Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to Testify Before Chairman John Conyer's House Judiciary Committee

John Conyers has finally accomplished what seemed for so long to be the impossible. After years and a seemingly endless wave of court documents, decisions and and briefs defending the extensive powers of executive privilege; Karl Rove, the top political strategist for former president George W. Bush and former White House counsel Harriet Miers will finally testify before the House Judiciary Committee as the House committee will proceed with it's investigation of the dismissals of a number of United States attorneys for political reasons.

Conyer's victory was simply a matter of dogged persistence and was a long, hard fought battle that pitted the rights of congressional oversight against executive privilege: Conyers has finally seemingly emerged the victor as his perseverance has required Rove and Miers to be legally bound to provide sworn depositions before the Judiciary Committee which "reserved the right to ask them to testify in public."

Today's late-afternoon agreement between the House Judiciary Committee, Rove and Miers has all of the appearances of having ended a drawn out standoff between the former Bush administration and Congressional leaders whose many efforts to compel the two Bush advisers to provide testimony under oath were denied by former president Bush.

The final legal move by Rove's attorney was an attempt to gain a favorable opinion on executive privilege from President Obama's chief White House counsel, Greg Craig. Earlier tonight, Mr. Craig issued the following statement:

"Today’s agreement between the House Committee and the former administration is the product of a tremendous amount of hard work, patience, and flexibility on both sides. The agreement will allow the committee to complete its investigation into the U.S. attorneys matter and it will do so in the way such disputes have historically been resolved – through negotiation and accommodation between the legislative and executive branches. The president is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably and that they have committed to work in good faith to bring about a timely and final resolution of this matter, which is in the interest of the American people."

Earlier in the day Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi provided her own statement on the situation:

"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."

Earlier this evening; former president George W. Bush directed his spokesman Rob Saliterman to issue the following statement: "At the urging of the Obama Administration, and in consideration of the Executive Branch interests at stake, we have reached an accommodation with the House Judiciary Committee that satisfies the Committee's desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest."

Vermont Democrat, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has had numerous legislative-executive branch conflicts with the former Bush administration issued his own statement:

"It should not have taken until now to obtain testimony and documents from Bush administration officials connected to the investigation into the firings. Today’s agreement leaves in place the court ruling that rejected the Bush administration’s unprecedented and unfounded blanket claims of executive privilege and immunity. I rejected those claims as excessive and wrong in my ruling on President Bush’s position over a year ago, and a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately found Karl Rove and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton in criminal contempt.

"I commend Chairman Conyers for the agreement reached today. I hope Congress, and the American people, will now finally hear long overdue answers to serious questions about political interference by the Bush White House in our nation’s top law enforcement agency."

In The End All Sides Claimed Victory

Michael Isikoff reports that,"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," Isikoff explained, "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.

"The key to how far the matter goes," Isikoff believes, "almost certainly rests in the contents of the documents. A Justice Department inspector general's report last year found that there was potential evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the firing of at least some of the U.S. attorneys—especially David Iglesias, the chief prosecutor in New Mexico, who was dismissed allegedly after state Republicans complained to Rove that Iglesias wasn't moving aggressively enough to bring vote fraud prosecutions that would aid the party's electoral prospects in the state. The inspector general's report led then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special counsel, to investigate.

"But even the Justice inspector general was never able to interview Rove or Miers," Isikoff reports, "and wasn't given complete access to some White House documents, especially an internal counsel chronology about the firings that was prepared by a White House lawyer. That memo will now be turned over to the House committee.

"Wednesday's agreement allowed all sides to claim victory." Isikoff postulates; "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," according to Isikoff, "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."