Judiciary
Chairman Leahy Issues Subpoenas
To White House Officials Rove And Jennings In U.S. Attorney Probe
…Judiciary Panel Compels White
House Political Operatives
Karl Rove And J. Scott Jennings
To Provide Testimony And Information In Connection With
Investigations
Of U.S. Attorney Firings And Politicization Within Dept. Of Justice
WASHINGTON (Thursday,
July 26) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
in consultation with Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), issued
subpoenas Thursday compelling White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl
Rove and Deputy Director White House Political Affairs J. Scott
Jennings to provide testimony and related information as part of
ongoing congressional investigations into the mass firings of
federal prosecutors and politicization of hiring and firing within
the Department of Justice.
Rove, a senior political
advisor to President Bush, and the White House political operation
-- which Rove heads – have been linked to the project that resulted
in the unprecedented firings of several well-performing federal
prosecutors, according to information gathered by the Committee
through documents, interviews and testimony. Jennings, who works in
the White House political office as a deputy to Rove, has also been
linked to the project. Several of the dismissed prosecutors have
testified under oath and in public statements that they were unaware
of performance problems and believe political influence was a factor
in their firings.
“The evidence shows that
senior White House political operatives were focused on the
political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal
prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and
corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for the
firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover up
and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of
that same effort,” Leahy said. “The Bush-Cheney White House
continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of
checks and balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon
Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law
enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid
accountability.”
“There is a cloud over
this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider
their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward
together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and
to the American people’s trust and confidence in federal law
enforcement,” he said.
The deadline for the
testimony and documents is August 2 at 10 a.m.
Below is Chairman Leahy’s
statement and the text of cover letters sent to Karl Rove and Scott
Jennings.
Subpoena Packet For
Karle Rove
Cover Letter
Subpoena
Definitions
Subpoena Packet For J.
Scott Jennings
Cover Letter
Subpoena
Definitions
# # # # #
Statement Of Sen. Patrick
Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On Subpoenas Issued To Karl Rove And J. Scott Jennings
July 26, 2007
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is
issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for
documents and testimony related to the Committee’s ongoing
investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and
politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of
Justice. This is not a step I take lightly. For over four months,
I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of
Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail. They and the
White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House
is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who
are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide
relevant information and documents.
We have now reached a point where the
accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored
into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States
Attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was
compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the
White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence
shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political
impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were
doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It
is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived
as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House
is part and parcel of that same effort. Just yesterday during his
sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these firings with the
replacement of other United States Attorneys for “legitimate cause.”
The White House has asserted blanket
claims of executive privilege, despite testimony under oath and on
the record that the President was not involved. The White House
refuses to provide a factual basis for its blanket claims. The
White House has instructed former White House officials not to
testify about what they know and instructed Harriet Miers to refuse
even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena.
The White House has withheld relevant documents and instructed other
witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the Congress but only
to the White House.
Last week, the White House did much to
substantiate the evidence that it is intent on reducing United
States Attorneys and federal law enforcement to merely another
partisan political aspect of its efforts when it dispatched an
anonymous senior official to take the position that the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to
follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of
Executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence
this White House asserts that its claim of privilege is the final
word, that Congress may not review it, and that no court can review
it.
Yesterday, during an oversight hearing
with Mr. Gonzales, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the Ranking
Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee rightly asked:
“Mr.
Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in
the United States can survive if the president has the unilateral
authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive
privilege and the president then acts to bar the Congress from
getting
a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is
properly invoked?”
There can be no more conclusive
demonstration of this Administration’s partisan intervention of
federal law enforcement than if this Administration were to instruct
the Justice Department not to pursue congressional contempt
citations and intervene to prevent a United States Attorney from
fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the
laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United
States Code. The President recently abused the pardon power to
forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a single day of his
30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple counts of
perjury, lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further
demonstration that this Administration refuses to abide by the rule
of law.
This stonewalling is a dramatic break
from the practices of every administration since World War II in
responding to congressional oversight. In that time, presidential
advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times
voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas. During the Clinton
Administration, White House and Administration advisors were
routinely subpoenaed for documents or to appear before Congress.
For example, in 1996 alone, the House Government Reform Committee
issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House advisors. The veil of
secrecy this Administration has pulled over the White House is
unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by
and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.
The investigation into the firing for
partisan purposes of United States Attorneys, who had been appointed
by this President, along with an ever-growing series of
controversies and scandals have revealed an Administration driven by
a vision of an all-power Executive over our constitutional system of
checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy
over openness, and ideology over competence.
What the White House stonewalling is
preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire
these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was
not the President. Everyone who has testified said has said that he
was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of
Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real
reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to
be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect
points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White
House.
A former political director at the
White House made a revealing admission in her recent testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she refused to answer
questions citing the oath she took to the President. In this
constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public officials is to
the Constitution, not any particular President of any particular
party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office of the
President. Every President since George Washington has shown to
“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.” The oath for other federal official is prescribed by
Congress through statute and provides that every federal officer’s
duty is not to support and defend any particular President or
Administration but “to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States” and “to bear true faith and allegiance” to our
founding principles and law.
I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the
oath I have been privileged to take as a United States Senator is
likewise to the Constitution. I proudly represent the people of
Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a temporary steward
of the Constitution and the values and protections for the rights
and liberties of the American people that it embodies. My oath is
not to a political party and not even to the great institution of
the United States Senate, but to the Constitution and the rule of
law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law
enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government,
and that no one is above the law.
Despite the constitutional duty of all
members of the Executive branch to “take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed,” the message from this White House is that
the President, Vice President, and their loyal aides are above the
law. No check. No balance. No accountability.
The law says otherwise. The criminal
contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194, provides that if a House of
Congress certifies a contempt citation, the United States Attorney
to whom it is sent has a “duty” and “shall” “bring it before the
grand jury for its action.” For this White House to threaten to
intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up
the truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law.
This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a
duly elected President of the United States. It is derived from law
that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.
The Bush-Cheney White House continues
to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and
balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration
have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan
political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.
Given the stonewalling by this White
House, the American people are left to wonder: What is it that the
White House is so desperate to hide? As more and more stories leak
out about the involvement of Karl Rove and his political team in
political briefings of what should be nonpartisan government
offices, I think we have a better sense of what they are trying to
hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 20 government
agencies, including briefings attended by Justice Department
officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed diplomats
on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. Why,
Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were
members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political
contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political
operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services
Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies?
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former
political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that
her briefings included specific political races and particular
candidates being targeted.
In this context, is anyone surprised
that the evidence in our investigation of the firings of U.S.
Attorneys for political purposes points to Mr. Rove and his
political operations in the White House? Despite the initial White
House denials, Mr. Rove’s involvement in these firings is indicated
by the Department of Justice documents we have obtained and from the
testimony of high-ranking Department officials. This evidence shows
that he was involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S.
Attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquires at least
by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the
dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys. The evidence also
shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New
Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David
Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few
weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the
lack of purported “voter fraud” enforcement cases in his
jurisdiction.
We have learned that Mr. Rove raised
similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not
aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and
that prior to the 2006 mid-term election he sent the Attorney
General’s chief of staff a packet of information containing a
30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This
evidence points to his role and the role of those in his office in
removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently
loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation shows
corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political
purposes.
Documents and testimony also show that
Mr. Rove had a role in the shaping the Administration’s response to
congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to
inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to
the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role
that he and other White House officials played in the firings.
Despite the stonewalling and
obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. Attorney in the
Western District of Missouri was fired after he expressed
reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many
African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the
Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the
person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately
thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman
also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election,
despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what
happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a “loyal Bushie”
for partisan, political purposes.
Mr. Schlozman also bragged about
hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted
“crossing the line” when she used a political litmus test for career
prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep federal law
enforcement above politics, this Administration is more intent on
placing its actions above the law.
With our service of these subpoenas, I
hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its
blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the
testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these
U.S. Attorneys. I hope that the White House steps back from this
constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to
repair the damage done by its untoward interference
with federal law enforcement. That interference has threatened our
elections and seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in
the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Mr. Rove
and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our
justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. Apparently,
this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary
constitutional confrontation than do what every other Administration
has done and find and accommodation with the Congress. If there are
any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to
reconsider the course they have chosen.
There is a cloud over this White House
and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and
end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair
the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American
people’s trust and confidence in federal law enforcement.
# # # # #
July 26, 2007
Mr. Karl Rove
Deputy Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Rove:
Four months ago, Senator Specter and I
sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and
replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department
of Justice. We received no response to that letter. Similar
letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also
failed to elicit cooperation.
Indeed, the White House has chosen to
precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation. The evidence
gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows
that you and other White House officials were involved in these
firings and in the Justice Department’s response to congressional
inquiries about them. Yet, the White House has responded to
requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with
unprecedented, blanket assertions of “executive privilege.” It has
even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop
former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting
their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional
subpoenas.
I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to
provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or
control related to the Committee’s investigation and for you to
appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2,
2007.
I have issued this subpoena after
exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the
White House. I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to
reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in
light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the
dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys. I am left to ask what the White
House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the
documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are
privileged.
We have learned from the limited
documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the
testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that you were
involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys.
E-mails show that you initiated inquires at least by the beginning
of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement
of U.S. Attorneys. The evidence also shows that you raised
political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican
leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have
led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks after you complained
to the Attorney General about the lack of purported “voter fraud”
enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.
We have learned you raised similar
concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not
aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and
that prior to the 2006 mid-term election you sent the Attorney
General’s Chief of Staff a packet of information containing a
30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This
evidence raises serious concerns about your role in removing or
trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to
Republican electoral prospects, an unacceptable manipulation and
subversion of law enforcement.
Documents and testimony also show that
you had a role in shaping the Administration’s response to
congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to
inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to
the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role
that you and other White House officials played in the firings.
The evidence of untoward White House
interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections
and has seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in the
independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Top
# # # # #
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
To Karl
Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President,
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 August 2, 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.
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 26 day
of
July , 2007____.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States
Senate
Top
# # # # #
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.
Top
# # # # #
July 26,
2007
Mr. J. Scott Jennings
Special Assistant to the President
and Deputy Director of Political Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Jennings:
Four months ago, Senator Specter and I
sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and
replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department
of Justice. We received no response to that letter. Similar
letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also
failed to elicit cooperation.
Indeed, the White House has chosen to
precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation. The evidence
gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows
that you and other White House officials were involved in these
firings and in the Justice Department’s response to congressional
inquiries about them. Yet, the White House has responded to
requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with
unprecedented, blanket assertions of “executive privilege.” It has
even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop
former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting
their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional
subpoenas.
I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to
provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or
control related to the Committee’s investigation and for you to
appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2,
2007.
I have issued this subpoena after
exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the
White House. I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to
reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in
light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the
dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys. I am left to ask what the White
House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the
documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are
privileged.
We have learned from the limited
documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the
testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that 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, a former aide to Mr. Karl Rove, as U.S. Attorney in the
Eastern District of Arkansas. You were also 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, we have also learned that
you set up a meeting between the Department’s 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.” Mr. Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for the District
of New Mexico, was fired months later based at least in part,
according to the evidence, on political complaints raised by these
officials.
Finally, documents and testimony show
that you had knowledge of the plan for firing multiple U.S.
Attorneys on December 7, 2006, and were involved in shaping the
Administration’s response to congressional inquiries into these
dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to
Congress and statements to the public. This response included an
attempt to cover up the role you and other White House officials
played in the firings.
The evidence of untoward White House
interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections
and has seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in the
independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Top
# # # # #
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
To J.
Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy
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 August 2, 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.
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 26 day
of
July , 2007____.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary
United States Senate
Top
# #
# # #
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.
Top
# # # # #
