Conyers Seeks Compliance with Judge’s Ruling on White House Subpoenas

(Washington, DC) – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding and counsel for Harriet Miers and Karl Rove calling for quick compliance with yesterday’s ruling in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers et al. Chairman Conyers also stated to Fielding his willingness to resume discussions towards cooperatively resolving the entire matter, as Judge Bates has urged the parties to do, and proposed that he and Fielding meet in person to discuss the matter.

Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Fielding:

I am writing to follow up on Judge Bates’ ruling in the Committee’s civil case seeking enforcement of the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten regarding documents relevant to the Committee’s investigation into allegations concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Fred, at the outset, I want to assure you that, consistent with Judge Bates’ suggestions and the course of our relationship, I am committed to working this dispute out expeditiously and without the need for further litigation. As such, I remain ready, willing, and able to work with you cooperatively to resolve these issues, as we have attempted many times previously, and would welcome a meeting with you directly at your earliest convenience to resolve the matter.

In the meantime, Judge Bates’ ruling requires production of all non-privileged documents subject to the subpoena and further requires “a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion.†Order at ¶ 4. The Opinion explains that the description must include a “list†of the relevant documents as well as a “more detailed†description of their “nature and scope†than that contained in Mr. Clement’s June 27, 2007 letter. Memorandum Opinion at 92-93.

Because the parties are to appear before Judge Bates at a status conference on August 27, 2008, it is important that we move quickly on these matters. For that reason, I hope that you will provide the non-privileged documents and the required listing and description of any documents withheld on the basis of privilege by Friday August 8, 2008. Given that the documents have already been collected, identified, and reviewed, this should be ample time. In particular, timely production of these materials is essential so that we may have productive negotiations regarding the document issue ahead of our appearance before Judge Bates, as he has urged us to do. See Memorandum Opinion at 77. I have written a similar letter to Ms. Miers’ attorney concerning any documents in her possession and concerning her obligation to testify before the Committee pursuant to the subpoena issued to her.

Please direct any questions or communications to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-XXXX; fax: 202-225-XXXX).

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Linda Sánchez
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith
The Honorable Chris Cannon
George T. Manning, Esq.
Carl Nichols, Esq.
Irvin Nathan, Esq.

President Bush’s top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.

The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But President Bush says they are immune from such subpoenas. They say Congress can’t force them to testify or turn over documents.

U.S. District Judge John Bates disagreed, saying there’s no legal basis for that argument and that Miers must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person.

“Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,” Bates wrote.

He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration’s efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expensive of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.

(Washington, DC)– In a ruling today, United States District Court Judge John Bates ruled that former White House counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from Congressional subpoena and is required to testify on the U.S. Attorney scandal and the politicization of the Department of Justice in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. He also rejected procedural arguments by Ms. Miers and White House Chief of staff Josh Bolten, and ruled that Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers are required to produce non-privileged documents and specifically describe documents withheld from production based on executive privilege claims. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. had the following statement:

ORDER

Upon consideration of [16] defendants’ motion to dismiss and [14] plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the oppositions and replies thereto, the various amicus briefs filed in this matter, the entire record herein, the hearing on June 23, 2008, and for the reasons identified in the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date, it is hereby

1. ORDERED that defendants’ [16] motion to dismiss is DENIED; it is further

2. ORDERED that plaintiff’s [14] motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART; it is further

3. DECLARED that Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate; it is further

4. ORDERED that Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of
executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date; and it is further

5. ORDERED that the parties shall appear at a status call in this matter at 9:15 a.m.on August 27, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

/s/
JOHN D. BATES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: July 31, 2008

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee approved a report and resolution recommending that the House of Representatives cite former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, for contempt of Congress for failing to appear before the Committee as required by subpoena. The report and resolution passed by a vote of 20-14.

“Today’s vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person – not even Karl Rove – is above the law.” said Chairman John Conyers, Jr. “This week’s Inspector General report on the pervasive politicization of the Department of Justice particularly underscores the urgent need for Mr. Rove to testify before Congress. Any suggestion that the matters for which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed are not important, or that no Administration misconduct has been revealed, is just inconsistent with the facts. Our investigation has revealed Mr. Rove to be a key figure in the firings of US Attorneys, and the questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount.”

“Today’s vote demonstrates that the House will not tolerate Mr. Rove’s flawed excuses for avoiding his responsibility to obey a Congressional subpoena,” said Rep. Linda Sánchez, Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. “We are serious about defending the legislative branch’s constitutional oversight role, and it’s time for Mr. Rove to get serious about following the law.”

Below are links to materials related to today’s vote.

Committee Contempt Report (pdf) >>
Judiciary Committee Markup Memo (pdf) >>
Conyers Opening Statement (pdf) >>
Sánchez Opening Statement >>

A new Justice Department report concludes that politics illegally influenced the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges, and largely lays the blame on top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Monday’s report singles out the department’s former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, for violating federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren’t Republican or conservative loyalists.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez had the following response to today’s Department of Justice Inspector General/Office of Personal Responsibility Report on “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General.â€

“Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” said Conyers. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others. The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim. The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for perjury is needed.”

“The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the politicization of the Department of Justice has been criticized by the Minority as a fishing expedition that has caught no fish,” said Sánchez. “This report, which found that Monica Goodling and many other Justice Department officials committed misconduct by violating both federal law and Department policy, adds to a growing public record that this Administration has tainted our system of justice.â€

The report, released today by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility found:

• Senior Bush Administration Department of Justice officials, including Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and others violated federal law and committed misconduct in basing hiring decisions for career prosecutor positions, details to senior Department offices and immigration judgeships on the applicant’s political affiliations and views. (125-27)

• The report highlighted political cronyism that was “particularly damaging†in a vital counterterrorism post when a qualified expert was rejected because his wife had the wrong political affiliation. Instead a candidate was chosen that “lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues†and who other DoJ officials believed “was not qualified for the position.†(136)

• Immigration judgeships were needlessly held vacant for long periods while Department leaders sought to identify politically suitable candidates, leading to a severe backlog of immigration matters. (128)

• Monica Goodling also made false statements to the Department’s own lawyers who were defending a lawsuit regarding Immigration Judge hiring. (138)

• A current Department official, John Nowacki, prepared and circulated a press release responding to public concern about these issues that he knew was false at the time; the report recommends that Mr. Nowacki be disciplined (127-28)

• Monica Goodling refused to approve several DOJ appointments for an AUSA who Ms. Goodling believed was gay. (132-33)

Excerpts from the Report:

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today issued the following statement on a recent Heritage Foundation memorandum on non-citizen voting.

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is serving her seventh term in Congress representing most of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County. She serves as Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. She also Chairs the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections and serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. Congresswoman Lofgren is Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation consisting of 34 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.

Conyers and Sánchez: Rove Not Immune from Testifying

(Washington, DC)- House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA) responded today to Karl Rove attorney Robert Luskin’s letter advising the Committee that Rove would not appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, in violation of the Committee’s subpoena. In his letter, received yesterday, Luskin reiterated his offer to make Rove available for an off-the-record interview, without an oath, about the Siegelman matter only, although the Committee has made clear the need to explore with Rove related issues concerning the politicization of the Justice Department such as the US Attorney firings at any hearing or interview.

“We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives,” Conyers and Sánchez wrote.

Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Luskin:

We were disappointed to receive your July 1 letter indicating that your client Karl Rove does not intend to appear before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on July 10, in violation of the subpoena directing him to do so. Your letter is all the more disappointing since other current and former White House officials have testified before the Committee, both voluntarily and pursuant to subpoena, and since you have publicly stated that Mr. Rove would testify if subpoenaed by Congress. We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

Your letter states that Mr. Rove will not attend the hearing because he is “obligated†to disregard the subpoena as a result of the White House’s claim of immunity for former advisors. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. As a private party, Mr. Rove is “obligated†to comply with the subpoena issued to him and, at the very least, appear at the July 10 hearing. Indeed, in a similar situation in the 1970s, when the White House attempted 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.1

In addition, refusing even to attend the hearing flies in the face of the recent conduct of several high-ranking White House officials, including current vice presidential Chief of Staff and presidential assistant David Addington and former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who testified before the Committee upon invitation (McClellan) or subpoena (Addington). Former White House officials have also testified under subpoena before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Indeed, when you were asked by a media representative whether Mr. Rove would testify before Congress in response to a subpoena on the Siegelman matter, you responded “sure†by e-mail. The Subcommittee is prepared to consider objections to specific questions on privilege grounds, but there is no proper basis for the refusal to appear altogether.

Finally, although we remain willing to discuss proposals to seek to resolve this matter, we want to restate that attempting to separate the Siegelman matter from our related concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department is not acceptable. In fact, your own April 29 letter appears to recognize that the Siegelman matter, other selective prosecution matters, and the U.S. Attorney firings are clearly related as part of the concerns regarding politicization of the Department under this Administration. For this reason, an artificially truncated interview such as the one you propose would not be “constructive,†but could instead limit the Committee’s ability to understand any role played by Mr. Rove in the matters under investigation.

We strongly urge you to reconsider your position, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 pursuant to his legal obligations. 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. Sánchez
Chair, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Chris Cannon