« HB603: Domestic Partner Rights And Responsibilities Act Passes Full Vote of House | Main | Dem-Sponsored DOMA Bill Gains Passage in NM Senate Public Affairs »
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Political Fragging: Fired U.S. Attorney Iglesias Drops Bombshell on NM Repubs
In a story that continues to explode on the national scene, New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was recently fired by the federal Justice Department and accused of bad performance, held a news conference on his last day in office yesterday to defend his record as a federal prosecutor and blame politics for his firing. Even more damning, he told McClatchy Newspapers that he was called by two members of the NM Congressional delegation about a month prior to the 2006 election and asked pointedly about when he would announce indictments in a case involving possible criminal counts related to two state courthouse projects, as well as queried about details in the case.
In response to Iglesias' revelations, both a U.S. House Justice subcommitee and the U.S. Senate Justice Committee are considering issuing subpoenas to Iglesias and several other U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration under similar circumstances. The subpoenas would compel the attorneys to testify about their firings before the Congressional committees, and Iglesias has said he would comply with the orders if issued. In recent weeks, it was announced that six U.S. attorneys around the country, including Iglesias, would be removed from office and replaced by the Bush administration due to alleged "performance issues." Two others are also being replaced for unstated reasons. Many are asking questions about the real reasons behind the firings.
Soon after Iglesias' statements about calls from members of Congress were made public, Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM2) said he wasn't one of those who called Iglesias. Rep.Tom Udall (D-NM2) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) also denied they were the callers. That leaves just two possible culprits -- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM1) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) -- and so far their offices have refused comment to the media. It has long been rumored that Wilson and Domenici may have been pressuring Iglesias to bring the courthouse case indictments before the election in November 2006 in order to help Rep. Wilson's reelection prospects against Dem challenger Patricia Madrid. In a tight race, Wilson ultimately beat out Madrid by a razor thin margin of less than 900 votes.
A post yesterday on The Carpetbagger Report by Steve Benen, the lead editor of Salon.com's Daou Report, had this to say, citing stories published by TPMmuckraker.com and McClatchy Newspapers:
Yesterday, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, described his firing as “political fragging.” Iglesias added, “I’m OK with being asked to move on for political reasons, I’m NOT OK with the Department of Justice wrongfully testifying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee that I had performance issues.”
Today, Iglesias started airing the dirty laundry.
The U.S. attorney from New Mexico who was recently fired by the Bush administration said Wednesday that he believes he was forced out because he refused to rush an indictment in an ongoing probe of local Democrats a month before November’s Congressional elections.
David Iglesias said two members of Congress separately called in mid October to inquire about the timing of an ongoing probe of a kickback scheme and appeared eager for an indictment to be issued on the eve of the elections in order to benefit the Republicans. He refused to name the members of Congress because he said he feared retaliation.
Two months later, on Dec. 7, Iglesias became one of six U.S. attorneys ordered to step down for what administration officials have termed “performance-related issues.” Two other U.S. attorneys also have been asked to resign.
Iglesias, whose performance reviews included no criticisms, said, “I believe that because I didn’t play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded by noting that Iglesias’ allegations are “extremely serious and very troubling allegations coming from a man of great integrity. They call into question every other firing.”
... now that we know partisan prosecutions played a role in the purge, it should renew interest in the administration’s decision to fire San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam during her Duke Cunningham investigation.
The McClatchy Newspaper story also reported:
Iglesias acknowledged that he had no proof that the pressure from the members of Congress prompted his forced resignation. But he said the contact violated one of the most important tenets of a U.S. attorney's office: Don't mix politics with prosecutions.
"I was appalled by the inappropriateness of those contacts," Iglesias said of the calls.
... Iglesias said the two members of Congress not only contacted him directly, but also tried to wrest details of the case from him.
An article in today's Albuquerque Journal adds more to this story,
There has been grumbling for months within the state Republican Party and legal community that the investigation into possible contract padding in state courthouse construction projects has been conducted at a snail's pace. The original allegations— involving contractors, public officials and millions of dollars— were brought to the U.S. attorney and the FBI more than 18 months ago.
... And Iglesias told the Journal after the news conference that he began losing the support of important state Republican Party leaders after the 2004 election when he didn't prosecute anyone for voter fraud.
Also check out this post on Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo that cites information first published by the New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan blog. Monahan's coverage of the story continues today, including speculation about the possible political fallout that may damage the political futures of Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici (above right) due to the unethical nature of the accusations. More will be revealed.
March 1, 2007 at 10:05 AM in Candidates & Races, Crime, Ethics & Campaign Reform, Local Politics, U.S. Attorney Iglesias | Permalink
Comments
Do the Republicans do anything for any reason other than A) political gain or revenge or B) making money for their friends?
I can't wait to see these Congressional hearings with the fired US attorneys.
If even someone like Iglesias is disgusted with Bush and company....
Posted by: I Vote | Mar 1, 2007 11:58:56 AM
Oh boy, let's hope both Heather and Pete get the boot on this one. About time both of them got called on their political pressuring of officials like Iglesias who are supposed to serve all the people, not just Republicans.
Hey Democrats, who ya gonna run against Heather and Pete if this story even permits them to stay in the race? Wouldn't it be sweet to capture another Senate seat and one more House seat?
Posted by: GRM | Mar 1, 2007 12:14:17 PM
I look forward to seeing Rep. Wilson brought to justice, for not supporting the troops!
This is a remarkable state of affairs: a militarist faction that doesn't even take care of its soldiers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030100687.html
Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely because of shortfalls in equipment worth billions of dollars -- jeopardizing the Guard's ability to respond to crises at home and abroad
Posted by: | Mar 1, 2007 12:28:37 PM
It's hard to know where to start (or end) with Rep. Wilson's record. Post American points out another area where she has remained silent and harm to our troops and their safety is the result.
I'm sure Wilson has visited Walter Reed, for instance, yet I guess she was blind to the bad aftercare our troops were receiving there. These Republicans like to say they support the troops but they neglect the troops and even now keep cutting veteran's benefits, and mental and health care funding. Such hypocrites.
Posted by: Old Dem | Mar 1, 2007 1:07:10 PM
I have to agree with Jim Baca's blog today and that this will result in the overturning of the one lame count on Robert Vigil...
Posted by: | Mar 1, 2007 3:45:00 PM
With you on that. I think it puts the entire case against Vigil et al. in a new light.
Posted by: | Mar 1, 2007 3:54:24 PM