Rove's comments, made through his lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, prompted immediate charges of foul play by congressional Democrats, who accused him of sidestepping an agreement not to discuss his two days of closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings of federal prosecutors. That testimony, which wrapped up Thursday, came only after a hard-fought and protracted legal battle in which Rove and some other senior Bush administration officials refused to testify in what they said was a partisan witch-hunt by congressional Democrats who believed the top prosecutors were fired because they refused to go along with the Republican political agenda. As a compromise, Rove agreed to field questions from one congressman and one staff lawyer from each party. Also in the room were various staff members and lawyers from congressional officers, the Bush and Obama administrations and the Justice Department, which appointed a special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal violations related to the U.S. attorney firings. During several years of controversy over the firings, other Bush administration officials have defended their own and Rove's actions saying that Bush's political adviser was merely passing along complaints from some Republicans about various U.S. attorneys, particularly David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, Bud Cummins in Arkansas and Todd Graves in Missouri. Until Thursday, however, Rove had declined to comment, Luskin said. But he made prearranged deals with The New York Times and The Washington Post, under which he allowed them to see some of his e-mails on the subject of the U.S. attorneys. He also gave both newspapers interviews in which he insisted he had done nothing wrong. 'There has been a lot of speculation about what his role might have been and not much from him that would clarify it,' Luskin said of Rove. 'I think there was a feeling that the time had come for him to lay out his understanding of those events, following the conclusion of his testimony before the House committee.' There were few if any disclosures in the e-mails Rove provided nor in his interviews. For the most part, Rove said, as the Bush administration did earlier, that he was providing political guidance about larger policy issues and was interested in helping put the best people into prosecutor positions that were either already open or about to become open. Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee did not appreciate Rove's decision to discuss details of his role in the controversy, saying that their negotiated agreement prohibited any of the parties from discussing any details until everything was officially released. That could come sometime in the next few weeks, once the committee has interviewed all participants and everyone has reviewed and approved the accuracy of the testimony transcripts. 'It's hardly surprising that Mr. Rove would minimize his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings or that selectively leaked documents would serve his version of events,' committee spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said in a statement. 'The Judiciary Committee intends to honor its agreement to maintain the confidentiality of this process until its work is complete. While not describing the contents of the documents or interviews, the committee believes that the full record will show Mr. Rove's role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys was more substantial than his statements to the media indicate.' 