Now that the dust has settled on the U.S. attorney firings report, released Monday morning by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, we thought it was worth taking some time to lay out what it tells us.

Almost since the scandal broke early last year, there have been clear signs that the plan to fire U.S. attorneys as a means of advancing the Bush administration's political goals was being driven by the White House. That impression has been strengthened as top current and former White House officials, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, have consistently stonewalled efforts to look into the matter.

The OIG investigation was no exception. As the report notes, Miers, Rove and several other Whte House officials refused to talk to investigators, and the White House wouldn't provide internal emails or documents relating to the firings. Perhaps the most crucial of the documents denied to OIG was a memo, written in March 2007, which contained the results of an internal White House investigation into the firings, conducted by associate White House counsel Michael Scudder. Scudder had interviewed top DOJ and White House officials, including Rove, and had compiled a timeline that "appeared to contain information we had not obtained elsewhere in our investigation," according to the OIG report.

Still, a close examination of the report makes clear that, although on a day-to-day basis the plan was put into effect by mid-level DOJ political appointees -- enabled by a shocking lack of oversight from top department officials, principally former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- the impetus for the move came straight from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of the individual pieces of information have been previously reported, as DOJ provided emails and internal documents to Congress for its 2007 investigation. But the OIG report provides a far clearer sense of the longer-term trajectory of the plan, and the consistent interest in it from Miers and Rove, than we've yet been offered.

Read more »

The IG report released today provides new details on the White House's involvement in the firings of U.S. attorneys, especially the administration's involvement in the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.

Prior to Iglesias' removal on Dec. 7, 2006, New Mexico GOP Sen. Pete Domenici had already made multiple complaints to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about Iglesias. In addition, Mickey Barnett, a former GOP New Mexico state senator and a prominent lawyer, had met in Washington with DOJ White House Liason Monica Goodling to discuss his problems with Iglesias' handling of voter fraud cases.

But emails disclosed in the recently released IG report between Barnett, Domenici and White House political operative Karl Rove reveal that the complaints against Iglesias went beyond talks with the Justice Department, and that the White House was aware and involved in the removal of Iglesias from his post as U.S. attorney.

According to today's report, on October 2, 2006, Barnett e-mailed Karl Rove an article from a local paper expressing frustrations with the apparently stalled investigation into bribery of Democratic state Sen. Manny Aragon (NM).

In the email, Barnett blamed Iglesias' office for delaying the case against the Democratic lawmaker, something he had spoken to Goodling, Rove and Domenici about before, according to conversations detailed in the report. Specifically, Barnett and Rove had previously discussed "kick[ing Iglesias]. . . upstairs" as a way to get rid of him.

The October 2 email from Barnett to Rove again mentions the possibility of a "promotion" for Iglesias, and their face to face discussion of it the weekend before at a Republican fundraiser in New Mexico.

From page 173 of the report:

Karl,
This article confirms what I mentioned Saturday. An FBI agent told me more than six months ago that their investigation was done and been turned over to the US Attorney a long time ago. He said agents were totally frustrated with some even trying to get out
of New Mexico. I can put you or anyone you designate with lawyers knowledgeable about the US Atty office - including lawyers in the office - that will show how poorly it is being run.
Scott Jennings was kind enough to set up an appointment at the Justice Department several months ago where Pat Rogers and I laid all this out. I hope Justice can now be persuaded to send out some cracker jack prosecutor and perhaps promote Iglesias to a Justice department position.
We still await the results of the task force Iglesias convened about this time two years ago on the clear Acorn fraudulent voter registrations. We were told it would look to [sic] "political" to indict anyone that close to the election. Then we never heard anything else

Just a few weeks after Barnett's email, Domenici's chief of staff Steve Bell emailed Rove on Nov. 7, 2006, the day of mid-term Congressional elections complaining about ballot problems in a New Mexico precinct. Bell closed the email with the statement, "We worry about the USA here."

Rove responded just 32 minutes later stating, "I'd have the Senator call the Attorney General about this."

Exactly one month later, Iglesias was fired.

Karl Rove's involvement in the U.S. attorney firings has always been questioned, but additional information on a March 2007 meeting mentioned in the Inspector General's report today suggests that at the very least, Rove and other White House officials played an active role in crafting the release of information on the firings to the public.

Shortly after the U.S. attorney removals, when the DOJ was grappling to explain the justification behind the firings, communications between Alberto Gonzales' former chief-of-staff, Kyle Sampson and White House officials increased.

With former Assistant Attorney General William Moschella's testimony before Congress fast approaching, a group of DOJ and White House officials convened on March 5, to discuss "what Moschella should say in his testimony about the removals," as well as whether to testify to the specific reasons for the removals of the U.S. attorneys.

The meeting was called by Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley and was attended by Sampson; Paul McNulty, the deputy Attorney General; Moschella; Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff; White House Counsel Fred Fielding; Michael Battle, director of EOUSA; Associate White House Counsel Michael Scudder, and perhaps most importantly -- Karl Rove.

From page 84 of the report:

According to several witnesses, Rove came in to the meeting for only a few minutes and then left. Battle said Rove spoke at the meeting but he could not recall what he said. McNulty said that he could not specifically recall either, but thought Rove said something to the effect that Moschella's testimony should explain why the U.S. Attorneys were removed. None of the witnesses said they could recall specifically what Rove said at the meeting, although all agree that the discussion generally centered on what Moschella should say about the reasons for each U.S. Attorney's removal.

The just-released IG report on the US attorney firings lists the removal of David Iglesias as the "most troubling" of the eight. But it notes that thanks to stonewalling by the White House, DOJ officials, and the office of Sen. Pete Domenici, investigators didn't have access to the complete range of information on the reasons for the firing.

The report concludes that Iglesias was removed as a result of complaints brought to DOJ by New Mexico GOP members of Congress and party activists, and shows that Karl Rove knew in advance of the decision. It reveals that at a meeting on November 15, 2006, Rep. Heather Wilson told Rove: "Mr. Rove, for what it's worth, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico is a waste of breath." Rove's response: ""That decision has already been made. He's gone."

But it states that IG investigators were unable to determine how Rove knew this (Iglesias wasn't notifed until December 7), and what his possible role in the decision was, because Rove and White House counsel Harriet Miers refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Similarly, it notes that Kyle Sampson, who as chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales took the lead in bringing about the firings, gave "misleading after-the-fact explanations for why Iglesias was placed on the list." The report concludes: "[W]e question whether Sampson provided us the full story about Iglesias's placement on the list, as well as the reasons for other U.S. Attorney removals."

And: "Our investigation was also hindered by the refusal of Senator Domenici and his Chief of Staff to agree to an interview by us." (In April, Domenici, who is retiring this year, received a "qualified admonition" from the Senate ethics committee for his role in the firing.)

Looks like the across-the-board effort to withhold information from the IG investigators was perhaps at its most intense in regard to the Iglesias firing.

Murray Waas confirmed today something we've suspected for a long time: that the Justice Department has widened the net in the Inspector General's U.S. attorneys firing probe to include allegations that senior White House officials made false statements to Congress.

From the Huffington Post:

The Justice Department investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys has been extended to encompass allegations that senior White House officials played a role in providing false and misleading information to Congress, according to numerous sources involved in the inquiry.

. . . Federal investigators have obtained documents showing that Kyle Sampson, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Chris Oprison, then an associate White House counsel, drafted and approved the letter even though they had first-hand knowledge that the assertions were not true.

The letter referenced was sent from the Justice Department to Congress on February 23, 2007 and denied Karl Rove's involvement in the replacement of fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins by Rove protege Tim Griffin.

Just a month later, however, the DOJ was forced to admit that the February letter had been "contradicted by Department documents."

Most notable in those "Department documents," was an email between Sampson and Oprison on December 19, 2006 in which Sampson wrote that getting Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." The email from Sampson, who was chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales at the time, directly contradicted the DOJ's earlier denial.

Sampson bumbled his way through an explanation of this discrepancy during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March of 2007.

We pulled the video from our archives. Take a look:

Following the letter sent by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent his own demand for the testimony and documents following the ruling yesterday in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers called for "quick compliance" with the ruling and an answer to the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Conyers also wrote to Miers attorneys, reminding him that the ruling meant his client was "legally required to testify" in answer to Congress' subpoena.

Lastly, Conyers penned a missive to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, informing him that his client had been held in contempt of congress by the House Judiciary Committee, but that in light of the recent decision, he hoped that it would not be necessary to carry out the contempt proceedings:

. . .[T]he "precise legal issue" raised by Mr. Rove's claim of immunity from our subpoena as a former White House official was before Judge Bates in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. Yesterday's decision in that case provides an unequivocal answer. . . In his letter to me of July 29, 2008, Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith also noted the pendency of the District Court case and stated that "mr. Rove assuredly will abide by the court's decision when it issues." I trust that this is correct and that there will be no further need to enforce the subpoena through contempt proceedings in the full House, and have directed my staff to contact you immediately so that we can make arrangements for Mr. Rove to testify in September.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.]

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.

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.

Back when the Jack Abramoff scandal was exploding across Washington in 2005 and 2006, the White House went to great lengths to publicly distance itself from the Republican uberlobbyist -- even though anyone who knew anything about Republican politics knew Abramoff was hard-wired into the very fabric of the modern GOP.

Following Abramoff's guilty plea in January 2006, President Bush said, "I don't know him." A White House spokesperson stated that Abramoff had only attended "a couple of holiday receptions . . . then a few staff-level meetings on top of that." And through a spokesperson, Rove said that he "remembers they had met at a political event in the 1990s. ... Since then, he would describe him as a casual acquaintance." Later, we learned that Rove and Abramoff met on D.C. street corners, Jack in his limo, to avoid detection in White House phone and visitor logs.

But the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report issued today detailing the ties between Abramoff and the Bush White House specifically stated that the White House's own investigation into Abramoff's contacts there had been cursory at best.

This evidence suggests that the White House failed to conduct even the most basic internal investigation of the White House relationship with Mr. Abramoff before making public statements characterizing the connection between Mr. Abramoff and the White House.

In reality, the Committee uncovered extensive contacts between Abramoff team and the White House, including access to Rove and direct influence on White House policy, from unseating Department of Interior official Alan Stayman to affecting nominating processes:

One action that White House officials took at the request of Mr. Abramoff was to intervene to force the removal of a State Department official, Alan Stayman. In a previous position at the Office of Insular Affairs in the Department of the Interior, Mr. Stayman had advocated positions opposed by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then a client of Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Stayman was appointed to his position at the Department of State during the Clinton Administration.

In a recent Committee deposition, Monica Kladakis, then-Deputy Associate Director in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP), confirmed that OPP became involved in Mr. Stayman's removal after White House officials were contacted by Mr. Abramoff's team.

The White House led the committee in 2006 to believe that the extent of the Abramoff connections existed only between Abramoff and Rove's mutual secretary, Susan Ralston. Ralston was painted to be the whole of Abramoff's connection to the White House and her resignation was the culmination of a 4-day investigation by the White House, described by the deputy press secretary as a "thorough" review of the matter.

But in the Committee's examination of Ralston's relevant correspondence, specific electronic conversations shed light on Ralston's role as a conduit between Abramoff and Rove, rather than a stopping point.

One example of the Abramoff team's access to the White House regarding the nomination process is a February 20, 2001, e-mail from Susan Ralston to Matt Schlapp to let him know that Jack Abramoff had called Karl Rove a few days earlier to discuss appointments at OIA.

According to this e-mail, Mr. Abramoff had heard that Esther Kia'aina was going to be
considered for a position and "wanted to let Karl know that he didn't think this was a good idea."

Ms. Ralston continued, "Karl asked that you return his call." Ms. Kia'aina was not appointed to a position at OIA.

Beyond nominations and appointments, Abramoff, through Rove, also played a hand in creating White House policy:

On a number of occasions, White House officials used information Mr. Abramoff provided in policy deliberations. For example, in September 2002, when Matt Schlapp, then-Deputy White House Political Director, asked Ms. Ralston if Karl Rove wanted "Fred Radewagon to get strong consideration" for appointment to the position of Director of OIA. Ms. Ralston replied minutes later with the note, "Definitely not Radewagon. Here's the intel I got on him."

The rest of her e-mail quotes directly, without attribution, from an e-mail Jack Abramoff had sent her the previous month. In this e-mail, Ms. Ralston passed on information from Mr. Abramoff to support her assertion that Mr. Rove would not support Mr. Radewagon. Mr. Radewagon did not get the appointment.

The term "fruit" was used as a code word for tickets to sporting events or concerts between Jennifer Farley, former White House Associate Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, and Kevin Ring, a lobbyist for Jack Abramoff's firm, according to today's draft report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

On December 12, 2002, Ms. Farley asks Mr. Ring, "Do you have any kind of fruit tonight?" Mr. Ring responds, "No games tonight." In another e-mail exchange about an issue of interest to one of Mr. Ring's clients, Ms. Farley stated, "Let me know about the fruit in the middle of the basket." Mr. Ring responded, "The fruit is going to happen. Just trying to make sure it is picked on the right day."

In another email, Ring asked: "All set to use the fruit on a new date?"

Abramoff's team of lobbyists and White House officials often shared dinner, drinks and good stadium seats, according to the report. Records from Abramoff's firm obtained by the committee show that his team members met with White House officials over meals or drinks 186 times, billing the firm's clients for these meetings on 156 occasions. Many meetings took place at "expensive Washington restaurants such as Oceanaire, Bistro Bis, and the Oval Room."

Who exactly picked up the tab? That's still pretty hazy.

In most cases, the documents and billing records did not provide any evidence as to whether the White House officials paid for their share of the meals and drinks. ... The Committee in many cases also could not reach any conclusion about who paid for the meals and tickets.

However, the Committee's 32-page report did feel compelled to note that:

The acceptance of meals and gifts by White House officials would raise concerns about White House officials' compliance with federal laws regarding the solicitation and acceptance of gifts.

At least three White House officials refused to answer some questions from the Committee and instead invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Susan Ralston, Karl Rove's then-personal assistant who had previously held a similar position with Abramoff, requested tickets to seven events and was given tickets to nine, including Wizards, Capitals, and Orioles games, as well as concerts by Bruce Springsteen and Andrea Bocelli, according to documents from Abramoff's firm obtained by the committee.

When asked about that, Ralston "did not answer these questions and indicated that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights if compelled to respond," according to the committee report.

Matt Kirk, the former Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, also refused to answer any questions from the committee. Documents from Abramoff's firm obtained by the committee show he was given tickets to a Wizards game and to the NCAA basketball tournament.

Abramoff's firm had 27 contacts with Farley. She was provided with "fruits" to three events, two Orioles games and a Yanni concert, the firm's records show.

Ms. Farley's attorney told the Committee that Ms. Farley would not respond to questions on the following subjects: "First, what benefits she may or may not have been offered; and, two, any communications between Ms. Farley and any member of the so-called Abramoff team."

The report also mentions Ken Mehlman, former Bush campaign manager and RNC chairman. The firm's documents say the Abramoff team had designated tickets for Mr. Mehlman for a U2 concert in June 2001. The Committee sent Mehlman a letter asking about the concent and it got no response.

In his interview with the Committee, Mr. Mehlman said that he did not respond to this letter on the advice of his attorney. Mr. Mehlman also indicated that he did not recall having accepted tickets from the Abramoff team to the June 15, 2001, U2 concert, and said, "My recollection is that I didn't attend. I don't think I attended." He further stated: "I've been to a lot of concerts. I've been to U2 concerts. ... I don't remember going to that concert."

Karl Rove is getting more creative -- and less convincing -- with his non-denial denials about the politicization of prosecutions over at the Justice Department.

Asked directly by ABC's George Stephanopolus on Sunday whether he spoke at all with the DOJ officials about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman for corruption, Rove stammered and repeated the phrase: "I found out about Don Siegelman's indictment by reading about it in the newspaper."

The question's been nagging Rove for a year now, and will probably continue to since the House issued a subpoena last week ordering him to testify on Capitol Hill. House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) rejected Rove's proposal to submit a written statement to the committee. The White House asserts that executive privilege bars Rove from having to testify.

The question from Stephanopolus was more direct than he's faced in the past. But Rove has issued vague, strangely worded, lawyerly specific answers to essentially the same question before.

About one year ago, when he was first accused of pushing for Siegelman's prosecution, he could only refute the specific detail of an individual conversation he allegedly had with Alabama officials.

"I know nothing about any phone call," Rove told reporters in Alabama in June 2007, before a White House press aide intervened and said, "What he meant to say was that he has no comment."

At the same time that the House Judiciary Committee voted to issue a subpoena to former presidential adviser Karl Rove today, it released a May 5 letter from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) disclosing that the OPR is investigating "allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor."

Most reader are already familiar with the Siegelman case. Georgia Thompson, you'll recall, was the Wisconsin state employee whose federal corruption conviction, obtained by Milwaukee-based U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, was considered so flawed that it was thrown out by the appeals court immediately after oral arguments.

Diaz and Minor may be less familiar to TPMmuckraker readers. Diaz is a former Mississippi State Supreme Court justice, and Minor is a Mississippi attorney. Their prosecutions by U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton have been under scrutiny by the House Judiciary Committee as well:

Diaz and his ex-wife, Jennifer, were indicted in 2003 along with prominent Gulf Coast attorney Paul Minor and two former lower court judges on federal bribery allegations. Oliver Diaz was eventually cleared of all charges. The others were not.

Separately OPR is conducting a joint investigation of the U.S. attorney firings with the DOJ inspector general.

So much for all those negotiations:

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.

Will Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) do some ass-kicking (his words) now?

Late Update: Rep. Conyers released a statement following the vote to issue the subpoena:

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers said. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."

Later Update: Conyers released the latest correspondence between Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and the committee, part of a lengthy back-and-forth between the parties. Apparently the subpoena was issued today after Luskin told the committee in a letter yesterday that Rove would not voluntarily testify, essentially ending the negotiations.

Still Later Update: Here's is the cover letter that Cnyers sent Luskin along with the subpoena.