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 conversa