Michael Mukasey sought to assure senators (and seems to have been successful) that there'd be no repeat of the U.S. attorney firings scandal on his watch.

So, now that Mukasey's hearings are done, what do the fired U.S. attorneys think about Alberto Gonzales' replacement?

Former U.S.A. for New Mexico David Iglesias, for one, is pleased. "It appears to me that he gets it," he told me. "He understands the necessity for having an independent attorney general and an independent Department of Justice." Iglesias added that he liked "the fact that he's a former federal prosecutor. He understands that you have to build an absolute firewall from politics."

I'd "really be surprised if my colleagues hold different views from this," he added.

You can add Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) name to the flurry of Justice Department officials who bowed out in the wake of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. The Washington Post reports that he's expected to retire next November rather than seek reelection.

A brief walk down memory lane: in October of 2006, Domenici called U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias to ask about whether an indictment against a prominent state Democrat on public corruption charges was forthcoming before the election. When Iglesias said no, "the line went dead."

After ducking questions about the first reports of the call this February, then saying "I have no idea what he's talking about," he finally admitted that he'd made the call and said he regretted it.

And not only did Domenici call to pressure Iglesias, he was also instrumental in his firing, making calls not only to the Justice Department, but also to the White House.

Read more »

Reached by phone today, David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, was quick in his reaction: "It's morning in America, Paul."

Asked if he felt vindicated, he said yes, citing the long stream of resignations of those connected to the firings. And he said he was hearing expressions of relief from friends in the Justice Department. "Finally," said one. "All the leaves have fallen off the tree and now the tree has fallen," another told him.

"I doubt that this kind of scandal will happen again in our lifetimes, during future administrations," he told me. "It's been instructive, and it's been destructive to the integrity of the Justice Department." But he's "hopeful," he said.

Iglesias' formula for restoring confidence in the Justice Department was simple, and similar to what Democrats have been urging today: "Get an attorney general who's respected by the courts and by Capitol Hill and somebody who has experience as a federal prosecutor.... You need someone who understands that the attorney general has to say no to the president sometimes."

Former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias has signed a book deal.

Iglesias, remember, has been at the center of the firings controversy ever since he went public with the revelation that two New Mexico Republicans had pressured him about indicting a state Democrat shortly before the 2006 elections. The book promises to focus on Iglesias' experiences as a U.S. attorney in the Bush administration and his role in the scandal, before and after the firing. It's anticipated to be released in April, 2008.

Also, we hear that the book will spend some time discussing Iglesias' handling of voter fraud cases -- how the administration directed Iglesias' focus on the issue, and how that direction made Iglesias uncomfortable. Remember that Republicans all the way on up to Karl Rove and President Bush were frustrated with Iglesias' failure to indict liberals for alleged instances of voter fraud. Apparently Iglesias was no stranger to such pressure.

John Wiley & Sons is the publisher.

It's just like old times. The Justice Department turned over an additional 40 pages of documents related to the U.S. attorney purge to Congress today. You can see them here. Please let us know in the comments what you find.

Here's our favorite of the lot.

In late December of last year, Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) chief of staff Steve Bell called to speak with William Moschella, a senior Justice Department official, and made a follow-up call to the White House. Domenici, remember, had been frustrated that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias failed to indict a prominent state Democrat before the 2006 election on corruption charges. And after Iglesias was fired, Domenici apparently wanted to make sure that he wasn't canned in vain.

Here's what a White House aide wrote to Moschella about her conversation with Bell two weeks after Iglesias was fired:

[Bell] mentioned he had chatted with you today about his request for a non-partisan team that specializes in corruption to be sent down to NM.

I just wanted to circle up with you and see if you had any thoughts about it.

You might think that it goes without saying that a team of Justice Department prosecutors would be "non-partisan," but apparently in this administration, it needs saying.

There hasn't been much ambiguity that Domenici wanted Iglesias fired because he failed to speedily indict and convict key Democrats. Both Gonzales and Domenici have tried to cast the issue as a broader preoccupation with public corruption cases or white-collar cases -- but of course no other cases besides two prosecutions of state Democrats seem to have been at issue. So it shouldn't be surprising that Domenici moved shortly after Iglesias' firing to request that the White House ensure the U.S. attorney's office in New Mexico be beefed up with a "non-partisan team" (ahem) that "specializes in corruption."

Nearly five months after former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias publicly testified to Congress that he was pressured by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) to bring indictments against a prominent state Democrat before the 2006 election, the House ethics committee is shuddering to life. Sort of.

Iglesias will be interviewed by House ethics Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and ranking member Doc Hastings (R-WA) today*, according to The Albuquerque Tribune. But this isn't yet an investigation, the paper cautions -- just an interview which might lead to an investigation. Given that a committee investigation is a rare occurrence (far rarer, of course, than a criminal investigation of a member), watchdogs aren't getting their hopes up. Says CREW's Melanie Sloan, "I haven't seen anything to indicate they're going to do anything serious here."

And there's another reason for pessimism.* Hastings himself has been implicated in similar behavior, via his then-chief of staff. Former U.S. Attorney for John McKay testified in March that Hastings' right-hand aide called him to inquire whether he'd be pursuing allegations of Democratic voter fraud in the 2004 election.

Truthout first reported Iglesias' upcoming appearance Monday.

*Update: Hastings has recused himself and will be replaced by Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL). Also, the interview is tomorrow, not today.

Former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias said he finds Bradley Schlozman's testimony about Craig Donsanto unbelievable.

Schlozman told a Senate Judiciary panel yesterday that while he was the interim U.S. Attorney in Missouri he brought four criminal voter fraud prosecutions on the eve of the 2006 midterm election after getting the go-ahead from Donsanto, the director of the election crimes branch at the department.

Donsanto is a career attorney at the Justice Department who literally wrote the book on Justice Department policy. One of the policies he outlines bars US attorneys from bringing election fraud cases before an election to prevent a chilling effect on voters.

Iglesias oversaw a voter fraud task force from 2004 until the summer of 2006 in New Mexico. He said during that time he consulted Donsanto on numerous occasions, including just before the 2004 election because the elections crime director was known as a "wise old owl when it came to voter fraud cases."

I asked Iglesias about an email we flagged yesterday that he had sent to a Justice Department aide saying there would be no indictments before the 2004 election because Donsanto would never approve it.

"I actually saw the email that I sent on TPMmuckraker and I know exactly what you’re talking about,” he said. “I had numerous conversations with [Donsanto] over the course of two years, I can’t believe that he’d have gone 180 degrees on that policy," Iglesias said. "I just don’t believe it."

Iglesias was in touch with Donsanto up until the summer of 2006, just before Schlozman would have received approval to bring the indictments. Iglesias said he can’t imagine a scenario where Donsanto would have changed his mind on the department’s voter fraud policy.

“Giving Brad Schlozman the benefit of the doubt, he must have completely misunderstood what Donsanto told him,” Iglesias said.

The Justice Department did not respond to calls requesting comment. Donsanto did not reply to an email message, though Iglesias guesses he is not allowed to speak to the press.

Bradley Schlozman pointed to Craig Donsanto in his testimony today when he was asked who gave him the go ahead to press criminal voter fraud charges days before the 2006 midterm election, in an apparent violation of agency policy.

Donsanto, though, is the director of the Election Crimes branch of the Justice Department and author of the manual outlining that policy. It seems a bit surprising that he'd be the one to approve skirting that election policy, when he'd literally written the manual.

Schlozman's account also conflicts with an email former U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias sent to a Department of Justice legislative aide in 2004, just before an election. The email, contained in a DOJ document dump in April, shows Donsanto's stance was on bringing charges just before an election:

There will be another meeting of the EFTF (Election Fraud Task Force) on Wed, Oct. 6. Craig Donsanto has not authorized the FBI to open any case.

...

The federal members of the EFTF should be aware of the DoJ policy of not attempting to influence the outcome of an election through investigation or prosecution. I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same.

Note that last line again: " I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same."

Perhaps Donsanto changed his mind on these matters between 2004 and 2006. But on its face Iglesias' account of Donsanto's view of this question seems starkly different from the account Schlozman provided today in his testimony.

Here's video of Schlozman testifying:

It's been apparent from very early in the U.S. attorney scandal that Tim Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who was appointed the U.S. attorney for Little Rock, was different from the others.

Emails show that White House and Justice Department officials worked together for months to install Griffin, dating back to last summer. Rove's aides in the White House Office of Political Affairs were intimately involved. Up until now, however, there had been no evidence of direct communication between Rove and Griffin about the appointment. But an email contained in documents released earlier this week shows Griffin directly emailing Rove and his deputies in the White House Office of Political Affairs (click to enlarge):

David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was among those fired last year, told me that he thought the direct contact was "really inappropriate and over the line." The only time he ever contacted anyone there, he said, was to return phone calls about job opportunities. He'd twice been considered for positions, he said: once as director for Executive Office of United States Attorneys and another time as the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The White House had called to see if he was interested in the appointments; he told them he was not. He said that he'd never heard of a U.S. attorney speaking to someone in the Office of Political Affairs for any other reason.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

The email, dated February 16, 2007, shows Griffin forwarding a copy of a local news article about his announcement that he would not seek Senate confirmation. Griffin wrote Rove, three of his deputies, and Christopher Oprison of the White House counsel's office that he was "glad" that he "did this" ("this" presumably being his announcement not to seek the nomination), and explaining why he'd taken a "swipe" at Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR).

Griffin had been a controversial figure ever since his December 15th appointment, due not least to his ties to Rove. But Sen. Pryor had been most alarmed by the administration's apparent scheme -- which Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson laid out in a December 19, 2006 email that was later turned over to Congress in March -- to appoint Griffin indefinitely without Senate confirmation, via a little noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT ACT Reauthorization bill. Griffin's appointment drew even more scrutiny after it was revealed in January that at least six other U.S. attorneys besides Griffin's predecessor Bud Cummins had been fired by the administration.

“It’s unfortunate," Griffin is quoted as saying in the article, "that Sen. Pryor is blaming the administration for using a law that he voted for to appoint me, apparently with the excuse that he didn’t know what he was voting for when he voted." After explaining in the email to Rove why he'd said that, Griffin added, "I am going to go back to focusing on my job until I am told otherwise."

Responding to the email, Michael Teague, spokesman for Sen. Pryor, wondered how many other contacts Griffin had with Rove. "This is just an email. Was he calling him every day?"

In fact, the email was only produced by the Justice Department because Oprison of the White House counsel's office had forwarded it on to Monica Goodling at the Justice Department, who forwarded it to Kyle Sampson the same morning. Despite requests from Congress, the White House has not produced any emails related to the firings.

Sampson's and Oprison's appearance in the email raises an additional question.

Read more »

Under questioning from Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Goodling couldn't say why U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias had been put on the firing list.

Earlier in the hearing, Goodling said that all she could remember was being in a meeting after the firings -- when the question was raised why Iglesias had been put on the list, someone said "that's been addressed." Goodling said she couldn't remember who'd said that.

Why had Iglesias been fired? Goodling told Scott that "Different people made different comments at different times. Other comments that people made based on what they thought or believed.” In other words, she doesn't know.

Unbelievably, she said that DoJ official Bill Mercer had been the one to raise the complaint that Iglesias had been “an absentee landlord,” because Iglesias was sometimes gone from the office (for his Navy reserve duty). Of course, that phrase would apply to no one better than Mercer himself, since Mercer, the U.S. attorney for Montana, has drawn strident complaints from the chief judge in his district about his prolonged absences. Mercer pulls double duty as a senior DoJ official.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Weeks before the 2006 midterm election, then-New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was invited to dine with a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque [Pat Rogers] who had been after him for years to prosecute allegations of voter fraud....

Rogers, reached by telephone in Albuquerque, recalled a brief discussion of voter fraud at the lunch, but he challenged much of Iglesias' account.

Rogers said the primary purpose of the gathering was to discuss the U.S. attorney's failure to move on corruption cases, not voter fraud. Rogers also said that it was he who invited the other employee of the office to attend and that he was presenting them with concerns of others in law enforcement, including concerns raised in a newspaper article that described how the FBI had finished its work on a public corruption matter and turned it over to the U.S. attorney.

That's one hell of an alibi.

Remember that the "public corruption matter" Rogers is referring to here is the investigation of a prominent New Mexico Democrat -- the investigation that Republicans hoped would deliver an indictment before the election. And that's the same investigation that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) had called Iglesias about that same month.

So what Rogers is saying is that he wasn't meeting with Iglesias to pressure him to indict Democrats on voter fraud charges. No! He was meeting with Iglesias to pressure him to indict a Democrat on corruption charges.

It's the whole story of Iglesias' firing. It's not clear if the lack of voter fraud indictments, Republican disappointment at the pace of his public corruption investigations, or both led to his firing. But all the evidence shows that one or both of them did. And it all amounts to the same thing: Iglesias was canned for not indicting Democrats.

Purged U.S. attorneys John McKay of Seattle and David Iglesias of New Mexico sat down with The Seattle Times today and had a lot to say.

First, they were clear that they think the various investigations -- by Congress and the Justice Department's internal watchdogs -- will result in criminal charges, whether for trying to influence criminal investigations or for lying to Congress:

"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."...

McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations....

Additionally, McKay and Iglesias said they believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied under oath when they testified before Congress that the eight prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons and because of policy disputes with Justice Department headquarters.

But McKay also told an anecdote that shows what has recently become painfully apparent -- that Alberto Gonzales never stopped being White House counsel when he became attorney general. He never stopped thinking of himself as the president's lawyer. From the Times:

McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "

McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."

The House Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 32-6, just authorized a subpoena for Monica Goodling's testimony and an offer of immunity.

As former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias pointed out yesterday, Goodling should prove to be a very valuable witness to investigators. Since Goodling acted as the liaison to the White House at the Justice Department, communications from Karl Rove or other White House officials are likely to have gone through her. As Iglesias put it, she has "the keys to the kingdom."

ThinkProgress has more from Iglesias' interview on Hardball yesterday here.

Update: The Republican dissenters, we understand, were Reps. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chris Cannon (R-UT), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Steve King (R-IA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Rep. Cannon claimed that the investigation was harming the Justice Department's ability to conduct business, and Rep. Forbes called the committee's investigation the "hearings to nowhere," saying that the investigation was interfering with the committee's legislative work. Rep. Sensenbrenner wondered whether it was wise to grant Goodling immunity, because doing so would let her off the hook.

Update: It is likely to be weeks before the committee actually gets to interview Goodling. That's because the law requires that the Justice Department be allowed an opportunity to provide its views on immunity -- i.e. whether it might interfere with an existing or possible investigation. If the DoJ objects to giving Goodling immunity, then the committee would be forced to consider whether to defer or delay conferring immunity. And regardless of what the DoJ says, the local federal court has to approve giving Goodling immunity. All this is likely to take several weeks.

I tell you, it's hard work remembering what Alberto Gonzales remembers and doesn't remember.

In October of last year, President Bush had a conversation with Gonzales about U.S. attorneys. According to the White House's public statements, the conversation was a broad one, about voter fraud in three districts. Gonzales has said publicly that he doesn't remember such a conversation taking place.

But that's not what Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators this past weekend. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sampson said that in early March of this year, Gonzales told him about a conversation he'd had in October with Bush that was specifically about U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias. Remember that the White House was getting heavy pressure from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and other New Mexico Republicans to can Iglesias.

So in early March, Gonzales told Sampson privately about this conversation (this was, by the way, before the White House had publicly disclosed that there had been any conversations between Bush and Gonzales about U.S. attorneys). But on March 26, Gonzales told NBC and the world that he didn't remember having any such conversation.

But the Justice Department has an explanation! Spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that Gonzales really didn't remember having such a conversation, and that when he'd told Sampson about it in early March, it was "based on what others had told him, not his own memory."

That doesn't quite solve it, though.

First, if Schumer's relation of Sampson's testimony is accurate, it seems clear that Sampson had not been under the impression that Gonzales himself didn't remember the conversation when they spoke about it in early March.

But second, who were the "others" who told Gonzales this? The White House has a different version of the conversation -- that it was broader, about three districts (New Mexico, Milwaukee, Philadelphia) where voter fraud wasn't being aggressively pursued. Sampson's version, which has the conversation focusing on Iglesias, implicates Bush much more directly in his removal. So who did Gonzales get this version from? Does he remember that?

The Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday that President Bush and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) had a phone conversation about U.S. Attorney David Iglesias sometime after the election last year, but before he was fired. The White House has yet to directly respond to that. Today we found out why.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino said today that she hadn't asked Bush whether there had been such a conversation. "I haven't asked him," she said, but continued to say that she didn't "think" such a conversation had occurred, because she'd never heard anything about it. When pressed again, she said, "I'm not going to rule it out."

Transcript below...

Read more »

The firing of U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias continues to smoke.

There's a lot that's new in this piece today in The Albuquerque Journal:

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.

Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort.

The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.

Domenici, who submitted Iglesias' name for the job and guided him through the confirmation process in 2001, had tried at various times to get more white-collar crime help for the U.S. Attorney's Office— even if Iglesias didn't want it.

At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested.

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.

The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment.

A couple things. The Journal story refers to Domenici's concern over Iglesias' performance prosecuting "white-collar crime." Was Domenici overwrought about corporate malfeasance? No -- it's a way of referring to public corruption cases, specifically two high-profile corruption cases Iglesias handled against New Mexico Democrats.

After Iglesias didn't jump fast enough with regard to the first case, an investigation into the Democratic state treasurer that dated back to 2005, Domenici's patience was apparently far too thin for the slow pace of the second investigation -- a kickback probe into New Mexico Democrat Manny Aragon.

The timeline couldn't be more damning. Sen. Domenici made the now infamous phone call to Iglesias on October 27. According to Iglesias' version of the conversation, Domenici asked him if an indictment would be filed against Aragon "before November?" When Iglesias said no, Domenici replied, "I'm very sorry to hear that," and then hung up.

According to the Journal story, Domenici made his move to get Iglesias fired -- a call to Karl Rove -- as soon as the election was over just a few weeks later.

Now, there's another level to this. According to earlier statements from the White House and Kyle Sampson's testimony, Bush and Rove had already complained to Gonzales about Iglesias when Domenici called in November. Those complaints had to do with Iglesias' insufficiently aggressive pursuit of (Democratic) voter fraud, and they were made -- by President Bush and Karl Rove -- in mid-October.

So we have two different streams of complaints from the White House -- the first in October about voter fraud and then another in November, stemming from Domenici's concern at Iglesias' failure to move certain cases. Of course, both of them at their base were about Iglesias' failure to prosecute enough Democrats.

Here's another new document from the ones released today. And it's a good one.

They are two pages of handwritten notes, apparently taken by Monica Goodling -- the now former Justice Department official who's pled the Fifth. The notes appear to have emerged from a brainstorming session on justifications for firing the U.S. attorneys in early February of this year.

At the top of the first page, for instance, is a one word question: "Reasons?"

The session resulted in a chart showing the different supposed deficiencies with each U.S. attorney. In the documents produced, the previous and following documents are emails from Monica Goodling forwarding versions of the charts to her DoJ colleagues. "Here is the chart the [Deputy Attorney General] mentioned wanting to brief and leave behind. Kyle has reviewed it," she writes in one February 12, 2007 email. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was preparing to meet privately with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

One of the justifications didn't make it into the chart, however.

Under the reasons for firing David Iglesias, Goodling writes: "Domenici says he doesn't move cases."

That would be Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM). Now, as has been demonstrated, there was a particular variety of case that Domenici wanted Iglesias to move faster on -- corruption investigations into Democrats. Domenici called Iglesias shortly before the election last November to ask if Iglesias was going to bring an indictment on such a case sometime soon.

Domenici has made a similar misleading claim publicly -- that he'd complained about Iglesias because he had been unable to "move more quickly on cases." But as overall statistics for Iglesias' office have shown, that's a bogus allegation. It's apparent that Domenici was really talking about a few very important cases in particular.

One wonders just how Domenici expressed this frustration to Goodling and others... and whether he was more specific in terms of which cases just weren't moving fast enough.

It's almost too perfect.

When Justice Department official William Moschella was asked why the Department had fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, he told Congress that “Iglesias had delegated to his first assistant the overall running of the office. And, quite frankly, U.S. attorneys are hired to run the office.” Internal documents from the time show officials planning to accuse Iglesias of being an "absentee landlord" to justify his firing.

Iglesias did, in fact, leave the office for 45 days each year. But that's because he's a a captain in the Navy Reserve -- something that was no secret to his superiors.

So now the Office of Special Counsel is investigating whether Iglesias was wrongfully terminated due to his reserve duty, Newsweek reports. It is against the law for employers to discriminate against members of the U.S. military.

Read more »

Just a reminder, you might say.

Over the past month, the U.S. attorneys scandal has focused resolutely on Alberto Gonzales, other senior Justice Department officials, and the White House. But remember that early on, much of the focus was on Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM). Weeks before Election Day, both called then-U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias to squeeze him on his office's corruption investigation of a state Democrat. Iglesias charged that he was fired because he hadn't brought an indictment before the election.

As The Hill reports this morning, Domenici and Wilson are still very much on the hook. Kyle Sampson couldn't even recall the alleged "performance" reason behind Iglesias' firing during his testimony last week. And the only possible reason Sampson offered for his firing -- that he'd failed to indict certain voter fraud cases -- amounts to the same allegation: that Iglesias was fired for not indicting more Democrats.

From The Hill:

“[Iglesias’s] dismissal from the Justice Department — that is the one clear-cut example of a dismissal that appears to be based almost entirely on political motivation and political interference,” [Gerry Hebert, the executive director of the Campaign Legal Center and a 21-year veteran of the Justice Department] said....

“Pete Domenici needs to be placed under oath and asked whether he talked to Bush or Gonzales or Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, and what he said,” Hebert said.

In the piece, a former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer also raises the prospect of having a public hearing with Domenici.

Sen. Pat Leahy asks Kyle Sampson how David Iglesias ended up on the list of prosecutors to be purged, and Sampson replies,

"I don't remember hearing any complaints or anything about Mr. Iglesias' handling of corruption cases in New Mexico -- I do remember learning from, I believe, the attorney general, that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in 3 jurisdictions, including New Mexico. The substance of the complaint was that they were not pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough."

The video:

Here Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) questions Kyle Sampson about whether it ever occurred to him when he was making the list of U.S. attorneys whether there would be a "perception problem" with firing U.S. attorneys in the middle of important investigations. Sampson says no.

In April, 2004, times were different. U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias hadn't yet drawn the ire of prominent conservatives by failing to indict a Democratic state senator shortly before the election or declining to pursue their pet voter fraud cases.

Then, he was in no danger of being fired. Rather, he was on the short list for being promoted to be the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney. At least, that's according to an email from Kyle Sampson that listed U.S. attorneys who "might be enticed to leave their districts and come to Washington to run EOUSA."

Iglesias, who is Hispanic, appears on the list as a "diverse up-and-comer; solid."

Now, Iglesias, of course, didn't get the job. Michael Battle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Buffalo (and, as an African-American, also "diverse") did. And irony of ironies, it was Battle who ended up making the call to fire Iglesias this past December. Battle tendered his resignation in January; his last day was Friday.

Ed. Note: Thanks to TPM Reader Matt for flagging this in the comments.

My, my. Less than a month before a Justice Department official told Congress that U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesisas was fired for performance concerns, the Attorney General's chief of staff told Iglesias that he could use Gonzales as a reference.

On January 10, Iglesias wrote to Kyle Sampson and asked if he could use Gonzales as a reference, since "I'll be resigning in the next month or so and am looking for a job."

Sampson responded later that day: "You can list the AG as a reference -- not a problem. Good luck!"

Read the email exchange here.