With two stories out today, one from the New York Times and the other from the Washington Post, we learn that everything the Justice Department told Congress was factually-impaired. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez claimed that there was nothing political about the firings, except that the President's Counsel Harriet Miers and the President's chief political operative created the list of Attorney's to axe and Justice was in discussions all along. In the beginning the White House wanted to fire all 93 Attorneys only to scale back this plan when it was deemed by Rove to be politically impossible. (For those paying attention that would have included U.S. Attorney for the District of Illinois (Northern) Patrick Fitzgerald, the guy prosecuting a case against the Vice President's right-hand man.)

One Attorney, David Iglesias, did not make it onto the list of Attorney's to be fired until late in the game after Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) asked the White House to include Iglesias in the purge. Here's the relevant part from the Post article:

Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on that list. Justice officials said Sampson added him in October, based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

…

On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, Miers's deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici's chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias.

A week later, Sampson wrote: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)."

"Not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool" and "happy as a clam". Domenici can't be sitting easy as these revelations continue. Now, of course, the key here is that "Justice officials said Sampson added him in October". Domenici called Iglesias, a call which Iglesias considered to put pressure on him to bring down indictments, on or about October 25th or 26th. Did this call come before or after Iglesias was added to the to-be-axed list? What about Heather Wilson's call two weeks earlier? When did New Mexico Republicans, particularly Domenici and Wilson, ask the White House and Justice to axe Iglesias and when did they know that the White House was in the process of axing Attorneys throughout the country?

The Times article states that Domenici was "among the politicians who complained directly to the president". So who are these other politicians? Who complained about Carol Lam, the Attorney investigating former Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA)? Did Doc Hastings complain about John McKay, the Attorney in Washington? These are huge questions that need to be answered. This could go well beyond Domenici and Wilson into numerous instances of obstruction of justice committed by Members of Congress.

0 Comments

The Washington Post reports that the Senate ethics committee is investigating Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) role in the alleged pressuring and subsequent firing of Attorney David Iglesias. Domenici announced that he has hired K. Lee Blalack, the former defense attorney for Randy "Duke" Cunningham, to represent him. The revelations in the committee hearings on Tuesday clearly have pushed this story further as it appears that, despite constantly changing excuses, two Members of Congress put unprecedented pressure on a U.S. Attorney to bring down indictments to help the re-election campaign of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM).

U.S. News & World Report stated yesterday that Domenici "probably doesn't need to worry about disciplinary action." Their chief opinion columnist Michael Barone has quite a different take:

When a U.S. senator (to wit, Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican) feels free to call a prosecutor at home and hang up on him for resisting political pressure in the course of executing his prosecutorial duties, the line between politics and law enforcement has been so thoroughly violated that it no longer exists.

…

Domenici would not have made that call had either a Democrat or a law-abiding Republican been in the White House. He would not have had the temerity to throw his weight around to such an outrageous extent.

What's going on in Washington is not sufficiently removed from the routine doings of a tawdry Third World dictatorship to give any American comfort.

The Senate ethics committee will likely explore the timing of the calls placed by Sen. Domenici and whether he contacted the Justice Department and what he said to them about Iglesias' performance. The real question is whether the House ethics committee will step up to the plate and investigate Rep. Wilson, who has already stated that she has essentially done exactly what Mr. Iglesias has alleged. (She just believes that her call was not intended to put pressure on Iglesias.) Right now it looks like the House will continue to be an embarrassment of ethics as it is unable and unwilling to police its own. From the DeLay inspired purge of the ethics committee in 2005 all the way through the incomprehensible Mark Foley report from late last year (everyone screwed up but they shouldn't be punished) the ethics committee in the House has been a joke. Some congressman or woman needs to step up and refer this issue to the ethics committee before this becomes a serious problem.

0 Comments

After watching the Senate hearings this morning (my Real Player went on the fritz for the House hearing) the real picture is beginning to unfold in the premature firing of seven or eight (or more) prosecutors by the Justice Department. David Iglesias, the star of the hearings, testified that both Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson called to ask him about an ongoing corruption investigation and whether indictments would be brought down before the November elections. According to Iglesias, Wilson, in a call placed on or about October 16th, 2006, went so far as to say that she was "hearing about sealed indictments" and wanted to know more. Iglesias told the committee, "We cannot talk about sealed indictment," and explained how he dodged the congresswoman's question by giving her information that was in the public record. Iglesias said that she "was not happy."

Two weeks later, on or about October 26th, 2006, Sen. Domenici called Iglesias at his home. Iglesias explained that this was the only time that he had received a call from a Member of Congress at his home. The conversation, as recalled by Iglesias, went as follows:

Domenici asks about indictments in the corruption case, "Are these going to be filed before November?"

Iglesias, "No, sir."

Domenici, "I'm very sorry to hear that you won't be taking action before November."

The line goes dead.

Iglesias said that he felt sick after receiving that phone call. Much of the 2006 House race between Democrat Patsy Madrid and Wilson revolved around allegations corruption. Iglesias stated that he did not want to get involved in the politics of this race and explained that he felt pressure to hand out indictments in time for the election. He was fired six weeks later.

John McKay, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Washington, revealed that he too was contacted by a congressional office in regards to an ongoing investigation. McKay recalled that in the wake of the bitterly contested gubernatorial race in 2004 between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi he received a phone call from the chief of staff to prominent Washington Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Ed Cassidy. Cassidy, who now works in Minority Leader John Boehner's office, asked McKay about the status of any federal investigation into electoral fraud in the '04 election. McKay, refusing to talk about an ongoing investigation, demurred only to have Cassidy begin to ask another question. McKay stated that he cut Cassidy off mid-sentence to ask him, "I'm sure you aren't about to ask a question about an ongoing investigation." Cassidy backed off and quickly ended the conversation. Hastings went on to chair the House Ethics Committee from '05-'06 after the widely reported purge of committee member who had voted to admonish then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The Seattle Times has an article about Hastings involvement in this matter.

To put this in perspective Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked an important question, although I'm not sure he got the answer that he was looking for. Graham, who was seeming to downplay the firings with his line of questioning, asked each of the prosecutors if they had ever received calls from Members of Congress and how often. Each of the four Attorneys present responded that they had never, except in the cases documented in this hearing, been contacted about a specific case as Iglesias and McKay were. Graham did not appear to expect this answer.

What we appear to be seeing is a small number of Members of Congress who may have actively obstructed numerous investigations throughout the country by prying into the business of U.S. Attorneys — a violation of ethics rules — and then contacting the Executive Branch to demand the removal of the unresponsive Attorneys. We expect the justice system in this country to work; especially if we advocate for more transparency and greater citizen vigilance we expect the justice system to work. If an investigative reporter, or blogger, or intrepid citizen digs up information that leads to a criminal investigation we expect that those in charge of the investigation will be independent and will not be removed from case, thereby obstructing justice, for political reasons.

For the coverage of the House hearings into this matter, and the terrible excuses the Justice Department is giving for firing these Attorneys, check out this thread at TPM Muckraker. This story is not going away.

0 Comments

(WATCH THE HEARINGS HERE.) 

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) issued a statement to the Washington Post last night stating that she called New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to ask about the corruption case in question. Wilson also said that constituents were complaining about "the slow pace of federal prosecutions" and that "Iglesias was intentionally delaying corruption investigations". It would have been nice if Wilson had said, like Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), that she was calling about something completely different. Wilson instead has essentially admitted to the crime here.

She says, "If the purpose of my call has somehow been misperceived, I am sorry for any confusion. I thought it was important for Mr. Iglesias to receive this information and, if necessary, have the opportunity to clear his name." (emphasis mine) So she confronted him with concerns from "unidentified constituents" and asked him to clear his name? That sounds like she's putting pressure on him if you ask me. This case needs to be referred to the House Ethics Committee post-haste.

Meanwhile, we hear that the chief of staff of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty threatened the fired Attorneys if they were to "continue to criticize the Administration". Also the New York Times reports that another prosecutor, in Maryland, was fired in 2005 prematurely during an investigation into associates of Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R).

The hearings are under way in the Senate. More later.

0 Comments

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) admitted over the weekend that he contacted Attorney David Iglesias to talk to him about a political corruption case in New Mexico and also recommended his ouster to the Justice Department. In what appears to be a preemptive apology, as Iglesias will testify before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow, Domenici told the Washington Post, "In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize." Domenici also claimed to have never pressured Iglesias over the result of the corruption case. When asked a few days prior to this weekend's apologia Domenici simply stated, " I have no idea what he's talking about." As Joe Monahan, a local New Mexico blogger wrote, "That apology by NM GOP U.S. Senator Pete Domenici was like a fig leaf that covered the most vital parts, but left plenty of skin exposed for Democratic marksmen if they choose to continue the hunt."

Domenici claims that he pushed for Iglesias' firing due to the Attorney's failure to prosecute more immigration cases. The New York Times mentions that Domenici put in "a brief call" to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty right around the time of the Senator's call to Iglesias. Josh Marshall wants to make sure to keep track of the timeline as that is the most important piece of the puzzle,

Now, some of this, let's just note for the record. DOJ says there were four calls complaining about Iglesias. But let's look at the fourth — that 'brief call to Paul McNulty' in October of last year. That's right about exactly the same time that Domenici put in his call to Iglesias about the Dem indictment. So which call came first?

Anyway, let's stick a pin in this point in the timeline to note it for future reference.

Clearly Domenici is choosing his words, and his story, carefully as he steps around what could be a major blunder, and ethical transgression, on his part. When a spokesman refers to a key piece of the story, in this case Domenici's fourth call to McNulty, as "a brief call", that sounds suspicious.

Another question is where is Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) in this story. Wilson is still refusing to say that she called Iglesias before Domenici did despite two newspaper reports, McClatchy and the Times, stating that she called first. Does Wilson believe that she can't weather the controversy of a public apology? And is Domenici protecting his protege from political damage? Domenici, if he is being honest, is denying that he pressured Iglesias. Did Wilson pressure Iglesias?

We'll find out more tomorrow after the Judiciary Committee hearings. The last question that remains is who talked to the Justice Department about Carol Lamm, the prosecutor in the Duke Cunningham case? So many local congressmen were embroiled in that scandal that if any of them were to have suggested her ouster it would be a scandal of much greater magnitude than the Domenici-Wilson-Iglesias matter.

0 Comments

Back at the beginning of the year the Justice Department announced that it was replacing seven U.S. Attorneys in an unprecedented move. The Attorney ‘purge’ was able to take place due to a provision allowing the Justice Department to unilaterally replace U.S. Attorneys for any reason that was snuck into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). McClatchy Newspapers reports today that one of those Attorneys, David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, was pressured by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) to bring down indictments on local Democratic officials prior to the 2006 midterm election. Iglesias refused and has since been purged by the Justice Department. If Wilson and Domenici did attempt to pressure a sitting U.S. Attorney for the political benefit of the oft-endangered Wilson it would be a serious ethical violation.

Wilson’s history with Domenici is integral to this story. Wilson was one of the top Democratic targets in the 2006 election and faced her toughest competition in years from New Mexico Attorney General Patsy Madrid. She barely eked out a victory after a late gaffe by Madrid during a debate. Wilson’s continuing victories are essential to the aging Domenici as he views the Albuquerque Republican as his heir. Domenici is an institution in New Mexico. He has served since the 1970s and represents a more moderate strain of Republicanism than those elected in the 1980s or 90s. Wilson was brought up through the system by Domenici and clearly the heir apparent to his Senate seat, much to the chagrin of the more conservative Southern New Mexico Republican Congressman Stevan Pearce. This explains why Domenici, the second of the two to pressure Iglesias, was “more persistent than Wilson … When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.” Meanwhile the White House is choosing between four potential replacements for Iglesias, all of whom were hand picked by Domenici. Domenici is up for reelection in 2008.

The Democrats in the House issued their first subpoenas to the purged U.S. Attorneys since taking control of the investigative powers of the committees. This case goes well beyond the potentially serious unethical actions of the two New Mexico Republicans when looking at the other Attorneys who have been purged.

Purged U.S. Attorney Carol Lam has been the lead prosecutor in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham case that has led to the indictments of Cunningham (also convicted and sentenced to over 8 years in prison), Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, and K. Dusty Foggo. Lam was purged immediately after she indicted Wilkes, a top government contractor with ties to many California Republicans including Appropriations Ranking Member Jerry Lewis and Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, and Foggo, the former number three at the CIA. TPM Muckraker has been following this case diligently and as they point out, the Iglesias revelations make the removal of Lam incredibly suspect. Perhaps she was getting too deep; this San Diego Union-Tribune article from today notes that the case is incredibly sensitive as it could potentially reveal the identities of CIA operatives because the indictment alleges that Foggo gave the confidential information to the contractor Wilkes. It should be noted that Wilkes was a 2004 Bush “Ranger” (he raised more than $200,000).

Another purged Attorney, Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorney from Arkansas, stated that he was pushed out to make way for a protégé of White House strategist de jour Karl Rove. The Rove protégé, Tim Griffin, was formerly an opposition research specialist at the Republican National Committee, a purely political position. Griffin has since withdrawn his name from consideration for a full time position blaming the politicization of the process by Arkansas’ two Democratic Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. He is currently the interim U.S. Attorney from Arkansas.

Playing with justice for political reasons is a serious violation of the public’s trust. That two Members of Congress may have done this to further their careers or legacies is abominable. The Ethics Committees in both Houses of Congress have just been handed a chance to prove if they work or not. If Members wish to insist that they do not need an Independent Oversight Board to investigate wrong doing they must begin with the cases of Wilson and Domenici to prove that they can and will police their own. On the grander scale, the Justice Department has serious questions it must answer in what may be an attempt to stifle or distort justice for purely political reasons.

If you want to follow this case, or get the history of it, I’d keep up with Josh Marshall and his muckraking team. Here’s the link for all related posts.

0 Comments