Also see below:     
Another Former Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured    [

    US Attorney Worried "Gloves Would Come Off" Over Criticism of Ouster
    By Marisa Taylor
    McClatchy Newspapers

    Monday 05 March 2007

    Washington - A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.

    While the U.S. attorney who got the call regarded the tone of the conversation as congenial, not intimidating, the prosecutor nonetheless passed the message on to five other fired U.S. attorneys. One of them interpreted the reported comments by Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, as a threat.

    Justice Department officials denied that the conversation with the U.S. attorney ever took place, and Elston said he called several of the fired U.S. attorneys but never made any such comments.

    "I had no conversation in which I discussed with any U.S. attorney what they should or should not say to the media regarding their removal," Elston said.

    The two prosecutors who described the call demanded anonymity because, they said, they didn't want to antagonize the Justice Department further.

    Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse criticized McClatchy for running the story. "It is unfortunate that the press would choose to run an allegation from an anonymous source from a conversation that never took place," he said.

    Six of the eight ousted U.S. attorneys have been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday before the House of Representatives. Four will appear voluntarily before the Senate after a liberal public-interest group Monday asked for the Senate ethics committee to investigate Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., for calling the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who was later fired, during a corruption investigation of at least one Democrat.

    According to one of the fired U.S. attorneys, Elston made the comments during a telephone conversation after Democrats began questioning whether the administration was attempting to purge more independent-minded Republican appointees in order to replace them with more partisan candidates.

    According to the former U.S. attorney, Elston made a "pointed comment that indicated that somehow anyone who talked might become more embarrassed if the story continued on."

    "The inference was that they were holding themselves back from saying more about why people were fired - that it was likely the department was going to step up the defense of their actions," the fired prosecutor said. "It could have been construed as friendly advice or a casual prediction. But I think it was expected that everyone would be told about the call."

    When conveying the message to the others, the prosecutor tried to make it clear that the meaning of the conversation shouldn't be overdramatized.

    But another former U.S. attorney, who wasn't a party to the Justice Department conversation, interpreted the comments as a threat, especially since it came when congressional Democrats were contacting the attorneys about possibly testifying before Congress.

    "I took it to mean that negative, personal information would be released," the prosecutor said. "That if we made public comments or if we were to testify in Congress, that the gloves would come off and the Department of Justice would make us regret that we were talking."

    The controversy over the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys has continued for weeks, but it was reignited last week when U.S. Attorney David Iglesias told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed that two members of Congress called him in mid-October to pressure him to complete the investigation before the November elections. Iglesias, who stepped down last week, added that he believed he was fired because he didn't speed up the case.

    Domenici, who originally had recommended Iglesias for the post, apologized for making the call in a statement Sunday, but he said that he never pressured or threatened Iglesias about the case.

    McClatchy Newspapers reported previously that Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., also called Iglesias about the investigation. The Washington Post reported in its online edition Monday that Wilson acknowledged contacting Iglesias, but denied pressuring him.

    Domenici also acknowledged in his statement that he asked the Justice Department to replace Iglesias, but he said that he made the request before he called about the corruption probe.

    Justice Department officials confirmed that Domenici called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in September 2005 and January and April of 2006.

    During those calls, Domenici expressed general concerns about Iglesias' performance and questioned whether he was "up to the job," Roehrkasse said. During the first week of October 2006, Domenici made a similar and "very brief call" about Iglesias to McNulty, the deputy attorney general. At no time in these calls did the senator mention the public corruption case, Roehrkasse said.

    The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Domenici violated ethics law. Lawmakers are prohibited from attempting to influence Justice Department investigations. Members of the ethics committee released a statement saying they couldn't comment on an ongoing matter.

    Also on Monday, Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who oversees the U.S. attorney's offices, resigned. In January, Battle sent an e-mail to all U.S. attorneys announcing that he'd be leaving and sent a more detailed e-mail to his immediate staff in February with his departure date, a Justice Department official said.

    On Dec. 7, Battle told most of the U.S. attorneys that they were to be fired. Former prosecutors said that Battle told many of them he didn't know why they were fired, but the orders came from "on high."

    --------

    Margaret Talev contributed to this story.

 

---

    Go to Original

    Former Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured
    By Eric Lichtblau
    The New York Times

    Tuesday 06 March 2007

    Washington - The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state's governor, a Republican.

    "There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations," said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. "The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations."

    Mr. DiBiagio, a controversial figure who clashed with a number of Maryland politicians, had never publicly discussed the reasons behind his departure. But he agreed to an interview with The New York Times because he said he was concerned about what he saw as similarities with the recent firings of eight United States attorneys.

    As in those cases, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances that led to Mr. DiBiagio's ouster. The Justice Department disputes his version.

    His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat.

    But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it "impossible for me to stay."

    Several current and former officials in the Baltimore office said Mr. DiBiagio voiced concerns in 2004 that the corruption inquiries were jeopardizing his career, a view that they shared.

    The Justice Department rejected Mr. DiBiagio's explanation. An official in the department, David Margolis, said he told Mr. DiBiagio in 2004 that he had to leave because "we had lost confidence in him."

    Mr. Margolis said the prosecutor's harsh management style had caused resentments in the office that ran "wide and deep" and called "an absolute fairy tale" the idea that Mr. DiBiagio's departure was tied to the gambling case or any other investigation.

    Mr. Ehrlich, who was defeated for re-election in November, denied any involvement in Mr. DiBiagio's departure and said there was nothing to the gambling investigations.

    Like Mr. DiBiagio, several of the newly departing prosecutors were overseeing sensitive political corruption investigations when they left office.

    The controversy over the dismissals continued to grow on Monday, as the head of the Justice Department office that oversees prosecutors stepped down, a watchdog group filed an ethics complaint, and House and Senate committees prepared for testimony on Tuesday from some of the ousted prosecutors.

    Because Mr. Ehrlich was the sole statewide Republican in Maryland at the time of Mr. DiBiagio's appointment in 2001, he had a critical role in recommending him to the White House for the position.

    Mr. DiBiagio, a former assistant prosecutor, was a political unknown, but he and the governor had become friends as young lawyers in Maryland. The bond disintegrated soon after the prosecutor took office.

    Mr. Ehrlich and his advisers acknowledged on Monday that they were unhappy with Mr. DiBiagio's handling of an earlier corruption investigation that led to the indictment in 2003 of Mr. Ehrlich's state police superintendent, Edward R. Norris, over his misuse of police money.

    The gambling investigation caused less concern in the governor's office because officials there considered it without merit, Mr. Ehrlich said. But because of lingering suspicions in Maryland political circles that Mr. Ehrlich's people had a hand in Mr. DiBiagio's departure in early 2005, a longtime aide to the governor, Jervis Finney, called Mr. DiBiagio a few months ago to deny any involvement, Mr. Finney said.

    Mr. Finney said in an interview Monday that he wanted to "clean things up" and to let Mr. DiBiagio know that "neither Gov. Bob Ehrlich or his representatives had asked the Department of Justice to push him out."

    Mr. DiBiagio said he did not accept the explanation.

    "I believe it was that investigation that played an integral role in what was done to me," Mr. DiBiagio, now at a law firm here, said about the gambling inquiries. "I clearly got the message that I had alienated my political sponsor and I would not have any political support to stay another term. Clearly, they wanted me to leave."

    Mr. DiBiagio pointed to tense conversations in 2003 and 2004 with advisers to the governor who, he said, intimated that the corruption investigations could derail his career. He would not name them publicly.

    The former prosecutor said he was particularly troubled by one visit in June 2004 in which, he said, a lawyer allied with the governor said the gambling inquiries were disrupting legislative consideration of the slots question and should be shut down.

    Mr. DiBiagio said the lawyer inquired about his political future, asked whether he was interested in being a judge and suggested that his life could be closely scrutinized.

    Mr. DiBiagio said he described the conversation in a memorandum for his records and reported it to an official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Baltimore as a possible threat.

    Soon after the meeting, Mr. DiBiagio told a Justice Department official in Washington about his office's gambling investigation and said, "Powerful politicians and businessmen are very upset that we are looking into this matter," according to an e-mail message that The Times reviewed.

    In the gambling investigation, prosecutors secured a grand jury subpoena for the records of Mr. Ehrlich's communications director, Paul E. Schurick.

    Investigators were said to be interested in tracing substantial payments made by a gambling company to a political marketing business in Maryland with ties to Maryland Republicans, people involved in the issue said.

    Mr. Ehrlich said Monday that he had no knowledge of any improper transactions to support the slots initiative, and he said the investigation was unfounded.

    "I've been for slots for 20 years," he said. "It wasn't any shock that I was for slots. There wasn't anything to this."

    The investigation appears to have ended after Mr. DiBiagio left office in January 2005.

    In Maryland law enforcement circles, Mr. DiBiagio had as many detractors as supporters. The Justice Department publicly rebuked him in mid-2004 over a leaked memorandum that spoke of his desire to bring three "front page" corruption cases before November, a memorandum widely interpreted in Baltimore as an effort to pursue Democrats.

    In response, the department said all public corruption cases in Maryland would have to obtain approval by superiors in Washington. Soon, the department initiated an unscheduled performance review of Mr. DiBiagio. Mr. Margolis said the review had shown deep resentment over the prosecutor's aggressive management.

    Several officials in the Baltimore prosecutor's office said that although Mr. DiBiagio had been an unpopular manager, the timing of the events leading to his departure appeared to be linked, at least partly, to the corruption investigations.

    "We had several investigations that were very sensitive publicly, and what did him in was the probes into prominent Republicans," said a former official involved in the inquiries who insisted on anonymity.

    The state's attorney in Baltimore, Patricia C. Jessamy, who worked often with Mr. DiBiagio, said she believed that he had alienated too many important people to succeed.

    "He was a good prosecutor," she said. "But he did not play politics well, and that was his downfall."