One of the overlooked angles to the story in recent weeks is how the U.S. Attorneys themselves have been responding to the controversy. The administration has repeatedly insisted — to the press, under oath to lawmakers — that the fired prosecutors were replaced for their on-the-job performance. In other words, the Bush gang has argued that they had no choice but to replace U.S. Attorneys who weren’t doing their jobs well. (It’s an odd argument for the administration to make — usually they reward incompetence with promotions and medals.)
Some of the aggrieved are starting to push back against White House rhetoric. Yesterday, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, described his firing as “political fragging.” Iglesias added, “I’m OK with being asked to move on for political reasons, I’m NOT OK with the Department of Justice wrongfully testifying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee that I had performance issues.”
Today, Iglesias started airing the dirty laundry.
The U.S. attorney from New Mexico who was recently fired by the Bush administration said Wednesday that he believes he was forced out because he refused to rush an indictment in an ongoing probe of local Democrats a month before November’s Congressional elections.
David Iglesias said two members of Congress separately called in mid October to inquire about the timing of an ongoing probe of a kickback scheme and appeared eager for an indictment to be issued on the eve of the elections in order to benefit the Republicans. He refused to name the members of Congress because he said he feared retaliation.
Two months later, on Dec. 7, Iglesias became one of six U.S. attorneys ordered to step down for what administration officials have termed “performance-related issues.” Two other U.S. attorneys also have been asked to resign.
Iglesias, whose performance reviews included no criticisms, said, “I believe that because I didn’t play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded by noting that Iglesias’ allegations are “extremely serious and very troubling allegations coming from a man of great integrity. They call into question every other firing.”
Damn straight.
For example, now that we know partisan prosecutions played a role in the purge, it should renew interest in the administration’s decision to fire San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam during her Duke Cunningham investigation.
But even if we just focus on Iglesias, there’s a potential for a pretty big controversy here. Two members of Congress cannot contact federal prosecutors, urging them to rush criminal charges. Which two called Iglesias? Paul Kiel is already working the phones.
For that matter, there’s also the not-incidental matter of high-ranking Justice Department officials testifying under oath that politics had nothing to do with the purge. (“I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January. He was either lying or ignorant.)
Indeed, Salon reported this morning that some of the fired prosecutors were told in no uncertain terms that the purge was strictly about making room for other political appointees.
[A]t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences. A fourth U.S. attorney was told by a top Justice Department official that the dismissal in that attorney’s case was not necessarily related to job performance.
Based on comments and email feedback, I get the sense that readers are skeptical about this controversy. I continue to think this has real potential, and could become a huge headache for the administration.
The story about Bush’s prosecutor purge got considerably more interesting today. Stay tuned.