The House hearing on the prosecutors is still going on, and we’re providing running updates here.
The latest: former United States attorneys Daniel Bogden of Utah and Paul Charlton of Arizona both gave accounts of conversations with acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer about the firings. Mercer told them plainly that they’d been fired in order to free up some plum patronage spots.
Mercer told Charlton that “this was being done so that other individuals could ‘touch base’ as a United States attorney before the end of the president’s term.”
He was more explicit in his conversation with Bogden. Bogden testified that Mercer told him “the administration has a very short, two year window of opportunity concerning United States Attorney positions” and that “this would be an opportunity to put others in those positions so they could build their resumes, get experience as a United States Attorney, so that for future opportunities, being a federal judge or another political type position, they would be better enhanced to do so.”
Here are some fresh signs that the House Dem leadership is facing a mounting challenge from liberals in the House over its approach to ending the Iraq War.
Sen. Domenicii releases a new statement about David Iglesias’ testimony today:
In his own testimony, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that nothing I actually said was threatening or directive. I did not pressure him. I asked him a timing question. He responded. I concluded the conversation.
Read the complete statement here.
Looking back over today’s testimony what stands out aren’t just the big lies that have been alleged but the small ones. In particular I’m thinking about cases in which Justice Department appointees said one thing only to have one or more of the US Attorneys come back and say the statements were simply false.
For instance, William E. Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General said that one of the reasons the Department had relieved Mr. Cummins of Arkansas was that he’d “indicated” earlier that he did not plan to complete his term. Not so, said Cummins, when his turn came to testify. According to Cummins, the only time he’d said anything like that was after he’d already stepped down.
“I was trying to be discreet,” he said.
In other words, he was trying to paper over what had happened and provide his DOJ bosses with an alibi. And Moschella took Cummins’ white lie and tried to use it as a rationale for his dismissal. (This was flagged in Paul Kiel’s running commentary on the House hearing.)
Earlier Moschella went down a list of the various fired US Attorneys’ deficiencies.
Let me quote from Paul Kiel’s running coverage …
Of Carol Lam, he said that her gun prosecution numbers “were are the bottom of the list.” And that her border related prosecutions “didn’t stack up.”
Of John McKay, he said that the department didn’t really have a policy difference, but that they were concerned with the manner “in which he went about advocating particular policies,” whatever that means.
Of Cummins, he said that he was not fired for performance reasons. He added that Cummins had indicated that he was not going to finish his term, and that Griffin was “interested in the USA position.”
Of Bogden, he said that “given the importance of [Bogden’s] district,” that the department felt they needed “renewed energy, renewed vigor” in that office in order to “take it to the next level.”
Of Iglesias, he complained that he’d “delegated to his first assistant the running of the office.”
Of Charlton, he said that Charlton had had a policy of “taping FBI confessions,” a policy that had ramifications throughout the government and that was “completely contrary” to the department’s policy.
These claims didn’t “stack up” very well, as Moschella might say, under committee questioning.
For instance, did anyone ever speak to Lam about the problems with her gun or border prosecutions? Moschella said former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (who’s been very critical of the firings) spoke to Lam about the gun cases. Remember, Comey left in 2005. And the border prosecutions? Moschella didn’t know if anyone ever had.
Let’s be clear. The DOJ needn’t establish a lengthy or any paper trail to justify firing a US Attorney. Maybe they didn’t like the way she prosecuted gun crimes. Or maybe her bosses at Main Justice just didn’t like how she went about her job. Maybe they just plain didn’t like her. That’s fine. And while it would be irregular to fire a US Attorney in the middle of a president’s term for no evident wrongdoing, it would not in itself be improper. None of the USAs, as they’re called, are irreplaceable. And they do serve at the president’s pleasure.
The issue here is different. There is a clear and growing body of evidence that at least three of these firees were canned for not allowing politics to dictate their prosecution of political corruption cases. Or, to put it more bluntly, for not indicting enough Democrats or indicting too many Republicans. Which is to say they were fired for not perverting justice.
In the face of that evidence the administration has come up with a series of changing and often contradicatory alternative explanations, which range from the frivolous to the ridiculous.
The administration isn’t at war with the fired attorneys or Congress. They’re at war with the obvious.
Some puffs of deceit and ridiculousness need to be lined up next to each other for full effect.
First, the decription of Mr. Iglesias’s testimony on Sen. Domenici (R-NM) from the Post …
Domenici also began asking about the local corruption case, which involves Democrats and a courthouse construction project, specifically inquiring about indictments.
“Are these going to be filed before November?” Domenici asked, according to Iglesias’s testimony. Unnerved by the call, Iglesias said he responded no.
“I’m sorry to hear that,” Domenici replied, according to Iglesias, who added that the senator then hung up on him. “I felt sick afterward. . . . I felt leaned on, I felt pressured to get these matters moving,” Iglesias told the committee.
From the testimony this conversation appears to have happened toward the end of October, 2006, placing it within two weeks of election day.
Then Sen. Domenici’s (R-NM) response to Iglesias’s testimony …
In his testimony today, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that our conversation was brief and that my words did not threaten him, nor did I direct him to take any course of action. While I recall, as I stated previously, that I asked Mr. Iglesias about timing of the investigation, neither I nor those who overheard my side of the brief conversation recall my mentioning the November election to him … In his own testimony, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that nothing I actually said was threatening or directive. I did not pressure him. I asked him a timing question. He responded. I concluded the conversation.
“I concluded the conversation.”
Remember, this was a call to Iglesias’s home. Domenici’s Chief of Staff placed the call. And led with claims that “there were some complaints by constituents” about Iglesias’s tardy pace in indicting Democrats.
Pity Mr. Iglesias got the wrong impression.
Straight to the top.
John McKay, the former US Attorney from Washington state who didn’t open an investigation into claims of voter fraud in the 2004 state gubernatorial election, heard from someone else beside Rep. “Doc” Hastings (R-WA).
From the Post …
In remarks after the hearings, McKay said that officials in the White House counsel’s office, including then-counsel Harriet E. Miers, asked him to explain why he had “mishandled” the governor’s race during an interview for a federal judgeship in September 2006. McKay was informed after his dismissal that he also was not a finalist for the federal bench.
Today’s Must Read: Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and his former chief of staff get their damage control messages scrambled.
Universal Press Syndicate responds to calls that it drop Ann Coulter’s syndicated column in the wake of her “faggot” comment: Sorry, no can do.
DOJ spokesman’s new phrase for the fired US Attorneys: “former disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress.”