By Jason Leopold

President Barack Obama has signaled that he does not want his administration to become bogged down in the ongoing legal drama between Congress and Karl Rove related to demands the former White House political adviser’s testimony in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

In a statement issued Friday, White House Counsel Gregory Craig said Obama has urged Congress and Rove to negotiate a settlement over Rove’s long-running refusal to appear before Congress and testify publicly about the matter.

“The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened,” Craig said in a statement, first reported by The Washington Post. “But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle.”

Obama’s position suggests he may support some form of executive privilege as asserted by former President George W. Bush over Rove’s testimony, even though Bush is no longer president.

In his last years in office, Bush succeeded in frustrating congressional inquiries by asserting a sweeping interpretation of executive privilege, a tradition that grants some confidentiality for advice between the President and his top aides. Bush expanded the scope of the privilege to include even discussions among his subordinates inside and outside the White House.

Obama stated during Campaign 2008 that he believed Bush was overreaching with his claims of executive privilege. On his first full day in office, Obama also signed an executive order reining in the power of former presidents to keep their historical records secret.

Obama directed the National Archives and Records Administration to consult with the Justice Department and White House counsel “concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.”

Craig’s statement characterizing Obama’s position appears to undercut the president’s campaign statements to some degree.

According to the Washington Post report, Obama administration lawyers and “representatives for former president George W. Bush are engaged in discussions that could clear a path for congressional testimony” by Rove.

The substance of the negotiations are unknown.

But Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, offered recently to have his client testify about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman – presumably to deny any role in politically targeting the Democratic governor – but continued to refuse to allow Rove talk about the U.S. Attorney firings, a deal that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers deemed unacceptable, according to a letter between Conyers and Luskin.  

On Friday, Conyers issued another subpoena – the third in less than a year – demanding that Rove appear before Congress in 10 days to answer questions about his role in the firings of U.S. Attorneys and the prosecution of Siegelman.

“With regard to the request to unilaterally limit Mr. Rove’s testimony to the Siegelman matter, as we have previously discussed, I do not believe it is acceptable for the Committee to allow witnesses to unilaterally determine what they can and cannot testify concerning, again absent assertion of a valid privilege,” the Michigan Democrat wrote Luskin on Friday.

“Moreover, the proposed distinction between the Siegelman matter and the U.S. Attorney investigation generally does not appear to be a tenable or viable distinction. They are part and parcel of the same serious concerns about politicization of the U.S. Attorney corps and the Justice Department under the Bush Administration.”

If Rove fails to show up for the scheduled Feb. 23 deposition, the full House will likely vote to hold Rove in contempt, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, during an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann late last month.

“If he refuses to show up, we’re going to have to vote a contempt citation,” Nadler said.

If Rove were held in contempt, Congress then would refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who presumably would convene a grand jury and seek an indictment. Rove could be arrested if he refused to appear before Congress if ordered to do so at that point, Nadler said.  

“Normal contempt is, you simply arrest him,” Nadler added. “The grand jury indicts him, you arrest him for contempt and you put him in jail until he is prepared to testify, to obey the subpoena.” Nadler said. Rove can’t continue to “thumb his nose at Congress” and refuse to respond to a subpoena.

Next week, the Department of Justice is scheduled to file legal briefs with an appellate court stating its position on Bush’s broad claims of executive privilege in refusing to allow former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and Bush’s former chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten to testify about the firings of the federal prosecutors and the roles they played in the dismissals. Miers and Bolten were held in contempt by Congress last year for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued to them in the case.