Last week, when fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias responded to claims that he was dismissed due to on-the-job “performance” issues, the prosecutor explained that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) was one of two lawmakers who pressured him about a New Mexico corruption case.
Domenici was reportedly “persistent.” When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn’t be handed down until after the election, “the line went dead.” Shortly thereafter, Iglesias was told his services would no longer be needed. “I believe that because I didn’t play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign,” Iglesias said.
Asked for an explanation, Domenici, on March 1, told The Associated Press, “I have no idea what he’s talking about.” Four days later, Domenici appears to have had an epiphany.
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) acknowledged yesterday that he contacted the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque last year to ask about an ongoing corruption probe of Democrats, but said he “never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.”
Domenici also said in a statement that he told the Justice Department it should replace U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, one of eight federal prosecutors fired in December. But Domenici said the recommendation came before his call to Iglesias about the criminal investigation.
“In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize,” Domenici said of talking to Iglesias. “However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.”
At the risk of sounding cynical, Domenici’s explanation doesn’t sound … what’s the word … true. The senator violated congressional ethics rules by placing the call, so he’s spinning furiously to find a way out of this mess. All the spinning seems to have left the poor man dizzy.
Domenici now claims not to have “pressured” Iglesias. Then why make the call? As Josh Marshall put it, “Well, when a U.S. Senator — a senior Senator from your own party, no less — calls you about a case, you can be damn sure it’s not a social call.” For that matter, Domenici also “apologizes” for having contacted Iglesias. If the call was a harmless status check about scheduling, then why apologize?
Marshall has sunk his teeth into this — as a rule, that should make Domenici even more nervous — but by way of an overview, here are a few more angles to consider.
Domenici, for example, is still sticking to the notion that Iglesias was fired because of job performance, despite the fact that the Justice Department abandoned that talking point last week and moved onto something else (administration “priorities”).
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has offered Rationalization #3.
“Justice officials have said that F.B.I. officials complained that Mr. Iglesias was not bringing corruption cases fast enough, but have not mentioned Mr. Domenici’s efforts to remove him.”
First, Iglesias was bad at his job. Second, he was good at his job, but had the wrong priorities. Third, he had the right priorities, but was too slow about it. Marshall summarized:
If someone tells you one reason they’re doing something, you may believe me. If someone tells you twenty reasons they’re doing something, and some of the reasons contradict each other, it’s very hard not to get suspicious.
[P]erhaps these folks were fired for incompetence, or maybe over policy disagreements, or maybe because the FBI didn’t think they were moving quickly enough on corruption cases, or maybe they were being shoved out to open up slots for deserving GOP lawyers. Any of these explanations might be true. But when we hear them all, in succession, in little more than a week, you begin to suspect that none of them are true. And that it’s all so much flimflam trying to obscure the real explanation.
I’d just add that media attention is just now starting to percolate. Early last week, in the WaPo, this story was on page A10. Late last week, A4. Today, A1.
Congressional hearings start tomorrow. Pass the popcorn.