I tried to interfere with a U.S. Attorney’s investigation, failed, got the Attorney fired, and all I got was this lousy letter of "qualified admonition."

The Senate Ethics Committee, yesterday, admonished Sen. Pete Domenici for creating an "appearance of impropriety" when he telephoned David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, prior to the 2006 election to ask when he was going to bring indictments against Democrats for voter fraud. After not receiving the answer he wanted, Sen. Domenici pushed the White House to fire Iglesias, as they did along with other Attorneys.

This is said qualified letter of admonition. While an admonition seems like pretty weak tea for what Domenici did, it’s at least good to know that they actually do police themselves in the Senate, as opposed to the House. 

0 Comments

I’ve spent a lot of time on this blog deriding the Senate Ethics Committee - and the frivolous complaints leveled by Sen. John Ensign against the current ethics process - for failing to investigate Senators who have allegedly violated the trust of their office (or the law, in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens). Thanks to the recently passed ethics bill, S.1, we finally get some transparency in the Ethics Committee and some statistical information about the committee’s activities. The Committee is now required to issue an annual report of activity. Here are some highlights:

Number of alleged violations received in 2007 (from any source): 95 (not including the 16 carried over from 2006)

Number of alleged violations dismissed in 2007 (including 7 cases carried over from 2006): 86 (71 for lack of jurisdiction; 15 for failure to provide sufficient facts)

Number of alleged violations which resulted in a preliminary hearing: 16 (includes 9 matters carried over from 2006 and 5 matters that have carried into 2008)

Number of alleged violations that resulted in adjudicatory review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed for lack of substantial merit: 11 (includes 7 matters carried over from 2006)

Number of matters resulting in disciplinary action: 0

Looking at those numbers I can reach a few conclusions. The first thing people will jump to is that the Ethics Committee is still conducting 5 investigations that have carried over from either 2006 or 2007. We know that retiring Sen. Pete Domenici is under investigation for his role in the Attorney purge scandal and that the committee may be investigating Sen. Larry Craig, also retiring, for his role in a Minneapolis airport bathroom (although I don’t understand what Senate Rule he violated). We can determine that 2 of these cases have carried over from 2006 by doing the math. We know that 16 cases were carried over from 2006 and that 14 of these were dismissed - 7 dismissed out of hand and 7 dismissed after a preliminary hearing - leaving us with 2 cases carried from 2006 that are still proceeding into 2008. (If you want to speculate as to who these Senators - or Senate aides - are please do so in the comments.)

The next thing to take from this report is that the Ethics Committee is very careful about which alleged violations it moves forward with. Despite the claims by Sen. Ensign that the Ethics Committee receives complaints on napkins and written in crayon and that this is damaging to Senators, we know now that of the 111 alleged violations received in 2007 and carried over from 2006, 86 were dismissed out of hand for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to provide sufficient facts. The Committee is only carrying over 5 cases from 2007, 2 of which we have determined are from 2006. Thus we can state that of the 111 alleged violations received or carried over, 5 have led to on-going investigations, a rate of 4.5%. It doesn’t sound like the Committee is having difficulty sifting through these complaints and it certainly doesn’t mean that every allegation submitted amounts to anything substantive.

I’ve included the most relevant information from the Committee’s first annual report on their activity in this post, but check the rest out for your self.

Despite the clear loopholes in the ethics bill’s lobbying and gift restrictions, the transparency provisions are beginning to funnel more information into the arms of the public. As more committees update their rules to comply with S.1, and we begin to receive the new reports and visit the Web site mandated under S.1, we will realize that the true legacy of the ethics bill will be the greater public access to information, allowing better citizen oversight and informed decision making, granted by the bill’s transparency provisions.

0 Comments

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez claims that mistakes were made, he knew nothing about the actions of his chief of staff, and that he will “assess accountability” at Justice. So far this looks like really poorly orchestrated damage control. That’s the new news. Earlier today the Justice Department released the old news, a document dump of e-mails between Gonzalez’s now ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson and White House officials including then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers. We know from the Washington Post story, and from McClatchy’s reporting over the weekend, that Sen. Pete Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans were instrumental in getting U.S. Attorney David Iglesias canned. The question is whether this was determined after Iglesias says that Domenici pressured him over indictments.

The documents provide some hints. Throughout the e-mails there is a running list of Attorneys to be terminated. The first such list begins with an evaluation of Attorneys indicated in the following ways:

“bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.

strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively.”

Of the eight Attorneys who were eventually fired Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Carol Lam of California, and Margaret Chiara of Michigan were “strikeouts”; Paul Charlton and Daniel Bogden received no recommendation; and David Iglesias was listed in bold, a recommendation to retain. This was in March of 2006.

In September of 2006 another list is released (with some redacted names) listing Bud Cummins as in process of being pushed out and Paul Charlton, Carol Lam, Margaret Chiara, Daniel Bogden, and John McKay as Attorneys to consider pushing out. There is still no mention of David Iglesias.

On October 17^th, the same list is sent out in an e-mail. It continues to lack Iglesias as an Attorney to be terminated. Then we have an empty space. The next document comes from November 1^st and the next relevant document is from November 15^th. This is the first time that Iglesias pops up on the list of Attorneys to be terminated. According to Iglesias, Domenici placed a call to Iglesias’ home on or about October 25^th or 26^th. This call was perceived by Iglesias to have been intended to place pressure on him to bring down indictments in a local corruption case against Democrats to aid the election of Rep. Heather Wilson, the heir apparent to the aging Domenici’s Senate seat. A month later, the Attorney, who in March received a glowing review, found himself set to be terminated. This appears to show that Domenici called for Iglesias' dismissal after the potentially pressuring phone call. Had Iglesias acted differently in the corruption case would he still be employed as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico? Sen. Domenici should answer that question himself.

0 Comments

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

Another Update: "Hacked" isn't right. Apparently they screwed up at U.S. News and Bonnie Erbe's post got Barone's name on it. The Internets strike again. 

In my last blog post I quoted from a post from Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report. Barone's post, which I excerpted, stated his outrage at the attorney firings and at Sen. Pete Domenici's ethics in calling Attorney David Iglesias. The only thing about the post is that Barone didn't write it. You see, his site was hacked and the post, sensibly explaining the outrage over the Attorney firings, was not his work at all. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

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

Tomorrow is the big press day for this story as the House and the Senate will hold hearings into the alleged Attorney purge and look into what role, if any, politics and pressure from congressmen led to the ouster of seven U.S. Attorneys. Two of these Attorneys have already generated a large amount of media attention as their removal is highly controversial. David Iglesias claims that Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep Heather Wilson pressured him to bring an indictment against local New Mexico Democrats prior to the 2006 election and Carol Lam was in the midst of prosecuting two alleged conspirators in the Duke Cunningham corruption case, Brent Wilkes and K. Dusty Foggo, both highly connected to the Bush Administration. What about the other Attorneys?

One that caught my eye was Paul Charlton, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. In October it was revealed that Charlton was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) for multiple alleged corrupt practices. There was even a strong rumor that an indictment was in the pipeline. Now, Charlton is being removed from his position.

Bud Cummins, the Attorney for the District of Arkansas, states that he was told he was being removed to pave the way for a protégé of Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, who has since decided not to pursue the permanent position. Cummins had also been investigating the office of Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt, the son of then-Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).  John McKay’s removal as Attorney for the District of Washington is incredibly puzzling as he received a glowing personnel review prior to his ouster.

Daniel Bogden is perhaps the only Attorney who may have been removed for performance issues after he saw a number of high profile cases collapse.

There is also a whole lot more news in the case of Domenici and Iglesias:

• According to Paul Kiel, Domenici claims that he was frustrated at Iglesias’ “inability” to “move more quickly on cases” despite the fact that Iglesias was “opening more cases and handling them faster than his predecessor”.

• The six purged Attorneys subpoenaed to testify tomorrow released a joint statement today. You can read it here.

• The Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys at the Justice Department Michael Battle announced that he was resigning today, effective March 16^th. Battle was the Justice Department Official who informed each of the fired Attorneys that they were out of a job. DOJ is saying that Battle did not make the decision to fire.

• CREW filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM).

• And a small piece of information that caught my eye was that David Iglesias, the fired Attorney from New Mexico, was the basis for the Tom Cruise character in the film “A Few Good Men.” Another fired prosecutor, Carol Lam, had recently prosecuted the case of Duke Cunningham, the basis for the Tom Cruise character in “Top Gun.” Weird.

Watch the hearings tomorrow if you want. Or check back here (and TPM) during the day for updates.

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