jackson, a Detroit businessman, admitted in a plea deal with prosecutors that he had bribed a council member in 2007, to gain approval for a $1.2-billion waste disposal contract. The Detroit Free Press had previously reported that the council member in question, described in court documents, is Monica Conyers.

Read more »

George Bush

Miers Testifies In US Attorneys Probe -- When Will Rove?

Zachary Roth | June 16, 2009, 6:06PM

Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel under President Bush, has finally testified, behind closed doors, as part of Congress's investigation of the US attorney firings, reports FOXNews.com.

That raises an obvious question: When will Karl Rove do the same? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told TPMmuckraker last month that he expected Rove to testify in early June. But today Luskin did not immediately return our call.

Read more »

Karl Rove

Rove Lawyer: Likely Early June For US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | May 7, 2009, 9:08AM

Karl Rove's long-awaited testimony before Congress about the US Attorney firings will likely occur around early June, according to Rove's lawyer.

Robert Luskin told TPMmuckraker that the Obama White House has been painstakingly sorting through the documents related to the firings, and is providing them to Rove and to the House Judiciary committee simultaneously. It's that process, said Luskin, that's driving the scheduling of Rove's testimony. Luskin stressed that the discussions have been cordial on all sides.

Read more »

Hillary Clinton

Congress Seeking Zelikow's "Alternative" Torture Memo

Zachary Roth | May 4, 2009, 2:01PM

Congress has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a 2005 memo written by a top State Department lawyer, which is said to have taken an alternative view on the legality of torture to that famously offered by DOJ lawyers.

In a letter to Clinton, Reps John Conyers and Howard Berman, who chair, respectively, the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees wrote that the memo "may shed important light on the process by which these interrogation practices were evaluated, approved, ad implemented by the former Administration." Reps Jerry Nadler and Bill Delahunt, who chair subcommittees of Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, respectively, also signed on.

Read more »

John Conyers

Conyers And Nadler To Holder: We Need Special Torture Prosecutor

Zachary Roth | April 28, 2009, 4:52PM

Reps. John Conyers and Jerry Nadler want a special prosecutor to investigate whether Bush administration officials committed crimes in ordering and justifying torture policies.

In a just-released letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Democratic lawmakers write:

The authorization and use of interrogation techniques that likely amounted to torture has generated concern and outrage in this country, and has harmed our legal and moral standing in the world. As a country committed to the rule of law, we must investigate and demand accountability for acts of torture committed by or own our behalf (sic). Appointing a special counsel to undertake this task would serve the interests of the department and of the public in ensuring that the necessary investigation is through and impartial, and that the United States fairly investigates serious and credible accusations of misconduct, even where high-ranking government officials may be involved.

Read more »

Jerrold Nadler

Nadler On Torture And Bybee

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 11:47AM

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who sits on the House Judiciary committee (and also happens to be TPM's congressman) went on MSNBC's Countdown last night to repeat his call for the impeachment of Judge Jay Bybee, who, while a member of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote one of the torture memos released last week.

Nadler also said he supported the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Bush administration officials, including Bybee, committed crimes.

Watch:

John Conyers

Conyers To Hold Hearings On Torture Memos

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 4:39PM

Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary committee, has announced that he plans to hold hearings into the Bush-era OLC memos released last week.

Despite his pledge to hold hearings in his own committee, Conyers said he agrees with President Obama's statement that he favors a probe conducted by a bipartisan commission, rather than solely by a congressional committee.

Read more »

Karl Rove

Rove Lawyer: Testimony Won't Happen For "Several Weeks"

Zachary Roth | March 6, 2009, 12:24PM

So when exactly will Karl Rove have his big sit-down with the House Judiciary committee to reveal what he knows about the White House's involvement in the US Attorney firings?

According to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, not for "several weeks." That's how long it will likely take, Luskin told TPMmuckraker, for both Rove and the committee to review the relevant documents and schedule the testimony. Luskin declined to give a more specific time frame.

The agreement securing Rove's testimony, announced Wednesday between Congress and the Bush administration, acknowledged this need for deliberation, declaring: "The interviews will be conducted as soon as possible consistent with needed preparation time and the availability of the witnesses and their counsel."

But Luskin did defend Rove's comments to FoxNews.com, published yesterday, in which he warned of a "show trial" and said that Democrats "would love to have me barbecued."

Arguing that Rove had legitimate concerns about the fairness of the process, Luskin referred to a comment made about Rove by Judicary chair John Conyers -- "someone's got to kick his ass." Luskin also said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had told Rolling Stone that Rove might have to go to jail. (In fact, Pelosi said she foresaw Rove being prosecuted.)

"If you were the subject of that, you'd worry about the process too," said Luskin.

Luskin also confirmed to TPMMuckraker that he had played no role in the agreement, and was not kept closely informed about the progress of negotiations.

Barack Obama

The Scudder Memo: Half A Loaf Better Than None?

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 12:14PM

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.

Justice Department

Anticipating Testimony, Rove Begins The Spin

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 11:38AM

In his first public comments about the deal to secure his testimony on the US Attorney firings, Karl Rove told Fox News.com:

I understand they may be the hors d'oeuvres, but I'm the main course. Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued.

But beyond that eye-catching quote, something far sneakier came out of the interview. Rove used a curious argument to defend his role in the firings, saying:

If White House contact with the Justice Department is inappropriate, then what are we doing by allowing anybody who has anything remotely to do with the political campaign -- like the general counsel of the Obama White House -- to have any contact with the Justice Department?. I mean, we named the Justice Department building after the campaign manager of the 1960 presidential campaign - Robert F. Kennedy.

Leave aside the shot at Bobby Kennedy. Rove seems to be arguing that the White House's coordination with the Justice Department over the firings is comparable to any contact that the White House counsel might have with the department.

But as Rove knows, one of the concerns that the firings scandal brought up was the fact that the Bush White House allowed numerous White House staffers to talk to DOJ officials about the case. Democrats responded with efforts to limit those contacts -- and Rove certainly has never before expressed the view that those efforts didn't go far enough.

And while we're on the subject of Rove's mendacity, here's another point worth noting: Yes, Rove will testify under penalty of perjury. But he appears to have shown in the past that he's perfectly capable of dissembling even under such conditions.

In 2006, there was fevered speculation that Rove would be indicted for perjury for lying to Pat Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame affair. Rove initially did not tell the grand jury about his conversation about Plame with Time's Matt Cooper (now at TPM!), claiming he forgot about it.

A New York Times story from 2006 lays out the details:

In his February 2004 testimony, Mr. Rove acknowledged talking to the columnist Robert D. Novak about Ms. Wilson, but he did not tell the grand jury about a second conversation he had about her with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter. Mr. Novak revealed her name and C.I.A. employment in a column on July 14, 2003.

Critics of the Bush administration have asserted that the revelation was retaliation against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting some of the intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq.

Mr. Rove later voluntarily told the grand jury about the conversation with Mr. Cooper, and said that he had forgotten about it in the rush of his daily business. But Mr. Fitzgerald has long been skeptical of Mr. Rove's account of his forgetfulness, lawyers in the case say.

So it wouldn't run counter to precedent if Rove again walked right up to the line of inviting a perjury charge when he testifies.

Something for Conyers and his team to be aware of, perhaps.

House Judiciary

The Rove Agreement: What We Still Don't Know

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 6:24PM

The House Judiciary committee's announcement this afternoon of an agreement on Karl Rove and Hariet Miers' testimony about the US Attorney firings leaves a few key questions still unanswered:

1) The committee says: "It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited." Limited how? Exactly when can Rove and Miers invoke the privilege? The devil could very well be in that detail.

2) Did the committee agree to steer clear of any specific subjects?

3) Why won't Rove and Miers be under oath? It's true that they'll still be under penalty of perjury, and, when you're talking about a congressional investigation, that penalty is no different whether the subject is under oath or not. But in that case, why not just put them under oath to avoid any confusion? Presumably, because the Bush administration objected. And if it objected, then the oath question is meaningful. (Lawyers with relevant experience, feel free to weigh in here!)

We've called the Judiciary committee to put these questions to them, and will keep you posted.

John Conyers

Agreement Sets Stage For Rove Testimony On US Attorney Firings

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 5:47PM

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...

George Bush

Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 1:47PM

So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.

That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.

It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.

And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.

Alberto Gonzales

U.S. Attorney Firings Timeline: Now Better Than Ever!

Chris Black | February 18, 2009, 10:58AM

The Bush years may be over, but the U.S. Attorney firings scandal isn't. In fact, Karl Rove and Congress are still locked in battle about whether he'll ever have to reveal, under oath, what he knows.

So you'll be excited to hear that we've updated our authoritative timeline of events in the years-long saga -- and given it a new look.

You can check it out here.

Alberto Gonzales

Conyers: No More Delays For Rove On US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 13, 2009, 12:22PM

Another development in the ongoing saga of Karl Rove's long-sought testimony on the US Attorney firings.

House Judiciary chair John Conyers has sent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, enclosing a subpoena for Rove to appear before the committee February 23. That date had already been agreed to in a prior exchange of letters late last month.

But things are getting slippery again. Rove had originally been scheduled to appear February 2, but the two sides agreed to a delay, in part thanks to a scheduling conflict on Rove's part.

But apparently, Luskin, in the intervening time, had asked for a second delay. In addition, Rove had announced in a recent speech in California that he didn't intend to appear, citing an executive privilege claimed by President Bush.

In today's letter issuing the subpoena, Conyers informs Luskin that he won't agree to the requested second delay. Conyers writes:

Given Mr. Rove's public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to fail to appear.

Conyers also writes that he can't accept Luskin's request to have Rove's testimony be limited to the matter of the Don Siegelman case, meaning he would stay mum on the US Attorneys firings.

Next week, the Obama White House is scheduled to formally weigh in on the contempt proceedings currently being brought by Conyers' committee against two other former Bush aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, for their testimony on the firings. The position the White House takes could well determine whether Rove will ultimately be required to testify by a court -- which is where things seem to be heading.

Barack Obama

Clinton Lawyer On Bush's Exec Privilege Claim: "There's Only One President At A Time"

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 3:16PM

So does that letter Newsweek obtained, sent January 16 by the Bush White House to Karl Rove's lawyer, instructing Rove not to respond to any subpoenas that might be issued, change the state of play as to whether Rove will end up testifying on the US Attorneys firings? After all, President Bush is now on the record claiming the right to assert executive privilege even after leaving office.

Not according to Neil Eggleston, who specialized in executive privilege issues for President Clinton's White House. Eggleston told TPMmuckraker that, since President Obama has already issued an executive order that appears to take the view that a former president can't assert executive privilege, he's unlikely to back Bush's claim. And assuming things then wind up in court, Eggleston said he'd be very surprised if a court sided with Bush, ruling that executive privilege can be asserted retroactively.

"Remember what Obama kept saying during the transition: 'There's only one president at a time?'" asked Eggleston. "This is one where I think a court's going to decide there's only one president at a time."

Eggleston told TPMmuckraker last week that Obama's order seemed designed to help gain access to Bush White House documents and testimony that Congress has been seeking, including on the US Attorney firings matter.

Barack Obama

Newsweek Obtains Letter From Bush Lawyer, Asserting Retroactive Privilege

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 9:52AM

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff has obtained the letter sent by White House counsel Fred Fielding to Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin, just a few days before Bush left office, instructing Luskin that Rove "should not appear before Congress" in response to any subpoenas issued. The letter makes clear that Bush is continuing to assert a retrospective executive privilege over his White House years.

The Wall Street Journal had reported the existence of the letter -- which makes clear the lengths to wish the former president is wiling to go to keep a lid on what happened inside his White House -- earlier this week.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Rove, ordering him to testify February 2 about the US Attorney firings, and the prosecution of ex Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Luskin told us he had forwarded the subpoena to the Obama White House, which must decide whether to back Bush's claim of retroactive privilege. If it doesn't, but Bush continues to assert it -- which it would appear from the letter he will -- the matter looks headed for the courts. There is no settled legal precedent to guide how a court might rule.

The Obama White House told Newsweek it's still studying the issue.

Fielding also sent a near identical letter to former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition in front of the Judiciary committee. The issue of whether Miers and another Bush White House aide, Josh Bolten, can testify is currently the subject of a court fight between the committee and the Bush White House.

The Obama White House is scheduled to file a brief in that case by February 18, in which it may make clear whether or not it intends to back Bush's executive privilege claim.

Barack Obama

Keying Off Obama, ACLU Asks For Bush Torture Memos

Zachary Roth | January 28, 2009, 12:13PM

Those directives issued by President Obama last week, reversing the Bush administration's policy of secrecy, have really shaken things up.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary committee subponaed Karl Rove for testimony in the US Attorney firings matter. That move appears to have been in response to the Obama's moves, since Rove had long been claiming executive privilege backed by President Bush.

Now, McClatchy reports, the ACLU has asked the new administration to release Bush Justice Department memos justifying harsh interrogation methods, eavesdropping, and secret prisons.

The Bush administration had long refused to release them, citing national security concerns, among other things.

It's clear that Obama's moves -- specifically, his rescinding of a Bush DOJ memo that gave backing to agencies when they refused to disclose material, and his issuing of an executive order urging agencies to take a broader view of the Freedom of Information Act -- triggered the request.

"The president has made a very visible and clear commitment to transparency. We're eager to see that put into practice," an ACLU staffer told McClatchy.

Pro Publica has a rundown of the missing memos.

As McClatchy notes, Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, has written articles suggesting she thinks that in general, such memos should be released.

So this could be another set of crucial Bush records that will finally see the light of day.

John Conyers

Conyers to Rove: Time to Talk About US Attorneys

Zachary Roth | January 26, 2009, 6:25PM

Last week, we talked to a number of experts who said that President Obama's executive order on presidential records might well affect the ongoing effort to get information about the Bush White House's role in the US Attorney firings.

And it looks like John Conyers is of the same mind. The House Judiciary chair this afternoon issued a subpoena to Karl Rove to testify before the committee on February 2.

Rove had claimed immunity from an earlier Conyers-issued subpoena, citing executive privilege. As a press release accompanying today's subpoena points out, "[t]hat "absolute immunity" position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as 'completely misguided.'"

In other words, although Obama's order on records directly addressed only the question of a former president's material docuement -- not testimony from his aides -- there's reason to think that the principle of openness over secrecy that Obama has outlined both in the order and elsewhere could strengthen Conyers' position on this issue.

Said Conyers:

I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way. Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk.

We'll be watching this very closely...

Barbara Boxer

Experts: Obama Order Could Let Us See US Attorneys Docs

Zachary Roth | January 22, 2009, 12:04PM

The experts' verdicts on the potential impact of President Obama's executive order on presidential records are starting to come in. And they're bolstering our initial take that Obama's move could significantly boost efforts to release crucial records that the Bush administration has fought to keep secret.

Doug Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine law school and expert on executive privilege, told TPMmuckraker that the order makes it harder for former presidents to block the release of their documents.

And, crucially, he said it could impact current high-profile struggles over Bush's records, "whether it be the dismissal of US Attorneys, whether it be other assertions of executive privilege dealing with White House emails and the like."

Congress and the Bush White House have been struggling over a key memo that details the level of White House involvement in the US Attorney firings of 2006. And open-government groups have sued the Bush administration to gain access to White House emails on a range of subjects, including the Valerie Plame leak probe and the decision to invade Iraq.

Kmiec, a noted conservative legal scholar who nonetheless supported Obama's campaign, said he had done some work with the Obama transition team, and had offered his assistance to the new administration.

Kmiec said the order appears to shift power from former presidents to the current administration, and to the National Archivist. Under an order issued by President Bush, former presidents and vice presidents could compel the Archivist to keep documents secret. Under the new order, former presidents can still ask the Archives to do so. But the burden of proof is squarely on the former president to prove that secrecy is in the nation's interest, and the Obama administration can decline the request if it's not convinced. That approach reorients things toward the original intention of the Presidential Records Act, passed in the wake of Watergate.

"If the Archivist were to make a determination that those materials would be made public," explained Kimiec, "then holding it back would take something extraordinary," in terms of an argument from the former president.

Kmiec's view is supported by open-government advocates. Scott Nelson of Public Citizen believes, in the words of the Associated Press, that "researchers should find it easier to gain access to records under the new order."

And yesterday, Anne Weissman of CREW, which unsuccessfully brought a lawsuit against Dick Cheney's office to compel him to hand over records to the Archives, told TPMmuckraker that the order "does have the potential to impact ongoing litigation," including over the US Attorney documents.

So when might we see those documents? If the Archivist and the Obama administration agree to it (in practice, the Archivist would likely defer to the administration), they could be made public as soon as the Archivist has prepared them for public display. Of course, President Bush could sue to stop the move -- but it looks like he'd face an uphill climb in convincing a court that there's a pressing need to keep them secret.

It really is a new day.

Barack Obama

Could Obama's Executive Order Help Pry Loose Bush Records?

Zachary Roth | January 21, 2009, 5:57PM

Over at TPM, Josh and David have been mulling the significance of the executive order, issued today by President Obama, concerning the Presidential Records Act. Could it apply retroactively to previous administrations, making it easier to pry loose records that the Bush White House has fought to keep secret?

According to Anne Weismann, a lawyer for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the tentative answer is yes.

As David notes, the order says:

Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

As a result, Weismann told TPMmuckraker, the order could affect any case in which the White House has claimed executive privilege over presidential (or, to be clear, vice presidential) records. Most important, it would subject those claims to review by the Justice Department. "It does have the potential to impact ongoing litigation," she said.

Weismann specifically cited the ongoing legal fight between the House Judiciary committee and the Bush White House, over documents relating to the US Attorney firings. Among other documents, Congress has been seeking a key memo written by a White House counsel, which might shed light on White House involvement in the firings.

Weismann told TPMmuckraker that that the order likely would not affect a lawsuit she had been working on, on behalf of CREW, which sought to compel Dick Cheney's office to hand over all his records to the National Archives. On Monday a judge declined to order Cheney to do so. Weismann said that case turned on an interpretation of the Presidential Records Act itself, rather than on a claim of executive privilege.

Still, it certainly seems possible that on his first full day in office, the new president has dealt significant a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to permanently keep information from the public. But a lot more questions than answers remain, and we've got calls out to some experts in executive privilege who might be able to shed further light on what Obama's order does and doesn't do.

George Bush

Conyers Wants Criminal Probe Of Bush Officials' Wrongdoing

Zachary Roth | January 14, 2009, 9:41AM

Over the weekend, President-Elect Obama said we should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" on the question of prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture, illegal wiretapping, and other possible crimes committed in the name of national security.

But yesterday, the House Judiciary committee got behind a very different approach, releasing a nearly 500-page report that recommends establishing a blue-ribbon commission -- along the lines of the 9/11 commission, but with subpoena power -- to investigate whether crimes were committed. (Last week, as we reported over at Election Central, Judiciary chair John Conyers and nine other lawmakers introduced a bill to set up such a commission.)

The report also advocates an investigation by the Justice Department, potentially involving a special prosecutor. And in addition to focusing on issues of torture, wiretapping, and the like, the report also recommends continuing to probe matters like the leaking of the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, and the US Attorney firings.

It'll be interesting to see how Democrats will reconcile Conyers' aggressive stance, which seems to enjoy broad support among the party's base, with Obama's more cautious approach.

House Judiciary

Judge: White House Must Pass On US Attorney Documents to Obama Admin.

Zachary Roth | January 13, 2009, 2:27PM

Good news for those still hoping we'll get to the bottom of the White House's role in the US Attorney firings.

The Associated Press reports:

A federal judge says the incoming administration of Barack Obama must be given copies of documents the Bush White House has been withholding from Congress on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The order by U.S. District Judge John Bates is a minor victory for the House Judiciary Committee.

...

The House committee was concerned that the documents would no longer be readily available once they were shipped to the National Archives when President George W. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20.

The White House has refused to provide the crucial documents, which were subpoenaed by Rep. John Conyers' Judiciary committee. In addition, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten - all senior White House officials at the time of the firings, have so far defied subpoenas issued by the committee.

Barack Obama

Obama On Probing Bush GWOT Policies: "We Need To Look Forward"

Zachary Roth | January 12, 2009, 11:05AM

It looks like an ambitious new effort to set up an investigation of President Bush and his top aides for potential crimes committed on their watch may have a had time getting traction.

As we reported last week over at Election Central, House Judiciary chair John Conyers recently introduced a measure to create a "National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties." The commission, whose members would be appointed by the resident and congress, would be designed to probe the legality of Bush administration policies on issues like torture, treatment of detainees, and extraordinary rendition.

But the president-elect appears lukewarm to the idea. Asked yesterday on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" about the idea of a broad inquiry into those Bush administration programs, Obama said: "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

He added:

Part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.

Here's the video:

So it doesn't exatly sound like Obama would be eager to sign Conyers' bill.

And the top two House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, weren't jumping to express their support for the bill when Election Central called their offices about it last week.

Harriet Miers

House Not Giving Up The Fight On Miers-Bolten Testimony

Zachary Roth | January 7, 2009, 5:39PM

In case you were worried, the coming of a new Congress won't stop House leaders from continuing their long-running effort to obtain documents and testimony about the US Attorney firings from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

As part of the rules package voted on by members yesterday, the House voted to continue its lawsuit against the White House, which seeks to compel Miers and Bolten to testify and hand over the documents, reports the Las Vegas Sun. Citing executive privilege, the two have been defying subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary committee, creating a protracted legal struggle.

Those subpoenas expired with the start of the new Congress, so as part of the rules package, the House passed rules ensuring the subpoenas could be promptly reissued.

Let the legal maneuvering continue!

House Judiciary

Conyers Wants DOJ Action On Virginia Flier

Zachary Roth | October 30, 2008, 5:30PM

The phony flier that surfaced recently in Virginia, instructing Democrats to vote on Wednesday November 5th, has drawn the attention of House Judiciary Chair John Conyers.

As we wrote Monday, the flier, which surfaced in largely African-American areas of the Hampton Roads region, is designed to look like an official communication from the state board of elections, even reproducing the board's logo. It informs readers that becasue of expected high turnout on election day, November 4th, Democrats have been asked to vote November 5th.

Election day, of course, is November 4th for everyone.

Conyers wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking him to take action. Conyer's letter points out that, because there are legitimate concerns in Virginia about over-crowded polling places, and because the flier is designed to look like it comes from the state election board, it "has enough of a ring of truth to confuse voters and suppress turnout."

The letter goes on to call the effort "an echo of the darkest days of our struggle for civil rights."

Virginia election officials have said that state police are already looking into the flier's provenance.

House Judiciary

Court Delays Miers and Bolten Congressional Testimony

Kate Klonick | October 6, 2008, 4:35PM

Monday did not bring good news for the House Judiciary Committee. A federal appeals court has delayed the testimony of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, in the latest ruling (pdf) in the epic back and forth between the executive and legislative branches. The decision pushes the issue into the next administration.

From the AP:

Time will run out on this year's congressional session before the battle between two branches of government can be resolved, according to the ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The ruling essentially pushes any resolution on the politically charged case until next year.
"The present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches," wrote the panel of judges, two of whom were appointed by Republicans.

Still, the judges wrote, "Even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the judicial branch ... before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009. At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire."

HJC Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has already indicated that the committee will appeal, but did not give a timeline.

"While the delay caused by this incorrect decision is unfortunate, at the end of the day, I believe Judge Bates' decision will be affirmed and that Harriet Miers and other key witness will appear before the House Judiciary Committee, and that we will get to the bottom of the Bush administration's disgraceful politicization of the Justice Department," said Conyers in a statement.

U.S. Attorneys

Conyers Calls for Special Counsel in Continued Investigation of U.S. Attorney Firings

Kate Klonick | September 29, 2008, 11:50AM

John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement today calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor from outside the Justice Department, to continue to investigate the U.S. attorney firings.

"We assume that Attorney General Mukasey will heed the report's call for further investigation, including determining whether criminal offenses were committed, and urge him to appoint a special counsel from outside the Justice Department to work with the Inspector General so the investigation will have the credibility and independence that it needs," Conyers said in a statement this morning.

In addition, because of Congress' impending adjournment, Conyers called an HJC hearing for this coming Friday to discuss the issues raised in the recently released IG report.

House Judiciary

Conyers Calls on McCain to Halt GOP Voter Suppression Efforts

Kate Klonick | September 19, 2008, 2:56PM

In reaction to recent claims that the GOP is attempting to block voters in Michigan whose homes have been foreclosed on, one of the state's representatives is speaking out and demanding action from Republicans.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Sen. John McCain to "step forward now and halt the Republican Party's efforts to profit politically from the economic misery of others."

"The Republican Party has had a long record of blocking eligible voters from voting," Conyers wrote. "In the past two Presidential elections, the country witnessed appalling efforts to limit voter participation in Ohio, Florida and throughout the country. It is beyond disgraceful that the Republican Party now seems to be targeting those who are suffering the most. . . It should surprise no one that the people who gave us the worst economy since the Great Depression would now want to prevent those victimized by this economy from voting in the coming elections."

Separately, Conyers and 22 of his Democratic colleagues in the House, also joined Senate Democrats, who earlier this week demanded an investigation from the DOJ into what has become known as the "lose your house, lose your vote," after the title of the article in the Michigan Messenger which sparked awareness of the GOPs plan to challenge voters registered at addresses on foreclosure lists.

House Judiciary

HJC To Consider Contempt Citation for Mukasey Tomorrow

Kate Klonick | September 9, 2008, 6:06PM

Finally! Congress is back from va-cay, and they've got lots of work to do before years end and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is wasting no time.

Tomorrow morning, the Committee is scheduled to consider a citation for contempt for Attorney General Michael Mukasey for his failure to supply documents in accordance with the subpoena issued in late June.

The meeting is set to start at 10:15 EST. We'll be sure to keep you updated on what happens.

House Judiciary

WH Gets Temporary Stay for Testimony

Kate Klonick | September 5, 2008, 4:27PM

The latest in the back and forth between Harriet Miers and the House Judiciary, from the AP:

A federal appeals court has blocked former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys until judges decide whether they have authority to wade into a battle that pits Congress against the Bush administration.

Miers is supposed to testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing next Thursday.

. . . The three-judge panel gave House lawyers until 4 p.m. next Wednesday to make its case on why the court should uphold an earlier ruling forcing Miers to testify. The Justice Department must submit its own argument -- why she should not -- two days earlier, on Monday.

We have the order here, full text after the jump.

Read more »