So there you have it: the White House’s side of the canned US Attorney story provided by the Post’s John Solomon.
It turns out the whole thing is just one of those 
unfortunate misunderstandings the Bush White House now and again finds itself in. The ouster of the US attorneys had nothing to do with political payback or stymieing investigations. It’s just that the White House wanted to get rid of a hand full of US attorneys who weren’t doing a good enough job enforcing administration policy on immigration, guns and other issues.
As Solomon puts it, “Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once — which is unusual — and that the reason was the policy performance review.”
Now, there’s a certain inattention in the piece to the growing body of evidence which casts doubt on the new administration story. But when a White House tries to get out ahead of a story like this it’s key to note the admissions of salient facts that come along with the larger bamboozlement.
The key point is that the White House signed off on the firings, as did Attorney General Gonzales and his deputy Paul McNulty.
Now, let’s join Mr. Solomon recounting what ‘officials’ told him …
Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.
And again …
The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department’s senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel’s office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.
There’s a lot of signing off ons, supportings and clearings and such. But it is a little tough to get a handle on just whose idea this was and who actually came up with the list, isn’t it?
Another interesting point.
Sen. Domenici’s spokesman tells the Post that, yes, the senator “raised concerns” with the Justice Department about Iglesias. But not about his alleged unwillingness to buckle to Domenici’s pressure to indict a Democrat before the election. Not at all. Domenici’s beef was immigration.
“We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans — in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens — about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney,” Domenici’s chief of staff told the Post.
So Domenici’s office is willing to say that it ‘raised concerns’ with DOJ, which I take to mean pressed for his ouster or disciplining. But the senator himself still refuses to answer the pretty straightforward question: did he call Iglesias to discuss the corruption investigation into a New Mexico Democrat which his office then had underway.
Let’s remember what Domenici is alleged to have done.
Yesterday, McClatchy’s Marisa Taylor spoke to “two people familiar with the contacts” between Iglesias and Wilson and Domenici.
The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.
David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.
According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.
Wilson was curt after Iglesias was “non-responsive” to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.
Domenici, who wasn’t up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn’t be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.
Call me overly suspicious. But it seems to me that any reporter really interested in getting to the bottom of this story needs to get a straight answer from Domenici about whether this alleged call took place in any degree as described above.
If it didn’t then Domenici’s being slandered. If it did, then Domenici’s claim that his only beef with Iglesias was over immigration prosecutions just isn’t credible.
Let’s find the answer to that question.
And while we’re at it, I’ll be curious to find the answers to these questions.
If this whole business was about US attorneys not implementing White House policy on immigration and firearms enforcement, why all the secrecy about it?
The White House didn’t let members of Congress know what they were doing when they did it. When called on it in an open hearing recently Deputy AG Paul McNulty said the US Attorneys were fired for performance issues. When called on the apparent falsity of those claims, it became a matter of policy disagreements. Again, if the US attorneys were canned for not following administration policy, why was this fact withheld even from the fired US Attorneys themselves? Remember, when called on December 7th and informed that they must resign, apparently none were given any explanation for their ousters.
Here’s the funny thing.
Of all the reasons an administration might have to fire serving US attorneys, a willful refusal to follow the administration’s law enforcement policies would seem to be a pretty good one. Given the fact that so many of the fired prosecutors were also in the midst of major public corruption investigations, you’d think they’d be more forthcoming with this exculpating explanation. Even more so when you consider that one of the fired US Attorneys was the target of two sitting members of Congress trying to pressure him to subvert justice to alter the outcome of a 2006 House race.
Lots of potential for misunderstanding. And yet the White House has been so resistant to revealing this exculpating explanation until now. Their own worst enemies, I guess.
And one other thing. What the White House folks told Solomon was that the list was drawn up at the Department of Justice. White House signed off on it. But they weren’t involved.
But how does that square with what Dan Eggen (who has a co-byline on the Solomon piece) came up with back on February 4th.
There is also evidence that broader political forces are at work. One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of “pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places.”
So who are these folks “who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places”?
Anybody have an answer?
