Wilson’s ‘brief and professional’ chat with a purged prosecutor

When it comes to former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, two lawmakers allegedly pressured him over a local corruption case and pushed for his ouster when he was unresponsive. Yesterday, we talked about Sen. Pete Domenici’s (R) unpersuasive defense; today it’s Rep. Heather Wilson’s (R) turn.

Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) acknowledged yesterday that she contacted a federal prosecutor to complain about the pace of his public corruption investigations, as the Senate ethics committee signaled that it had opened a preliminary inquiry into a similar communication by her state’s senior senator, Pete V. Domenici (R).

Wilson denied allegations from former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias that she pressured him to speed up a political corruption investigation involving Democrats in the waning days of her tight election campaign last fall.

“I did not ask about the timing of any indictments and I did not tell Mr. Iglesias what course of action I thought he should take or pressure him in any way,” Wilson said in a statement to The Washington Post. “The conversation was brief and professional.”

So, why call? According to Wilson, an unidentified constituent told her that “Iglesias was intentionally delaying corruption investigations,” and she was trying to help Iglesias by giving him a little nudge.

And I thought Domenici’s spin was weak.

As Josh Marshall put it, “Consider what Wilson is asking us to believe: she says she didn’t ask Iglesias about the timing of the expected indictment. Nor did she tell him ‘course of action’ she should take. She called because so many of her constituents had complained that this Republican US Attorney, appointed by President Bush, wasn’t moving quickly enough in his corruption investigation of a prominent New Mexico Democrat. Indeed, one unidentified constituent said Iglesias was intentionally bottling up the investigation. And Wilson called to give him the chance to ‘clear his name.’ Imagine Iglesias not understanding that in placing this call Wilson was just looking out for his own good?”

Please. If this is the best Wilson can come up with now, she’s in fairly serious trouble. She pressured a federal prosecutor shortly before an election, he balked. She wins her re-election, and he’s fired. Now, she’s lying about the whole debacle.

The “culture of corruption” lives.

What’s more, we’re still learning more about still other prosecutors who’ve been purged.

The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican.

“There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations,” said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. “The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.” […]

His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat.

But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.”

Moreover, congressional interest in the scandal also continues to grow.

Democrats plan to subpoena two more U.S. attorneys who were recently dismissed, as congressional leaders gear up for House and Senate hearings today to determine whether the Bush administration played politics with the firings. […]

A total of six former federal prosecutors are being summoned to the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a House judiciary subcommittee, as the issue takes on new importance in Congress. […]

Four former prosecutors were already subpoenaed for the House hearing: Iglesias, Carol Lam of San Diego, John McKay of Seattle, and H.E. “Bud” Cummins of Little Rock, Ark. All four are to appear at both hearings.

The House subcommittee plans to issue subpoenas this morning for two more: Daniel G. Bogden of Nevada and Paul K. Charlton of Arizona. House officials said Bogden and Charlton agreed to appear at the hearing this afternoon.

Hearings start today. Stay tuned.

Post Script: I just thought I’d add a tangential thought — if Democrats hadn’t won the congressional majority in November, there would be no hearings, or questions, or answers. Congressional Republicans would have just turned a blind eye, just as they did for six years. Once again, “elections have consequences.”

Ah- but don’t forget, she hadn’t yet officially won her election when he was fired (probably insignificant, but it’s worth getting the details right). Hers was one of the elections that ended up being officially up in the air for some weeks.

  • I can hardly wait for the hearings to start – I think this has the potential to be very explosive.

    As a Maryland resident, I remember the mess with DiBiagio – no, he was not particularly deft in the game of politics, and I think he went relatively quietly at the time out of fear that he would be ruined if he did otherwise. And that’s clearly a factor with the current crop of fired prosecutors – something we are going to hear more about.

    What I hope they spend some time on is discussing how difficult it has been for these US attorneys and the attorneys and staff working under them to do so in an atmosphere that is permeated with the administration’s disdain for Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

  • What are the chances of down the road some of these attorneys switching to become Democrats like what happened in Kansas not too long ago? After these hearings, I don’t see the point of sticking with the Republicans. If they’re honest, they burn their bridges. If they’re not, they screw themselves and they seem to have too much integrity to do that (unlike many other Bush administration officials).

  • What is making these hearings so interesting is almost everyone involved is a high level lawyer and perjury is practically out-of-question.

    It’s going to boil down to the word of a USDA vs political hacks. I am going to go out on a limb and predict that one of these DA’s recorded a conversation or two.

  • Wilson went farther than Dominici in her admission that her call was related to the pace of the investigation. That seems to me to be enough to establish the ethics violation. I assume the complaint will be filed very soon. All such things help in 2008 both in specific races (Wilson’s) and in the broader climate.

  • CB – great point about the hearings that we wouldn’t be having if the Dems hadn’t won the elections.

    But also, think about the hearings that we ARE having – Walter Reed Hospital, firing of federal prosecutors….those stories weren’t even on the radar all last year leading into the elections. We’re getting a whole new crop of corruption/fraud/malfeasance/incompetence issues to have hearings on.

    I think it was January 2006 when you were running posts about the literally breakneck speed at which seemingly indictable offenses were being revealed (You were saying things like “Let’s take a moment to go over what we’ve learned here in the past few days….).

  • One aspect of this that may be lost in the national reporting. Wilson’s number one attack on her opponent last November, the NM AG, was failing to be tough enough on corruption by Democrats. An indictment of a Democratic legislature leader would have been a huge coup for Wilson.

    She also likes to pose as an independent, despite her near perfect voting record for the Bush agenda. If these charges stick, that pose will be much harder to maintain.

    Domenici is pretty much bulletproof in NM, but calling Iglesias at home about this really makes it clear that they were exerting pressure, not having professional chats.

  • Comments are closed.