we’ll see…

Posted on Thursday 5 March 2009


And, just as importantly, the notion of Absolute Immunity dies a well-deserved death (via email).
    In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

    In addition, if 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.

    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.
Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:
    "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."
Update on timing: The Committee is going to get the documents it had requested and read them before they do the interviews with Harriet and Karl. And the interviews will be done by staffers, with the option of doing a public hearing with questions from Congresspersons if that seems useful. So the timing for the moment seems to be driven by how quickly they get documents.

Update: Pelosi does a victory dance for the authority of Article I (via email):
    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.
Update: One more detail on logistics. The documents and the transcripts will eventually be made public.
Top Bush Aides to Testify in U.S. Attorneys’ Firings
By DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times
March 4, 2009

Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers, top former aides to President George W. Bush, will testify under oath to a House committee investigating the firings of nine United States attorneys in 2007, under an agreement announced Wednesday by the panel. The agreement settled a rancorous dispute that began in mid-2007 when the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers, who, according to e-mail messages released by the Justice Department, played a role in the firings.

In a statement after the agreement was announced, Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the judiciary panel, declared victory and said the committee had finally succeeded in breaking through the Bush administration’s absolute immunity claims. Mr. Conyers called the agreement “a vindication of the search for truth.” He added, “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.”

A key factor in ending the impasse appeared to be the pressure on both sides exerted by President Obama’s legal team, which had urged each side to reach the arrangement. Up until the deal, lawyers for Mr. Bush had stuck by their assertions that Mr. Rove, a senior Bush political adviser, and Ms. Miers, a former White House counsel, could not testify because they were protected by executive privilege. Bush lawyers had continued to invoke that legal claim even after Mr. Bush left office.

Under the agreement, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will provide depositions and sworn public testimony about the firings, but the scope of their testimony will be limited to the dismissals and closely related issues. Moreover, the two former Bush officials will not be asked about their conversations with Mr. Bush on the subject or their discussions with other members of the White House counsel’s office. The committee will also be able to ask questions about the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat who has said he was victim of a politically motivated prosecution, possibly involving administration officials…
 
Mixed reaction here. Of course it’s a victory. But I remember the unsatisfying Libby Trial. And I remember Condi Rice’s testimony. And I remember Alberto Gonzales testimony. And I remember the amazing farce of David Addington and John Yoo testifying. And this seems like a hell of a loophole to me – "Moreover, the two former Bush officials will not be asked about their conversations with Mr. Bush on the subject or their discussions with other members of the White House counsel’s office." Still, with all my hard earned paranoid fears, having them testify is better than not having them testify [And the release of documents is a plus]. Time to review those emails. We’ll see…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.