Karl Rove subpoenaed by Congress

by Frank James

It was only a matter of time before Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political aide, received an official summons to appear before Congress to explain his role in Gonzogate, the controversial firing of nine federal prosecutors by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Today was the day.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy issued a subpoena demanding that Rove appear before his committee to testify. If the actions by the White House so far to other subpoenas is any guide, Rove's chair at the committee's witness table on the appointed day will be empty.

Leahy also subpoenaed Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director.

The president has claimed a broad executive privilege to prevent former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Josh Bolten from either appearing before the counsel or submitting requested documents to Congress.

So Rove will likely be a no-show. It's really just more evidence that congressional Democrats are not taking no for an answer, that they are being as adamant in articulating their constitutional rights as the executive branch has been.

Meanwhile, some Senate Democrats have also asked the solicitor general, Paul Clement, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the attorney general who Democrats, and at least one Republican, are accusing of lying to them on the attorney firings as well as the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Karl Rove, raising the three-fingered 'W' on a recent trip with the president, is not only chief political adviser to President Bush, but also a high-value political target for the Democrats. Photo by Mark Silva

Typically, the attorney general would be who Congress would be writing to ask for a special prosecutor. That obviously wouldn't go over too well with Gonzales.

Thus the request to the solicitor general who is nevertheless part of the Justice Department. So don't hold your breath for that special prosecutor to be appointed.

Or for this fight to be over anytime soon. It's likely to go to the courts, and into the waning days of the administration.

Here's a press kit from Leahy's office with a press release and the subpoena letters.

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. Text of the subpoenas follows, as well as an attachment including definitions.

Statement of Senator 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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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.
# # # # #

Here's how the Associated Press is reporting the story:

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor.

"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," said Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues," he said.

Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.

Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide.

"For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail," the Vermont lawmaker said. "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."