Yes, 'Unprecedented'
People who've been following Attorneygate have by now heard the talk radio types predictably mewling 'But Cliiiiiinton!'. And, yes, Clinton did fire all 93 US Attorneys upon taking office. So did Reagan, and Bush the Smarter. Shrub actually kept a few appointees from the previous administration. That's SOP. The crop is renewed every time a new President takes office. And, yes, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired mid-term if there is cause. It's happened twice since 1981.
While they aren't members of the judicial branch, these men and women are like Supreme Court justices - who are effectively also appointed by the President - in that they can only do their jobs effectively if they have job security - at least enough that they can reach the end of their terms without worrying about stepping on executive toes. The stated tasks set before them are enough to occupy them already; they're not there to help the President influence elections. Or to let powerful and corrupt friends off the hook. Attempts to turn them into such tools are, without resort to hyperbole, an affront to democracy and an assault on justice, even without then lying to Congress and everyone else about it, or simply and premeditatively rewriting inconvenient rules that might make your malfeasance more difficult. Subverting the mechanism of justice - faltering and rusty as it may sometimes appear to be - so brazenly, and to such venal ends, betrays a corruption without precedent in any administration.
posted by Management at 7:00 PM
9 Comments:
How Congress Changed The Rules on US Attorney Appointments
From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Jan 20 2007
Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005
This is a story that illustrates, perfectly, the old adage about avoiding watching anyone make sausage or law.
The bill in question? The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005.
When introduced as HR 3199 in July 2005, the bill totaled seven pages (web text converted to PDF). When signed by the President in March 2006, it had morphed into Public Law 109-177, a "final print" behemoth at 277 pages.
The bill is in the news because of this clause:
SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
''(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.''.
What Does It Mean?
The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.
The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days.
Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight.
How Did It Happen?
On 11 July, Rep James Sensenbrenner, Jr (R-WI), introduced the seven-page bill. There were no co-sponsors. The Judiciary and Intelligence Committees had their way with the bill, and when the House passed the bill on 21 July, it totalled 117 pages.
The Senate didn't like any of it; they sent the House a complete substitution on 29 July 2005.
On 9 November, the House agreed that the solution was a conference committee, where legislators from both chambers hammer out differences. It was in the conference process that this clause -- as well as several other "miscellaneous" items -- was added to the bill.
The conference committee revision was filed on Thursday 8 December 2005. The House passed the conference report on Wednesday 14 December, 251-174 (roll call vote - 207 Rs, 44 Ds). A full week = plenty of time to read the bill (or have a staffer read the bill.) Don't say you didn't know what you were voting for!
A storm of controversy ensued; the Senate did not vote on the measure until 2 March 2006; it passed 89-10 (roll call vote).
NAYs ---10
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Inouye (D-HI)
The President signed the bill on 9 March 2006.
So there you have it -- a handful of (mostly) men (I can find three women appointed to the conference committee) rewrote the bill behind closed doors. The conference process is not "open" -- there is no record in the Congressional Record of who made what changes to the text. So we'll never know who inserted this clause, unless they 'fess up (or someone rats them out).
At a speech last week in Little Rock, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. … What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it.”
...
But in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”:
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta previously told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claims that the Clinton administration also purged attorneys is “pure fiction.” He added, “Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.”
BLOG | Posted 03/07/2007 @ 11:18am
Investigating Attorneygate
Ari Berman
The Nation's Washington intern, Stephanie Condon, reports on yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the dismissal of eight US attorneys by the Bush Administation:
Senators at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday tried to get to the bottom of whether the Bush administration inappropriately fired eight federal attorneys for political reasons.
If so, the GOP plan has backfired: at least two Republican lawmakers could be mired in scandal, and the administration, having lost eight faithful and proficient public servants, finds itself in another PR disaster.
The reasons for the firings have continued to evade the former attorneys, as well as lawmakers. There is "no accountability in the Department of Justice," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Instead, he said, there has been a "series of shifting explanations and excuses from the administration."
"Not since the Saturday Night Massacre have we witnessed anything of this magnitude," Leahy said, referring to the series of resignations and a dismissal during Watergate.
DOJ initially claimed the firings were performance related. Then it came out that seven of the eight attorneys had received glowing performance reviews. Now the administration claims that they did not meet certain department priorities.
The latest rationale seemed "awfully convenient" to Sen. Russ Feingold and the testifying attorneys.
"Why would I be a political liability when just a few years ago I was a political asset?" David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for the district of New Mexico, said he wondered after his dismissal. He is convinced that his forced resignation was not performance related.
Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, spoke of her success in meeting the administration's expectations for immigration trials. "Our immigration trial rate more than doubled from 2004 to 2005," she said.
When she inquired why she was fired, she was told by the DOJ that they "didn't think that information would be useful to me."
The unstated reason may have been that Lam, like four of her fellow prosecutors, were leading corruption investigations into Republicans at the time of their dismissal.
Prosecutors looking into instances of Democratic corruption, like Iglesias of New Mexico, were pressured by GOP lawmakers to produce indictments before the November elections. Rep. Heather Wilson, who found herself in a tight re-election race, asked Iglesias on Oct 16, "What can you tell me about sealed indictments?" Sen. Pete Domenici asked him: "Are these going to be filed before November?" When told no, Domenici replied, "I'm sorry to hear that."
"I felt sick afterwards," said Iglesias. It now appears that both Wilson and Domenici violated Congressional ethics rules by pressuring a prosecutor in an ongoing legal investigation.
The plot gets even thicker inside Congress. Ed Cassidy, the chief of staff to Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, called dismissed prosecutor John McKay of Seattle to inquire about an investigation into voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election. McKay said he cut the call short. In February 2005, Hastings became Chairman of the House Ethics Committee. Cassidy is now a top staffer to House Majority Leader John Boehner.
Yesterday's hearings deserve to be the first of many. It's becoming more and more obvious that attorneygate reaches into the upper echelons of Congress and the administration.
The fired US Attorney scandal heats up....
Posted by Klep on Mar. 07, 2007.
1 comment from readers. Join the discussion!
The Senate passed the bill implementing the 9/11 Commissions Recommendations today by a vote of 51-46. It will now head to the President, who has threatened to veto it because of a provision that would allow 45,000 TSA workers to unionize. If he does, it would be a huge political blunder, but the bill would probably fail as there are not enough votes in either chamber to override a veto. There were also some bills passed in the House today, but honestly I didn't pay any attention.
Attorneygate Background
The real source of action was the Senate and House testimony on the growing Attorneygate scandal. Here's a recap of what has gone so far. On December 7, 2006, a group of seven US Attorneys were suddenly dismissed for no apparent reason. These Attorneys were then replaced with interim appointments, which under a section added to the Patriot Act when it was renewed last year can last the duration of the current Presidential term without being confirmed by the Senate. There are 93 US Attorneys serving this nation, and each of them administers federal prosecutions in their relevent districts. The position of US Attorney is a Presidentially appointed position, and thus the President is entitled to dismiss US Attorneys for any reason at any time.
What made these dismissals unusual, and indeed unprecedented, was that they occurred during the middle of Bush's term. Generally, US Attorneys serve out their terms, because of the great need for them to be independent. To summarize House testimony by Altee W. Wampler III, the President of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, firings like this cause disruption of federal prosecutions, and create the appearance of impropriety. Even if there was no actual impropriety, the mere appearance of it could present problems in federal prosecutions. Furthermore, bringing in a new US Attorney in the middle of active prosecutions and investigations puts a brake on those activities because the new Attorney has to take time to get up to sepeed. So people took a closer look.
Disturbing Developments
They didn't have to look far. It turned out that a number of the dismissed Attorneys were in the middle of investigating public corruption cases, including Paul Charlton and Carol Lam. Carol Lam notably prosecuted former Congressional Representative and convicted felon Randy Duke Cunningham. This naturally prompted concerns that these dismissals were politically motivated. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate that the dismissals were based purely on performance, and not for any political reason. But in a storyreported in the New York Times on Feb. 24, all of the dismissed Attorneys had received very positive performance reviews. Along with allegations that two of the Attorneys had been pressured by lawmakers with regards to investigations around election time, this has led both chambers of Congress to hold hearings on this matter today.
The Testimony
This will be in no way in chronological order, because a lot of testimony was repeated. I'm just going to try and cover things that were said that I think are important to note.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law received testimony from one William Moschella, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice. He was asked to tell the committee the reasons for the dismissals of each of the six US Attorneys who were present. He commented that they were all fired for policy reasons, which to me doesn't sound like something performance-related. Anyway, here is what he said, and some rebuttal:
Carol Lam " Carol's gun prosecution numbers were only higher than those found in Guam and the Virgin Islands. Additionally, her immigration numbers were considered too low for a border district (her district was southern California). Lam said that her gun numbers were depressed because she allowed the states to handle many such cases. On the immigration concerns, just last year Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked the Department of Justice about Lam's immigration performance, and received a letter written by Moschella saying it was satisfactory.
John McKay " The administration took exception to how McKay promoted an information sharing system, and that he wasn't meeting sentencing goals. McKay countered that it was actually his job to investigate information sharing systems, and that the program he was advocating is being piloted in five districts currently, with plans to expand it to two more. He further mentioned that he had no control over sentencing, because sentencing is determined by judges, not US Attorneys.
H.E. Bud Cummins - Cummins was dismissed for indicating he might not serve out the remainder of his term because there was a possible replacement returning from serving in Iraq. Cummins said that he was going to consider leaving if a better offer came his way, and that this was no secret, but that all of the times he was quoted in the press as saying he was considering leaving occurred after he was informed of his dismissal. He was actually attempting to alibi the administration. You'll notice a distinct lack of any concern over Cummins' performance here.
Daniel Bogden - They wanted new blood in his seat. No other reason was given.
David Iglesias - Moschella made a vague reference to greater leadership, saying that Iglesias had delegated a lot of tasks to his assistant. Iglesias is a member of the National Guard, and thus was required to be absent for around 40 days per year (and there are laws protecting guard members from discrimination in employment because of their required service), which was likely the cause of his task delegation. He further noted that during his tenure, there were significant improvements in his district (New Mexico).
Paul Charlton - Charlton made a decision to tape FBI interviews in contradiction to a DoJ policy to not do such things (the FBI prohibits recording of confessions) and in violation of the way new policies are created. He further declined to seek the death penalty in a case where he was authorized, which apparantly means required, to seek the death penalty. Charlton didn't respond to the latter charge, but mentioned that the former was necessary to successfully prosecute child molestation cases, which often revolve on the words which come from the mouths of the accused.
The former Attorneys related how they were informed of their dismissals by Michael Battle, the Director of Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, who has announced his resignation effective March 16. They were all assured that they hadn't done anything wrong, though McKay and Lam mentioned Battle saying the administration has chosen to go in a different direction. None of them indicated having any awareness that there was any real concern over how they were performing. Charlton and Cummins testified that they attempted to find out more (since Battle would reveal nothing else), and both ended up getting the same answer from Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer: that they were being asked to resign so other people could have a chance to be US Attorneys before the end of Bush's term. In other words, they were asked to resign so that some other people could pad their resumes.
Recently, Cummins received an email from Mike Elston, the Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General, who suggested that if the fired Attorneys continued to talk about their dismissals in the media, that the gloves would come off, and that the DoJ would have to reveal more information about the reasons for their dismissals. Cummins forwarded this email to five of the other attorneys, and while himself did not take this as a threat, others did. Certainly you can see how such a statement would have a chilling effect.
If that doesn't seem bad enough, both David Iglesias and John McKay were both pressured by Republican Congressmen on investigations they were or were not conducting. McKay, who represents part of Washington state, was contacted by the Chief of Staff of Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA4), and was told that he should investigate possible election fraud by Democrats in the last Governor's election there.
David Iglesias was similarly pressured. Late last year he was conducting an investigation into a prominent state Democrat. He received a call from Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM1) who was in a tough reelection campaign (she won by 0.8% of the vote), who complained about the pace of his investigation. Iglesias also received a call at home from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), who asked if he would be unveiling indictments by November (that is, before the elections). Iglesias told him no, he did not expect to have indictments by then, upon which he claimed Domenici said I'm sorry to hear that and hung up on Iglesias. Six weeks later, Iglesias was fired.
Wilson admits to the actions ascribed to her by Iglesias. Domenici, for his part, has admitted taking the call but denies applying any sort of pressure. Domenici is up for reelection next year, and faces a tough campaign amidst rumors of a decaying mental state prompted by such actions as walking through the Capitol building in his pajamas. Needless to say, for a Congressman to contact a US Attorney regarding the state of an ongoing investigation is considered a serious ethical breach. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have filed complaints against both Wilson and Domenici.
So this is where things stand now. I expect that in the coming weeks there will be even more information, but what we already know looks pretty bad for the involved Congressmen and particularly the Bush administration. I'll try to keep you guys updated as further developments present themselves.
-David Kleppinger, Morons.org Legislative Analyst
The Senate passed the bill implementing the 9/11 Commissions Recommendations today by a vote of 51-46. It will now head to the President, who has threatened to veto it because of a provision that would allow 45,000 TSA workers to unionize. If he does, it would be a huge political blunder, but the bill would probably fail as there are not enough votes in either chamber to override a veto. There were also some bills passed in the House today, but honestly I didn't pay any attention.
Attorneygate Background
The real source of action was the Senate and House testimony on the growing Attorneygate scandal. Here's a recap of what has gone so far. On December 7, 2006, a group of seven US Attorneys were suddenly dismissed for no apparent reason. These Attorneys were then replaced with interim appointments, which under a section added to the Patriot Act when it was renewed last year can last the duration of the current Presidential term without being confirmed by the Senate. There are 93 US Attorneys serving this nation, and each of them administers federal prosecutions in their relevent districts. The position of US Attorney is a Presidentially appointed position, and thus the President is entitled to dismiss US Attorneys for any reason at any time.
What made these dismissals unusual, and indeed unprecedented, was that they occurred during the middle of Bush's term. Generally, US Attorneys serve out their terms, because of the great need for them to be independent. To summarize House testimony by Altee W. Wampler III, the President of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, firings like this cause disruption of federal prosecutions, and create the appearance of impropriety. Even if there was no actual impropriety, the mere appearance of it could present problems in federal prosecutions. Furthermore, bringing in a new US Attorney in the middle of active prosecutions and investigations puts a brake on those activities because the new Attorney has to take time to get up to sepeed. So people took a closer look.
Disturbing Developments
They didn't have to look far. It turned out that a number of the dismissed Attorneys were in the middle of investigating public corruption cases, including Paul Charlton and Carol Lam. Carol Lam notably prosecuted former Congressional Representative and convicted felon Randy Duke Cunningham. This naturally prompted concerns that these dismissals were politically motivated. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate that the dismissals were based purely on performance, and not for any political reason. But in a storyreported in the New York Times on Feb. 24, all of the dismissed Attorneys had received very positive performance reviews. Along with allegations that two of the Attorneys had been pressured by lawmakers with regards to investigations around election time, this has led both chambers of Congress to hold hearings on this matter today.
The Testimony
This will be in no way in chronological order, because a lot of testimony was repeated. I'm just going to try and cover things that were said that I think are important to note.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law received testimony from one William Moschella, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice. He was asked to tell the committee the reasons for the dismissals of each of the six US Attorneys who were present. He commented that they were all fired for policy reasons, which to me doesn't sound like something performance-related. Anyway, here is what he said, and some rebuttal:
Carol Lam " Carol's gun prosecution numbers were only higher than those found in Guam and the Virgin Islands. Additionally, her immigration numbers were considered too low for a border district (her district was southern California). Lam said that her gun numbers were depressed because she allowed the states to handle many such cases. On the immigration concerns, just last year Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked the Department of Justice about Lam's immigration performance, and received a letter written by Moschella saying it was satisfactory.
John McKay " The administration took exception to how McKay promoted an information sharing system, and that he wasn't meeting sentencing goals. McKay countered that it was actually his job to investigate information sharing systems, and that the program he was advocating is being piloted in five districts currently, with plans to expand it to two more. He further mentioned that he had no control over sentencing, because sentencing is determined by judges, not US Attorneys.
H.E. Bud Cummins - Cummins was dismissed for indicating he might not serve out the remainder of his term because there was a possible replacement returning from serving in Iraq. Cummins said that he was going to consider leaving if a better offer came his way, and that this was no secret, but that all of the times he was quoted in the press as saying he was considering leaving occurred after he was informed of his dismissal. He was actually attempting to alibi the administration. You'll notice a distinct lack of any concern over Cummins' performance here.
Daniel Bogden - They wanted new blood in his seat. No other reason was given.
David Iglesias - Moschella made a vague reference to greater leadership, saying that Iglesias had delegated a lot of tasks to his assistant. Iglesias is a member of the National Guard, and thus was required to be absent for around 40 days per year (and there are laws protecting guard members from discrimination in employment because of their required service), which was likely the cause of his task delegation. He further noted that during his tenure, there were significant improvements in his district (New Mexico).
Paul Charlton - Charlton made a decision to tape FBI interviews in contradiction to a DoJ policy to not do such things (the FBI prohibits recording of confessions) and in violation of the way new policies are created. He further declined to seek the death penalty in a case where he was authorized, which apparantly means required, to seek the death penalty. Charlton didn't respond to the latter charge, but mentioned that the former was necessary to successfully prosecute child molestation cases, which often revolve on the words which come from the mouths of the accused.
The former Attorneys related how they were informed of their dismissals by Michael Battle, the Director of Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, who has announced his resignation effective March 16. They were all assured that they hadn't done anything wrong, though McKay and Lam mentioned Battle saying the administration has chosen to go in a different direction. None of them indicated having any awareness that there was any real concern over how they were performing. Charlton and Cummins testified that they attempted to find out more (since Battle would reveal nothing else), and both ended up getting the same answer from Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer: that they were being asked to resign so other people could have a chance to be US Attorneys before the end of Bush's term. In other words, they were asked to resign so that some other people could pad their resumes.
Recently, Cummins received an email from Mike Elston, the Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General, who suggested that if the fired Attorneys continued to talk about their dismissals in the media, that the gloves would come off, and that the DoJ would have to reveal more information about the reasons for their dismissals. Cummins forwarded this email to five of the other attorneys, and while himself did not take this as a threat, others did. Certainly you can see how such a statement would have a chilling effect.
If that doesn't seem bad enough, both David Iglesias and John McKay were both pressured by Republican Congressmen on investigations they were or were not conducting. McKay, who represents part of Washington state, was contacted by the Chief of Staff of Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA4), and was told that he should investigate possible election fraud by Democrats in the last Governor's election there.
David Iglesias was similarly pressured. Late last year he was conducting an investigation into a prominent state Democrat. He received a call from Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM1) who was in a tough reelection campaign (she won by 0.8% of the vote), who complained about the pace of his investigation. Iglesias also received a call at home from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), who asked if he would be unveiling indictments by November (that is, before the elections). Iglesias told him no, he did not expect to have indictments by then, upon which he claimed Domenici said I'm sorry to hear that and hung up on Iglesias. Six weeks later, Iglesias was fired.
Wilson admits to the actions ascribed to her by Iglesias. Domenici, for his part, has admitted taking the call but denies applying any sort of pressure. Domenici is up for reelection next year, and faces a tough campaign amidst rumors of a decaying mental state prompted by such actions as walking through the Capitol building in his pajamas. Needless to say, for a Congressman to contact a US Attorney regarding the state of an ongoing investigation is considered a serious ethical breach. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have filed complaints against both Wilson and Domenici.
So this is where things stand now. I expect that in the coming weeks there will be even more information, but what we already know looks pretty bad for the involved Congressmen and particularly the Bush administration. I'll try to keep you guys updated as further developments present themselves.
-David Kleppinger, Morons.org Legislative Analyst
Fired U.S. Attorney Says Lawmakers Pressured Him
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; A10
A political tempest over the mass firing of federal prosecutors escalated yesterday with allegations from the departing U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who said that two members of Congress attempted to pressure 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."
Iglesias's allegations were met with strong denials from the Justice Department yesterday but prompted the Democratic-controlled House and Senate judiciary committees to announce that they would issue subpoenas for testimony from Iglesias and other fired prosecutors if necessary. Iglesias said he would not testify unless subpoenaed.
Spokesmen 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 V. Domenici and Rep. Heather A. Wilson, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse called Iglesias's allegations "flatly false." Roehrkasse said that Iglesias should have reported any calls from lawmakers, as required under department guidelines.
"The administration has never removed a U.S. attorney in an effort to retaliate against him or inappropriately interfere with a public-integrity investigation," Roehrkasse said.
In briefings about the firings on Capitol Hill, Justice Department officials had said that Iglesias was the target of complaints from members of Congress, according to several sources familiar with the meetings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss personnel issues. The Justice briefers did not specify the nature of those complaints, the sources said.
Iglesias, 49 and the son of a Baptist minister, is a Navy Reserve commander whose role as a defense lawyer in a famous military hazing case was the basis for the Tom Cruise character in the movie "A Few Good Men." He held a news conference in Albuquerque yesterday, in which he said that he was fired for political reasons.
Iglesias was among seven U.S. attorneys notified by phone on Dec. 7 that they were being fired without explanation. An eighth prosecutor, in Little Rock, also was removed in December, to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove.
The charges by Iglesias added a new dimension to the ongoing controversy over the fired prosecutors, at least four of whom were presiding over major public-corruption probes. Although other fired prosecutors have publicly defended their records, they have never alleged that political pressure related to an ongoing criminal investigation played a role in their dismissals.
In addition to Iglesias's probe of Democrats, fired prosecutors in Arizona, Nevada and California were conducting corruption probes involving Republicans at the time of their dismissals.
"These are extremely serious and very troubling allegations coming from a man of great integrity," said Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been leading a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings. "They call into question every other firing. We will continue to pursue this until we get to the bottom of what happened and pass legislation to prevent it from ever happening again."
The dismissals have angered Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill, in part because they followed a little-noticed change in federal law that lets Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appoint interim prosecutors indefinitely. Legislation has been introduced in both houses to repeal the provision.
Justice officials have acknowledged that they did not fire Bud Cummins from his Little Rock post for cause but have said the others were ousted for "performance-related" reasons. Records show, however, that at least six of the prosecutors, including Iglesias and Cummins, received mostly positive job evaluations before they were forced out.
In an interview Tuesday, Iglesias said the two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator. He declined to provide their party affiliation, but his comments indicated the callers were Republicans.
New Mexico media outlets reported last year that the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office in Albuquerque had opened a probe into allegations involving former Democratic state senator Manny Aragon and government construction projects in Bernalillo County. No charges have been filed in the case.
Iglesias said the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions" but said he did not receive similar contacts from anyone in the executive branch. He acknowledged he made a mistake by not reporting the calls to the Justice Department.
Referring to the calls, Iglesias said: "I suspect that was the reason I was asked to step down, but I don't know that I'll ever know."
Iglesias said other criticisms of his performance by the Justice Department "are demonstrably untrue statements." He added: "We all have a right to defend our honor. I felt like my honor and the honor of my office was attacked."
Iglesias produced statistics showing that his office's immigration prosecutions had risen more than 78 percent during his tenure and said the office prosecuted record numbers of narcotics and firearms cases as well.
Iglesias cited a January 2006 letter from Michael A. 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 Washington 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 B. Comey, now general counsel for Lockheed Martin, this week praised Iglesias as "one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general."
But Roehrkasse said Justice "had a lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance as a manager, and we made our decision not to further extend his service based on performance-related concerns."
Senate Republicans block bill to curb Justice power over U.S. attys
By Laurie Kellman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:38 p.m. February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans blocked a bill Thursday that would curb the Justice Department's power to fire and replace federal prosecutors. Democrats had sought to give the courts a role in the appointments of U.S. attorneys, to GOP opposition.
The objection by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to the proposal was long anticipated. So Democrats used the occasion to complain anew about the firings of at least seven prosecutors, some without cause, under a little-known part of the Patriot Act.
Democrats say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used the law to get around the Senate confirmation process and install Republican allies.
“I believe that their intent was to bring in people from the outside to give some of their bright people an opportunity,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “That is wrong.”
Her bill says a replacement U.S. attorney could serve no longer than 120 days without confirmation. After that time, an interim replacement would be named by a U.S. District Court.
Gonzales, Kyl and other Republicans say this approach could lead prosecutors to be appointed for reasons other than their qualifications.
Republican and Democratic leaders tried for a compromise that might lengthen the 120-day period or curb a district court's appointment power, but those efforts were abandoned early Thursday, according to officials on both sides.
Thursday was also the last day on the job for one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of San Diego. On Tuesday, her office won a pair of long-awaited indictments against a former top CIA official and a defense contractor implicated in the bribery scandal that sent former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison.
In a floor speech, Feinstein enumerated corruption cases Lam successfully prosecuted, saying, “She does not deserve this kind of treatment.”
House Democrats have also pushed for more details on her dismissal, and asked Gonzales to appoint Lam as an outside counsel on the case.
Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told the Senate Judiciary Committee that most of the seven had been fired for “performance-related” reasons, and that one in Arkansas, Bud Cummins, had been cleared out to make way for a former aide to White House adviser Karl Rove.
A private briefing Wednesday night by McNulty did not change any Democrats' minds about the firings of the prosecutors, senators said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that if the Justice Department does not provide detailed performance reports on the fired prosecutors, the Senate Judiciary Committee would subpoena them.
“I am not satisfied with the answers we've gotten. There are just too many holes in too many different places,” Schumer said.
Newly empowered Democrats are seeking to curb what they say is the Bush administration's virtually unchecked power during the years of GOP congressional control. Yet the version of the Patriot Act that contains the disputed provision passed overwhelmingly last year with bipartisan support.
Senators from both parties, including the Republican author of the law, say they were unaware of the way the Justice Department might use that rule.
Gonzales has said that he intends to submit the name of every newly installed prosecutor to the Senate for confirmation.
Democrats contend that prosecutors were forced to resign to make way for Republicans' political allies and that the White House slipped the provision into the Patriot Act to permit such indefinite appointments.
Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president, subject to Senate confirmation. U.S. attorneys can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
DoJ Claimed "No Role" in Rove Aide's Hiring
By Paul Kiel - March 13, 2007, 3:01 PM
Now that Alberto Gonzales has admitted that the Justice Department didn't give accurate information to Congress, it's worth reviewing what they said. Here's an example.
In late February, Richard Hertling, the acting Assitant Attorney General, wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in which he claimed that the "Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Karl Rove's former aide Timothy] Griffin."
Unfortunately, for the Justice Department, however, in an email outlining the media strategy for defending Griffin's appointment, Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson wrote that getting Tim Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." You can read the email here.
Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had a pretty complete rundown of the false statements made by Justice Department officials to Congress and the press. Transcript below...
From this morning's press conference:
Schumer: Here are some of the falsehoods we've been told that are now unraveling.
First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.
It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.
Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, "never, ever make a change for political reasons."
It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.
Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.
It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.
Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.
Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.
Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.
In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."
It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's own e-mail. Quote: "Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.
Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance.
It was Senator Feinstein who discovered that issue. She'll talk more about it.
So there has been misleading statement after misleading statement -- deliberate misleading statements. And we haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet, but believe me, we will pursue it.
Let's recap, for the civicly-challenged:
1. Any President can (and many do) conduct mass-firings of US attorneys. They serve at his pleasure.
2. This is often done en masse on a change of administration (the US attorneys officially have 4 year terms, but these are sometimes extended, as with Clinton). It is rare for it to happen in-between executive reorganizations, except in individual cases and generally for "cause."
3. A key change in the relevant law was slipped in by the GOP faithful, literally in the middle of the night, without even Senator Specter (chairman of the relevant committee) knowing, which gave the President the power to make new US attorney appointments without the usual Judicial or Congressional oversight. (was 120 days before review, now it's indefinite.)
4. [Bush's lawyers] used this amazing new power magically granted to them by [Bush's lawyers] to selectively fire prosecutors that were not toeing the political line, caving into pressure, or pursuing frivolous claims against GOP opponents, and replaced them with political hacks.
5. This is eerily similar to what happened in the original "Saturday Night Massacre," except that was only one lawyer investigating key Republicans and it lead to the resignation of a President.
Now, you can take your "but Clinton" and know exactly where to stuff it.
Post a Comment
<< Home