Bring on the prosecutor-purge hearings

There’s some interesting follow-up in today’s WaPo to the prosecutor purge story we discussed yesterday, highlighting David Iglesias’ allegations that he was fired for political reasons. Of particular interest, of course, is the fact that Iglesias may have been contacted by two members of Congress, who allegedly pressured him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections.

David C. Iglesias, who left yesterday after more than five years in office, said he received the calls in October and believes that complaints from the lawmakers may have led the Justice Department to fire him late last year.

Iglesias also responded to allegations from Justice officials that he had performed poorly and was too often absent, citing positive job reviews and data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions. He also noted that he is required to serve 40 days a year in the Navy Reserve.

Iglesias declined to name the lawmakers who called him, but he said in an interview: “I didn’t give them what they wanted. That was probably a political problem that caused them to go to the White House or whomever and complain that I wasn’t a team player.”

There are multiple angles to this, so let’s break it up into specific questions.

* Who pressured Igelsias? — Spokespersons for Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) and the state’s two Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall, said the lawmakers and their staffs had no contact with Iglesias about the case. The offices of New Mexico’s two other Republican lawmakers, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Wilson, however, appears to be the focus of the most attention, with rumors in New Mexico going as far back as December suggesting she may have been involved.

* Did Igelsias’s performance lead to his dismissal? — Iglesias released a copy of a letter from Michael Battle — the Justice official who fired him — commending him for “exemplary leadership in the department’s priority programs.” A November 2005 evaluation obtained by the Post also said Iglesias was “experienced in legal, management and community relations work and was respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff.” Former deputy attorney general James Comey praised Iglesias this week as “one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general.” I think it’s safe to say Justice Department officials were lying about the motivation for firing Iglesias.

* Was the White House involved? — Josh Marshall raises a good point that I hadn’t considered: “If you’re a nervous member of Congress in a tight election and you’re pissed you can’t get any action out of Iglesias, you probably don’t call the DOJ. You call the White House, specifically the political office. So who at the White House got called? And what did they do?”

* What happens next? — Republicans no doubt wish this would go away, but it’s just getting started. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be sending a letter to each of the eight fired prosecutors, asking them to testify voluntarily. Because most will probably decline, the committee will consider issuing subpoenas for their testimony next week. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is apparently skipping the first step and will vote today on whether to issue subpoenas to four of the fired U.S. attorneys: California’s Southern District’s Carol Lam, Nevada’s David Iglesias, Arkansas’ Eastern District’s H.E. “Bud” Cummins, and Washington’s Western District’s John McKay.

This is going to get good….

Post Script: It’s not particularly relevant, but I found it interesting that Iglesias was a defense lawyer in the Navy Reserve and was the basis for the Tom Cruise character in the movie “A Few Good Men.”

The odds of Mr. Rove being frog-walked out of the WH have just gotten better. -Kevo

  • I’m picturing an ad with a brief reminder of how Bush’s crony Brownie screwed up the Katrina aftermath, then fading into a picture of the local crony prosecutor and the list of public safety issues they’re responsible for. Crime is a huge issue in a lot of places, and this cronyism cuts the legs out from under the key civil servants who are supposed to prosecute criminals and keep us safe. This cuts directly at the base of the “Republicans are tough on crime” BS.

    I’ll bet the replacement prosecutors are as special as most of Bush’s other “No Crony Left Behind” appointees. Someone needs to get the full bios on them, and make sure the bobblehead media gets a copy of the most interesting ones.

    The key is to leverage the Bush-corruption issue that’s already established. With the majority of the public fully aware that today’s Republicans are especially corrupt, it won’t be hard to show them how this latest example is but another even more egregious extension of that, and will help to keep that thought fresh in their minds well into the 2008 cycle.

  • Better than good, since it appears likely that at least some of these firings (for example, Lam) were intended to derail reThuglican corruption investigations. I seem to remember that the public definitively commented on their interest in official corruption in the election last November.

    And now we have DOJ officials, almost certainly under oath, swearing not long ago that these firings were not political. Including Abu Gonzalez.

    “Good” doesn’t begin to touch this. I even hear Fitz may be free soon to take on a new assignment.

  • I gotta wonder if Wilson and Domenici knew about the secret provisions of the Patriot Act that allows the Administration to replace US Attorneys without Senate approval…

  • An administration which doesn’t give a damn about its total lack of support for its unauthorized, bloody and costly war in Iraq, and which lies all the time anyway, isn’t going to even notice this relatively minor flap over a political appointee from New Mexico.

  • …”A Few Good Men”

    So can I hope for Alberto Gonzalez to be asked on the witness stand if he ordered Iglesias’ firing for political reasons:

    “You’re goddamn right I did!”

  • …And if there was ever a group that “Can’t handle the truth,” it is the current crop of Grizzled Old Prostititutes.

    He also noted that he is required to serve 40 days a year in the Navy Reserve.

    I say again, the fact that current and retired members of the military haven’t stormed the White House and beat the hell out of the Dry Drunk Draft Dodger and Dicky (Heart) Deferrment speaks volumes about restraint of our men and women in uniform.

  • Too bad it would play right into Republican hands to impeach Bush and Cheney by reminding Americans how uncivil and mean-spirited Dems are. It’s better to just roll-over and play nice. Besides, I think Clinton did this too.
    (joking)

  • What do Republicans hate our military reservists?

    Meanwhile, TAIO, I believe the Dick’s Deferrments were due to college and parenthood. Even in his youth they couldn’t find his heart.

  • I’m always glad to see NM in the news particularly if it coincides with my feelings about this administration. What a great boost for our little corner of the country if Wilson were to be implicated in a scandal that brought down Rove as well. My question though is, shouldn’t Richardson jump on this? What would be the political fallout? I could understand not wanting to be seen as exploiting an investigation, but didn’t the Repubs do that with Clinton?

  • I gotta wonder if Wilson and Domenici knew about the secret provisions of the Patriot Act that allows the Administration to replace US Attorneys without Senate approval… — Ethel-to-Tilly, @5

    Does anyone know when exactly that provision had been slipped in? All I can remember is that it was sometime in December, but not the exact date. All these guys were fired on or around Dec 7. If the provision was snuck in on Dec 6, it might have been snuck in specifically to facilitate the firing of particular attorneys….

    As to who it was that pressured Iglesias before the November corrections, I expect all will be revealed as soon as he’s answering the Congress under oath. He wouldn’t have thrown that tidbit in if he wasn’t willing to expand on it; he just doesn’t want to be seen volunteering the info, like a traitor to the party. But, under oath, he’slikely to spill all the beans (who says torture doesn’t work as an interrogation method?)

  • Comments are closed.