The U.S. Attorneys Purge - Hitting the Fan

Via TPM, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report on the U.S. Attorneys firing went on the web today, and it is as damning a picture of the Gonzales DOJ and the Bush administration as anyone could imagine. After this report, it is impossible not to conclude that the DOJ under the Bush administration became a branch of the Republican Party. Here is a short sample from the section on David Iglesias, the US Attorney for New Mexico:

Third, we believe a full investigation is necessary to determine whether other federal criminal statutes were violated with regard to the removal of Iglesias. For example, Iglesias and others have alleged that he was removed in retaliation for his failure to accelerate the indictment of a public corruption case and his alleged failure to initiate voter fraud investigations. Iglesias said that Representative Wilson, who was running for reelection in a close race, called him before the 2006 election and asked him about delays in public corruption cases being handled by his office, apparently referring to the courthouse case. In addition, Iglesias believed that Senator Domenici attempted to pressure him to indict the courthouse case before the election in order to benefit Wilson, and when Iglesias declined to do so Domenici engineered his removal. The evidence we have developed so far shows that Wilson and Domenici in fact called Iglesias shortly before the election, and that the substance of the calls led Iglesias to believe he was being pressured to indict the courthouse case before the upcoming election. Moreover, New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists contacted Iglesias, the Department, and the White House to complain about Iglesias’s handling of voter fraud investigations and public corruption cases.

It is possible that those seeking Iglesias’s removal did so simply because they believed he was not competently prosecuting worthwhile cases. However, if they attempted to pressure Iglesias to accelerate his charging decision in the courthouse case or to initiate voter fraud investigations to affect the outcome of the upcoming election, their conduct may have been criminal. The obstruction of justice statute makes it a crime for any person who “corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). While we found no case charging a violation of the obstruction of justice statute involving an effort to accelerate a criminal prosecution for partisan political purposes, we believe that pressuring a prosecutor to indict a case more quickly to affect the outcome of an upcoming election could be a corrupt attempt to influence the prosecution in violation of the obstruction of justice statute. The same reasoning could apply to pressuring a prosecutor to take partisan political considerations into account in his charging decisions in voter fraud matters.

Inspector General’s Report, pp. 199-200.

The report calls for further investigation, in large part because so many persons involved in the decisions to fire the attorneys refused to be interviewed. The list of those who refused includes Karl Rove, Harriet Miers. Monica Goodling, and New Mexico Senator Pete Dominici, In addition, the Inspector General’s investigators were refused White House documents that were relevant to the investigation.

It appears that officials in both the White House and the Department of Justice may have committed multiple criminal acts in collaborating with the firing of Iglesias.

Prosecutions here in Mississippi of Paul Minor and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz by the U.S. Attorney smack of the same partisan flavor, timed as they were to coincide with the gubernatorial race.

blog comments powered by Disqus