Yesterday, CREW "asked the Office of the Special Counsel (“OSC”) to investigate whether former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey Chris Christie violated the Hatch Act by discussing a run for Governor of New Jersey with then-White House official Karl Rove while he was still the U.S. Attorney."

Today, that complaint is the subject of a front page post on the DailyKos:

The Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, has had a pretty bad week.

It is showing very few signs of improvement:

The government watch-dog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has jumped into the fray against former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who is now the Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey. CREW is now calling for an investigation by the Office of the Special Counsel, into Christie's recently-revealed conversations with Karl Rove about a potential run for governor while Christie was a U.S. Attorney.

This does a little bit of damage to Christie's protestations yesterday that ethics complaints against him for his Rove connections were merely the rantings of desperate Democrats facing disappointing polling data. CREW is not a partisan organization, and named a number of Democrats to their 2008 edition of the "Most Corrupt Members of Congress." In particular, they have been very critical in the past of not only Bill Jefferson, but also Charlie Rangel and John Murtha.

That's an accurate descriptor of CREW. We focus on public corruption.

Our complaint and the accompanying materials can be found here.

Today, CREW asked the Office of the Special Counsel (“OSC”) to investigate whether former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey Chris Christie violated the Hatch Act by discussing a run for Governor of New Jersey with then-White House official Karl Rove while he was still the U.S. Attorney.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released over 700 pages of on-the-record interview transcripts of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. Attorney firings and the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice. During the course of his interview with the Committee, Mr. Rove was asked about contacts he had with Chris Christie, the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Specifically, Mr. Rove was asked whether he or anyone at in the Office of Political Affairs had any communications with Mr. Christie or his office after he started as U.S. Attorney.

Mr. Rove responded:

I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House, but – not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for Governor, and he asked me questions about who – who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to.

The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from running for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. Employees are barred from any action that can reasonably be construed as evidence an individual is seeking support for or undertaking an initial campaign to secure a nomination or election to office. Prohibited activities include canvassing or soliciting support as well as meeting with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of a campaign.

Mr. Rove’s statements demonstrate that while Mr. Christie was the U.S. Attorney, he met with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of a campaign and to seek support in his efforts to secure the Republican nomination for governor in violation of the Hatch Act. The Merit Systems Protection Board has held the OSC retains jurisdiction over such matters even whereas here, the employee has left the federal government.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated

The Hatch Act is intended to ensure federal employees do their jobs without regard to partisan politics. Mr. Christie’s actions call into question whether the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office investigated and prosecuted cases based on application of the law to the facts, or because certain prosecutions might have enhanced his prospects of securing the Republican nomination for governor.

Not many details forthcoming yet, but former Bush advisor Karl Rove was finally deposed yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee. It took months and months of negotiations to get to this point.  CREW filed an amicus brief in support of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit to compel the testimony of Rove's colleagues Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. Miers testified last month.  Democrats on the Committee wanted to interview Rove, under oath, about his involvement with the firings of nine US Attorneys:

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

 

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

 

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

 

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

We haven't heard much from Nora Dannehy, the prosecutor investigating the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration.  But, when we do hear things, they're usually quite major.  Witness today's news about Karl Rove:

Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys during the presidency of George W. Bush, according to two sources familiar with the appointment.

Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut prosecutor Nora R. Dannehy, who was named in September to examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.

Robert D. Luskin, an attorney for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.

Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in the District. But in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.

 

Finally (maybe). 

Karl Rove will soon be under oath, but not in public, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about the scandal involving the firing of nine US Attorneys:

Karl Rove's long-awaited testimony before Congress about the US Attorney firings will likely occur around early June, according to Rove's lawyer.

Robert Luskin told TPMmuckraker that the Obama White House has been painstakingly sorting through the documents related to the firings, and is providing them to Rove and to the House Judiciary committee simultaneously. It's that process, said Luskin, that's driving the scheduling of Rove's testimony. Luskin stressed that the discussions have been cordial on all sides.

Major development on Capitol Hill.  Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will testify about the US Attorneys scandal.  They'll both be under oath and there will be a transcript:

The Obama administration has negotiated a deal between Karl Rove and the House Judiciary Committee that will lead to Rove’s written testimony next week on the firings of several U.S. attorneys.

Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will provided depositions under penalty of perjury, according to a release from the committee. The agreement follows months of negotiations between Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Judiciary panel, and the two advisers to then-President Bush.

The deal ends a months-long separation-of-powers standoff between Congress and the administration.

The Obama White House confirmed that “lawyers from the White House counsel’s office played an active role in moving the parties toward the accommodation,” while Bush’s office said it had reached the deal “at the urging of the Obama administration.”

At Obama’s urging “and in consideration of the executive branch interests at stake, we have reached an accommodation with the House Judiciary Committee that satisfies the committee’s desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest,” the statement from Bush’s office said.

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.

Conyers called the breakthrough a victory for congressional oversight.

It sure sounds like a major breakthrough.  We've have a very strong interest in this issue. CREW filed an amicus brief in support of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit to compel the testimony of Miers and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

Over at TPMMuckraker, Zachary Roth reports on Karl Rove's failure to appear before a congressional committee -- again.  That wasn't completely unexpected.  The matter of executive privilege is subject to a court case now -- and CREW filed an amicus brief on the side of the House Judiciary Committee, which is trying to compel the testimony of Bush administration officials.  What will matter is how the Obama administration proceeds in the lawsuit:

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

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

We hope the new administration doesn't follow the old administration's policy on this case.  That would be a particularly bad move.

Today's Washington Post confirms earlier reports that the prosecutor investigating the US Attorney scandal is lining up some high profile witnesses.  We'd heard that former Senator Pete Domenici had been subpoenaed, now it's Scott Jennings:

Nora R. Dannehy, a public corruption prosecutor who helped convict Connecticut's GOP governor four years ago, was named last year to go to Capitol Hill and the Bush White House, where government officials declined to provide voluntary testimony to the Justice Department inspector general probing the firings.

At the time, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine urged prosecutors to use their subpoena power to compel documents and testimony about the dismissal of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, whose pace on criminal investigations involving Democrats in the state drew complaints from Domenici and then-Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.).

The Dannehy investigation appears to be intensifying with the disclosure that she will interview former White House political affairs deputy J. Scott Jennings as early as today, lawyers involved in the case said. Jennings worked alongside Karl Rove, a top aide to President George W. Bush.

Jennings will "cooperate to the best of his ability" and is not a target in the case, lawyer Mark R. Paoletta said yesterday.

Through lawyer Robert D. Luskin, Rove also has said he will cooperate with Dannehy's investigation.

Today's New York Times lays out the case for former Bush staffers, Rove, Miers and Bolten, to provide answers to Congress.  The Bush administration prevented that testimony under the ruse of executive privilege.  The Obama administration needs to end that charade.  CREW filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit against Miers and Bolten brought by the House Judiciary Committee.  Under the House rules, that lawsuit has been continued.  The subpoenas are still valid -- and must be enforced:

There is no doubt that laws were broken, but the extent of the illegality is not known. It is still not clear who ordered nine United States attorneys fired to advance a partisan agenda. And a whistle-blower has charged that Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor who was convicted on dubious corruption charges, was railroaded, and that Mr. Rove was behind the prosecution.

Mr. Rove argues that he is protected by executive privilege. Such privilege is narrow. It applies mainly to communications closely tied to the president and must yield when prosecutors have a strong need for information about a possible crime. His claim is particularly weak because many of the communications he would be asked about do not involve the president. There is also evidence that crimes were committed at the highest ranks of government. He is no longer a presidential aide.

Mr. Rove is not the only Bush aide defying Congress. Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the former White House chief of staff, are also refusing to answer valid subpoenas.

Mr. Bush encouraged their resistance. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama was skeptical of sweeping claims of executive privilege. We hope that he will show the same skepticism now that he is in the White House. The scandals of the Bush Justice Department will not be put to rest until all of Mr. Bush’s aides who have been subpoenaed provide Congress with the information it needs, in public and under oath.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff broke the story on the latest effort by the Bush administration to avoid any sense of accountability.  CREW filed an amicus brief in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, a lawsuit brought to compel Harriet Miers and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to comply with subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys.

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration.

On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even after he leaves office.

A nearly identical letter (.pdf) was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House—a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court.