E-mails show Rove played bigger role in prosecutor firings

The e-mails and new interviews with key participants reflect contacts among Rove, aides in the Bush political affairs office, and White House lawyers about the dismissal of three of the nine US attorneys fired in 2006: New Mexico’s David Iglesias, the focus of ire from GOP lawmakers; Missouri’s Todd Graves, who had clashed with one of Rove’s former clients; and Arkansas’s Bud Cummins, who was pushed out to make way for a Rove protégé.

The documents and interviews provide new information about efforts by political aides in the Bush White House, for example, to push a former colleague as a favored candidate for one of the US attorney posts. They also reflect the intensity of efforts by lawmakers and party officials in New Mexico to unseat the top prosecutor there. Rove described himself as merely passing along complaints by senators and state party officials to White House lawyers.

The e-mails emerged as Rove finished his second day of closed-door testimony yesterday about the firings before the House Judiciary Committee. For years, Rove and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers had rejected efforts by lawmakers to obtain their testimony and their correspondence about the issue, citing executive privilege. The House of Representatives sued, igniting a court fight that was resolved this year after discussions among lawyers for former president George W. Bush and President Obama.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said: “I certainly can confirm that Karl answered all of the committee’s questions fully and truthfully. His answers should put to rest any suspicion that he acted improperly.’’

Rove and Miers, as well as other Bush administration figures, still could be called to testify at a public hearing on Capitol Hill. Transcripts of their accounts could be released by the House judiciary panel as early as August under the terms of the court settlement.

At the same time, assistant US attorney Nora Dannehy continues to investigate whether the firings and the political firestorm that followed could form the basis of possible false statements, obstruction of justice, or other criminal charges. Rove and Miers each met with Dannehy this year.

In an hourlong interview with the Post and The New York Times this month, Rove described himself as a “conduit’’ of grievances from lawmakers and others about the performance of home-state prosecutors. The interview was conducted on the condition that it not be released until Rove’s House testimony was concluded.

He said he did not recall several events in the time line because of his busy job and asserted that he had done nothing to influence criminal cases, an allegation by Democrats that has dogged him for years. Luskin asserted that “there was never any point where Karl was trying to get a particular prosecution advanced or retarded.’’

“Yes, I was a recipient of complaints, and I passed them on to the counsel’s office to be passed onto Justice,’’ Rove said. The complaints about weak enforcement of voter fraud laws and public corruption “had the sound of authenticity to me. If what I’m told is accurate, it’s really troublesome,’’ he said.