Congress Subpoenas Karl Rove

[Guest Jonathan Godfrey]

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's case. Yesterday, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, sent a letter to the committee expressing that Rove would not agree to testify voluntarily, per the committee's previous requests.

 

"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."

 

Separately, Chairman Conyers recently received a letter from DOJ's Office of Professional Responibility (OPR) indicating that the office has opened an investigation into allegations of selective prosecution of Siegelman and others.

 

Mr. Robert D. Luskin

Patton Boggs LLP

2550 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1350

 

Dear Mr. Luskin:

 

We were disappointed to receive you May 21 letter, which fails to explain why Mr. Rove is willing to answer question in writing for the House Judiciary Committee, and has spoken on the record to the media, but continues to refuse to testify voluntarily before the Committee on the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of form Governer Don Siegelman. Because of that continuing refusal, we enclose with this letter a subpoena for Mr. Rove's appearance before the Committee's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2008.

 

In light of specific statements in your letter, we want to clarify several points. Your letter is incorrect in suggesting that the enclosed subpoena will raise the same issues as the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Harriet Miers. Both these matters focus on the firing of U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and efforts to mislead Congress and the public on that subject. Here, as we have made clear from the outset, the Siegelman case is a principal focus of our request for Mr. Rove to testify. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has made a number of on-the-record comments to the media about the Siefelman case and the U.S. Attorney firings, extending far beyond "general denials of wrongdoing." There is no question that both the prior subpoenas to Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should have been complied with. But it is even more clear that Mr. Rove should testify as we have now directed.

 

We would also dispute your contention that we are "provoking a gratuitous confrontation while issues raised by the Committee's request are being litigated in U.S. District Court or why the mechanisms for resolution of any dispute between us, and we need not wait for resolution of separate and ongoing litigation to attempt to employ or consider those other mechanisms. We have also noted that we do not believe your proposal to respond in writing to written questions is reasonable or consistent with the precedents of this Committee.

 

Your letter suggests that Mr. Rove is not a "free agent" and would follow the requests of the White House with respect to his testimony. Particularly in light of the factors discussed above, we hop that the White House will not take the position that Mr. Rove should not testify. Other former White House officials, including Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings who worked with Mr. Rove in the White House's political office, have in fact testified in response to congressional subpoenas, and dealt with questions of privilege on a question-by-question basis. Mr. Rove should follow the same course.

 

We should make clear, however, that Mr. Rove, as a private party not employed by the government is himself responsible for the decision on how to respond to the enclosed subpoena, which is a legally binding directive that he appear before the Committee on July 10. In an analogous situation in the 1970s, when the White House attemped to instruct a private party, AT&T, not to comply with a House Subcommittee subpoena, AT&T "felt obligated to disregard those instructions and to comply with the subpoena," resulting in a lawsuit by the Administration seeking to enjoin such compliance. We very much hope that will not be necessary in this case, but we also hope that you will understand that Mr. Rove's obligation, as a private party, is to seek to comply with the enclosed subpoena. Indeed, you appeared to recognize this yourself when you responded to an earlier media inquiry as to wheth Mr. Rove would comply with such a subpoena by e-mailing "sure."

 

Finally, we want to make clear that we are very willing to meet with you and your client to discuss this matter. Please direct any questions or communications to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel:202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680).

 

Sincerely,

 

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman

 

Linda T. Sanchez

Chair, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

 

CC.

Hon. Lamar S. Smith

Hon. Chris Cannon

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican, submitted a written question-and-answer exchange with Rove in which the political strategist said he played no role in the controversial prosecution of Alabama’s former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman. I think it is fairly obvious that we are wasting American Tax Payer dollars continuing this investigation. Karl Rove had no communication or influence in his case.

 

Answsers to House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith from Karl C. Rove Regarding Allegations of Selective Prosecution in the Case of Former Alabama Governor Donald E. Siegelman

Jully 22, 2008

 

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.

 

Karl Rove: I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with the Justice Department of Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

 

2. Before Governor Siegelman was initially indicted in May 2005, but before the first superseding indictment against him in October 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 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.

 

Karl Rove: I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Simpson about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, about any other matter related to his case, or about any other matter whatsover.

 

3. After Governor Siegelman was initially indicted in May 2005, but before the first superseding indictment against him in October 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 prosecution? If so, please state separetely 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.

 

Karl Rove: I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department of Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential 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.

 

4. After Governor Siegelman was initially indicted in May 2005, but before the first superseding indictment against him in October 2005, did you ever communicate with Dana Jill Simpson, Esq., regarding Governor Siegelman or Governor Siegelman's investigation or prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, means, and content of the communication.

 

Karl Rove: I have never communicated either directly or indirectly, with Simpson about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, about any other matter related to his case, or about any other matter whatsover.

 

5. After Governor Siegelman's first superseding indictment in October 2005, but before his subsequent conviction, 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 and prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, and means of the communication, the official with whom you communicated, and the content of the communication.

 

Karl Rove: I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department of Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential 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.