From Politico:

House Judiciary Committee John Conyers has issed a subpoena to the Justice Dept. for the unredacted interviews with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on former CIA operative Valerie Plame, as well as numerous other documents sought unsuccessfully by Democrats for years.

Conyers is also seeking FBI notes of interviews with some top former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.

The committee also wants unreleased memos from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, including an Oct. 23, 2001, memo related to use of American military forces to combat terrorism within the United States.

Conyers has been asking for those documents for a long time.

It looks like the House Judiciary Committee will finally play hardball with Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has been requesting a range of documents from DOJ for a long time. Some of the issues date back as far as Election Day 2002, when Republicans in New Hampshire jammed the phone lines for a Democratic get-out-the-vote call bank, an effort one GOP operative said was modeled on the U.S. Marines tactic of jamming the enemies communications.

Now Conyers has the authority to subpoena that stack of records after the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law took a vote today and gave him the formal go-ahead.

They're looking for records of interviews from the DOJ investigation into who leaked the identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, documents that may shed light on allegations of selective prosecution, and the details behind the replacement of Minnesota's U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose. The committee is also requesting Office of Legal Counsel memos and enforcement reports from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Division, Conyers and several other lawmakers today sent a letter to Mukasey urging stop stonewalling a GAO investigation of the Civil Rights Division. Amid allegations that political pressures were shifting the division's priorities, Congress in March 2007 requested the Government Accountability Office conduct an investigation. Lawmakers say DOJ has not provided the documents and data needed to fully analyze the division's enforcement work.

The lawmakers also said they had "received reports that DOJ officials have removed key documents from files, claiming that GAO does not have a right to access predecisional or deliberative information that sets forth the Division's rationale on whether or not to pursue a case."

"We are troubled by the lack of transparency and refusal of the Department to cooperate fully with GAO's investigation," the lawmakers wrote in today's letter.

After everyone had a chance to sift through yesterday's breakthrough "compromise" on a new federal surveillance law, the biggest winer of the day was not Republicans or Democrats but the telecom companies.

Today's Washington Post summarizes the legal impact succicntly in it's front-page story :

The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The final compromise on the immunity issue was this: Many Democrats had wanted the federal courts to review whether the surveillance program was legal before granting immunity. The White House wanted the courts to have no involvement whatsoever. The "compromise" calls on the courts to consider the surveillance legal if the companies can prove that the Administration told them it was legal. (Which we know they did).

The Chicago Tribune reports:

The new bill would require federal courts to cast those lawsuits aside if the companies can show that they received written requests from the government stating that their cooperation was deemed lawful and had been authorized by the president.

The House is expected to vote on the measure today. Though billed as a compromise, the final version was viewed as a victory for the White House, according to the Post.

But overall, the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law.

As for the future of the spying program, this new law allows it to grow.

The Wall Street Journal this morning wrote:

The lasting impact of the agreement would be a broader scope for the government's domestic surveillance.

Before 9/11, the NSA had to acquire a specific warrant if it wanted to listen to any conversation involving a U.S. citizen. Now, the secret court would be able to approve broad patterns of surveillance, focused on groups of people believed to be overseas, even if they are communicating with people in the U.S. So without a warrant, the NSA could listen to the conversation of a U.S. citizen if he or she was talking to a suspicious person overseas.

Several Democrats spoke out against the bill, but enough of them agreed to assure this version will pass into law.

Again, from the Journal:

The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.

Behind the political positioning, however, was the pressure from the telecom firms -- particuarly AT&T and Verizon, which both stepped up their lobbying efforts this spring.

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.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) forgot to keep his voice down when there are reporters present:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

The chairman seems to have been having fire for breakfast lately, pursuing the testimony -- with the threat of a subpoena -- of a number of former administration figures, including Dick Cheney's consigliere David Addington. And of course he's also been pursuing Rove to testify about the prosecution of ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL). Yesterday, in somewhat more diplomatic language, Conyers refused Rove's offer to testify in writing.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers' (D-MI) response to Karl Rove's offer to testify by letter: Nope.

The committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the prosecution of ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), but Rove has refused to appear for a hearing, instead offering to speak privately with staff off the record. He modified that offer to testify by letter.

But Conyers says that's a no-go. If Rove is willing to create a record with a letter, he argues, then there's no reason why he shouldn't be willing to sit down with staff for an on-the-record interview. Conyers says the committee is prepared to offer "other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked," but there must be a live interview and a transcript. Conyers again mentions the possibility of a subpoena should talks break down.

So now the ball is in Rove's court.

Read more »

Throughout the House Judiciary Committee's struggle to obtain White House documents and have Harriet Miers testify about the U.S. Attorney firings, House Republicans adopted a contrary stance.

They're firm believers in Congressional oversight, they said, but citing Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten with contempt of Congress was the wrong way to go. If they lost the battle in court, then the executive would come out much stronger. It would "make the presidency in America, a much stronger, imperial office," as Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) put it. Democrats, of course, think we're already there.

Well, now House Republicans have brought their opposition to court. In a filing yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Cannon asked the court to allow them to file a brief in the case arguing against the House's suit and with the administration. They are just trying to save the House from itself, they write:

Read more »

Last Friday, administration lawyers for the first time laid out their argument against the House's lawsuit to enforce Congressional subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. The House is seeking to enforce the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House counsel Harriet Miers and current chief of staff Josh Bolten.

The 83-page motion laid out a number of arguments for why the judge should dismiss the suit, but the central one was that the courts should not get involved because historically, they haven't. From the AP:

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote....

"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.

That makes for a murky area of law, and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.

Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.

As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:

And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.

It's not a tactic that Congress has employed over the past couple years, with a few exceptions. But maybe they ought to take the administration up on its own advice and see how it goes.

Last July, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the Justice Department about three cases that seemed to be the worst cases of selective prosecutions undertaken by George Bush's DoJ. In each case, the U.S. attorney had pursued a flawed case that hurt a prominent Democrat.

Since that time, the Department has refused to turn over all but a few documents -- though one of the produced emails showed a DoJ official troubled by one of the cases, the Georgia Thompson prosecution (the other two cases are ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) and Cyril Wecht). And in a letter on Friday, Conyers warned Attorney General Michael Mukasey that if the Department did not take notice, "we will have little choice but to consider the compulsory process." You can see that letter here.

Conyers included in his letter a three-page chart of requests (pdf) made by the committee that have gone unanswered by the Department. "We very much that the pending requests can be resolved voluntarily," he writes.

The next step in the House Judiciary Committee's attempts to hear from the architects of the administration's interrogation policy: the panel just voted to authorize a subpoena for David Addington. Last week, Addington indicated that he might appear to testify if the committee subpoenaed him. It's not clear yet when that hearing might be.

The committee also is seeking to hear from John Yoo, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel Daniel Levin. The committee continues to negotiate with all of those possible witnesses about appearing in the future, according to a press release yesterday. During the vote just now, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that "most" of the witnesses the committee wanted to hear from had agreed to appear.

It's deja vu all over again.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) says that if Karl Rove won't agree to testify before his committee about his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), then he'll be forced to consider issuing a subpoena. You can read his letter to Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin below.

In response to Conyers' initial request for Rove to testify, Luskin offered to have Rove speak to the committee behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath -- the same offer administration lawyers made to Congress in the U.S. attorney firings investigation. And you know where that went: the House is currently suing to enforce those subpoenas after finding former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.

Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of that investigation and refused to show up to testify. That committee subsequently voted to find him in contempt, but the full Senate never voted on the citation.

Read more »

Last month, the judge handling the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten set a schedule that will culminate in a June hearing, when both sides will get to argue. Up until then, both sides will be submitting written arguments pleading their side of the case.

First up were lawyers for the House, who wrote, "Not since the days of Watergate have the Congress and the federal courts been confronted with such an expansive view of executive privilege as the one asserted by the current presidential administration and the individual Defendants in this case." You can read the entire 45-page motion here.

House lawyers, following through on the contempt citations from the House Judiciary Committee, are trying to convince the judge to rule with them on certain narrower questions of executive privilege in an attempt to actually get hear from Harriet Miers and see some White House documents relevant to the U.S. attorney firings sometime this year.

We knew that the House's lawsuit against White House officials would take awhile. And it turns out that it'll be June, at the earliest, before a judge makes his first decision in the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.

That relatively rapid pace (for the courts, at least) is the result of the House pushing for quicker resolution of some of the White House's more expansive claims of executive privilege. The court will decide first whether administration lawyers are right when they say that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for. Thornier issues (e.g. whether certain conversations that do not involve the president are covered by executive privilege, etc.) would be dealt with later. The House has sought this speedier resolution with the hope that it would mean they'd actually get to hear from Miers and see some documents from Bolten before the close of the Bush administration.

Last Friday, the judge set a schedule for both sides to submit motions and set a hearing for June 23rd when the House's general counsel and Justice Department lawyers will argue before the judge. But whichever way the judge eventually rules, the decision would likely be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, meaning that regardless of the House's desire for a speedy resolution, the case is bound to spend a long time in the courts before Congressional investigators see any of its fruits.

A quick update on the House's lawsuit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. From The Politico:

The House General Counsel's Office, which is representing the Judiciary Committee in a civil contempt lawsuit against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, has asked a federal judge to set up an expedited schedule to resolve portions of the case, a schedule that would require a ruling by this summer, according to court documents filed today.

The Justice Department, which is representing Bolten and Miers in the case, countered that the only reason the Judiciary Committee is seeking a speedy determination of the case is so that it "recommence prior to Congress' August recess" its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. The Justice Department wants a slower review of the contempt case, and it is already warning that it may appeal any ruling that goes against it.

What the House wants is to just settle the White House's more expansive claims of privilege -- namely, that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for.

A private conference is scheduled for tomorrow. The judge's decision will likely indicate whether the House has any hope of hearing any actual testimony from Miers or seeing any documents from Bolten during the Bush administration.

And we're on to the next step of the Congress v. White House subpoena battle.

First, the House found Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt for refusing to respond to House Judiciary Committee subpoenas from the U.S. attorney firings investigation. Then, the Justice Department, as Attorney General Mukasey had warned it would, refused to convene a grand jury and rebuffed the criminal referral. And now we're on to step three: a lawsuit against the administration to enforce the subpoenas.

As Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) says, "It is extremely rare that Congress must litigate in order to enforce subpoenas and no compromise can be reached. Unfortunately, this Administration simply will not negotiate towards a compromise resolution so we must proceed."

He looks forward to "a quick and favorable ruling by the Court, so that we can complete our investigation." The expectation on all sides, though, is that this will likely drag on for many months.

We'll keep you updated as the case moves forward.

You can read the 36-page complaint here (pdf).

Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington, writing today in The Los Angeles Times:

The recent decisions of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to block any prosecution of Bush administration officials for contempt and to block any criminal investigation of torture led to a chorus of criticism. Many view the decisions as raw examples of political manipulation of the legal process and overt cronyism. I must confess that I was one of those crying foul until I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.

In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers....

When reduced to its purest form, Mukasey's Paradox is that government officials cannot violate the law -- but that because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law.

As expected, Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave the House the legal finger on Friday in response to a criminal referral for White House aides' contempt of Congress. Think of that what you will, the House has been forced on to Plan B, a civil suit against the White House.

Roll Call (sub. req.) reports it should be coming soon:

House Democrats said a civil lawsuit could be filed as early as this month that challenges the Bush administration’s claims of executive privilege in curtailing aides from testifying on Capitol Hill….

According to Democratic sources, staff is working expeditiously to finalize the lawsuit, which is expected to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before the House recesses for two weeks on March 14.

The general counsel, which will file the lawsuit on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to urge the federal court to rule on the legitimacy of the Bush administration’s claims that executive privilege protects conversations between Miers and Bolten and the president. The court also could compel both individuals to testify before the House committee.

No surprise here. From The Washington Post:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey refused yesterday to refer two new House contempt citations to a federal grand jury, saying the White House aides involved in the case cannot be prosecuted because they were following legal advice from the Justice Department.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Mukasey said the refusal by White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet E. Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas "did not constitute a crime."

So now it's on to court, where we'll have the novel situation of the House Judiciary Committee suing the White House.

Two weeks ago, the House passed a contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. The two refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee as part of the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.

Today, after House lawyers dotted their i's and crossed their t's, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally followed up by referring the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for D.C.

What will happen next is not much of a mystery. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already said that the Justice Department would not act on such a referral and convene a grand jury, as required by federal law. That's because Miers and Bolten didn't comply with the subpoenas because the President said they couldn't -- it would violate executive privilege.

In a letter to Mukasey, Pelosi anticipated that answer, but argued that "there is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so."

She concluded: "I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim."

If Mukasey, through D.C.'s U.S. attorney, rebuffs the referral as expected, the House has a backup plan. The House also passed a resolution that would allow the House Judiciary Committee to pursue a lawsuit against the White House over the subpoena. If a judge agreed to hear the case, it might lead to a decision as to whether the President's sweeping invocation of privilege is Constitutional.

As we noted earlier, there was something of an uproar in the House this morning when a Republican called for a vote during the memorial service for Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA). The vote was part of a general Republican effort to delay the scheduled vote on contempt resolutions against White House officials.

As the Politico reported, there has already been plenty of rancor over the move. The Dems, via a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called the move "unjustifiable." But GOPers said it was justifiable, and explained that the Dems were really at fault because they broke their commitment to keep the House in recess during the memorial service:

"The reason for the chaos is the majority," [Jo Maney, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Rules Committee] said. "We made clear we would use every procedural rule" to delay the contempt votes.

"There was an agreement that there would be no votes during the service, but they [Democrats] rang the bells" to bring the House back into session, Maney said.

But a Dem leadership aide responded that that explanation doesn't hold water:

“This is the height of disrespect and completely shameful. None of their procedural options were denied by starting when we did; they just chose to call for a vote at the most inappropriate time. The idea that Republicans had no choice is preposterous, all they had to do was allow debate to continue for another 20 minutes and the service could have concluded in peace.”

We've bounced it back over to the Republican to side to see if they have a rejoinder. Here's video of Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) explaining why he called the vote.

Update: Here's CQ's version of what happened.

Update: To cap it all off, see House Minority Whip Roy Blunt's (R-MO) floor comments on this below:

Read more »

Well, after all that -- after seven months, it's done. The House passed the contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, 223-32. Most Republicans, having staged their walk out, did not vote.

So now the ball's in Attorney General Michael Mukasey's court. He's expected to decline to enforce the citation of contempt, since both Bolten and Miers declined to testify as a result of an assertion of executive privilege.

The resolution included both a criminal contempt citation and the authorization for the House Judiciary Committee to sue the White House if Mukasey refuses to enforce the citation. You can read those here.

Update: Here's the final tally.

The House GOP has been doing their best to kick this can down the road, even igniting something of a fracas. From The Politico:

During what was supposed to be a somber memorial service in Statuary Hall for Rep. Tom Lantos, who died Monday, the House chamber became mired in chaos over procedural votes.

Democrats angrily denounced the GOP as insensitive for calling a "motion to adjourn" — essentially a dilatory tactic — while dignitaries were still giving tributes to Lantos, a Holocaust survivor who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. But Republican aides shot back quickly, saying it was Democrats who broke an agreement to keep the House in recess during the memorial service....

More at Huffington Post.

We'll have results from the vote when the House finally gets to it.