U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–356 PDF 2009

POLITICIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

AND ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2008 

Serial No. 110–191 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California, Chairwoman 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 10, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law ............................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 5 

INVITED WITNESS 

Mr. Karl Rove, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff 

[Mr. Rove declined to appear at this hearing.] 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Ruling of the Chair, the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ......................................... 10 

Letter to Scott Pelley from Karl Rove, submitted by the Honorable Chris 

Cannon .................................................................................................................. 16 

Letter to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. from Robert D. Luskin, submitted 

by the Honorable Chris Cannon ......................................................................... 19 

Letter to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. from Robert D. Luskin, submitted 

by the Honorable Chris Cannon ......................................................................... 21 

Letter to Robert D. Luskin from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. and the 

Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez 23 

Letter to Robert D. Luskin from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. and the 

Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez 27 

Letter to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. from Robert D. Luskin, submitted 

by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez ................................................................... 29 

Letter to Robert D. Luskin from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. and the 

Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez 31 

Letter to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. from Robert D. Luskin, submitted 

by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez ................................................................... 33 

Letter to Robert D. Luskin from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. and the 

Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez 43 

Letter to the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez and the Honorable Chris Cannon 

from Bishop Joe Morris Doss, submitted by the Honorable Linda T. 

Sa ́nchez ................................................................................................................. 50 

(1) 

POLITICIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE 

PROSECUTION 

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Linda 

T. Sa ́nchez (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Sa ́nchez, Johnson, Lofgren, 

Delahunt, Watt, Cohen, and Cannon. 

Also present: Representatives Jackson Lee and Smith. 

Staff present: Eric Tamarkin, Majority Counsel; Daniel Flores, 

Minority Counsel; and Adam Russell, Majority Professional Staff 

Member. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 

Commercial and Administrative Law will now come to order. 

Before we begin the business of the Subcommittee, I want to 

make clear to our guests in the audience that any outbursts or 

comments or disruptions in the hearing from the public will result 

in removal from the Committee room. 

I just want to state that emphatically so everybody knows the 

rules going in. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the proceedings at any point. 

At this time, I would recognize myself for a short statement. 

According to letters we have received from his counsel, former 

presidential advisor, Karl Rove, has refused to appear today to answer questions in accordance with his obligations under the subpoena served on him based on claims that executive privilege confers upon him immunity from even appearing to testify. 

I am extremely disappointed and deeply concerned that Mr. Rove 

has chosen to forego this opportunity to give his account of the 

politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of Former Governor John 

Siegelman. 

I have given Mr. Rove’s written claims careful consideration, and 

I rule that those claims are not legally valid, and that Mr. Rove 

2 

is required, pursuant to the subpoena, to be here now and to answer questions. 

I will presently entertain a motion to sustain that ruling, the 

grounds for which are set forth in writing and have been distributed to all the Members of the Subcommittee. 

But first, I would like to summarize the grounds for the ruling 

as follows. 

First, the claims are not properly asserted. When a private party 

like Mr. Rove is subpoenaed by Congress and the executive branch 

objects on privilege grounds, the private party is obligated to respect the subpoena and the executive branch should go to court or 

otherwise pursue its privilege obligations. 

That is what happened in the AT&T case and what should have 

happened here. 

But we have not received a statement from the president or anyone at the White House directly asserting these privilege and immunity claims to the Subcommittee. 

Second, we are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove’s 

refusal even to appear today as required by the subpoena. The 

courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court 

ruled in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones. 

Neither Mr. Rove’s lawyer nor the White House has cited a single court decision to support the immunity claim as to former 

White House officials. 

The proper course of action is for Mr. Rove to attend the hearing, 

pursuant to the subpoena, at which time any specific assertions of 

privilege can be considered on a question-by-question basis. 

As the Supreme Court explained more than a century ago, no 

man in this country is so high that he is above the law, and all 

the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are 

creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. 

Third, the claims of absolute immunity directly contradict the 

conduct of this and past Administrations with respect to White 

House officials appearing before Congress. 

Only recently, current vice presidential chief of staff, David 

Addington, testified before the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to subpoena, and former White House press secretary, Scott 

McClellan, testified without even receiving a subpoena. 

In 2007, former White House officials Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings testified concerning the U.S. attorney firings before the Senate Judiciary Committee pursuant to a subpoena. 

Prior to this Administration, a CRS study shows that both 

present and former White House officials have testified before Congress at least 74 times since World War II 

Fourth, the claims of absolute immunity and the refusal to appear pursuant to subpoena and to answer questions directly contradicts the behavior of Mr. Rove and his attorneys themselves. 

When Mr. Rove’s attorney was asked earlier this year by a media 

representative whether Mr. Rove would testify before Congress in 

response to a subpoena on the Siegelman matter, he responded, 

‘‘Sure,’’ by e-mail. 

In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has spoken extensively in the media on the very subject the Subcommittee seeks to 

3 

question him about; his role in the alleged politicization of the Justice Department, including the Siegelman case, and the unprecedented firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. 

Fifth and finally, especially to the extent that executive privilege 

is the basis for the claims of immunity as to Mr. Rove, the White 

House has failed to demonstrate that the information we are seeking from him under the subpoena is covered by that privilege. 

The courts have made clear that executive privilege applies only 

to discussions involving the president and to communications from 

or to presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the 

president. 

But the White House has maintained that the president never 

received any advice or and was not himself involved in the U.S. attorney firings and related events. 

The presidential communications privilege simply does not come 

into play here at all. 

For all the foregoing reasons as stated more fully in the written 

ruling that has been distributed to Members of the Subcommittee, 

I hereby rule that Mr. Rove’s claims of immunity are not legally 

valid, and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at 

this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified. 

These reasons are without prejudice to one another and to any 

other defects that may, after further examination, be found to exist 

in the asserted claims. 

At this time, I would now recognize my colleague, Mr. Cannon, 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for any remarks that he 

may have. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I was just wondering as you read your statement if you are 

aware that Mr. Rove is out of the county on a trip that was 

planned long before this hearing was set. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We have been in constant communication with his 

attorney and himself, and he has refused to testify, not because it 

was inconvenient to his schedule, but because he is asserting that 

he is covered by an Executive immunity claim. 

Mr. CANNON. So I take it you are aware that he is on a longplanned trip, and this hearing was scheduled for our convenience, 

not his? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. He did not—his attorney never mentioned it to us 

in all the numerous correspondence and specifically relating to the 

date that we asked him to come and appear before the Subcommittee. 

Mr. CANNON. It was my understanding that he actually had communicated he had a trip planned and so could not be here today. 

Are you also aware—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We were not aware and we were not made aware 

by his attorney or by Mr. Rove himself. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you aware that Mr. Rove has offered to sit 

down and talk about these things off the record—not off the record 

but in a private conversation and answer the questions that you 

have asked? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. He has tried to assert a position that he would 

come and discuss one matter only. 

4 

And the Subcommittee has significant interest in more than just 

one matter. 

We believe that he should appear like any other witness to be 

sworn in and to have his comments made into the record and to 

be asked questions by the Subcommittee in a give-and-take that 

mere written questions would not suffice. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This hearing was called to hear from Karl Rove about allegations 

that he politically manipulated the prosecution of Don Siegelman, 

the firing of U.S. attorneys, and other matters. 

The allegation is that, with Mr. Rove’s involvement, Democrats 

were prosecuted while Republicans were not, and that U.S. attorneys that did not cooperate were sacked. 

If such allegations were true, they would be very serious. But 

there is no evidence supporting these allegations at all. In fact, 

there is compelling reason to question the basis of these allegations. 

In the Siegelman case, the majority rests on the transparently 

ludicrous allegations of Jill Simpson. Even Don Siegelman has denied her allegations. 

Equally important, the career prosecutor who led the Siegelman 

prosecution—this is a career person, not a political appointee—Acting Attorney Louis Franklin, clearly stated long ago that the prosecution was not the result of political influence. 

To quote, ‘‘I can state with absolute certainty that Karl Rove had 

no role whatsoever in bringing about the investigation or prosecution of Former Governor Don Siegelman. 

‘‘It is intellectually dishonest to even suggest that Mr. Rove influenced or had any input into the decision to investigate or prosecute 

Don Siegelman. 

‘‘That decision was made by me, Louis D. Franklin, Sr., as the 

acting U.S. attorney in the case, in conjunction with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. 

‘‘Each office dedicated both human and financial resources. Our 

decision was based solely upon evidence in the case, evidence that 

unequivocally established that Former Governor Siegelman committed bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, object instruction of justice, 

and other serious Federal crimes.’’ 

That puts the matter to rest. What about the U.S. attorney 

firings? 

Same answer. Kyle Sampson, the key witness told us exactly 1 

year ago today that either Mr. Rove nor anyone else in the White 

House ever, to his knowledge, sought the resignation of any of the 

dismissed U.S. attorneys in order to seek a partisan advantage in 

a given case or investigation or for any other reason unrelated to 

ordinary performance concerns. 

So this is all old news. And it is old news that nothing happened. 

What else is old news? As early as March 2007, the White House 

was willing to let us sit down with Karl Rove and interview him 

about allegations against him; that in the run-up to this hearing, 

Mr. Rove was still willing to sit down and talk to us in an interview about the Siegelman matter, with no prejudice to the CommitVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Feb 02, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\110\071008\43356.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43356
5 

tee’s ability to institute further proceedings if it found anything 

wrong. 

Then on July 23, in oral arguments in the Committee’s case 

against Harriet Miers, the district court judge told the Committee 

pointedly that negotiations should be the preferred way to work 

these things out and, of course, that once again ignoring the court’s 

admonition and common sense, Committee Democrats rejected Mr. 

Rove’s offer of voluntary testimony and opted to hold a hearing 

today in front of an empty chair. 

If the majority was serious about getting to the bottom of this 

issue, it would have taken Mr. Rove and White House up on these 

offers. 

The fact is that it hasn’t proof that their efforts opt to more than 

a partisan stunt. 

Rather than indulge in partisan antics, the majority should be 

attending to the truly important matters that are confronting Congress in the few legislative days we have left in this Congress. 

We should be holding hearings on the Milberg Weiss class action 

trial lawyer scandal. A convicted lawyer at the center of the scandal says illegal kick-backs to class-action plaintiffs are industry 

practice. 

We have no business considering the majority’s bills next week 

to roll back arbitration and deliver consumers to the trial lawyers 

until we get to the bottom of this abuse of our justice system. 

But we won’t. We should be holding hearings on legislation to 

bring down gas prices such as my bill to cut the red tape, keeping 

trillions of barrels of oil from mountain shale from getting to American consumers or my bill to equalize discriminatory taxes on natural gas consumers so that they can pay their bills this winter. 

But we won’t. 

To quote Woody Allen in the movie, ‘‘Bananas,’’ this meeting 

today is ‘‘a travesty of a mockery of a sham.’’ 

I hope we can act on the issues that are important to the American people before we adjourn. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back. 

This time, I would recognize Mr. Smith, the Ranking Member of 

the full Judiciary Committee for an opening statement if he so 

chooses. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I do have a brief opening statement. 

Madam Chair, although we find ourselves in front of an empty 

chair, it is not a sign of an Administration refusing to cooperate 

with Congress. 

Nearly a year and a half ago, the Administration offered the 

Committee a voluntary interview with Karl Rove, a senior adviser 

to the president. 

The Democratic majority declined the offer. 

In most instances, the Administration has negotiated successfully 

with Congress to resolve information requests. 

Mr. Rove offered to conduct a voluntary interview regarding the 

Siegelman matter. The Democratic majority refused. 

Mr. Rove offered to answer written questions. Again, the Democratic majority refused. 

6 

These offers were without prejudice to the Committee’s ability to 

pursue further process if it wanted to. 

The offers should have been accepted. But time and again, the 

Democratic majority has passed up the opportunity to gather information. 

As to the issue before us, since the presidency of George Washington, presidents and Department of Justice officials from both 

parties have asserted that the president’s closest advisers are immune from congressional testimony. 

For example, in a 1999 opinion for President Clinton, then Attorney General Janet Reno stated that, ‘‘An immediate adviser the 

president is immune from compelled congressional testimony.’’ 

Karl Rove serves as assistant to the president, deputy chief of 

staff, and senior adviser to the president. He is the definition of an 

immediate adviser. An assertion of his immunity should be expected by anyone familiar with historical precedence. 

Once already, this Congress, the Democratic majority has tried 

to force the issue of compelled testimony by immediately advisers 

to the president. That effort led to contempt resolutions against 

Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten. 

Litigation is pending in the district court and is unlikely to be 

concluded prior to the adjournment of this Congress. 

It is clear today’s hearing is a likely prelude to another recommendation of contempt of the House and the debate of another 

contempt citation on the floor. 

Just 17 days ago, a district court judge heard oral arguments in 

the case of Committee v. Miers. The judge emphasized unmistakably that negotiation, not confrontation, is the preferred means of 

resolving situations like this. He stressed that both sides stand to 

lose if they do not work the matter out through negotiation. And 

he made clear that if the parties cannot resolve the dispute on 

their own, they may have to negotiate pursuant to the court’s instructions. 

With these admonitions fresh in mind, Republicans hope the 

Democratic majority would finally accept Mr. Rove’s offer without 

creating a partisan confrontation. 

But again, the Democratic majority has refused. 

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Congress’ approval ratings 

have reached a historic low; only 9 percent of Americans believe we 

are doing a good job. 

The American people have lost faith in the people’s House. Today’s hearing in no way addresses the most pressing issues before 

our nation. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be included in the record. 

The Chair would now entertain a motion to uphold the Chair’s 

ruling regarding Mr. Rove’s failure to appear and to answer questions. 

Mr. CANNON. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

7 

Mr. CANNON. I take it then, the opening statements of the Chair 

that embodied the ruling of the Chair. I am just wondering why— 

there has been no objection to the ruling, as far as I can understand. 

Do we need to have—is it proper to have a motion to support a 

ruling that has not been challenged? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. My understanding from the parliamentarian that 

it is proper to entertain a motion to uphold the Chair’s ruling even 

though no objections to the ruling has been stated. 

Mr. CANNON. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. 

I understand that it may be appropriate to do, but I don’t understand why you would do it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Well, Mr. Cannon—— 

Mr. CANNON. At least on our side, nobody has objected to your 

motion. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I believe that the preferred method to make the 

record is to have a motion upholding the ruling of the Chair. 

And although it might not be the gentleman’s preferred method 

of conducting Subcommittee business, that is what we will do here 

today. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. I would move to sustain the Chair’s ruling. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman so moves. Does any Member seek 

recognition to speak on the motion? 

If not, then a quorum being present, the question is on the motion to sustain the Chair’s ruling. 

All those in favor will signify by saying ‘‘aye.’’ 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. All those opposed will signify by saying ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 

ayes have it, and the motion is sustained. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, could we have a roll call vote? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. A roll call vote is requested. As your name is 

called, all those in favor will signify by saying ‘‘aye’’ and all those 

who oppose will say ‘‘no’’ and the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez votes aye. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers votes aye. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt votes aye. 

Mr. Watt? 

8 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen votes aye. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes no. 

Mr. Jordan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks? 

[No response.] 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Is there any other Member who wishes to cast or 

change their vote? 

If not, the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Madam Chair, there were six ayes, one no. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. A majority having voted in favor—pardon me? 

Mr. Watt, would you care to vote? 

Mr. Watt votes aye, and the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Madam Chair, there were seven ayes, one no. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. A majority having voted in favor, the motion is 

agreed to. 

The Subcommittee and full Committee will take under advisement what next steps are warranted. 

This concludes our hearing. 

I want to thank everybody for their time and patience. 

There being no more pending business today, the Subcommittee 

on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(9) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

10 

RULING OF THE CHAIR, THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, CHAIRWOMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


1-1.eps
11 


1-2.eps
12 


1-3.eps
13 


1-4.eps
14 


1-5.eps
15 

f 


1-6.eps
16 

LETTER TO SCOTT PELLEY FROM KARL ROVE, SUBMITTED BY THE

HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON


2-1.eps
17 


2-2.eps
18 

f 


2-3.eps
19 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. FROM ROBERT D. LUSKIN, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON


3-1.eps
20 

f 


3-2.eps
21 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. FROM ROBERT D. LUSKIN, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON


4-1.eps
22 

f 


4-2.eps
23 

LETTER TO ROBERT D. LUSKIN FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. AND THE

HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


5-1.eps
24 


5-2.eps
25 


5-3.eps
26 

f 


5-4.eps
27 

LETTER TO ROBERT D. LUSKIN FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. AND THE

HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


5-5.eps
28 

f 


5-6.eps
29 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. FROM ROBERT D. LUSKIN, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


5-7.eps
30 

f 


5-8.eps
31 

LETTER TO ROBERT D. LUSKIN FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. AND THE

HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


5-9.eps
32 

f 


5-10.eps
33 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. FROM ROBERT D. LUSKIN, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


5-11.eps
34 


5-12.eps
35 


5-13.eps
36 


5-14.eps
37 


5-15.eps
38 


5-16.eps
39 


5-17.eps
40 


5-18.eps
41 


5-19.eps
42 

f 


5-20.eps
43 

LETTER TO ROBERT D. LUSKIN FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. AND THE

HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


10-1.eps
44 


10-2.eps
45 


10-3.eps
46 


10-4.eps
47 


10-5.eps
48 


10-6.eps
49 

f 


10-7.eps
50 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ AND THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON

FROM BISHOP JOE MORRIS DOSS, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


11A-1.eps
51 


11A-2.eps
52 


11A-3.eps
53 


11B-1.eps
54 


11B-2.eps
55 


11B-3.eps
56 


11C-1.eps
57 


11C-2.eps
58 


11C-3.eps
59 


11C-4.eps
60 


11C-5.eps
61 


11C-6.eps
62 


11C-7.eps
63 


11C-8.eps
64 


11C-9.eps
65 


11C-10.eps
66 


11C-11.eps
67 


11C-12.eps
68 


11C-13.eps
69 


11C-14.eps
70 


11D-1.eps
71 


11D-2.eps
72 


11D-3.eps
73 


11D-4.eps
74 


11D-5.eps
75 


11D-6.eps
76 


11D-7.eps
77 


11D-8.eps
78 


11D-9.eps
79 


11D-10.eps
80 


11D-11.eps
81 


11D-12.eps
82 


11D-13.eps
83 


11D-14.eps
84 


11D-15.eps
85 


11D-16.eps
86 


11D-17.eps
87 


11D-18.eps
88 


11D-19.eps
89 


11D-20.eps
90 


11D-21.eps
91 


11D-22.eps
92 


11D-23.eps
93 


11D-24.eps
94 


11D-25.eps
95 


11D-26.eps
96 


11D-27.eps
97 


11D-28.eps
98 


11D-29.eps
99 


11D-30.eps
100 


11D-31.eps
101 


11D-32.eps
102 


11D-33.eps
103 


11D-34.eps
104 


11D-35.eps
105 


11D-36.eps
106 


11D-37.eps
107 


11D-38.eps
108 


11D-39.eps
109 


11D-40.eps
110 


11D-41.eps
111 


11D-42.eps
112 


11D-43.eps
113 


11E-1.eps
114 


11E-2.eps
115 


11E-3.eps
116 


11E-4.eps
117 


11E-5.eps
118 


11E-6.eps
119 


11E-7.eps
120 


11E-8.eps
121 


11E-9.eps
122 


11E-10.eps
123 


11E-11.eps
124 


11E-12.eps
125 


11E-13.eps
126 


11E-14.eps
127 


11E-15.eps
128 


11E-16.eps
129 


11E-17.eps
130 


11E-18.eps
131 


11E-19.eps
132 


11E-20.eps
133 


11E-21.eps
134 


11E-22.eps
135 


11E-23.eps
136 


11E-24.eps
137 


11E-25.eps
138 


11E-26.eps
139 


11E-27.eps
140 


11E-28.eps
141 


11E-29.eps
142 


11E-30.eps
143 


11E-31.eps
144 


11E-32.eps
145 


11E-33.eps
146 


11E-34.eps
147 


11E-35.eps
148 


11E-36.eps
149 


11E-37.eps
150 


11E-38.eps
151 


11E-39.eps
152 


11E-40.eps
153 


11E-41.eps
154 


11E-42.eps
155 


11E-43.eps
156 


11E-44.eps
157 


11E-45.eps
158 


11E-46.eps
159 


11E-47.eps
160 


11E-48.eps
161 


11E-49.eps
162 


11E-50.eps
163 


11E-51.eps
164 


11E-52.eps
165 


11E-53.eps
166 


11E-54.eps
167 


11E-55.eps
168 


11E-56.eps
169 


11E-57.eps
170 


11E-58.eps
171 


11E-59.eps
172 


11E-60.eps
173 


11E-61.eps
174 


11E-62.eps
175 


11E-63.eps
176 


11E-64.eps
177 


11E-65.eps
178 


11E-66.eps
179 


11E-67.eps
180 


11E-68.eps
181 


11E-69.eps
182 


11E-70.eps
183 


11E-71.eps
184 


11E-72.eps
185 


11E-73.eps
186 


11E-74.eps
187 


11E-75.eps
188 


11E-76.eps
189 


11E-77.eps
190 


11E-78.eps
191 


11E-79.eps
192 


11E-80.eps
193 


11E-81.eps
194 


11E-82.eps
195 


11E-83.eps
196 


11E-84.eps
197 


11E-85.eps
198 


11E-86.eps
199 


11E-87.eps
200 


11E-88.eps
201 


11E-89.eps
202 


11E-90.eps
203 


11E-91.eps
204 


11E-92.eps
205 


11E-93.eps
206 


11E-94.eps
207 


11E-95.eps
208 


11E-96.eps
209 


11E-97.eps
210 


11E-98.eps
211 


11E-99.eps
212 


11E-100.eps
213 


11E-101.eps
214 


11E-102.eps
215 


11E-103.eps
216 


11E-104.eps
217 


11E-105.eps
218 


11E-106.eps
219 


11E-107.eps
220 


11E-108.eps
221 


11E-109.eps
222 


11E-110.eps
223 


11E-111.eps
224 


11E-112.eps
225 


11E-113.eps
226 


11E-114.eps
227 


11E-115.eps
228 


11E-116.eps
229 


11E-117.eps
230 


11E-118.eps
231 


11E-119.eps
232 


11E-120.eps
233 


11E-121.eps
234 


11E-122.eps
235 


11E-123.eps
236 


11E-124.eps
237 


11E-125.eps
238 


11E-126.eps
239 


11E-127.eps
240 


11E-128.eps
241 


11E-129.eps
242 


11E-130.eps
243 


11E-131.eps
244 


11E-132.eps
245 


11E-133.eps
246 


11E-134.eps
247 


11E-135.eps
248 


11E-136.eps
249 


11E-137.eps
250 


11E-138.eps
251 


11E-139.eps
252 


11E-140.eps
253 


11E-141.eps
254 


11E-142.eps
255 


11E-143.eps
256 


11E-144.eps
257 


11E-145.eps
258 


11E-146.eps
259 


11E-147.eps
260 


11E-148.eps
261 


11E-149.eps
262 


11E-150.eps
263 


11E-151.eps
264 


11E-152.eps
265 


11E-153.eps
266 


11E-154.eps
267 


11E-155.eps
268 


11E-156.eps
269 


11E-157.eps
270 


11E-158.eps
271 


11E-159.eps
272 


11E-160.eps
273 


11E-161.eps
274 


11E-162.eps
275 


11E-163.eps
276 


11E-164.eps
277 


11E-165.eps
278 


11E-166.eps
279 


11E-167.eps
280 


11E-168.eps
281 


11F-1.eps
282 


11F-2.eps
283 

Æ 


11F-3.eps