Was U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden fired because he didn’t prioritize voter fraud prosecutions? That’s the latest theory at least.
Bogden’s firing has elicited a number of strained rationales from the Justice Department, but we’ve heard precious little from Bogden himself.
For his part, Bogden says he doesn’t know why he was fired, but since we’re engaging in a guessing game, he ought to get a shot too.
There have been a number of “theories” for his dismissal, he wrote (pdf) in answers given to Congress. And “one of the noteworthy articles of interest pertaining to my situation,” he wrote, “was an article that recently appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal….”
The article, by Erin Neff, a columnist from the Review-Journal, names three cases Bogden’s office handled in 2006 — during the heart of the election cycle — that “likely landed on Karl Rove’s desk in the White House as the administration closely followed any potential swing in congressional races.”
I won’t give a rundown of all three here — for that, give the piece a read.
But a couple things jump out about Neff’s list.
First, the investigation of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R), the most frequently mentioned politically sensitive case Bogden handled, isn’t one of them.
Second, the first and most persuasive of the three cases is that of Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), who was facing one of the closest races of his career in 2006, when a federal investigation threatened to derail his campaign:
In late October, just days before the general election, Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins wrote to Bogden, asking him to open an investigation into Porter’s alleged use of office phones to make campaign fundraising calls.
Bogden could have sat on it until after the election. Instead, the Bush appointee promptly forwarded the letter to the FBI to investigate the claims. Local media focused on the case as voters were already casting early ballots. It wasn’t until after the election that the FBI decided not to proceed with the investigation.
Was Bogden’s decision to forward the complaint a fatal one? Who knows? Add it to the growing number of theories for his firing that are far more plausible than the ones offered by the Justice Department.
