David Iglesias

Watch: Maddow Interviews Iglesias On GOP's Anti-ACORN Campaign

Zachary Roth | September 29, 2009, 11:39AM

One point that often gets overlooked in the current freak-out over ACORN, is that the US attorney firings were, in part, a different manifestation of the same Republican-driven campaign to discredit and sideline the group that we've seen recently.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night interviewed David Iglesias, and reminded us that Iglesias was fired in large part for not pursuing bogus voter fraud cases tied to ACORN. The New Mexico GOP, along with Karl Rove, understood that hampering the registration of poor and minority voters was crucial to boosting Republicans' chances in the minority-heavy state. And that pressuring law enforcement to bring voter fraud cases implicating ACORN, despite the lack of evidence, was the best way to do it.

Read more »

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

Iglesias: "I Feel One Hundred Percent Vindicated"

Zachary Roth | August 13, 2009, 10:05AM

David Iglesias has reacted with a combination of satisfaction and indignation to this week's release of documents on the U.S. attorney firings.

"I feel 100 percent vindicated," Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, whose dismissal was the most controversial of the bunch, told TPMmuckraker in an interview.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Did Christie Play Politics With Probe? U.S. Attorney Docs Add To Questions

Zachary Roth | August 12, 2009, 4:28PM

Those newly released documents from the U.S. attorney firings raise a few questions about the Republican who may be his party's highest profile electoral contender this year.

That's Chris Christie, the former U.S. attorney from New Jersey, who's also leading incumbent Jon Corzine in that state's race for governor.

Read more »

David Iglesias

Rove Aide Longed to Replace Iglesias With GOP Lawyer Who Helped Get Him Fired

Zachary Roth | August 12, 2009, 11:25AM

After firing David Iglesias as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, Karl Rove's top aide longed to replace him with a Republican party activist who had helped agitate for the firing in the first place, newly released documents reveal.

In early January 2007, several weeks after the firings had been carried out, the Albuquerque Journal reported, based on a press release from New Mexico senator Pete Domenici, that there were four leading candidates for the newly vacant post.

Read more »

Karl Rove

Griffin to Rove: We're Thinking Of Calling Our Baby "Karl"

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 5:43PM

How big of a suckup is Tim Griffin, the Rove protege who the White House was trying to muscle into a U.S. attorney post after firing the previous occupant?

In a January 2007 email, Griffin wrote to Rove:

Read more »

Karl Rove

Rove: Remembering E-mails Is Like Remembering 'Raindrop In A Thunderstorm'

Justin Elliott | August 11, 2009, 3:47PM

The Washington Post does us the favor of tallying the "I don't recall"-s that saturate the hundreds of pages of Miers and Rove interview transcripts.

In 10 hours, Harriet Miers said she couldn't remember events almost 150 times.

Asked if Miers ever responded to an October 2006 email from Rove with the subject line "Domenici is calling me about the USA for New Mexico", Rove offered investigators this gem:

"I don't recall. I generally receive hundreds of e-mails a day, and asking me to remember replies is like asking me to remember a raindrop in a thunderstorm."

Read that section of the interview right here.

David Iglesias

Docs Belie Rove's Claim That His Aide Was "Freelancing" In Pushing For Iglesias Firing

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 3:35PM

This won't come as a shock ... but the just released documents on the U.S. attorney firings make it clear that Karl Rove was far from straight with the House committee that interviewed him last month.

According to the transcript of the interview, Rove said that his top aide, Scott Jennings, was "freelancing" in trying to get David Iglesias fired in the summer of 2005. Rove told his interviewers that Jennings "had strong feelings about Iglesias" after having done political work in New Mexico.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Rep Who Led Miers/Rove Questioning: Iglesias Case Was Most 'Pernicious Case Of Partisan Interference'

Justin Elliott | August 11, 2009, 3:30PM

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House Judiciary Committee member who led questioning of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, released a statement today skewering the Bush White House for considering "partisan and political considerations" in firing US Attorneys.

He concludes that "a weak and pliant leadership" of the Justice Department "largely refused to stand up to the pressure."

Schiff's office says the committee's findings will be forwarded, as expected, to prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who is investigating possible criminal wrongdoing in the firings.

Schiff's full statement:

Read more »

Karl Rove

Docs Show Rove Pushed For Iglesias Firing

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 3:20PM

Perhaps the key takeaway from the just released documents on the U.S. attorney firings is this:

Karl Rove claimed recently that he and his staff acted merely as a conduit for passing on concerns about David Iglesias. But it's now clear that Rove's office pushed from 2005 for Iglesias to be canned, and was intimately involved in the decision.

Read more »

Karl Rove

'Very Agitated' Rove Called Miers From New Mexico To Complain About Iglesias

Justin Elliott | August 11, 2009, 3:12PM

We're digging through the trove of documents released today by the House Judiciary Committee on the US attorney firings and the politicization of the Justice Department under George W. Bush.

In a June 15 interview with House investigators, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers detailed a remarkable 2006 contact with Karl Rove, then on the road in New Mexico, regarding US Attorney David Iglesias.

Rove, Miers recalled, was "very agitated" about Iglesias, who was later ousted in the Bush Administration's purge of US Attorneys. Rove was getting "barraged" with complains by "political people that were active in New Mexico."

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.

U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary Breaks Down 'Key Facts' In New White House Docs

Justin Elliott | August 11, 2009, 2:34PM

Below is a press release from the House Judiciary Committee on new facts about DOJ politicization brought to light by interviews with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers along with 5,400 pages of White House and RNC e-mails.

Read more »

Harriet Miers

Congress Releases Rove And Miers Interviews On U.S. Attorney Firings

Zachary Roth | August 11, 2009, 2:30PM

The House Judiciary committee has posted the transcripts of its interviews with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, about the U.S. attorney firings.

The Rove transcripts are here. The Miers transcripts are here.

Have at it.

Allen Stanford

Rove's Lawyer Insists: I Won't Work for Stanford Without Getting Paid

Zachary Roth | August 5, 2009, 12:20PM

Looks like our old friend Allen Stanford is having some trouble finding a lawyer.

Two high-profile white-collar crime attorneys, including the man who represents Karl Rove, are trying to make sure they don't get roped into defending the cricket-loving billionaire -- who's accused of orchestrating an $8 billion fraud -- without a guarantee of payment.

Read more »

Karl Rove

Emails Show Rove's Role In U.S. Attorney Firings

Zachary Roth | July 30, 2009, 3:14PM

Karl Rove did his second and final day of testimony before Congress about his role in the U.S. attorney firings today. And we're getting more confirmation that that role was more extensive than he's yet let on.

The Washington Post and New York Times have obtained emails that offer glimpses into Rove's role in the firing of certain of the U.S. attorneys. They jibe closely with many similar emails that were released last year as part of a Justice Department inspector general report which essentially found that the firings were engineered by Rove and other White House officials.

Read more »

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 »

Karl Rove

Health-Care Market Characterized By Consolidation, Not Competition

Zachary Roth | June 29, 2009, 12:50PM

As Congress gets set to take up health-care reform, there's a crucial piece of data that hasn't received nearly the prominence in the debate that it deserves.

Defenders of the status quo on health care like to point out that a public option will destroy the system of robust free-market competition that currently exists.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking earlier this month on Fox News, called President Obama's plan the "first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known." A public option, Shelby added, would "destroy the marketplace for health care."

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 »

Jack Abramoff

Two Thumbs Up! Kevin Spacey To Play Abramoff in Casino Jack

Zachary Roth | April 27, 2009, 3:08PM

Get ready for Jack Abramoff: The Movie.

The well-sourced Hollywood blogger Nikki Finke reported Friday that Kevin Spacey and director George Hickenlooper were visiting the disgraced former lobbyist in prison -- as part of their research for Casino Jack, which will start filming next month, with the man who once played Keyser Soze in the lead role. (Variety had reported last August on plans for the project, then known as Bagman.)

Read more »

Ted Stevens

Justice Picking Up Tab For Stevens Six Defense

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 11:39AM

Guess who's footing the bill for those fancy lawyers the Stevens Six have hired? We are.

The Justice Department confirmed to TPMmuckraker that the prosecutors -- who are being investigated for criminal contempt in connection to misconduct in the Ted Stevens case -- requested representation under a DOJ provision that applies to employees who run into legal trouble while doing their jobs, and that the request was authorized.

Read more »

Karl Rove

J. Edgar Rove? Bush's Brain Claims He Kept Loyalty File On GOP Rep

Zachary Roth | April 10, 2009, 12:46PM

Did Karl Rove compile a "loyalty file" on former GOP congressman Tom Feeney? That's what Rove himself has reportedly claimed.

Politico reports on a chance encounter at Charlie Palmer's Steak last night between Bush's brain and Jason Roe, a former chief of staff to Feeney, the Florida congressman who was defeated for reelection last fall*.

Read more »

Alaska

Keying Off Stevens Decision, Siegelman Steps Up Push To Have His Own Charges Dropped

Zachary Roth | April 7, 2009, 2:23PM

In the wake of the charges being dropped agaisnt Ted Stevens, is pressure building on the Justice Department to make a similar decision on behalf of Don Siegelman?

A lawyer for the former Alabama governor -- who last week told TPMmuckraker that the misconduct in his own case "dwarf[s]" that in Stevens' -- sent a letter Friday to Attorney General Eric Holder, asking that Holder review the evidence of "serious and pervasive" prosecutorial misconduct in Siegelman's case.

Read more »

Alaska

Siegelman: Stevens Case Is Dropped, So Why Not Mine?

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 7:04PM

For Don Siegelman, DOJ's decision on Ted Stevens just adds insult to injury.

"There seems to be substantial evidence of prosecutorial and other misconduct in my case, that would dwarf the allegations in the Stevens case," the former Alabama governor told TPMmuckraker in an interview moments ago.

Read more »

Don Siegelman

Rove On Siegelman Answers: Check My Website

Zachary Roth | March 9, 2009, 12:31PM

Over the weekend, Karl Rove talked a little more with Fox News about his impending testimony on the US Attorney firings and the Don Siegelman case.

He denied, as he has before, that there had been inappropriate political involvement in the firings. And he even appeared to suggest that, particularly in regard to the Siegelman matter, there was less need for his testimony because he has already responded to questions on his website, Rove.com.

Here's the video:

Don Siegelman

Court: No Jury Misconduct In Siegelman Case

Zachary Roth | March 6, 2009, 1:51PM

So what's the significance of the court ruling upholding most of the bribery and corruption charges on which former Alabama governor Don Siegelman was convicted?

Siegelman's appeal wasn't primarily focused on the allegations that his prosecution was politically motivated. (Bill Canary, the husband of Leura Canary, the US Attorney on the case, was a state GOP operative and close associate of Karl Rove, who had run the campaign of Siegelman's gubernatorial opponent.)

Still, today's ruling did touch tangentially on that set of issues. One of Siegelman's arguments on appeal was that there had been inappropriate contacts between jurors and prosecutors during the trial. That claim was of a piece with several allegations of prosecutorial misconduct detailed in an internal DOJ report -- including evidence that Leura Canary kept advising junior prosecutors on the case, even after recusing herself.

But the court appears to have rejected that claim, upholding a district court's opinion that no significant misconduct occurred.

As for Rove's alleged ties to the prosecution -- a witness has given sworn testimony that Rove was involved -- we'll hear his side of the story in the coming weeks, when he sits down with the House Judiciary committee to talk about both Siegelman and the US Attorney firings.

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.

George Bush

Rove Can Claim Privilege Only When Asked About Bush

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 10:16AM

We've obtained a copy of the agreement on Karl Rove and Harriet Miers' testimony about the US Attorney firings, and it appears to answer some of our initial questions.

Are any subjects off limits?

The scope of the interviews will be limited to: (1) facts relating to the evaluation of, decision to dismiss, or decision to replace the former U.S. Attorneys in question; the alleged decisions to retain certain U.S. Attorneys; and any allegations of selective prosecution related thereto; and (2) testimony or representations made by Department of Justice officials to Congress on the U.S. Attorneys matter. For the period beginning on March 9, 2007 (the date of the Committee's first written demand for information from the White House), interviews will not include the content of conversations involving: (i) Mr. Rove and members of the White House Counsel's office; or (ii) Ms. Miers and members of the White House Counsel's office. In the case of Mr. Rove, the interview also will include facts relating to the prosecution of Alabama governor Don Siegelman.

And when can Rove and Miers claim executive privilege?

As to official privileges, counsel will direct witnesses not to respond to questions only when questions relate to communications to or from the President or when questions are outside the scope of questioning set forth above.

You can see the whole thing here.

David Iglesias

Iglesias: Make Rove Testimony Public ASAP

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 8:49AM

David Iglesias has responded to the news of a deal to secure Karl Rove and Harriet Miers' testimony about the firings of Iglesias and seven other US Attorneys.

In a statement to TPMmuckraker, Iglesias, whose firing as US Attorney for the district of New Mexico was deemed the "most troubling" by a Justice Department report released last year, said:

Today's agreement represents true progress in this matter which has been on-going for over two years. I trust that the initial private testimony of Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will become public at the soonest possible date.

Justice Department

Pelosi: Rove Deal Is "Victory For The Constitution"

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 6:40PM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy just released separate statements on the agreement to secure Karl Rove's testimony.

Pelosi:

The agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with.

As public officials, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is the institutional duty of Congress -- as an independent branch -- to ensure against abuse of power through meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch. When there are credible allegations about the politicization of law enforcement, the need for Congressional oversight is at its greatest.

In upholding our oaths of office, the House of Representatives was determined to preserve checks and balances -- the separation of powers that protects the rule of law. It brought action in court to enforce the Judiciary Committee's subpoenas, and won a major ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates dismissing the extreme position of absolute immunity from Congressional oversight advocated by the Bush Administration for former Administration officials. Under this agreement, the precedent established by Judge Bates' historic ruling rejecting this extreme Bush Administration doctrine will be preserved.

Today's agreement is a great victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. I appreciate the strong leadership of Chairman John Conyers and the assistance of the Obama Administration.

Congress now has the opportunity to uncover the truth and determine whether improper criteria were used by the Bush Administration to dismiss and retain U.S. Attorneys.

Leahy:

I hope today's agreement will help to finally uncover the truth about the firings of U.S. Attorneys and the Bush White House cover up designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of the last administration.

It should not have taken until now to obtain testimony and documents from Bush administration officials connected to the investigation into the firings. Today's agreement leaves in place the court ruling that rejected the Bush administration's unprecedented and unfounded blanket claims of executive privilege and immunity. I rejected those claims as excessive and wrong in my ruling on President Bush's position over a year ago, and a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately found Karl Rove and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in criminal contempt.

I commend Chairman Conyers for the agreement reached today. I hope Congress, and the American people, will now finally hear long overdue answers to serious questions about political interference by the Bush White House in our nation's top law enforcement agency.

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...