WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee yesterday subpoenaed President Bush’s former chief political adviser, Karl Rove, to testify about whether the White House improperly meddled with the Justice Department.

Accusations of politics influencing decisions at the department led to the resignation last year of Mr. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.
It’s unclear whether Mr. Rove will ever be forced to testify. The White House refuses to let him or other top aides testify about private conversations with Mr. Bush, citing executive privilege to block Congress’ demands.

The subpoena orders Mr. Rove to appear before the House panel on July 10. Lawmakers want to ask him about the White House’s role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Governor Siegelman, a Democrat from Alabama.
The chairman of the House Judiciary, John Conyers, had negotiated with Mr. Rove’s attorneys for more than a year over whether he would testify voluntarily.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests,” Mr. Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, said in a statement. “Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate.”

Mr. Conyers added: “Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”
Both Mr. Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to comment.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also authorized subpoenaing Mr. Rove, who did not show up to testify. Senate Democratic leaders, not anxious to pick a difficult political fight in an election year, didn’t plan to seek a vote on whether to hold Mr. Rove in contempt of Congress, which is a criminal offense.

In a May 21 letter to the House panel, Mr. Luskin called the then-threatened subpoena a “gratuitous confrontation.” He said Mr. Rove was willing to talk to congressional investigators, but only behind closed doors and without a transcript being made of the session.
“While the committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a Groundhog Day replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation,” Mr. Luskin wrote in the letter. It was released both by Mr. Conyers’ staff and later by a spokesman for Mr. Luskin who responded to a call for comment.

The White House all but jeered at the subpoena, calling it “political theater.”