Judiciary Chairmen Leahy, Conyers
Issue Subpoenas
For White House Officials, Documents
…Senate, House Judiciary Panels Compel Former White House Officials
To Provide Testimony, Information
In Connection With Investigations Of U.S. Attorney
Firings And Politicization Within Dept. Of Justice
WASHINGTON (Wednesday, June 13) – Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and House Judiciary
Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., today issued subpoenas to two
former White House officials compelling them to provide testimony and
related information as part of ongoing congressional investigations into
the mass firings of well-performing federal prosecutors and the
politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued
three subpoenas, two seeking the documents and testimony of Sara M.
Taylor, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of
Political Affairs, and another seeking White House documents relevant to
the panel’s ongoing investigation.
The House Judiciary Committee issued two
subpoenas, one seeking the documents and testimony of Harriet Miers,
former White House Counsel, and another seeking White House documents
relevant to the panel’s ongoing investigation.
“By refusing to cooperate with
congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of
confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case
are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of
Justice,” said Chairman Leahy. “The White House cannot have it both
ways -- it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to
provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper
occurred. The involvement of the White House’s political operation in
this project, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her
boss Karl Rove, has been confirmed by information gathered by
congressional committees. Some at the White House may hope to thwart our
constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the
curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.”
“Let me be clear:
this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American
people for the White House to make available the documents
and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that
remain," said Chairman Conyers. "The breadcrumbs in this investigation
have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania. This investigation will not end
until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a
timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this."
Supplemental material:
# # # #
#
June 13, 2007
Ms. Sara M. Taylor
Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political
Affairs
c/o W. Neil Eggleston
Debevoise & Plimtpon LLP
555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Ms. Taylor:
I received no response from you to my
April 11 letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation of the firings and
replacements of a number of United States Attorneys. Similar letters to
the White House Counsel from the Committee have also failed to elicit
cooperation.
It is now clear from the evidence gathered
by the investigating Committees of the Senate and House that, at the
time you were White House Director of Political Affairs, you and other
White House officials played a significant role in originating,
developing, coordinating and implementing the plan and the Justice
Department’s response to congressional inquiries about it.
In particular, according to documents and
testimony we have heard so far, you were involved in the discussions and
planning that led to the removal of Bud Cummins and bypassing the Senate
confirmation process to install Tim Griffin, another former aide to Mr.
Karl Rove, as U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas. You
were also were part of a group that discussed using the Attorney
General’s expanded authority under the Patriot Act reauthorization to
avoid the opposition of the Arkansas Senators by appointing Mr. Griffin
as interim indefinitely. In addition, documents and testimony show that
you played a role in approving the plan for firing multiple U.S.
Attorneys on December 7, 2006, and were involved in subsequent
discussions regarding congressional testimony of Department officials
and the Administration’s response to the growing scandal surrounding the
firings.
Yet, to date the White House has not
produced a single document or allowed you or any other White House
official involved to be interviewed, apart from an unacceptable “take it
or leave” offer to do so off-the-record without a transcript or
opportunity to follow-up. As a result, I am issuing the enclosed
subpoenas compelling your production of documents in your possession,
custody, or control related to the Committee’s investigation by June 28,
2007 and your appearance to testify under oath before the Committee on
July 11, 2007.
I look forward to your compliance with the
June 28 return date for the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for documents
and to your appearance before the Committee on July 11 so we can take a
step towards learning the truth about these firings and
the erosion of independence at the Justice Department.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
# # # #
#
Taylor
Testimony Subpoena
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
To Sara
M. Taylor, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of
Political Affairs,
Greeting:
Pursuant to lawful authority,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED
to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
of the United States, on July 11, 2007, at 10:00 o’clock a.m., at their
committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to
testify what you know relative to the Committee’s inquiry into the
preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of
Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States
Attorneys.
Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the
pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
To any Committee staff
member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.
Given under my hand, by authority vested
in me by the Committee,
on this day
of
, 20____.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
# # # #
#
Taylor
Document Subpoena
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
To Sara
M. Taylor, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of
Political Affairs,
Greeting:
Pursuant to lawful authority,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED
to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
of the United States, on June 28, 2007, at 10:00 o’clock a.m., at their
committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to
testify what you know relative to the Committee’s inquiry into the
preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of
Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States
Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A
under the terms and conditions stated therein. A personal appearance at
the above-referenced date and time will not be necessary if the
documents described in Attachment A are delivered to the Committee’s
offices prior to the scheduled return.
Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the
pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
To any Committee staff
member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.
Given under my hand, by authority vested
in me by the Committee,
on this day
of
, 20____.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
# # # # #
Taylor
Subpoena Attachment
Attachment A
Documents Subpoenaed
1. Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper
and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession,
custody or control related to the Committee’s investigation into the
preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of
Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States
Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to Congress and other
violations of federal law. The documents produced shall include, but
not be limited to:
A. Any and all documents related to the: 1)
evaluation of or decision
to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. “Bud” Cummins,
John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan,
Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed
since President Bush’s re-election (hereinafter “dismissed U.S.
Attorneys”); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for
dismissal since President Bush’s re-election (hereinafter “U.S.
Attorneys considered for dismissal”); 3) the implementation of the
dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the
selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or
interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to
dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.
B. Any and all documents related to the testimony of any
official at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress
regarding any of the matters set forth in paragraph A, above.
Instructions
1. In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce
all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or
control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or
representative acting on your behalf. You are also required to produce
documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right
to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have
placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third
party.
2. No documents as defined herein called for by this request
shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee. If you have knowledge that any
subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or
lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the
destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then
document was destroyed, discarded or lost.
3. This subpoena is continuing in nature. Any document not
produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return
date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent
thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by
the return date.
4. If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a
privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and
all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets
forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the
preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known
circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in
sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.
5. Production with respect to each document shall include all
electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as
from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories
applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee
where possible in its native file format and shall include all original
metadata for each electronic documents or data file. Productions shall
be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.
6. Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or
amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any
respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or
attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and
shall also be furnished as responsive.
7. Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual
course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or
other identifying markers with which they were associated when this
subpoena was served. Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena
such documents are responsive.
8. All documents shall be bates‑stamped sequentially and
produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the
schedule it is responsive.
Definitions
1. The term “document” as used in this subpoena includes all
emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files,
records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in
any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital
repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The terms “related” and “relating” with respect to any given
subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes,
contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to,
deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.
3. The terms “including” and “includes,” with respect to any
given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any
particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that
you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
4. The terms “Department of Justice” and “Department” includes
without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there,
suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from
employment there.
5. The term “White House” includes, without limitation, anyone
presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there,
or on administrative leave from employment there.
# # # #
#
Letter
to Fred Fielding on White House Documents
June 13, 2007
Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
I have sent you a half dozen letters in
the past three months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House
with the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the mass firings and
replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of
Justice. It is now clear from the evidence gathered by the
investigating Committees of the Senate and House that White House
officials played a significant role in originating, developing,
coordinating and implementing the plan and the Justice Department’s
response to Congressional inquiries about it. Yet, to date the White
House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House
official involved in these matters to be interviews.
In the two and half months since
Democratic and Republican members of the Committee rejected your “take
it or leave it” offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews as
unacceptable, you have not made any effort to work with us on a
voluntary business. In response to our efforts to narrow our dispute by
gaining access to documents you agreed to produce as part of your offer
for off-the-record interviews or to information that forms the basis of
the President’s conclusion that no wrongdoing has occurred, you have
merely restated your initial, unacceptable offer.
The White House cannot have it both ways
-- it cannot withhold documents and witnesses and thereby stonewall the
investigation and, at the same time, claim that the facts about the
White House’s improper influence over federal law enforcement have not
been revealed in detail. The White House’s continued stonewalling leads
to the obvious conclusion that the White House is hiding the truth
because there is something to hide. Because the White House has
continued its refusal to provide the requested information to the Senate
Judiciary Committee on a voluntary basis, I am issuing subpoenas.
Enclosed please find a subpoena for all
documents in the possession, custody or control of the White House
related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of
prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s
politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys. The
documents compelled by the subpoena include documents related to the
Administration’s evaluation of and decision to dismiss former U.S.
Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. “Bud” Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam,
Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves,
or any other U.S. Attorney dismissed or considered for dismissal since
President Bush’s re-election, the implementation of the dismissal and
replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys, and the selection,
discussion and evaluation of possible replacements. Among these
documents are documents related to the involvement of Karl Rove, Harriet
E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M. Taylor, or any
other current or former White House employees or officials in the
firings and replacements as well as documents related to the testimony
of Justice Department officials to Congress regarding this matter.
The subpoenaed documents include those
related to communications between the White House and the Department or
any third parties. These are documents that you previously agreed to
produce in conjunction with the unacceptable off-the-record interviews
in your March 20, 2007, letter to me, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member
Specter, Ranking Member Smith, and Congresswoman Sanchez of March 20,
2007. The subpoena also includes documents related to the “reviews by
White House staff” that led the President to publicly conclude as of
March 20, 2007, that there was no wrongdoing in the mass firings and
replacements of U.S. Attorneys, including any information that has led
the President to discount evidence gathered by the investigating
Committees.
I am disappointed that I have to turn to
this subpoena in order to obtain information needed by the Committee to
learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of
independence at the Justice Department. However, the evidence
that White House officials were deeply involved leaves me know choice in
light of your lack of voluntary cooperation. I look forward to your
compliance with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena by the June 28 return
date.
Sincerely,
PATRICK
LEAHY
Chairman
# # # # #
White
House Document Subpoena
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
To Joshua
Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or appropriate custodian of records,
Greeting:
Pursuant to lawful authority,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED
to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
of the United States, on June 28, 2007, at 10:00 o’clock a.m., at their
committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to
testify what you know relative to the Committee’s inquiry into the
preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of
Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States
Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A
under the terms and conditions stated therein. A personal appearance at
the above-referenced date and time will not be necessary if the
documents described in Attachment A are delivered to the Committee’s
offices prior to the scheduled return.
Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the
pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
To any Committee staff
member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.
Given under my hand, by authority vested
in me by the Committee,
on this day
of
, 20____.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
# # # # #
White
House Document Subpoena Attachment
Attachment A
Documents Subpoenaed
1. Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper
and electronic versions, of any and all documents in the possession,
custody or control of the White House related to the Committee’s
investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and
the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of
United States Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to
Congress and other violations of federal law. The documents produced
shall include:
A. Any and all documents the White House Counsel agreed in the
March 20, 2007, letter of Fred F. Fielding, Counsel to the President, to
Chairman Leahy, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Specter, Ranking Member
Smith, and Congresswoman Sanchez to produce in conjunction with
off-the-record interviews, including documents consisting of or relating
to all communications between any official or employee of the White
House and any official or employee of the Department of Justice or any
third party “concerning the request for resignations of the U.S
Attorneys in question.”
B. Any and all documents related to the: 1)
evaluation of or decision
to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. “Bud” Cummins,
John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan,
Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed
since President Bush’s re-election (hereinafter “dismissed U.S.
Attorneys”); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for
dismissal since President Bush’s re-election (hereinafter “U.S.
Attorneys considered for dismissal”); 3) the implementation of the
dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the
selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or
interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to
dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.
C. Any and all documents related to the involvement of Karl
Rove, Harriet E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M.
Taylor, or any other current or former White House employee or official,
in matters set forth in paragraph B, above.
D. Any and all documents related to the testimony of any official
at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress regarding any
of the matters set forth in paragraph B, above.
E. Any and all documents related to the “reviews by White House
staff” that led the President to conclude as of March 20, 2007, and to
reiterate as recently as June 11, 2007, that there was no wrongdoing in
the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys since President
Bush’s re-election, including any information that has led the President
to discount evidence obtained by the investigating Committees in
documents and hearing testimony.
Instructions
1. In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce
all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or
control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or
representative acting on your behalf. You are also required to produce
documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right
to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have
placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third
party.
2. No documents as defined herein called for by this request
shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee. If you have knowledge that any
subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or
lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the
destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then
document was destroyed, discarded or lost.
3. This subpoena is continuing in nature. Any document not
produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return
date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent
thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by
the return date.
4. If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a
privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and
all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets
forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the
preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known
circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in
sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.
5. Production with respect to each document shall include all
electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as
from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories
applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee
where possible in its native file format and shall include all original
metadata for each electronic documents or data file. Productions shall
be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.
6. Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or
amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any
respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or
attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and
shall also be furnished as responsive.
7. Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual
course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or
other identifying markers with which they were associated when this
subpoena was served. Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena
such documents are responsive.
8. All documents shall be bates‑stamped sequentially and
produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the
schedule it is responsive.
Definitions
1. The term “document” as used in this subpoena includes all
emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files,
records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in
any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital
repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The terms “related” and “relating” with respect to any given
subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes,
contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to,
deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.
3. The terms “including” and “includes,” with respect to any
given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any
particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that
you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
4. The terms “Department of Justice” and “Department” includes
without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there,
suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from
employment there.
5. The term “White House” includes, without limitation, anyone
presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there,
or on administrative leave from employment there.
6. The terms “you” and “your” include you individually, in your
capacity as Chief of Staff [or White House Counsel] or custodian of
records, as well as the White House, and, without limitation, anyone
presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there,
or on administrative leave from employment there.
# # # # #
House and Senate Investigations Revealed Significant
White House Involvement In US Attorney Firings
-
Key White House
political advisors Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto
Gonzales were involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S.
Attorneys. According to documents obtained from
the Department of Justice and Mr. Sampson’s testimony, Mr. Sampson
discussed the plan with then-White House Counsel Gonzales not long
after President Bush’s re-election in late 2004. A January 9, 2005
e-mail released by the Department shows that Karl Rove initiated
inquires as to “how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys,
whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations
from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them,
etc.” In his response to queries from David Leitch, a White House
official, Mr. Sampson expressly deferred to the political judgment
of Mr. Rove as to whether to proceed with plans for the replacement
of U.S. Attorneys, writing,“[I]f Karl thinks there would be
political will to do it, then so do I.”
-
Mr. Sampson, who has testified that he
“aggregated” the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired, was in frequent
contact with White House officials about multiple versions of
proposed lists of possible U.S. Attorneys for dismissal and
potential replacements over the course of nearly two years,
sending draft lists for review in
March 2005, January 2006, April 2006, and several drafts in
September 2006 through the firings on December 7, 2006.
-
According to documents and testimony,
Sara Taylor, the head of the White House political operation and
deputy of Karl Rove, and Scott Jennings, another aide to Mr. Rove,
were involved in the discussions and planning that led to the
removal of Bud Cummins and bypassing the Senate confirmation process
to install Tim Griffin, another former aide to Mr. Rove, as U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas. They were part of a
group that discussed using the Attorney General’s expanded authority
under the Patriot Act Reauthorization to avoid the opposition of the
Arkansas Senators by appointing Mr. Griffin as interim
indefinitely. In one e-mail, Mr. Sampson described Mr. Griffin’s
appointment as “important to Harriet, Karl, etc.”
After the firing, writing from her
RNC email account, Ms. Taylor writes that “Bud is lazy – which is
why we got rid of him in the first place.”
-
Mr. Sampson testified that Ms. Taylor
was upset when the Attorney General finally “rejected” this use of
the interim authority -- a month after telling Senator Pryor he was
committed to finding a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney.
-
The evidence gathered so far also
shows significant White House
involvement -- including by Mr. Rove -- in the decision to dismiss
David Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico.
We have learned from the testimony of the Attorney General and Mr.
Sampson that Mr. Rove directly complained to the Attorney General
about concerns that prosecutors were not aggressively pursuing voter
fraud cases in districts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New
Mexico. One of these districts was that of Mr. Iglesias, who was
added after that complaint to the list of U.S. Attorneys to be
replaced. We have also learned that Mr. Rove’s aide, Mr. Jennings,
set up a meeting between White House Liaison Monica Goodling and New
Mexico Republican officials in June 2006 to talk about the U.S.
Attorney “situation” in New Mexico, describing it as “sensitive.”
Those officials also met with
another aide to the Attorney General, Matthew Friedrich, told him
that they were seeking Iglesias’ ouster and that they had spoken to
Karl Rove about the subject, according to Friedrich’s testimony to
congressional investigators.
-
Media reports and
the White House Press Office have confirmed that Mr. Rove relayed
complaints about Mr. Iglesias to the White House Counsel’s office
and to the Justice Department.
-
Press accounts and congressional
testimony have also revealed that after the midterm election, Mr.
Rove discussed the performance of Mr. Iglesias with Senator
Domenici, who himself had called Mr. Igelisias before the election
to ask whether he was bringing indictments against a Democratic
official in the lead up to the election.
According to Allen Weh, Chairman of
New Mexico's Republican party chairman, when he asked Mr. Rove
during a holiday party in 2006 “is anything ever going to happen to
that guy?” -- referring to Mr. Iglesias -- Mr. Rove responded, “He’s
gone.”
-
The concern by White House officials
with purported voter fraud extends beyond New Mexico. We have
learned that Mr. Rove sent Mr. Sampson a packet of information
related to Wisconsin. According to his testimony, Mr. Sampson gave
this packet to another Department official, Matthew Friedrich, and
also asked him to look into the voter concerns in districts relayed
by Mr. Rove to the Attorney General. The packet sent by Mr. Rove
contains a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004 and
also handwritten notes suggesting a concern with prosecution in
numerous districts. Some of
these Wisconsin materials appear to have been viewed and printed by
Mr. Rove in February 2005, just a month before the US Attorney in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin was place on the termination list.
-
John McKay, former U.S. Attorney for
the Western District of Washington, testified that when he met with
Ms. Miers and her deputy William Kelley in August 2006 to interview
for a federal judgeship, he was asked to explain “criticism that I
mishandled the 2004 governor's election,” in which Republicans were
upset with him for not intervening in that closely contested
election.
-
Since the firings
of these U.S. Attorneys for political reasons became public, there
has been an effort to minimize, and in some instances, cover up, the
role of White House officials. According to
documents and the testimony of Mr. Sampson, the Attorney General was
upset after the February 6, 2007,
testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty because Mr.
McNulty’s testimony put the White House involvement in the firings
into the public domain. Former
Justice Department White House Liaison Monica Goodling recently told
the House Judiciary Committee that she was told not to attend a
briefing by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty on the firings to
the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, 2007, because of the
concern that her presence might prompt Senators to ask questions
about White House involvement.
-
The Administration’s February 23,
2007, response to a letter from Senators Reid, Schumer, Durbin and
Murray regarding the firings stated, “I am not aware of Karl Rove
playing any role in the AG’s decision to appoint Griffin.” Earlier
e-mails indicate that the appointment of Mr. Griffin, another former
deputy to Mr. Rove, was important to Mr. Rove. The White House,
Associate White House Counsel Chris
Oprison, signed off on this letter.
Before Griffin was installed, Mr.
Oprison, who signed off on the letter, had written that the Griffin
issue was “front/center on [his] radar screen” and that he had “had
several conversations with [Rove aide] Scott Jennings” about “the
controversy.” Many parts of this letter have since been
retracted by the Department.
-
According to the testimony of
Department officials, Mr. Rove and other White House officials
attended a meeting at the White House on March 5, 2007 -- the day
before Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella
testified before the House Judiciary Committee -- to “go over the
admin position on all aspects of the US attorney issue.” Rove
is reported to have spoken at this meeting and directed the
Department to provide reasons to explain the firings in the next
day’s testimony.
# #
# # #
