Blood in the Water
Josh Marshall and Paul Kiel of TPM have been all over this U.S. Attorney firing story from the beginning, and it's really starting to get interesting. Although there hasn't been much mainstream media coverage yet, I suspect that most of the major news organizations have people digging at this point. There's blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
Apparently David Iglesias, the ousted U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, is claiming that two members of Congress called him just prior to the November election to inquire about the status of an investigation of a state Democrat. Both were anxious to know whether indictments would be forthcoming. By a process of elimination, it's pretty clear that the two members of Congress in question are Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM). Iglesias claims that when he received these calls, "red flags went up." Iglesias did not end up indicting the suspect in question prior to the election, and he now believes that he was fired because he refused to play ball.
This is a serious charge. It's entirely improper for members of Congress to be calling up U.S. Attorneys and asking questions about pending investigations. In fact, the United States Attorneys Manual, section 1-8.010, states that:
And this is just one of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys. At least a couple of the others appear to have similarly embarrassing stories to tell. This has the potential to explode into a full blown scandal for the Bush administration. If it does, they'll have only themselves to blame. They should have let sleeping dogs lie.
Apparently David Iglesias, the ousted U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, is claiming that two members of Congress called him just prior to the November election to inquire about the status of an investigation of a state Democrat. Both were anxious to know whether indictments would be forthcoming. By a process of elimination, it's pretty clear that the two members of Congress in question are Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM). Iglesias claims that when he received these calls, "red flags went up." Iglesias did not end up indicting the suspect in question prior to the election, and he now believes that he was fired because he refused to play ball.
This is a serious charge. It's entirely improper for members of Congress to be calling up U.S. Attorneys and asking questions about pending investigations. In fact, the United States Attorneys Manual, section 1-8.010, states that:
All Congressional staff or member contacts with USAOs or USAO staff including letters, phone calls, visits or other means must be reported promptly to the United States Attorney (USA), First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) or other designated senior staff prior to making any response. All requests for information or assistance, except for public information, must also be promptly reported to CTD.Section 1-8.030 further provides:
Examples of requests that should be referred to CTD include but are not limited to requests for non-public documents or information, discussion of or briefings on case status . . . specific suggestions on case disposition or other treatment . . .U.S. Attorneys are instructed to:
Follow this standard in both open and closed cases and never provide information on pending investigations, closed investigations that did not become public, that involves Grand Jury, tax or other restricted information, that would reveal the identity of confidential informants, sensitive investigative techniques, deliberative process or the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, or the identity of individuals who may have been investigated but not indicted, without consulting CTD and obtaining authorization from the proper Department authorities.Iglesias admits that he did not report these contacts as he was required to do. In other words, he's admitting that he covered for both Wilson and Domenici by not disclosing their improper contacts to his superiors at the DOJ. Iglesias has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress and seems eager to tell his story. I can't wait to hear the rest of it.
And this is just one of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys. At least a couple of the others appear to have similarly embarrassing stories to tell. This has the potential to explode into a full blown scandal for the Bush administration. If it does, they'll have only themselves to blame. They should have let sleeping dogs lie.
posted by A.L. at 12:51 AM
7 Comments:
The stolen 2000 election, 911, the fake "war on terror", the lies that took us into Iraq, Karina, the deficits & economy, theft of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS from the military budgets, unauthorized spying, torture, the stolen 2004 election....
All had "potential to explode into a full blown scandal for the Bush administration."
Don't kid yourself - our real problems are the influences BEHIND this administration, the repug agenda, and the MSM.
oh - and don't forget TREASONGATE - revealing a covert operative and destroying the intellegence gathering abilities of the US government to assess the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iran surely should have brought this administration down.
The treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that this administration is reponsible are unprecedented - yet the folks behind the neocon agenda and the MSM are usually not even a topic for discussion.
Sorry, A.L. - I have head the claims that chimpy and gang would finally be held accountable for their latest crimes far too often.
AL, what do you think of the case that Gonzales perjured himself in Senate testimony on this? Here's a quote from Gonzales:
I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States Attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.
Do you think this is potentially grounds for impeachment and/or prosecution of Gonzales? (No doubt there are already legal grounds for impeaching him on the NSA violations of FISA, but this case may play differently politically.)
I just wanted to clarify something that was not apparent from your quotes of the U.S. Attorney's Manual. They refer to "CTD" as the place to report improper contacts by members of Congress. CTD is the Counsel to the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the office in the Department of Justice that coordinates the activities of U.S. Attorneys.
John Nowacki is the Principal Deputy Director of the EOUSA and the acting CTD. I'm not sure that complaining to Nowacki would have helped. He appears to come from the world of winger welfare himself. Here's an article he wrote in 2001 on judicial nominations while deputy director of the "Center for Law & Democracy" at Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. He's also one of the guys that pushed for the appointment of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In other words, another Federalist Society drone.
Thanks Kenneth. That's interesting. And I agree, I don't think anything would have happened had Iglesias reported these contacts. I still think it's interesting, though, that he's admitting to having violated the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. I think it actually increases his credibility on this issue. Why admit something like that unless it was true?
Crust, I think the administration will deny, deny, deny that there were any political motives involved here. They'll have some alternative explanation ready. It's very hard to prove motive in this kind of a situation. I do think it could look bad, though, particulary if evidence emerges that the White House political office was involved in these decisions.
A.L., well it sounds like it would be a good idea to call Gonzales back after Iglesias, Lam et al have testified. I would certainly be interested to hear his explanations of how the firings were neither made "for political reasons" nor "in any way jeopardize[d] an ongoing serious investigation". I don't see a complete transcript on the web, so I don't know if he affirmatively stated -- or merely suggested as in the extract I linked to -- that these firings were for poor performance, which would be another angle.
he's admitting to having violated the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. I think it actually increases his credibility on this issue. Why admit something like that unless it was true?
He probably felt he had to volunteer that to preempt the wingers from bringing it up and using it to discredit him. "See, he's the one who's unethical. Why should we trust him?" If he admits it first it blunts the effect. I'm sure at the time he realized tattling to a Repulican operative about Republican elected officials would only have resulted in his loyalty being questioned even earlier.
I find it hard to listen to Gonzalez. Ashcroft may have been a hard core right wing authoritarian dominionist, but at least you knew where he stood and that he probably believed in something, however repugnant. Gonzales is a smooth talking snake whose job is to right legal sounding memos that say George Bush can do what he wants. His words are carefully crafted to imply everything while specifying nothing. The only thing he probably believes in is his ability to b.s. his way out of anything.
Remember the good old days of Janet Reno when Republicans had this crazy idea that the attorney general's first duty was to the law, and that they should act independent of the president (and appoint at least one independent counsel a day)? Now of course anything other than unwavering loyalty to Bush would be unthinkable.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home