House Dems may accept unsworn statements from Rove
Former White House political director was subpoenaed in May to testify at a July hearing on the White House's role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats on Monday renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.
The committee on May 22 subpoenaed Rove to testify at a July 10 hearing on the White House's role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and his alleged involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama.
Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the White House has ordered Rove not to testify.
But in a letter sent Monday to Luskin, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said Luskin recently suggested to the committee staff that Rove appear "without a transcript or oath," but without any limit on the committee's right to seek sworn testimony later.
Luskin's proposal diverges from a White House offer to allow former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear for a similar interview on the condition the committee not seek future testimony from her, the letter said.
"This is an important step forward," Conyers and Sanchez said of Luskin's proposal. "We are encouraged by this suggestion," they added.
Their letter indicates a willingness by House Democrats to back off their past rejection of a White House offer last year to have Rove and other aides answer questions in private without an oath or transcript. Democrats had been insisting that the aides testify under oath in public.
Nonetheless, the letter by Conyers and Sanchez also called a request by Luskin that the interview covers only the Siegelman matter and not the U.S. attorney firings "unacceptable."
Their letter suggests that the committee might agree to interview Rove without taking an oath or having a transcript made of the session if Rove agrees to allow questions about the broader politicization of the Justice Department.
"Any concerns about or objections to specific questions can be dealt with" when Rove meets with the committee, the letter states.
Even without an oath, lying in interviews with congressional staff is illegal.
Conyers and Sanchez also noted that the committee has not received any formal objection to its subpoena. "We want to re-emphasize that we expect Mr. Rove to attend the hearing," they wrote.
Neither a Judiciary Committee spokeswoman nor Luskin returned calls seeking comment Monday.
Siegelman, who served nine months in jail for a 2006 bribery conviction before an appeals court ordered his release in March, has charged that Republican operatives in Washington pushed his prosecution.
That position is backed by Jill Sampson, a Republican campaign volunteer who said in an affidavit last year that she overheard conversations that suggested Rove urged prosecutors to investigate Siegelman.