Today’s Must ReadMcClatchy 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?