Press release: New facts on Karl Rove/Harriet Miers interviews

By GottaLaff

Via TPM, we have the press release from the House Judiciary Committee about the transcripts of interviews with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove. There are new facts about the politicization by the BushCo Department of Justice of the U.S. Attorney firings. Besides the interviews, there were 5,400 pages of White House and RNC e-mails:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today released over 700 pages of on-the-record interview transcripts of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. attorney firings and the Bush administration's politicization of the Department of Justice. Conyers also released over 5,400 pages of Bush White House and Republican National Committee e-mails on these subjects.

The released materials reveal that White House officials were deeply involved in the U.S. attorney firings and the administration made a concerted effort to hide that fact from the American people. "After all the delay and despite all the obfuscation, lies, and spin," Conyers said, "this basic truth can no longer be denied: Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons. Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing U.S. attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horsetrading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the U.S. attorney corps - that of U.S. Attorney Iglesias - because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections. When Mr. Iglesias said his firing was a 'political fragging,' he was right."

Key new facts revealed in the materials released today include:

* 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 e-mails 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 e-mailed 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.1

* Iglesias criticized by Rove aide for not "doing his job on" Democratic Congressional Candidate Patricia Madrid - An October 2006 e-mail 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 e-mail, Iglesias' name was placed on the final firing list.2

* An "agitated" Rove pressed Harriet Miers to do something about Iglesias just weeks before Iglesias was placed on the removal list - Karl Rove phoned Harriet Miers during a visit to New Mexico in September 2006 - according to Miers' testimony, Rove was "agitated" and told her that Iglesias was "a serious problem and he wanted something done about it."3

* Senator Domenici personally asked Bush's Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to have Iglesias replaced - In October 2006, Senator Domenici stepped up his campaign to have Iglesias replaced. According to White House phone logs and emails, as well as Rove's own testimony, Domenici spoke with President Bush's Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about Iglesias on October 5, 2006, and during October 2006, Domenici or his staff spoke with Karl Rove at least four times.4

* Todd Graves removed in Rove-approved deal with Republican Senator - Kansas City U.S. Attorney Todd Graves was removed as part of a White House-brokered deal with U.S. Senator Kit Bond. In exchange for the administration firing Graves, Senator Bond agreed to lift his hold on an Arkansas judge nominated to the Eighth Circuit federal appeals court. A White House e-mail stated that "Karl is fine" with the proposal.5

* Miers obtained favorable statement on Rick Renzi in violation of DOJ policy - When rumors of the FBI investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi surfaced in October, 2006, one of Rove's subordinates contacted Harriet Miers, who called Deputy Attorney General McNulty seeking a possible statement that would have "vindicated" Renzi. Even though this was contrary to standard DOJ policy, such a statement was issued several days later.6

"I have provided a copy of the materials released today to special U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy to assist in her effort to determine whether federal criminal charges are appropriate and to pursue any such charges," said Conyers. "In the meantime, the committee has honored its pledge to get on-the-record statements from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, as well as the relevant White House documents, and is pleased to make this unprecedented collection of Bush administration materials directly available to the American people by posting it online.

"I am especially grateful to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the House Democratic leadership for their strong and unwavering support of this investigation, including the citations for contempt of Congress issued by the House in 2008. I also thank all members who voted in support of those citations and authorized the historic litigation that was instrumental in bringing us to this point. Today's release marks a powerful victory for the rule of law, and should be celebrated by all who cherish our constitutional system of separation of powers and open, transparent government."

An electronic copy of the materials released can be found on the Committee's Web site at linked here. The release is pursuant to an agreement reached in March 2009 between the committee and the former Bush administration, with the assistance of the Obama administration, to resolve the committee's lawsuit and the contempt citations issued by the Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives with respect to the refusal of the Bush administration to produce subpoenaed White House documents or permit the testimony of former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. attorney firings.

1 May 2,2005, e-mail from Scott Jennings to Tim Griffin (HJC 00173); June 9,2005, e-mail from Harriet Miers to Leslie Fahrenkopf (HJC 00177); June 28, 2005, email from Scott Jennings to Tim Griffin (HJC 00180).
2 October 15, 2006, e-mail chain including Heather Wilson, Steve Bell, Scott Jennings, Karl Rove and others (HJC 00340-41).
3 Miers Interview Transcript at 40-48.
4 Josh Bolten phone log (HJC 00489); October 10, 2006, e-mail from Scott Jennings to Karl Rove (HJC 00334); Karl Rove phone log (HJC 00490); Rove Interview Transcript 123-24.
5 December 21, 2005, email from Richard Klingler to Harriet Miers (HJC 00194-A).
6 October 24, 2006, e-mail from Harriet Miers to Scott Jennings (HJC 00344-45).

1May 2,2005, e-mail from Scott Jennings to Tim Griffin (HJC 00173); June 9,2005, e-mail from Harriet Miers to Leslie Fahrenkopf (HJC 00177); June 28, 2005, e-mail from Scott Jennings to Tim Griffin (HJC 00180).

2October 15, 2006, e-mail chain including Heather Wilson, Steve Bell, Scott Jennings, Karl Rove and others (HJC 00340-41).

3Miers Interview Transcript at 40-48.

4Josh Bolten phone log (HJC 00489); October 10, 2006, e-mail from Scott Jennings to Karl Rove (HJC 00334); Karl Rove phone log (HJC 00490); Rove Interview Transcript 123-24.

5December 21, 2005, e-mail from Richard Klingler to Harriet Miers (HJC 00194-A).

6October 24, 2006, e-mail from Harriet Miers to Scott Jennings (HJC 00344-45).

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of Karl Rove and Co.

Rove Can Claim Privilege Only When Asked About Bush

By GottaLaff

As usual, Bush is off limits:

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 a copy of the agreement here.

My frustration level just rose again.

Rove/Miers deal: The sequel

By GottaLaff

I'm digging up more details. These are from Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, and I'm not happy with some of them:

Craig at times took a hard line in trying to get both sides to make concessions, the sources said. At one point this week, he even told House Democratic lawyers he would authorize Obama's Justice Department to oppose them in court if they didn't back down from some of their demands to complete access to the material.

But in the end, it would appear, it was Bush's lawyers, represented mainly by former associate White House counsel Emmett Flood and his former boss, Fred Fielding, who made the most concessions. Under the agreement, lawyers for Rep. John Conyers's House Judiciary Committee will get immediate access to most of the White House documents in Craig's office. But four documents that cover direct discussions with President Bush about the U.S. attorney firings will still be withheld. The contents of these documents will be described by the former president's lawyers to the House.

Then, after the documents are reviewed, Rove and Miers will be questioned in private by lawyers for the Judiciary Committee, with a transcript of the interviews made. But their testimony will not be given under oath and it will not be in public—at least not initially. The judiciary panel will have the right to call the witnesses again later to testify in public if they wish, though this seems unlikely in the case of Miers; her former position as White House counsel will allow her to invoke some attorney-client privileges. House lawyers say the fact that the witnesses will not be testifying under oath is not particularly significant because they can still be criminally charged with making false statements to a congressional committee if it can be proved that they lied. [...]

Wednesday's agreement allowed all sides to claim victory. In a statement, Conyers called the deal "a vindication of the search for truth" about the U.S. attorney purge. Craig said in a statement that the agreement was the product of a "tremendous amount of hard work, patience, and flexibility on both sides," and that Obama was "pleased" that the parties were able to resolve their dispute. Bush's lawyers could not be reached, but even Rove's lawyer called the deal "good news" and said his client "looks forward to addressing the committee's concerns."

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, did acknowledge that even he has not been given access to the documents in question, which are believed to include internal emails about the U.S. attorney firings that either mentioning Rove or were sent to him. Whether Rove will still be looking forward to testifying after those emails are turned over to congressional investigators is, at the moment, the biggest question mark hanging over the case.

Of course, this is a step in the right direction, but... well, that there are "buts".

Terms of the Rove, Miers deal

By GottaLaff

Here's a follow-up to Paddy's earlier post:

Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will provided depositions under penalty of perjury, according to a release from the committee. [...]

Obama had every reason to bring the two parties to the table. Without a deal, he would have been in the awkward position of defending Rove’s executive privilege claim as a way to preserve the power of the executive branch and protect his aides from being forced to testify before Congress in the future. [...]

As part of the agreement, the Judiciary Committee reserves the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It also won significant limitations, according to Conyers, on the invocation of official privileges. [...]

The committee also may depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. attorney firings, if the committee uncovers information requiring it.

The Bush administration also will hand over White House documents related to the inquiry, Conyers said. [...]

In a landmark decision last year, U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected key Bush White House claims of executive privilege. Through this agreement, the impact of that decision will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the panel can go back to court and the legal battle will continue.

More, from CBS:

[T]he key to the agreement was that the Obama White House stopped short of acknowledging that "executive privilege" still applied to Rove and Miers -- though the House Judiciary statement says "it was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited."

So what do you think?

Rove, Miers to talk in U.S. attorneys probe

Conyers hasn't been all that stern with the multiple violations by Rove and Miers, so I'm a little wary of the statement "claims of privilege will be "significantly limited". We'll see.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former White House political adviser Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers have agreed to face questions from Congress about allegations of improper political influence in the Justice Department, the House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday.

Both will give depositions to investigators from the committee, and claims of privilege will be "significantly limited," according to a statement from the committee. Rove and Miers had been resisting congressional subpoenas about the matter, but a federal judge in Washington ruled that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege in the case.

The committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, has been investigating claims that Rove and his White House allies fired U.S. attorneys for political reasons and prosecuted officials whom they saw as opponents.

Conyers called the agreement "a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight."

More background here.

Nancy Pelosi thinks some Bush officials will be prosecuted

By GottaLaff

How many times have I posted expressing my fervent wish that BushCo would be investigated, prosecuted, and eventually imprisoned? Let me count them: One, two, three, four, five... two thousand one hundred twenty-four, two thousand one hundred twent-three...:

But in a new interview with Rolling Stone, Pelosi went a step further, saying that she believes some senior Bush officials — such as Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove — will be prosecuted:

RS: Do you foresee a scenario in which senior members of the Bush administration are actually prosecuted?

PELOSI: I think so. The American people deserve answers. Where we are now, in terms of prosecution of White House staff, is that we have charged them with contempt of Congress. We’re talking about Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten and Karl Rove. The natural course of events from here is that the speaker will determine what charge we’re going to pursue, because there are more than one. Under Bush, the Justice Department told the U.S. attorney not to prosecute the case. So the beat goes on — it just gets worse. We don’t know what will happen, because they’ve delayed it a long time.

Pelosi later said that “we should have a full examination” of the Bush administration’s alleged crimes, adding that what Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “is putting forward, in terms of a truth-and-reconciliation committee, has always been helpful. It was helpful in South Africa, [and] it was helpful in Rwanda.”

Prosecuting one should lead to prosecuting many, many more... I hope.

Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries

By GottaLaff

Is there no end to this?

When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas... As Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush regime, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again. Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation torture of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Obama has reservations about pursuing too many investigations.

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

Supreme Court much?

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.

Ladies and gentleman: The next Precedent of the United States.

Sidebar: If we started the impeachment process, we could at least prevent him from pardoning. Just a thought.

Sliver of non-convention news: Miers may be forced to testify

By GottaLaff

Sorry to impose other news into our Big Day [sarcasm]:

A federal judge has denied the White House's request for a stay in legal fight over a subpoena for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, opening the possibility that Miers may be forced to testify about her role in the firing of U.S. attorneys.

White House and Congress going to court

By GottaLaff

Dear Wish Fairy, please do your magic:

Lawyers for the White House and Congress are headed to court Monday in a dispute over whether top aides to President Bush must provide evidence in a House investigation.

The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former lawyer, Harriet Miers, about the firing of federal prosecutors. The White House says Congress can’t do that because of the separation-of-powers doctrine. [...] A federal judge has scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. [...]

The hearing will be the first appearance in court since Miers and Bolten snubbed Congress nearly a year ago. Observers expect the court battle to continue perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court, and a resolution is not predicted before President Bush leaves office.

Running out the clock has become an art form. And if it goes to the Supreme Court, chalk it up. Wish Fairy, can you give us a hand?