TPMMuckraker
Karl Rove: July 2008

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And Bolton

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 6:56PM

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.
In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of litigation still to go in this case.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
EPA, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove, Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee, Valerie Plame

Harriet Miers

House and Senate Dems Claim Victory, Say Miers, Rove Should Testify

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 12:30PM

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hailed today's court ruling and said he expects former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political director Karl Rove to testify on Capitol Hill in September.

"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law.

Judge Bates' decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail so that these claims of privilege can be evaluated by Congress.

We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers, as well as ex-White House official Karl Rove, to testify in September"

Later, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) echoed Conyers' statements:

The claims are part of an arrogant White House cover up, designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (12) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Karl Rove, Senate Judiciary Committee

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)
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)
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)
House Judiciary, John Conyers, Karl Rove

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

For Sampson, Hiring At DOJ Was All Republicans All The Times

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 2:37PM

The highest-ranking official flagged for breaking federal law in today's Department of Justice Inspector General's report was Kyle Sampson, a former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Sampson routinely violated DOJ policy and federal law by using overt political and ideological considerations when filling key DOJ jobs such as immigration judges, according to the report today from the DOJ's Inspector General. Federal law and Justice Department policy require career officials to be hired on merit and prohibit discrimination based on political affiliations.

Federal immigration judgeships were especially targeted for politicization. In October 2003, shortly after Sampson started working at DOJ, then as Counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, he began to overhaul the selection process for immigration judges. "[We] were only considering essentially Republican lawyers for appointment," Sampson said, according to the IG's report. (It was not clear from the report whether Sampson said that to IG investigators or in another setting)

Prior to 2004, immigration judges were appointed in an essentially non-political bureaucratic process handled by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Vacancies were posted, resumes sorted, interviews conducted and decisions made by lower-level DOJ officials, according to the report.

Sampson's new process involved "coordination" with White House and an extra effort to get friends of the Bush administration into the judgeships when possible. Sampson circulated a document outlining the new process.

"Many lawyers seeking positions within the Administration, including judgeships, become known to the White House offices of Political Affairs, Presidential Personnel, and Counsel to the President." The document stated that some lawyers might qualify to be IJs, and that "coordination" was needed to ensure that such lawyers were "informed of the opportunity" to become IJs.

Also, Sampson often called over to the White House personnel office seeking "ideas for immigration judge postings." Sampson told a staffer to "contact the White House to get any candidate ideas that they had for immigration judges".

In one case, Sampson pushed a prospective judicial candidate who was supported by White House political director Karl Rove.

Regarding that candidate, whose name was not disclosed, Kevin Ohlson, then deputy director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the IG's investigators that he was "fully aware of the fact" that Sampson was pushing Rove's pick and that was affecting the formal evaluation.

"The finger was on the scale," Ohlson said.

That candidate was ultimately appointed to be an immigration judge in October 2005, the report said.

When questioned, Sampson said he thought the Immigration judges were political appointees, not career positions, and therefore not subject to civil service rules. He said Ohlson and the Office of Legal Counsel told him that. But Ohlson said he never said anything to that effect and investigators from the IG's office found no evidence that OLC provided any guidance to Sampson on the matter.

Sampson's lawyer, Brad Berenson, said today the hiring decisions were an honest mistake and that Sampson "immediately agreed with the recommendation to put a stop to this process" when he first learned he may have been wrong.

Here's a clip of Sampson's testimony on Capitol Hill in March 2007.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (22) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, John Ashcroft, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson

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)
Don Siegelman, House Judiciary, Karl Rove

George Bush

President Bush Asserts Exec. Privilege in Plame Leak Investigation

Kate Klonick | July 16, 2008, 12:06PM

We've seen a lot of assertions of executive privilege in the last few months-- from Karl Rove to Stephen Johnson -- but now Attorney General Michael Mukasey has claimed executive privilege on behalf of President Bush.

Mukasey's letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) last night, pre-empted a vote this morning on contempt of Congress stemming from the White House's refusal to release FBI documents relating to the Valerie Plame leak scandal. The documents were subpoenaed by Committee on June 16.

From the Mukasey's letter to Bush:

I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the Committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations.

Hmmm. Where have we heard that before?

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (19) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
George Bush, Henry Waxman, House Oversight, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Michael Mukasey, Valerie Plame

Karl Rove

"Breezy" Apology From Fournier

Kate Klonick | July 15, 2008, 9:01AM

Ron Fournier, the Washington Bureau Chief of the AP, issued a statement late last night to his media company explaining his correspondence with Karl Rove in a 2004 e-mail excerpted in the House Oversight Committee's report on the death of Pat Tillman:

"I was an AP political reporter at the time of the 2004 e-mail exchange, and was interacting with a source, a top aide to the president, in the course of following an important and compelling story. I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."

Fournier's told Rove to "keep up the fight," in an email exchange discussing the death of Pat Tillman and the quality of American soldiers.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (30) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Karl Rove

Karl Rove

Fournier to Rove: "Keep Up the Fight"

Kate Klonick | July 14, 2008, 5:22PM

Buried in the 50-page report on Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch released today by the House Oversight Committee, is a priceless quote from none other than the new head of the AP's Washington Bureau, Ron Fournier.

Straight from page 21 of the report:

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Fournier did not immediately return calls for comment.

[Special thanks to TPM Reader DD for the tip.]

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (46) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (27)
Karl Rove, Oversight Committee, Patrick Tillman

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)
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.