More still coming in down below, in the comments…

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration, according to a story just out on Newsweek’s Website.

Key excerpts:

- On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter to Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, (linked as a pdf on the site) saying if his client were to receive any future subpoenas, Rove “should not appear before Congress” or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove — even after he leaves office.

- The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert “executive privilege,”and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress — even after his term has expired.

“To my knowledge, these [letters] are unprecedented,” said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in executive-privilege issues. “I’m aware of no sitting president that has tried to give an insurance policy to a former employee in regard to post-administration testimony.” Shane likened the letter to Rove as an attempt to give his former aide a ‘get-out-of-contempt-free card’.”

- The issue arose this week after House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he had subpoenaed Rove to be deposed under oath next Monday to answer questions about his alleged role in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman. Conyers, whose panel extensively investigated both matters last year, signaled that he has no intention of dropping them now just because Bush has left office.

- Luskin said that he forwarded a copy of Fielding’s letter, as well as the subpoena he got from Conyers, to Obama’s White House counsel, Greg Craig, and essentially asked for the new president’s position on these matters, according to Newsweek.

So far Craig hasn’t responded. He could have a conflict of interest on his hands due his friendship with Siegelman, and his past representation of Rove, which is not dealt with in the Newsweek article. Stay tuned…

Luskin also says he has asked the House Judiciary Committee to postpone its deposition of Rove until he hears back. The committee has agreed to put off the deposition — but only for a few weeks.

Bill O’Reilly of the Fox Fake Patriotic Republican network (a.k.a. the Fuck You PR network), offers Rove a tunnel to hide in…anytime?

The issue is likely to come to a head soon. The Justice Department is due to state its position on executive privilege to the U.S. Court of Appeals in a few weeks in response to the House’s attempt to enforce its previous subpoenas for Miers and Bolten, who were subpoenaed to turn over documents relating the U.S. attorneys firings. Both refused to comply, or even show up — relying on the Bush Justice Department’s sweeping position on “absolute immunity” from testifying before Congress.

Few legal observers expect the Obama Justice Department to endorse that position, but it remains an open question how the new administration will define the scope of presidential privilege.

It came as “nothing too surprising actually,” to Scott horton, a New York attorney, Distinguished visiting professor at Hofstra Law School and contributing editor to Harper‘s magazine. “We knew that Rove would try to dodge his appearance based on his ‘instructions’ from Bush. We still need to see the Obama White House’s response but they almost certainly will not agree that Rove has a right to avoid appearance before the committee,” he said in an e-mail interview. “And if Rove then fails to appear, the new Justice Department will most likely enforce the contempt sanction after Congress votes it.”

Rachel Maddow had Luskin on her show on MSNBC Thursday night.