U.S. Attorneys

WaPo: It's All A Big Misunderstanding

Paul Kiel | March 3, 2007, 10:02AM

I won't repeat Josh's analysis of The Washington Post's story this morning, in which the administration gives a half-embarrassed, and yet totally innocent, explanation for the prosecutor purge imbroglio.

Let me just flag this little telling excerpt instead:

On the job less than a year, [deputy attorney general Paul] McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list, officials said. Comey, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday, praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.

Comey told the Post earlier in the week, "David Iglesias was one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general." I guess McNulty didn't ask Comey about him?

Note: Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has a good rundown of the possible motives behind the purge.

Oversight Committee

Gonzales to Dems: Shoo, Fly

Paul Kiel | March 3, 2007, 10:02AM

From Bob Novak's column today:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”

Richard A. Hertling, the acting Justice Department lobbyist, responded Wednesday, 22 days after Emanuel’s letter. He contended “the Justice Department would not ever seek the resignation of a U.S. attorney if doing so would jeopardize a public corruption case” and rejected naming Lam as a special prosecutor.

U.S. Attorneys

Watchdog: If Iglesias Names Names, We'll Follow Through

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 6:04PM

On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias is expected to name Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) as the two lawmakers who called him in mid-October to pressure him about his office's investigation of a state Democrat.

As Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) told The Washington Post and ethics expert Stanley Brand told McClatchy, Wilson's and Domenici's calls (as described by Iglesias) likely broke House and Senate ethics rules. But the question is whether the ethics committees would actually follow through with an investigation.

Well, Naomi Seligman Steiner of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Congress told me that if Iglesias named Wilson and Domenici, then CREW would "certainly" draft an ethics complaint against Domenici in the Senate and ask the House ethics committee to investigate Wilson.

Given the inert tendencies of the ethics committees in both houses, however, only a large amount of public pressure is likely to push them to investigate (e.g. ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL)).

U.S. Attorneys

Senate Committee Requests Testimony from Ousted Prosecutors

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 5:42PM

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) wrote to six of the firied U.S. attorneys this afternoon, requesting their testimony before the committee Tuesday morning.

"If you refuse to appear and insist upon receiving a subpoena," the letters read, "the Committee will proceed to authorize its issuance."

The committee has scheduled a hearing on the U.S attorney firings for 10 AM Tuesday; it's unclear, however, whether the four U.S. attorneys already subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify Tuesday afternoon would accept the Senate committee's request. If they did not, the committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue the subpoenas.

In addition to the four former U.S. attorneys subpoenaed by the House (San Diego's Carol Lam, Seattle's John McKay, New Mexico's David Iglesias and Arkansas' Bud Cummins), the Senate also sent letters to Nevada's Daniel Bogden and Arizona's Paul Charlton. All six attorneys reportedly received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department sometime before being fired.

Scooter Libby

Libby Jury to Judge: "Define Reasonable Doubt"

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 4:02PM

From the AP:

Jurors asked for the definition of "reasonable doubt" Friday after completing a shortened, eighth day of deliberations Friday in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

I think the short answer to that (much to the chagrin of Scooter Libby's lawyers) is "no."

Brent Wilkes

Wilkes, Foggo Prosecutors Wary of "Gray Mail"

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 1:12PM

From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Prosecutors in the corruption case against Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo asked a judge yesterday to limit dissemination of intelligence secrets that, if made public at trial, could damage national security...

Prosecutors noted that they were concerned about “the specter of gray mail,” a defendant's practice of trying to derail his prosecution by threatening to disclose classified information in court.

To keep that from happening, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act in 1980. Under CIPA, the two sides argue before a judge in secret on whether the information is needed for a full defense. If a judge, in this case U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, decides that the defendant is entitled to the information, the government has to decide whether to risk disclosure and proceed, or drop the prosecution....

In the Foggo case, after a joint request by the prosecution and defense, Burns appointed court security officers as custodians of classified information.

U.S. Attorneys

Did Calif. Prosecutor See The Purge Coming?

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 12:41PM

Laura Rozen raises a good point. Three of California's four United States attorneys resigned in two months. Two of them we know were actually asked to step down on December 7th: San Diego's Carol Lam and San Francisco's Kevin Ryan.

But the other, Los Angeles' Debra Wong Yang, stepped down November 10th, just after the election. On January 1st, she left for the heavy-hitting law firm that just happened to be representing Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who is being investigated by her office.

As Laura notes, "it's no secret that the decision to retire and a decision informed by knowledge one is going to be dismissed are sometimes the same thing.... Will Congress want to hear from her as well?"

Jim Gibbons

Nev Gov Lawyers Up

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 11:48AM

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) has nabbed Abbe Lowell, best known as Jack Abramoff's lawyer, The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that there was a federal investigation of Gibbons' relationship with scandal veteran and software executive Warren Trepp. Our rundown of the muck is here.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

kredburn | March 2, 2007, 11:04AM

Justice Department Pushes for More Internet Data Retention
“The Bush administration has accelerated its Internet surveillance push by proposing that Web sites must keep records of who uploads photographs or videos in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate, CNET News.com has learned.

"That proposal surfaced Wednesday in a private meeting during which U.S. Department of Justice officials, including Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, tried to convince industry representatives such as AOL and Comcast that data retention would be valuable in investigating terrorism, child pornography and other crimes. . . Industry representatives respond by saying major Internet providers have a strong track record of responding to subpoenas from law enforcement.” (CNET News)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 9:12AM

McClatchy Newspapers filled in the blanks last night, citing "two people with knowledge of the incident" that Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) were the two lawmakers who called in mid-October to pressure New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias about his office's investigation of a state Democrat.

Iglesias himself has all but named Wilson and Domenici (he said in a TV interview that he was "not surprised" that Wilson and Domenici had refused to comment) and given his detailed description of the calls to NPR yesterday, we already have a pretty good idea of what he'll be telling the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

There were two calls. Here's how McClatchy describes the first, from Rep. Wilson:

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.

And here's Iglesias' own description of that call:

The first call was in mid-October. The caller was asking –- this was not a staff member, an actual member of Congress -- the person was asking about “I want to know if there are any sealed indictments.” And I said, “Sealed indictments? We only do that for juvenile cases or national security cases. It’s fairly unusual.” Instantly red flags went up. I didn’t want to talk about it. Federal prosecutors can’t talk about indictments in general until they’re made public. So I was evasive, I shucked and jived like Walter Payton used to for the Chicago Bears, and the call was ended rather abruptly....

A little bit later, Sen. Domenici followed up, according to McClatchy:

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.

Iglesias' description:

Approximately a week and a half later I got a second call from another member of Congress wanting to know about when the corruption matters were going to filed. Again, red lights went on. It was a very unpleasant phone call, because I know that members of Congress should not be making phone calls about pending matters, pending investigations, indictment dates, things of that nature.

And Iglesias is not the only one who seems like he might drop a bomb on Tuesday. As Josh pointed out, the former U.S. Attorney from Arkansas' Eastern District Bud Cummins gave a rather pointed "no comment" to the AP when the reporter asked if officials from the Justice Department or White House had urged him not to testify before Congress.

Or as Cummins told The Washington Post, "If [the committee] would like to hear one of the few facts I have, I'm happy to tell them."

So what do the other U.S. attorneys who will testify, Seattle's U.S. Attorney John McKay and San Diego's Carol Lam, have in store for the committee? That's not clear.

McKay is sure to get questions about persistent rumors in the Seattle legal community that he was pushed out "to appease Washington state Republicans angry over the 2004 governor's race." As The Seattle Times reported, "Some believe McKay's dismissal was retribution for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the race." McKay, who reportedly got one of the most glowing performance reviews from the Justice Department, has already said that he was given no reason for his dismissal.

But the one prosecutor people are most eager to hear from -- Lam, who headed up the Duke Cunningham investigation -- has been utterly silent (except for those indictments two days before she stepped down, you know). The top FBI official in San Diego has already said, "I guarantee politics is involved." Will Lam say the same?

U.S. Attorneys

Ousted Prosecutor to NPR: "Red Flags Went Up"

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 6:59PM

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias for New Mexico was interviewed by NPR this afternoon and provided more detail about his accusations that two lawmakers called him in mid-October to pressure him about his office's investigation of a state Democrat. I've provided a transcript of an excerpt below. You can listen to the entire interview here.

The first call was in mid-October. The caller was asking –- this was not a staff member, an actual member of Congress -- the person was asking about “I want to know if there are any sealed indictments.” And I said, “Sealed indictments? We only do that for juvenile cases or national security cases. It’s fairly unusual.” Instantly red flags went up. I didn’t want to talk about it. Federal prosecutors can’t talk about indictments in general until they’re made public. So I was evasive, I shucked and jived like Walter Payton used to for the Chicago Bears, and the call was ended rather abruptly....

Approximately a week and a half later I got a second call from another member of Congress wanting to know about when the corruption matters were going to filed. Again, red lights went on. It was a very unpleasant phone call, because I know that members of Congress should not be making phone calls about pending matters, pending investigations, indictment dates, things of that nature.

NPR's Melissa Block asked why Iglesias refused to go ahead and name the lawmakers.

Because frankly, I’m afraid of retaliation. I live in a very small state with a very small legal community. And I’m frankly afraid if I go public right now, that there could be retaliation in terms of me being blacklisted, blackballed… you pick your adjective.

When Block noted that New Mexico doesn't have a very big delegation, and that every member of the delegation with the exception of Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) have denied making the calls (Domenici and Wilson said "no comment" to NPR), Iglesias responded, "Right."

"Anything you want to add to that?" Block asked.

"I’ll be adding much more on Tuesday afternoon at two o’clock," he responded, referring to the upcoming House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Update: Iglesias also spoke to KRQE in Albuquerque. The video doesn't seem to be available online yet, but Joe Monahan tells me that Iglesias said, regarding who called him, "I will be fully truthful on Tuesday afternoon relative to all five members contacting me or not contacting me."

He was also asked whether he had proof of the calls and replied that he did not have a recording, but said, "I am reviewing possible documents that I may be taking to the House for their review."

U.S. Attorneys

Wilson, Domenici: No Comment

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 5:22PM

It seems we've been upgraded from no answer at all to a "no comment" from both Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM).

The Associated Press finally cornered them today. The result:

David Iglesias said in published reports this week that he believes he was forced out of office as U.S. attorney after resisting pressure from two members of Congress to push an ongoing investigation of a kickback scheme that might have helped Republicans in the 2006 elections.

He reportedly said the lawmakers pressed him for details and appeared eager to see an indictment just before the elections.

Iglesias, a Republican, has not named the lawmakers who contacted him. All but Domenici and Wilson said Wednesday that it wasn't them.

In a brief interview Thursday, Domenici also denied the accusation. "I don't have any comment," he told The Associated Press. "I have no idea what he's talking about."

Wilson tersely referred questions to Iglesias' government supervisors.

"You should contact the Department of Justice on that personnel matter," she said.

I have to disagree with the AP's characterization of Domenici's "I have no idea what he's talking about" as a denial (for what an actual denial looks like, see Rep. Steve Pearce's (R-NM) response yesterday).

U.S. Attorneys

BREAKING: House Committee to Subpoena Ousted Prosecutors

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 4:42PM

The House Judiciary Committee will be issuing subpoenas to four of the fired prosecutors this afternoon, according to a committee spokesperson.

The U.S. attorneys who will receive a subpoena are California's Southern District's Carol Lam, New Mexico's David Iglesias, Arkansas' Eastern District's H.E. "Bud" Cummins, and Washington's Western District's John McKay. They will testify next Tuesday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

More soon.

Update: The hearing will be Tuesday of next week, not Thursday as I originally reported.

Update: It seems worth pointing out that these are the first subpoenas to be issued in the 110th Congress.

Torture

Gov. Claims Padilla Interrogation Video Lost

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 3:41PM

From Newsweek:

...what happened to a crucial video recording of [suspected Al Qaeda operative Jose] Padilla being interrogated in a U.S. military brig that has mysteriously disappeared?

The missing DVD dates from March 2, 2004. It contains a video of the last interrogation session of Padilla, then a declared “enemy combatant” under an order from President Bush, while he was being held in military custody at a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. But in recent days, in the course of an unusual court hearing about Padilla’s mental condition, a government lawyer disclosed to a surprised courtroom that the Defense Intelligence Agency—which had custody of the evidence—was no longer able to locate the DVD.

Oops.

Jack Abramoff

Abramoff: The Caged Bird Sings

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 2:50PM

Even though he's in prison, Jack Abramoff will continue to cooperate with prosecutors for the forseeable future. A status conference originally scheduled for tomorrow, during which the judge would have set a date for Abramoff to be sentenced on bribery charges, has been postponed until June 5th. Abramoff is already serviing time for separate fraud charges related to his purchase of a line of casino boats.

The prosecutors and Abramoff's lawyer agreed to push the date back last week, because "Mr. Abramoff’s cooperation will continue for the foreseeable future," according to a joint motion from the two parties. Prosecutors made the same request for Michael Scanlon, Abramoff's business partner.

Abramoff and Scanlon have already helped prosecutors win guilty pleas or convictions for ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Ney's former chiefs of staff Neil Volz and Will Heaton, ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay's staffer Tony Rudy, and former administration official David Safavian, and prosecutors are reportedly close to indicting the former deputy secretary of the Interior Steven Griles.

DeLay, DeLay's former chief of staff Ed Buckham, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) are reportedly on the shortlist of other potential targets.

Hookergate

Alleged D.C. Madam "Considering" Selling Off Phone Records

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 1:00PM

Back in October, the feds busted a long-time prostitution service in the Washington, D.C. area. The madam, Jean Palfrey, soon caught attention by telling a reporter from the Smoking Gun that they must be going after her as part of a larger investigation into "some Duke Cunningham-type bigwig client that got caught up in something[.]"

As we noted back in December, Palfrey hasn't actually named a member of Congress. But she seems determined to make it easier for those who want to find out. Though her firm's policy was that "no record is a good record!!" she's now apparently mulling selling her phone records from the last thirteen years to raise funds for her defense.

Palfrey, whose assets were seized by the IRS back in October, has launched a website, deborahjeanepalfrey.com, to solicit contributions. But if that doesn't bring in enough, "consideration is being given to selling the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records for the 13 year period, to raise the requisite defense funds," according to the website.

My request for comment from her lawyer, Montgomery Sibley, who's listed as the contact for the site, wasn't immediately returned.

Update: Her lawyer responds: "The records identify the telephone number of the customer. Since 2000, the customers and the independent contractor escorts of the service almost exclusively used their personal cellphones, their identifying information is readily and publicly available. Jeane will cooperate with whoever acquires the information to supplement it with other information at her disposal."

U.S. Attorneys

Paper: Pressure Calls Came from New Mexicans

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 11:45AM

Well, our list of suspects just got a whole lot shorter.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias told McClatchy Newspapers (and The Washington Post) that two members of Congress had called him in mid-October to pressure him about an ongoing corruption investigation of a state Democrat. He refused to identify the lawmakers in any way, because he feared retaliation.

But in comments to the Albuquerque Journal, he was a whole lot more specific. He told the paper that "two members of the New Mexico delegation" had contacted him.

Now, there are only two members of the New Mexico delegation that we haven't heard from: Rep. Heather Wilson (R) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R). And it's not just us. The pair have ducked calls from everyone (a partial list: McClatchy, The Washington Post, the Albuquerque Journal and Albuquerque Tribune). Back in October, Wilson was fighting for her political life in one of the closest races in the country. Domenici, as the state's sole Republican senator, is the White House's state contact for the U.S. attorney in the state -- he would have been originally responsible for Iglesias' nomination and the nomination of his successor.

The ball is in their court. We put in another call to their offices this morning.

In New Hampshire, Two Break-Ins at Dem Offices

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 11:08AM

Over the weekend, there was a break-in at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's headquarters. Did it mean anything? Another Watergate? The early verdict was probably not.

But The Concord Monitor adds another wrinkle to the story: "The burglary over the weekend at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's Concord headquarters came five weeks after a break-in at a Democratic Party office in Manchester."

According to the paper, the Manchester office door was found forced open in late January and "nothing seemed to have been stolen." Five weeks later, whoever broke into the party headquarters in Concord stole "laptops and other equipment."

Coincidence? Maybe. But in a state notorious for Republican dirty tricks, suspicion is in order.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

abielak | March 1, 2007, 10:19AM

Privacy Group Sues Justice Department Over Wiretaps
"A privacy rights group sued the Justice Department on Tuesday to try to pry loose a ruling by a secret court that the Bush administration says approved its clandestine wiretapping program. The suit, if it succeeds, should answer an important question about the future of the program: whether the court will require individual warrants, with specific evidence, before allowing the government to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and alleged terrorists in foreign countries." (The San Francisco Chronicle)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 8:23AM

Ex-Rep Bob Ney (R-OH) heads to prison today, where he'll spend the next thirty months. But before he disappears behind the gates of rustic FCI Morgantown, Ney sent an email out to friends and family, waxing philosophical on his fate. It was a touching send off from the man who accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes.

The email:

hello,

i will not have access to e mail so this will be my last for awhile. i wanted to drop you a short e mail to give you my address:

robert ney
inmate number 28882-016
fci morgantown
446 greenbag road
route 857
morgantown, west virginia 26501

i also wanted to thank you for all you have done for me and my family. your kind words, thoughts, and prayers throughout the last six months have helped all of us quite a lot.

someone asked me the other day, if i wish i had never ran for office. i answered that i am glad that i did. nothing can erase the wonderful memories, thoughts, constituents, and changes that we, working together with the republicans and democrats, have been able to do. working to bring jobs to the district, helping constituents with issues, and trying to change law to help people has been the greatest memory ever.

would i change things if i could, sure. am i sorry for things that happened, absolutely, and i will pay the price. but, i am grateful for many good people in our office that helped the district and grateful for a free nation, the men and women that protect it, and a wonderful constituency in the district that i used to serve.

my family and i have lost everything on an economical basis, house, health care, possesions, but so have other people, people in the district, many, have lost all. and yes , that is painful for anyone that has gone through it, but, i am so fortunate to have my wife and children, we are so rich with family, friends like you, loved ones that are there for us, and full of hope for a good future.

the darkest days are not ahead, i have gained a higher power, the god of my understanding, is with all of us and that allows me to view tomorrow, although as a day of loss of freedom, as a day of enlightenment and of life to come.

as garth brooks said in his song the dance:

and now i'm glad i didn't know
the way it all would end, the way it all would go
our lives are better left to chance,
i could have missed the pain,
but i'd have had to miss, the dance

my family and my life is starting new, thanks for being part of it.

god bless,

bob ney

Note: Just for fun, compare and contrast the letter-writing styles of ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and Bob Ney.

Update: On a more serious note, don't miss the latest from The Washington Post today on the Walter Reed scandal: "Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years."

U.S. Attorneys

House Committee Schedules Vote on Issuing Subpoenas to Prosecutors

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 6:02PM

Well, as the Senate Judiciary Committee moves towards issuing subpoenas for the ousted prosecutors, the House seems to be moving faster.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will vote tomorrow on whether to issue subpoenas to four of the fired U.S. attorneys: California's Southern District's Carol Lam, New Mexico's David Iglesias, Arkansas' Eastern District's H.E. "Bud" Cummins, and Washington's Western District's John McKay.

If the committee did issue subpoenas, the attorneys would testify next Thursday, according to the press release from Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA).

U.S. Attorneys

Senate Committee to Request Testimony from Ousted Prosecutors

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 5:56PM

The Senate Judiciary Committee has moved one step closer to having the ousted U.S. attorneys testify.

Following up on Sens. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) calls to subpoena the fired U.S. attorneys, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told me that the committee will be sending a letter in the next couple of days to some of the fired U.S. attorneys asking them to voluntarily testify.

If the attorneys do not agree, the committee will consider issuing subpoenas for their testimony next week, the spokesperson said. Sen. Schumer said earlier that a number of the attorneys are willing to testify, but would only do so if subpoenaed.

U.S. Attorneys

Schumer: Ousted Prosecutors Want to Talk

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 4:21PM

Seconding Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) call to subpoena the ousted U.S. attorneys, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the Senate floor that they would be willing to tell their side of the story to the Senate if subpoenaed.

From his remarks:

...frankly Mr. President, [Iglesias' accusation reported by McClatchy] comes as no surprise to me. And that is because David Iglesias, the US attorney, told my staff the same thing the day before, and asked in fact, that he be brought here to Washington... and was willing, rather, to be brought here under the power fo subpoena to tell his story. We have inquired of the fired US attorneys and the overwhelming majority do want to tell more, but feel honorbound not to do it except if they were brought here under the power of subpoena to Washington.

Schumer added that he'd already spoken to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and that they were "examining how that can be accomplished."

U.S. Attorneys

Feinstein: Subpoena U.S. Attorneys

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 3:47PM

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaking on the floor of the Senate just now, urged the committee to issue subpoenas to the ousted U.S. Attorneys to have them testify, so she could ask some "hard questions." She said that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the chairman of the relative subcommittee was "interested in doing this."

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias told McClatchy that he would only testify before the committee if subpoenaed.

Update: Responding to Sen. Feinstein's comments, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) office emailed me a statement that "the Chairman is considering all options to get to the bottom of this issue."

U.S. Attorneys

Cantor: Not Me, Either

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 3:45PM

A spokeswoman for Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the Chief Deputy Whip in the House, says he didn't call U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in mid-October to question him about an investigation of a New Mexico state senator. Cantor's flack, Rachel Bauer, told me "no."

U.S. Attorneys

Schumer: Iglesias Allegations "Extremely Serious"

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 2:31PM

The reaction from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' allegation that he was pushed out because he failed to indict a state Democrat before the election:

“These are extremely serious and very troubling allegations coming from a man of great integrity. They call into question every other firing. We will continue to pursue this until we get to the bottom of what happened and pass legislation to prevent it from ever happening again.”

U.S. Attorneys

GOP Rep: It Wasn't Me

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 2:02PM

I've been putting out calls as fast as my fingers can dance, and we've already gotten a response from Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM).

"I can confirm to you that the congressman did not contact Mr. Iglesias about the courthouse investigation," Pearce spokesman David Host told me. As McClatchy reported, the case Iglesias was referring to in his interview involved a former Democratic state senator who "took money to ensure an $82 million courthouse contract would go to specific company."

I'll be providing updates as I receive more answers.

U.S. Attorneys

Purged Prosecutor: "I Didn't Play Ball"

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 1:36PM

Wow, McClatchy drops a bomb today with their interview of U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias.

Iglesias, whose last day on the job is today, says that two members of Congress called shortly before the 2006 election to push him on details related to his investigation of a state Democrat. Because he refused to be pressured to indict the Dem before the election, Iglesias says, he got the axe: "I believe that because I didn't play ball, so to speak, I was asked to resign." Iglesias told McClatchy that "the two members of Congress not only contacted him directly but also proceeded to try to wrest details about the case from him."

A member of Congress directly contacting a U.S. Attorney is a no-no, especially in cases as sensitive as the one at hand. " Congressional questions about ongoing cases are supposed to go through a special office within the Justice Department to avoid the appearance of impropriety," McClatchy reports. Iglesias says that he was "appalled by the inappropriateness of those contacts."

So there's a big unanswered question here: who were the two lawmakers? McClatchy reports that a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said that it wasn't Bingman. McClatchy couldn't get ahold of New Mexico's other lawmakers as of press time. They are Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) (who wasn't up for reelection at the time) and Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce (R-NM).

We'll be putting calls in to them right away, and also to members of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, and Republican committee leaders.

Duke Cunningham

877-NO-BRIBE

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 11:27AM

The San Diego FBI office is waiting for your call.

U.S. Attorneys

Salon: Prosecutors Told Purge Was Political

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 11:21AM

It gets clearer and clearer: Salon reports that at least two of the federal prosecutors forced out in December were told by a senior Justice official that there was no other reason for their dismissal than to make room for another appointee. From Salon:

According to the former senior Justice Department official, one of the U.S. attorneys in the group was told by [Justice Department official Michael] Battle on Dec. 7: "It's hard not to think you did something wrong when you get a call like this, but that's not always the case." Two other U.S. attorneys in the group, upon seeking clarification from superiors in Washington, were told by a different top Justice Department official that they were being pushed out to give other Bush appointees their posts. A current senior Justice Department official confirmed that one of those two was [U.S. Attorney Daniel] Bogden in Nevada.

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias has confirmed that he wrote an email calling his firing a "political fragging."

Read more »

Army Times: Walter Reed Patients Told to Keep Quiet

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 11:04AM

From The Army Times:

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.

“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

abielak | February 28, 2007, 11:02AM

Army's Surgeon General Knew Of Outpatient Conditions Before WaPo Article
"Though he has since dodged the question in a television interview, the officer in charge of medical care for the U.S. Army was told more than two months ago that the Army's outpatient medical care program was dysfunctional, yet he apparently took no action in response. The Army's outpatient services include the substandard treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that has been the subject of a number of recent articles in the Washington Post and a series of stories in Salon in 2005." (Salon)

Read more »

Al Qaeda: Partying Like It's 2001

Spencer Ackerman | February 28, 2007, 9:27AM

If you checked out yesterday's Worldwide Threat briefing, you could be forgiven for checking your calendar to see if it was still September 10, 2001. Discussing al-Qaeda, John McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, described a metastasizing threat coming from... the lawless Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

This year will be "pivotal" for Afghanistan, McConnell said. From the NYT:

Mr. McConnell’s assessment was grim: “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim, so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it. ‘’

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | February 28, 2007, 9:07AM

The Washington Post interviewed a former detainee in one of the CIA's "black sites," to give the most detailed description yet of what the facilities are like.

Marwan Jabour was picked up in Pakistan in May, 2004, "beaten, abused and burned' at a jailhouse in Lahore where "two female American interrogators also questioned him and told him he would be rich if he cooperated and would vanish for life if he refused." From there, it was off to a "villa in a wealthy residential neighborhood" nearby, which is actually a detention facility run by the CIA and Pakistani intelligence. There, he "was chained to a wall and prevented from sleeping more than a few hours at a time" and was "beaten nightly by Pakistani guards after hours of questions from U.S. interrogators."

After five weeks there, he was off to the black site, a facility somewhere in Afghanistan:

Jabour said he was often naked during his first three months at the Afghan site, which he spent in a concrete cell furnished with two blankets and a bucket. The lights were kept on 24 hours a day, as were two cameras and a microphone inside the cell. Sometimes loud music blasted through speakers in the cells. The rest of the time, the low buzz of white noise whizzed in the background, possibly to muffle any communication by prisoners through cell walls.

Daily interrogations were conducted by a variety of Americans. Over two years, Jabour said he encountered about 45 interrogators, plus medical staff and psychologists. He was threatened with physical abuse but was never beaten.

Conditions "slowly improved" for Jabour, who eventually received privileges like pants, air conditioning, a library, movies, and Kit-Kat bars.

The details go on, but perhaps the most striking thing about Jabour's account is that he was eventually let go. A U.S. counterterrorism official the Post interviewed said that Jabour was "in direct touch with top al-Qaeda operations figures," was a money man for jihadists, and is "an all-around bad guy." Nevertheless, they let him go on June 30, 2006, "just after the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's assertion that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners like him," the Post notes. Jabour lives with his parents in the Gaza strip.

The Post also adds more details on the number of people who were held in such "black sites":

Human Rights Watch has identified 38 people who may have been held by the CIA and remain unaccounted for. Intelligence officials told The Post that the number of detainees held in such facilities over nearly five years remains classified but is higher than 60. Their whereabouts have not been publicly disclosed.

Only 14 detainees were moved from CIA custody to the Guantanamo Bay last summer. "[S]cores more have not been publicly identified by the U.S. government, and their whereabouts remain secret," the Post reports.

Note: There's more on Jabour at Human Rights Watch.

Duke Cunningham

Pelosi and Cunningham Prosecutors Strike Deal on Docs

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 6:13PM

House Democrats and federal prosecutors have struck what seems like a historic deal to turn over congressional documents related to the Duke Cunningham investigation.

The prosecutors from California's Southern District have been chasing the documents, from the House Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence, since last May. After originally requesting the documents, prosecutors finally served a subpoena for them in December after negotiations apparently broke down.

The investigation resulted in two major indictments two weeks ago, against contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA executive director Dusty Foggo, and is ongoing. As The Hill detailed, the indictment against Wilkes indicated that other lawmakers seem to be in prosecutors' sights.

According to a statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office outlining the deal, prosecutors have withdrawn their subpoenas. In exchange, House Democrats have started handing over documents (whether it's everything prosecutors asked for is unclear) and will not assert that the material is Constitutionally privileged under the Speech and Debate Clause, as Democrats had reportedly been considering. In addition, two Republican congressional staffers will be testifying to the grand jury in California on Thursday.

The full statement from Pelosi's office is below.

Read more »

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari

$20K More Uncovered from Accused Terrorist Funder to GOP

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 5:17PM

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, indicted two weeks ago for financing terrorists in Afghanistan among other charges, gave more than $35,000 to Republican campaign committees, not $15,000 as was reported earlier.

A $20,000 contribution from Alishtari to the National Republican Senatorial Committee on August 29th, 2003, was not previously reported because his name was misspelled ("Allshtari") on the NRSC's disclosure form to the Federal Election Commission (unfortunately, such misspellings are fairly frequent). Alishtari's online CV stated that he was named an "Inner Circle Member for Life" of the NRSC.

Read more »

Ex-Admin Official Gets Probation, $90K Fine

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 2:58PM

From the AP:

A judge on Tuesday sentenced former Food and Drug Administration chief Lester Crawford to three years' supervised probation with fines of roughly $90,000 for lying about stocks he owned in companies regulated by his agency.

More on Crawford's dirty doings here.

U.S. Attorneys

Blog: Prosecutor Called Firing "Political Fragging"

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 2:44PM

As both The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported, a number of the federal prosecutors who were fired in December had initially decided to go quietly... until, that is, the Justice Department declared publicly that they had been fired for performance issues. They didn't like that one bit.

One of those angry prosecutors, apparently, is David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. According to Joe Monohan, a political consultant and blogger, Iglesias wrote in an email to a friend that his firing was a "political fragging." From the email, excerpted on Monohan's blog:

This is a political fragging, pure and simple. 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...

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Feinstein: Reports "Fuel My Concerns"

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 1:07PM

Over the weekend, the Justice Department finally turned over performance evaluations for six of the fired U.S. attorneys to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And as The New York Times reported over the weekend, they were all positive, ranging from “well regarded" to “very competent.”

That's upset already angry Dems on the committee, who threatened action if they found out the prosecutors had been well rated. In a letter sent late yesterday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote that "these reports only serve to fuel my concerns that the Department of Justice based its decisions to fire competent and successful U.S. Attorneys because of a desire to put young politically-connected lawyers from the outside into these offices."

She attached the reports to her letter and called on Reid and McConnell to bring a bill, sponsored by Feinstein and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), that would force the administration to seek Senate confirmation of U.S. attorneys, or otherwise face having replacements appointed by a federal judge.

The text of the letter is below.

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

abielak | February 27, 2007, 12:16PM

Ashcroft Holding Ethically Questionable Pizza Luncheon
"A pizza luncheon to be hosted this Wednesday by former Attorney General turned consultant John Ashcroft for some of his old political appointees has raised eyebrows in the Justice Department's ethics office, U.S. News has learned. The ethics office, which provides Justice employees with guidance on a wide range of ethics questions, has not instructed invitees not to attend the lunch." (U.S. News & World Report)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | February 27, 2007, 9:17AM

Two weeks ago, the Bush administration organized an intelligence briefing for journalists in Iraq to demonstrate that Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents. According to the anonymous briefers, the weapons -- particularly explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s -- were manufactured in Iran and provided to insurgents by the Quds Force -- a fact that meant direction for the operation was “coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government.”

Well. A raid in southern Iraq on Saturday seems to have complicated the case. There, The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.), troops "uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had thought were made only in Iran." The main feature of the find were several copper liners that are the main component of EFPs. But, The New York Times reports, "while the find gave experts much more information on the makings of the E.F.P.’s, which the American military has repeatedly argued must originate in Iran, the cache also included items that appeared to cloud the issue."

Among those cloudy items were "cardboard boxes of the gray plastic PVC tubes used to make the canisters. The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran."

Possibly, the Times muses, "the parts were purchased on the open market" and then "the liners were then manufactured to the right size to cap the fittings."

But where were the liners made? The Army captain who led the raid doesn't know. From the Journal:

Capt. [Clayton] Combs said the copper caps were smooth and perfectly symmetrical, suggesting they had been made with a high degree of technical precision. He said he didn't know where the caps came from or whether they had been made in Iran. "That's the hard thing about this war," he said.

Bob Ney

A Day in The Life of a Congressman

Paul Kiel | February 26, 2007, 5:29PM

I just read through the charging documents against Will Heaton, ex-Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) former chief of staff who pled guilty today, and they contain a couple precious details about how it was being Ney's right hand man for four years.

As I noted before, Heaton admitted to accepting bribes (the actual charge was conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud) from Jack Abramoff and others. The bribes included trips to Scotland, New Orleans, among others, tickets to sporting events, and drinks and meals at Abramoff's restaurant Signatures, among other things. In exchange, Heaton helped Ney help Abramoff's clients.

Which brings me to the precious details. The first comes from what's called the Information, a filing that lays out the prosecutors' case against Heaton (you can read it here). In the document, prosecutors show how Ney kept his congressional staff in line:

Ney controlled the receipt of things of value by his personal office staff and the House Administration Committee staff as a way to reward and punish staff by approving their receipt of things of value or by taking things of value and redistributing them to others.

In other words, if you weren't on Ney's good list, you didn't get goodies from the lobbyists courting him.

And there's yet another unforgettable detail in the charging documents.

Read more »

Bob Ney

Former Ney Staffer Latest Guilty Plea in Abramoff Scandal

Paul Kiel | February 26, 2007, 4:27PM

Today, ex-Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) former chief of staff pled guilty to corruption charges related to the Jack Abramoff scandal, making Will Heaton the second of Ney's chiefs of staff to do so. The first one, Neil Volz, continues to cooperate with prosecutors.

We'll have the court documents up soon, but the AP has the basics of what he admitted to:

According to federal court documents filed Monday, Heaton's conspiracy charge involves that trip and others. Prosecutors say he also helped Ney solicit and conceal gifts given by lobbyists.

"Heaton and Ney solicited and accepted a stream of things of value from Abramoff and his lobbyists, including overseas and domestic trips, meals and drinks, golf, tickets to professional sporting events and concerts, and monetary and in-kind campaign contributions from Abramoff," prosecutors wrote.

Heaton, who went to work for Ney in 2001 (ultimately succeeding Volz, who went off to join Abramoff), is 28 years old. More soon.

Update: Here is the "Information" filed by prosecutors, detailing the charges against Heaton.

Snow: Pakistan Doing A "Certain Amount of Things"

Paul Kiel | February 26, 2007, 4:04PM

As we noted earlier, this morning's New York Times brought word that the administration (with Vice President Cheney as the messenger) was finally putting the screws to Pakistani Pervez Musharraf, using the Democratic Congress as leverage. If Musharraf didn't start showing results against Al Qaeda, then the Dems might just go ahead and cut aid to Pakistan.

A "senior administration official" told the Times that now "the only thing that matters is results."

But the administration is apparently unwilling to broadcast that tough message publicly, as was made apparent during Tony Snow's press briefing today.

On his first question about the Times article, whether Musharraf was "keeping his commitments" of going after Al Qaeda, Snow cautioned that it's "not something where [Musharraf] lays out goals and timetables."

But when another journalist tried to nail Snow down, he went into a Q&A tailspin that seemed like it would never end, Snow repeatedly reformulating reporters' questions into the questions that he would prefer to answer, and the reporter straightening the question out to its original form.

Read more »

William Jefferson

Admitted Bribers Head to The Slammer... and Jefferson Waits

Paul Kiel | February 26, 2007, 1:53PM

On Thursday, two businessmen will head to prison for conspiring to bribe Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). And Jefferson himself? He'll most likely be enjoying an indictment-free spring as his lawyers battle with prosecutors over documents seized from his congressional office last May.

Read more »

Iran

Worldwide Threat: Is Iran The Biggest?

Spencer Ackerman | February 26, 2007, 1:03PM

Tomorrow morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee becomes the epicenter of a prospective war with Iran. That's because senior intelligence officials will deliver an annual assessment to Congress known as the Worldwide Threat briefing. Over the past several years, the Worldwide Threat has made for a few days' worth of news at most. Tomorrow's, however, will be more significant than usual: it will be a public forum for the intelligence community to either support or dissent from the Bush administration's increasing insistence that Iran is a greater threat to U.S. interests than al-Qaeda.

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

abielak | February 26, 2007, 11:25AM

Questions of Cost-Cutting in Army's Disabilities Ratings
"The Army is shortchanging troops on their disability retirement ratings to hold down costs, according to veterans advocates, lawyers and service members...The number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the number of soldiers wounded or injured in Iraq has soared above 15,000." (Army Times)

Read more »

Senate to Investigate Walter Reed Scandal

Spencer Ackerman | February 26, 2007, 9:51AM

Starting next week, the Senate wades into the muck at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Senate Armed Services Committee announced today that next Tuesday, March 6, a host of responsible Defense officials will parade to the Dirksen building to try to explain how conditions at the Army's elite hospital complex deteriorated to the horrific conditions depicted in last week's depressing Washington Post series.

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | February 26, 2007, 9:25AM

One week after The New York Times went front page with the news that Al Qaeda had regrouped and was thriving in a tribal region of Pakistan, the Bush administration has launched a diplomatic offensive to convince Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to crack down.

But talk hasn't gotten them very far. And since the administration is extremely wary of alienating what they see as a key ally, their secret weapon is... the Democratic Congress. From The New York Times:

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message to Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda....

Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.

The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.

“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said [the senior administration official], who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

The official adds that the message they're sending to Musharraf now "is that the only thing that matters is results.” Sounds like a message worth sending. And it would seem that this game of "Good Cop, Bad Cop" in general goes much better when Congress is the bad cop for a change.

U.S. Attorneys

NYT: Justice Reports Lauded Ousted Prosecutors

Paul Kiel | February 25, 2007, 3:29PM

The New York Times gets ahold of the internal Justice Department performance reports for the eight fired prosecutors and finds that six were rated “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent.”

The Justice Department has insisted, of course, that the firings were "performance related." But wouldn't you know it? Those aspects of the prosecutors' performance that led to their dismissals apparently didn't make it into their comprehensive performance reviews... or so a Justice Department official gamely argues:

In response, a senior Justice Department official said the reviews, which focused on management practices within each United States attorney’s office, did not provide a broad or complete picture of the prosecutors’ performance.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”

Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.

However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.

Oh, well.

The prosecutors themselves seem to have a different idea of what happened:

In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a factor.