Was there a series of politically-motivated dismissals in December 2006 of US federal prosecutors who had actively pursued corruption charges against elected Republican officials or otherwise been at odds with the Bush Administration?
This week, a congressional committee will begin investigatory hearings into the alleged prosecutor purge, following the issuance of subpoenas last week to a number of the terminated, former US Attorneys.
The New York Times reported on this emerging scandal today in A New Mystery to Prosecutors: Their Lost Jobs:
The ouster of Mr. Bogden and seven other United States attorneys has set off a furor in Washington that took the Bush administration by surprise.
Summoning five of the dismissed prosecutors for hearings on Tuesday, the newly empowered Congressional Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.
Interviews with several of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials, lawmakers and others provide new details and a fuller picture of the events behind the dismissals. Like Mr. Bogden, some prosecutors believe they were forced out for replacements who could gild résumés; several heard that favored candidates had been identified.
Other prosecutors may have been vulnerable because they had had run-ins with the Justice Department, not over corruption cases against Republicans, but on less visible issues.
Paul Charlton in Arizona, for example, annoyed Federal Bureau of Investigation officials by pushing for confessions to be tape-recorded, while John McKay in Seattle had championed a computerized law enforcement information-sharing system that Justice Department officials did not want. Carol C. Lam of San Diego, who successfully prosecuted former Representative Randy Cunningham, had drawn complaints that she was not sufficiently aggressive on immigration cases.
Justice Department officials deny that the dismissals were politically motivated or that the action resulted from White House pressure.
Oddly, The Times lets stand a Justice Department assertion that none of the firings were prompted by politics: "Justice Department officials deny that the dismissals were politically motivated or that the action resulted from White House pressure."
That's simply not true in the case of the removal of Bud Cummins in Arkansas, which Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has already conceded in congressional testimony was done in order to provide a post for Karl Rove aide Timothy Griffin. The piece notes then-White House counsel Harriet Miers' intervention with DOJ officials on Griffin's behalf, but makes no mention of McNulty's testimony.
The Times also makes no mention of the Patriot Act provision that allows the Attorney General to appoint interim USAs for indefinite terms, an essential ingredient to the purge story that is inextricably wrapped up in politics.
There is one interesting tidbit in the piece that deserves further exploration: "The White House eventually approved the list and helped notify Republican lawmakers before the Dec. 7 dismissals, officials said."
Which lawmakers were notified? Those in the home states of the purged USAs?
Those on the judiciary committees? What were they told by the White House and DOJ? How does that square with what the White House and DOJ are saying now?
Concurrently, related allegations have been raised that two Republican lawmakers attempted to influence ongoing criminal investigations handled by one of the terminated prosecutors.
According to Newsweek, David Iglesias, one of the eight former US attorneys fired late last year, has gone public with the charge that, "he had gotten phone calls from two unidentified GOP lawmakers in D.C. last October, pressing him to bring indictments in a high-profile corruption case involving a prominent local Democrat before the November election." Iglesias refused and six weeks later was forced to resign.
When Iglesias takes the stand to testify before Congress, he will name Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) as the two congressmen who called him in October, writes Michael Isikoff.
The Congressional investigation may well be the first of many efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to dig more deeply into the inner-workings of a Republican Administration that was largely shielded from such investigation by the previous Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
