Guess who's footing the bill for those fancy lawyers the Stevens Six have hired? We are.

The Justice Department confirmed to TPMmuckraker that the prosecutors -- who are being investigated for criminal contempt in connection to misconduct in the Ted Stevens case -- requested representation under a DOJ provision that applies to employees who run into legal trouble while doing their jobs, and that the request was authorized.

Read more »

Did Karl Rove compile a "loyalty file" on former GOP congressman Tom Feeney? That's what Rove himself has reportedly claimed.

Politico reports on a chance encounter at Charlie Palmer's Steak last night between Bush's brain and Jason Roe, a former chief of staff to Feeney, the Florida congressman who was defeated for reelection last fall*.

Read more »

In the wake of the charges being dropped agaisnt Ted Stevens, is pressure building on the Justice Department to make a similar decision on behalf of Don Siegelman?

A lawyer for the former Alabama governor -- who last week told TPMmuckraker that the misconduct in his own case "dwarf[s]" that in Stevens' -- sent a letter Friday to Attorney General Eric Holder, asking that Holder review the evidence of "serious and pervasive" prosecutorial misconduct in Siegelman's case.

Read more »

For Don Siegelman, DOJ's decision on Ted Stevens just adds insult to injury.

"There seems to be substantial evidence of prosecutorial and other misconduct in my case, that would dwarf the allegations in the Stevens case," the former Alabama governor told TPMmuckraker in an interview moments ago.

Read more »

Over the weekend, Karl Rove talked a little more with Fox News about his impending testimony on the US Attorney firings and the Don Siegelman case.

He denied, as he has before, that there had been inappropriate political involvement in the firings. And he even appeared to suggest that, particularly in regard to the Siegelman matter, there was less need for his testimony because he has already responded to questions on his website, Rove.com.

Here's the video:

So what's the significance of the court ruling upholding most of the bribery and corruption charges on which former Alabama governor Don Siegelman was convicted?

Siegelman's appeal wasn't primarily focused on the allegations that his prosecution was politically motivated. (Bill Canary, the husband of Leura Canary, the US Attorney on the case, was a state GOP operative and close associate of Karl Rove, who had run the campaign of Siegelman's gubernatorial opponent.)

Still, today's ruling did touch tangentially on that set of issues. One of Siegelman's arguments on appeal was that there had been inappropriate contacts between jurors and prosecutors during the trial. That claim was of a piece with several allegations of prosecutorial misconduct detailed in an internal DOJ report -- including evidence that Leura Canary kept advising junior prosecutors on the case, even after recusing herself.

But the court appears to have rejected that claim, upholding a district court's opinion that no significant misconduct occurred.

As for Rove's alleged ties to the prosecution -- a witness has given sworn testimony that Rove was involved -- we'll hear his side of the story in the coming weeks, when he sits down with the House Judiciary committee to talk about both Siegelman and the US Attorney firings.

So when exactly will Karl Rove have his big sit-down with the House Judiciary committee to reveal what he knows about the White House's involvement in the US Attorney firings?

According to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, not for "several weeks." That's how long it will likely take, Luskin told TPMmuckraker, for both Rove and the committee to review the relevant documents and schedule the testimony. Luskin declined to give a more specific time frame.

The agreement securing Rove's testimony, announced Wednesday between Congress and the Bush administration, acknowledged this need for deliberation, declaring: "The interviews will be conducted as soon as possible consistent with needed preparation time and the availability of the witnesses and their counsel."

But Luskin did defend Rove's comments to FoxNews.com, published yesterday, in which he warned of a "show trial" and said that Democrats "would love to have me barbecued."

Arguing that Rove had legitimate concerns about the fairness of the process, Luskin referred to a comment made about Rove by Judicary chair John Conyers -- "someone's got to kick his ass." Luskin also said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had told Rolling Stone that Rove might have to go to jail. (In fact, Pelosi said she foresaw Rove being prosecuted.)

"If you were the subject of that, you'd worry about the process too," said Luskin.

Luskin also confirmed to TPMMuckraker that he had played no role in the agreement, and was not kept closely informed about the progress of negotiations.

Here's one other key aspect of the Rove-Miers testimony agreement that's worth noting...

The agreement declares that the famous "Scudder memo" will be made available "for Committee review only". In other words, the committee won't get to keep a copy, nor will it be able to release the memo publicly.

That seems at first like a significant concession.

The Scudder memo, to refresh your memories, appears to be a key piece of evidence in the effort to get to the bottom of the White House's role in the firings. Michael Scudder, an associate White House counsel, was tasked by White House staff with conducting an internal inquiry fully documenting the White House's involvement in the affair. He interviewed numerous White House and DOJ officials, including Rove. In their report on the firings released last year, Justice Department investigators identified the Scudder memo as one of the most crucial documents to which they lacked access, that might have helped them uncover the truth.

But it's not quite that simple. In an emailed statement to TPMmuckraker, a committee source explained why the committee settled for being able to review the memo only:

The Scudder memo was identified by OIG/OPR as a critical document even they could not get, and we would not have accepted a settlement that did not get us full use of the document in the interviews. At the same time, we do respect the need for White House lawyers to investigate rising controversies, and so we think the agreement works a fair compromise that won't limit our investigation or unduly burden any future Administration.

In other words, it sounds like one or both of the Bush and Obama White Houses were concerned, perhaps legitimately, about maintaining the ability to conduct internal reviews of controversial issues with the confidence that the results will remain confidential. And the committee felt willing to compromise on that point, as long as it was given adequate time to review the memo before it questioned Rove and Miers.

And of course, when transcripts of the testimony are released, we'll likely learn the key facts included in the memo anyway-- since they'll presumably be included in the committee's questioning and in the witnesses' responses.

On the related subject of the Obama White House's role in the deal, here's the cover letter that went with the agreement, written by Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, and sent to Judiciary chair John Conyers, and President Bush's lawyer, Emmet Flood.

The letter, which notes that "both the Bush administration and the House Judiciary Committee have confirmed to me orally and in writing that they have accepted the terms of the enclosed Agreement."

In other words, as recent reports have suggested, the Obama White House was intimately involved in shaping this agreement -- a fact that would appear to explain the concern for maintaining the White House's ongoing ability to conduct confidential internal inquiries.

In his first public comments about the deal to secure his testimony on the US Attorney firings, Karl Rove told Fox News.com:

I understand they may be the hors d'oeuvres, but I'm the main course. Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued.

But beyond that eye-catching quote, something far sneakier came out of the interview. Rove used a curious argument to defend his role in the firings, saying:

If White House contact with the Justice Department is inappropriate, then what are we doing by allowing anybody who has anything remotely to do with the political campaign -- like the general counsel of the Obama White House -- to have any contact with the Justice Department?. I mean, we named the Justice Department building after the campaign manager of the 1960 presidential campaign - Robert F. Kennedy.

Leave aside the shot at Bobby Kennedy. Rove seems to be arguing that the White House's coordination with the Justice Department over the firings is comparable to any contact that the White House counsel might have with the department.

But as Rove knows, one of the concerns that the firings scandal brought up was the fact that the Bush White House allowed numerous White House staffers to talk to DOJ officials about the case. Democrats responded with efforts to limit those contacts -- and Rove certainly has never before expressed the view that those efforts didn't go far enough.

And while we're on the subject of Rove's mendacity, here's another point worth noting: Yes, Rove will testify under penalty of perjury. But he appears to have shown in the past that he's perfectly capable of dissembling even under such conditions.

In 2006, there was fevered speculation that Rove would be indicted for perjury for lying to Pat Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame affair. Rove initially did not tell the grand jury about his conversation about Plame with Time's Matt Cooper (now at TPM!), claiming he forgot about it.

A New York Times story from 2006 lays out the details:

In his February 2004 testimony, Mr. Rove acknowledged talking to the columnist Robert D. Novak about Ms. Wilson, but he did not tell the grand jury about a second conversation he had about her with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter. Mr. Novak revealed her name and C.I.A. employment in a column on July 14, 2003.

Critics of the Bush administration have asserted that the revelation was retaliation against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting some of the intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq.

Mr. Rove later voluntarily told the grand jury about the conversation with Mr. Cooper, and said that he had forgotten about it in the rush of his daily business. But Mr. Fitzgerald has long been skeptical of Mr. Rove's account of his forgetfulness, lawyers in the case say.

So it wouldn't run counter to precedent if Rove again walked right up to the line of inviting a perjury charge when he testifies.

Something for Conyers and his team to be aware of, perhaps.

We've obtained a copy of the agreement on Karl Rove and Harriet Miers' testimony about the US Attorney firings, and it appears to answer some of our initial questions.

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 the whole thing here.

David Iglesias has responded to the news of a deal to secure Karl Rove and Harriet Miers' testimony about the firings of Iglesias and seven other US Attorneys.

In a statement to TPMmuckraker, Iglesias, whose firing as US Attorney for the district of New Mexico was deemed the "most troubling" by a Justice Department report released last year, said:

Today's agreement represents true progress in this matter which has been on-going for over two years. I trust that the initial private testimony of Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will become public at the soonest possible date.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy just released separate statements on the agreement to secure Karl Rove's testimony.

Pelosi:

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.

Leahy:

I hope today's agreement will help to finally uncover the truth about the firings of U.S. Attorneys and the Bush White House cover up designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of the last administration.

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 Bolten 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.

The House Judiciary committee's announcement this afternoon of an agreement on Karl Rove and Hariet Miers' testimony about the US Attorney firings leaves a few key questions still unanswered:

1) The committee says: "It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited." Limited how? Exactly when can Rove and Miers invoke the privilege? The devil could very well be in that detail.

2) Did the committee agree to steer clear of any specific subjects?

3) Why won't Rove and Miers be under oath? It's true that they'll still be under penalty of perjury, and, when you're talking about a congressional investigation, that penalty is no different whether the subject is under oath or not. But in that case, why not just put them under oath to avoid any confusion? Presumably, because the Bush administration objected. And if it objected, then the oath question is meaningful. (Lawyers with relevant experience, feel free to weigh in here!)

We've called the Judiciary committee to put these questions to them, and will keep you posted.

The House Judiciary committee just announced an agreement that it says will secure Karl Rove's testimony about the US Attorney firings.

The committee says in a press release that it has forged a deal with the Bush White House which will see Rove and Harriet Miers conduct transcribed interviews before the committee, under penalty of perjury, on the subject of what they know the about the White House's role in the firings. If the committee wants to follow up by with public testimony by requiring public testimony, it has reserved the right to do so.

By the terms of the agreement, Rove and Miers' ability to invoke executive privilege -- a privilege that President Bush has been claiming exists in perpetuity even after a president leaves office -- will be "significantly limited", though the announcement does not indicate the nature of those limitations.

The interviews won't technically be under oath. But since the criminal penalties for lying to Congressional investigators are the same whether or not the interview is conducted under oath, that's not seen as a major hurdle in getting to the truth.

In addition:

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.

And:

[I] 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.

Committee chair John Conyers called the agreement a victory:

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.

Today was the deadline a court had set for the Obama administration to file a brief in the Miers-Bolten case, indicating whether or not it supports the Bush White House's claim of executive privilege. White House counsel Greg Craig has reportedly been working with the Judiciary committee and with former Bush White House officials to forge a deal.

Late Update: It's worth noting that TPMDC's Matt Cooper pointed to something like this outcome in a post from January...

So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.

That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.

It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.

And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.

Are things finally coming to a head in the long-running effort to get testimony on the US Attorney firings from key Bush aides?

A federal court has said that the Obama administration must file its brief in the case of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten by next Wednesday, reports Politico.

The administration had asked to have until March 4th to get its position straight.

Miers and Bolten, both top aides to the Bush White House, were subpoenaed by Congress for testimony on the U.S. Attorney firings. President Bush had asserted executive privilege, sending the matter to the courts. Now the Obama administration must decide whether to back Bush's claim.

An executive order issued by the Obama White House on its first full day in office suggests it won't, in the view of some experts.

The issue of Karl Rove's testimony on the firings could also be at stake, since any ruling in the Miers-Bolten case could affect the stand-off over Rove. House Judiciary chair John Conyers has subpoenaed Rove, whose lawyer then kicked the issue over to the Obama White House.

Things are getting interesting...

The Bush years may be over, but the U.S. Attorney firings scandal isn't. In fact, Karl Rove and Congress are still locked in battle about whether he'll ever have to reveal, under oath, what he knows.

So you'll be excited to hear that we've updated our authoritative timeline of events in the years-long saga -- and given it a new look.

You can check it out here.

Another development in the ongoing saga of Karl Rove's long-sought testimony on the US Attorney firings.

House Judiciary chair John Conyers has sent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, enclosing a subpoena for Rove to appear before the committee February 23. That date had already been agreed to in a prior exchange of letters late last month.

But things are getting slippery again. Rove had originally been scheduled to appear February 2, but the two sides agreed to a delay, in part thanks to a scheduling conflict on Rove's part.

But apparently, Luskin, in the intervening time, had asked for a second delay. In addition, Rove had announced in a recent speech in California that he didn't intend to appear, citing an executive privilege claimed by President Bush.

In today's letter issuing the subpoena, Conyers informs Luskin that he won't agree to the requested second delay. Conyers writes:

Given Mr. Rove's public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to fail to appear.

Conyers also writes that he can't accept Luskin's request to have Rove's testimony be limited to the matter of the Don Siegelman case, meaning he would stay mum on the US Attorneys firings.

Next week, the Obama White House is scheduled to formally weigh in on the contempt proceedings currently being brought by Conyers' committee against two other former Bush aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, for their testimony on the firings. The position the White House takes could well determine whether Rove will ultimately be required to testify by a court -- which is where things seem to be heading.

Last week, TPMmuckraker reported that the investigation by prosecutor Nora Dannehy into the US Attorney firings was focusing on Pete Domenici.

And today, the Washington Post reports that Dannehy has issued a subpoena to the former New Mexico Republican senator.

The Post adds that Dannehy will interview Scott Jennings, who was a top White House deputy to Karl Rove, as early as today. Jennings' lawyer told the paper he will "cooperate to the best of his ability" and is not a target in the case.

A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that Domenici several times complained to Bush administration officials about David Iglesias, then the US Attorney for New Mexico. Domenici wanted Iglesias to quicken the pace of prosecutions against Democratic office-holders in the state. The report concluded that Iglesias had been fired for political reasons*.

The report also recommended appointing a prosecutor to look into possible crimes in connection with the firings, and the Justice Department named Dannehy for that role.

* This paragraph has been corrected from an earlier version.

Justice delayed?

The House Judiciary committee has agreed to a request from Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, to postpone the deadline by which Rove must respond to a subpoena issued by the committee.

Here's the letter sent by the committee, agreeing to Luskin's request and setting a new date of February 23 for Rove's testimony.

The hold-off serves the interests of the White House. The Obama administration is scheduled to file a brief on February 18 in the ongoing court case over the House's subpoena of two other senior Bush White House aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. At that time, it will likely indicate whether it intends to back President Bush's claim of retroactive executive privilege on behalf of his aides. So the committee's decision to agree to Luskin's request means the Obama administration has until then to formulate its position.

The ball, then, is still in Obama's court. And court is still exactly where the battle over Rove's testimony is most likely headed.

So does that letter Newsweek obtained, sent January 16 by the Bush White House to Karl Rove's lawyer, instructing Rove not to respond to any subpoenas that might be issued, change the state of play as to whether Rove will end up testifying on the US Attorneys firings? After all, President Bush is now on the record claiming the right to assert executive privilege even after leaving office.

Not according to Neil Eggleston, who specialized in executive privilege issues for President Clinton's White House. Eggleston told TPMmuckraker that, since President Obama has already issued an executive order that appears to take the view that a former president can't assert executive privilege, he's unlikely to back Bush's claim. And assuming things then wind up in court, Eggleston said he'd be very surprised if a court sided with Bush, ruling that executive privilege can be asserted retroactively.

"Remember what Obama kept saying during the transition: 'There's only one president at a time?'" asked Eggleston. "This is one where I think a court's going to decide there's only one president at a time."

Eggleston told TPMmuckraker last week that Obama's order seemed designed to help gain access to Bush White House documents and testimony that Congress has been seeking, including on the US Attorney firings matter.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff has obtained the letter sent by White House counsel Fred Fielding to Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin, just a few days before Bush left office, instructing Luskin that Rove "should not appear before Congress" in response to any subpoenas issued. The letter makes clear that Bush is continuing to assert a retrospective executive privilege over his White House years.

The Wall Street Journal had reported the existence of the letter -- which makes clear the lengths to wish the former president is wiling to go to keep a lid on what happened inside his White House -- earlier this week.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Rove, ordering him to testify February 2 about the US Attorney firings, and the prosecution of ex Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Luskin told us he had forwarded the subpoena to the Obama White House, which must decide whether to back Bush's claim of retroactive privilege. If it doesn't, but Bush continues to assert it -- which it would appear from the letter he will -- the matter looks headed for the courts. There is no settled legal precedent to guide how a court might rule.

The Obama White House told Newsweek it's still studying the issue.

Fielding also sent a near identical letter to former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition in front of the Judiciary committee. The issue of whether Miers and another Bush White House aide, Josh Bolten, can testify is currently the subject of a court fight between the committee and the Bush White House.

The Obama White House is scheduled to file a brief in that case by February 18, in which it may make clear whether or not it intends to back Bush's executive privilege claim.

Those directives issued by President Obama last week, reversing the Bush administration's policy of secrecy, have really shaken things up.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary committee subponaed Karl Rove for testimony in the US Attorney firings matter. That move appears to have been in response to the Obama's moves, since Rove had long been claiming executive privilege backed by President Bush.

Now, McClatchy reports, the ACLU has asked the new administration to release Bush Justice Department memos justifying harsh interrogation methods, eavesdropping, and secret prisons.

The Bush administration had long refused to release them, citing national security concerns, among other things.

It's clear that Obama's moves -- specifically, his rescinding of a Bush DOJ memo that gave backing to agencies when they refused to disclose material, and his issuing of an executive order urging agencies to take a broader view of the Freedom of Information Act -- triggered the request.

"The president has made a very visible and clear commitment to transparency. We're eager to see that put into practice," an ACLU staffer told McClatchy.

Pro Publica has a rundown of the missing memos.

As McClatchy notes, Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, has written articles suggesting she thinks that in general, such memos should be released.

So this could be another set of crucial Bush records that will finally see the light of day.