What's in it for Obama?
Obama had every reason to bring the two parties to the table. Without a deal, he would have been in the awkward position of defending Rove’s executive privilege claim as a way to preserve the power of the executive branch and protect his aides from being forced to testify before Congress in the future.
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, weighs in:
Rove looks forward to addressing the committee's concerns."
“Mr. Rove has consistently maintained that he would not assert any personal privileges to refuse to appear or testify, but was required to follow the direction of the president on matters of executive privilege,” Luskin said.
At issue:
Conyers is interested in knowing what role, if any, Rove played in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and the government’s prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) on public corruption charges.
Luskin advised the committee on Jan. 26th that Bush was only asserting executive privilege on the U.S. Attorneys' firing and Rove was willing to testify about Siegelman.
A federal judge rejected Bush's executive privilege claim. Conyers is pleased the essence of the ruling is reflected in the agreement.
The New York Times gets some key facts wrong:
Under the agreement, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will provide depositions and sworn public testimony about the firings, but the scope of their testimony will be limited to the dismissals and closely related issues.
Moreover, the two former Bush officials will not be asked about their conversations with Mr. Bush on the subject or their discussions with other members of the White House counsel’s office.
However, Conyers' press release and CBS's report both state that public testimony may or may not follow the depositions.
And Newsweek says the depositions will be transcribed but not given under oath:
Then, after the documents are reviewed, Rove and Miers will be questioned in private by lawyers for the Judiciary Committee, with a transcript of the interviews made. But their testimony will not be given under oath and it will not be in public—at least not initially.
The judiciary panel will have the right to call the witnesses again later to testify in public if they wish, though this seems unlikely in the case of Miers; her former position as White House counsel will allow her to invoke some attorney-client privileges. House lawyers say the fact that the witnesses will not be testifying under oath is not particularly significant because they can still be criminally charged with making false statements to a congressional committee if it can be proved that they lied.
More significant than Rove and Miers' testimony is that the Bush White House is agreeing to turn over documents. Newsweek says:
The key to how far the matter goes almost certainly rests in the contents of the documents. A Justice Department inspector general's report last year found that there was potential evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the firing of at least some of the U.S. attorneys—especially David Iglesias, the chief prosecutor in New Mexico, who was dismissed allegedly after state Republicans complained to Rove that Iglesias wasn't moving aggressively enough to bring vote fraud prosecutions that would aid the party's electoral prospects in the state.
....an internal counsel chronology about the firings that was prepared by a White House lawyer. That memo will now be turned over to the House committee.
Also, e-mails will be turned over that Rove and his lawyer have not had access to. According to Newsweek:
Whether Rove will still be looking forward to testifying after those emails are turned over to congressional investigators is, at the moment, the biggest question mark hanging over the case.
Bottom line: As with most agreements, this one allows both sides to claim victory on some points.
