House Subpoenas Fired U.S. Attorneys

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:38:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Democrats subpoenaed four fired U.S. Attorneys to a hearing on Tuesday to determine if they were fired for political reasons.

The Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law approved the subpoenas for former prosecutors in Arkansas, New Mexico, Seattle and San Diego -- all of whom will be required to appear for testimony at a hearing Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for a similar hearing on the same day.

David Iglesias of New Mexico charged his firing was retaliatory for his refusal to prosecute Democrats before the November election.

The controversy, which has been simmering for two months, boiled over this week after departing prosecutor David C. Iglesias of New Mexico alleged that two unnamed lawmakers had pressured him to speed up prosecution of Democrats before the November elections. Iglesias said he believed that complaints from the lawmakers may have led to his dismissal, an allegation the Justice Department has disputed.

Iglesias hasn't named the lawmakers, but they are believed to be Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.)

As to other fired U.S. Attorneys,

At least four of the other U.S. attorneys were presiding over probes targeting Republican politicians at the time they were notified of their firing.

< ND Cohabitation Law Repealed | NY Likely to Adopt Sexual Predator Law >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

House Subpoenas Fired U.S. Attorneys | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's a good thing (none / 0) (#1)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:35:47 AM EST

that US attorneys aren't fighting a War on Terror, otherwise one might question the patriotism of firing them for no reason.

And this: (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:09:50 PM EST

Perhaps the most interesting recently departed US attorney to hear from would be one who left ostensibly voluntarily. Former Los Angeles US attorney Debra Wong Yang, who had been heading up the investigation into former Appropriations committee chairman Jerry Lewis. And where did Yang go on January 1st? To the law firm representing Lewis. The fact that Yang resigned her office November 10 -- just after the elections - is interesting....
..... The Lewis investigation is of course the big enchilada, the one that would really hurt, and not just Lewis. Will Congress want to hear from Yang as well?

War & Piece

US Attorneys Fired (none / 0) (#3)
by spinoneone on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:36:47 PM EST

While the firings may be "political" in nature, it is nevertheless true that all US Attorneys serve, "at the pleasure of the President." They typically are all replaced with a change in administrations, frequently after three or four years, and, otherwise, any time the President/Attorney General decides to do so.

that is all true (none / 0) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:39:24 PM EST

and much of the hot air here on this subject has been absurd.

But, that in no way suggests that a vigilant Congress should not investigate the reasons for the change and shine light on them. It is perfectly proper to remove appointees and it is also perfectly proper to find out why.

Wrong focus (none / 0) (#9)
by Sailor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:52:55 PM EST

It's not about their firing perse, as much as the fact that the law was changed so interim appointments made were indefinite and didn't have to have advice and consent of the senate.

And then there's the small matter of gonzales' perjury:

"I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January.

followed by this:

The Justice Department acknowledged Tuesday that it fired the U.S. government's chief prosecutor in Little Rock for no reason except to replace him with a lawyer who had been an aide to Karl Rove, the Bush administration's chief political strategist.

Especially since the WH had their hands all over it:

White House counsel Harriet Miers had asked the Justice Department to appoint him.

Yeah, no politics involved there.

gonzales lied to congress.


: Only (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:58:24 PM EST

Three have been fired this way over the last 25 years. Given the reputation of this administration, it would be super suprising if the firings were not dirty business.

I wonder if the congress (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:22:25 PM EST

will be as interested in a vigilant investigation into the New Mexico Dem corruption case that Judge Inglesias says he was contacted about.

Evidentially (none / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:31:40 PM EST

They were. Or at least two Republicans were.


But then again (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:34:43 PM EST

According to Norquist, the answer is no.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, right-wing activist and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist urged conservatives not to work to accomplish anything in the current Congress.
"Get married, develop a hobby, learn to belly dance, learn to golf -- you know, we got two years free, but we gotta spend time and effort playing defense here," Norquist said. "Our job is to say `no, no, no, no' for two years."

think progress


After the election (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:55:57 PM EST

someone on NPR said that the Reps in congress will now assume the traditional role as the minority party, ie., they'd collect their paychecks, ensure there's a quorum and complain about the other guys as much as possible, just like the Dems did for so many years previous.


Complain? (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:02:26 PM EST

...complain about the other guys as much as possible....

In case you missed it many of the complaints were regarding criminal activity. Amazing that so many Republicans were indicted during lockstep Republican rule.

Do you think criminals should be representing you SUO?


Of course not. (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:07:28 PM EST

Do you think either party, really, holds the high road here squeaky?


Gosh (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:21:23 PM EST

You have been napping. The culture of corrupion seems to have been organized and run deep.

Do I think much of most of the Dems? No, but that is another story. My comment has to do with the current level of criminal activity in the Republican ranks and how that most likely is related to the US Attorney firings.


Actually (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:38:50 PM EST

My comment which used the word "complain" and was about the role the minority party assumes in general in congress was in reply to your comment that ended with the very general

[...]Grover Norquist urged conservatives not to work to accomplish anything in the current Congress.
"Get married, develop a hobby, learn to belly dance, learn to golf -- you know, we got two years free, but we gotta spend time and effort playing defense here," Norquist said. "Our job is to say `no, no, no, no' for two years."

My itals and bolds.

Make a general comment and you'll get a general answer.


Wow (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:49:56 PM EST

I see. Do you really think that was the attitude of the Democrats for the last six years?

It wasn't my take, by a mile.


Just to head off any further misunderstanding (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:06:44 PM EST

Do you really think that was the attitude of the Democrats for the last six years?

Could you be more specific about what you mean by the word "that"?


This for example (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:08:49 PM EST

: Generally, yes. (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:15:30 PM EST

I'm sure there are plentiful examples that would indicate otherwise in specific cases, but, in general, yes, to your quote and to the NPR comment I mentioned above. I don't expect you to agree.

What does that have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#8)
by Sailor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:35:18 PM EST

congress doesn't investigate state level corruption and the new USA is still a bush pick.

Nice attempt to try to change the subject of firing USAs for political reasons and the congress investigating it.


Thanks, I kind of liked myself! (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:58:37 PM EST

I'll await your appropriate condemnation of the corrupt NM Dems in the next open thread.


Congress (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:20:25 PM EST

can pretty much investigate anything that a member can garner sufficient support for having investigated.

State-level corruption not only could be investigated absent any Federal nexus, it almost always involves conduct which is a potentialk federal offense. (If you don't believe me have someone read and explain to you the mail and wire fraud, money laundering or RICO statutes.

but, even if those laws "federalizing" such conduct did not exist a perfectly good reason for an investigation would be to explore whether laws "federalizing" such conduct should be enacted.

For God's sake man, Congress hauled baseball players into committe hearings!

: I'd be happy (none / 0) (#18)
by Sailor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:48:09 PM EST

to discuss all this on an open thread, but in the meantime it is off topic for this thread.

Have you sought help (none / 0) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:06:35 PM EST

for your compulsive obsession to impotently wwhine about any comments which don't meet your definition of "on topic." at the very least it would make you less annoying if not any more insightful.

: OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#25)
by Sailor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:27:21 PM EST

and yet another personal attack by this commenter.

Domenici and Wilson.... (none / 0) (#24)
by desertswine on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:23:41 PM EST

Possible ethics violations as Wilson and Domenici may have interfered in an investigation.

Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts.

The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.