Also see below:
House Panel Subpoenas Fired US Attorneys •
Go to Original
Democrats Send Out First Round of Subpoenas
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill
Thursday 01 March 2007
A House Judiciary subcommittee approved today the first in what is expected
to be an avalanche of subpoenas to Bush administration officials. They will
likely explore corruption and mismanagement allegations on everything from pre-war
Iraq intelligence to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.
The first round of subpoenas concern the recent controversial firings by the
Bush administration of seven U.S. attorneys, some of whom were pursuing public
corruption cases against Republican members of Congress.
The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, chaired
by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), approved subpoenas requiring four former U.S.
attorneys to appear at a subcommittee hearing next Tuesday. The former U.S.
attorneys include Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E.
Cummins III of Arkansas, and John McKay of Washington state. The subcommittee
approved the subpoenas by voice vote; no Republican lawmakers were present.
Tuesday's hearing will consider a bill by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
that would reverse a new Patriot Act provision allowing the attorney general
to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation through the duration
of the Bush administration.
Democrats have come to the defense of several dismissed prosecutors, in particular
Lam and Cummins of Arkansas. They have noted that Lam was leading the probe
of ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), while Cummins was removed
to make room for a former aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Other
U.S. attorneys, including those in Nevada and Arizona, were acting on corruption
charges against GOP lawmakers before their resignations were requested.
Iglesias, a New Mexico U.S. attorney, asserted at a press conference yesterday
that he was fired for purely political reasons. He also charged that prior to
the November elections, two federal elected officials asked him to speed up
the probes of local politicians.
Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have expressed outrage
over the firings. She and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have demanded to see
the attorneys' performance evaluations.
The White House has denied that the attorneys were fired for anything other
than performance-related issues. And Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Jon
Kyl (R-Ariz.), have argued that Democrats are making up a controversy where
none exists.
After the vote on the subpoenas, Sanchez took exception to the White House's
assertions that they can fire the attorneys because they are "at will"
employees.
There are several exceptions when an "at-will" employee cannot be
fired, Sanchez asserted, such as sex or race discrimination.
"There are several public policy reasons why we don't fire people,"
she said. "Are these people being [fired] because they're doing their
jobs and they're doing them to well? Is this an ideological purge?"
She went on to stress the importance of a judiciary branch that is separate
and independent from the executive branch.
"When the executive branch is interfering in the justice system - in
other countries we call that corruption," she said. "It's very
troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent."
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) also weighed today, with
a speech on the House floor.
"So this Administration either originally hired incompetent attorneys
in the first place, or hired competent U.S. Attorneys, but incompetently fired
them. Which is it?" he asked. "Many Americans believe these U.S. Attorneys
are not being fired because they failed to go after public corruption, but because
they did and were successful."
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
It has opposed a Senate bill similar to Berman's. A senior administration official
also previously told The Hill that Democrats were trying to create a scandal
where there isn't one.
"This sounds to me a little more like Democrats trying to play politics
and use the S-word than it does trying to obtain substantive information,"
the official said.
Go to Original
House Panel Subpoenas Fired US Attorneys
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
The Washington Post
Friday 02 March 2007
Democrats issued their first major subpoenas yesterday since taking control
of Congress, as a House subcommittee voted to compel testimony from four former
U.S. attorneys who were part of a wave of firings by the Justice Department.
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.
The moves mark the latest escalation in the battle between congressional Democrats
and the Justice Department over the controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys,
at least five of whom were presiding over public corruption probes when they
were fired.
"Are these people being removed for doing their job and for it doing it
too well?" asked Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the panel,
who called the subpoenas "a last resort."
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 the 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.
The state's top two Democrats, Rep. Tom Udall and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, and Rep.
Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) have denied calling Iglesias. Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.)
and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) have not responded to requests for comment
over the past two days and deflected questions from the Associated Press about
the allegations.
"I don't have any comment," Domenici said. "I have no idea what
he's talking about."
Wilson referred questions "on that personnel matter" to the Justice
Department.
Sanchez said any such contacts by a member of Congress would likely be in violation
of House and Senate ethics rules that restrict such "ex parte communications"
during ongoing criminal investigations.
Iglesias's office was conducting a probe into allegations involving construction
contracts and a prominent Democratic former state senator.
At the time of the alleged phone calls, Wilson, a close ally of Domenici's,
was in a tight reelection battle with then-state Attorney General Patricia Madrid.
Wilson won by fewer than 2,000 votes.
Iglesias said yesterday that he will identify the lawmakers only if compelled
by a subpoena.
"I fear retaliation," said Iglesias, a Republican and former military
defense lawyer who served as a model for a character in the movie "A Few
Good Men." "This is a small state and there are not too many employment
opportunities, and I fear they will blacklist me."
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.
Although a separate House subcommittee has compelled testimony in a little-noticed
drug inquiry, the prosecutors case marks the first major use of subpoena power
by the new Democratic majority.
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that the department has been "very
forthcoming" with Congress about the dismissals and that any allegations
that prosecutors were removed to interfere with investigations are "completely
wrong."
Justice officials have said Iglesias and six others were fired for "performance-related"
reasons and have denied that any were targeted to disrupt public corruption
probes. Officials have acknowledged that an eighth prosecutor, Bud Cummins of
Little Rock, was removed to make way for a former aide to presidential adviser
Karl Rove.
Cummins and former U.S. attorney John McKay of Seattle said in interviews that
they told lawmakers they will not testify unless subpoenas are issued.
"I wanted it clear that I wasn't volunteering to testify and I wasn't
trying to affirmatively stir up trouble for everybody," said Cummins, who
left in December. "If they would like to hear one of the few facts I have,
I'm happy to tell them."
The other former prosecutor scheduled to testify, Carol S. Lam of San Diego,
did not return a call seeking comment yesterday.
No Republicans showed up for the unanimous panel vote on issuing the subpoenas.
The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), later
called the session "political grandstanding."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story