I began coverage at 8 a.m. of this hearing, and updated the posting frequently as the hearing progressed. Below is a fairly chronological account of what happened. I’ll also be covering a House subcommittee hearing later today and will have analysis of the situation this evening or tomorrow morning.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to begin its hearing on the Bush Administration’s firing of eight
I’ll also have live updates every few minutes, so check back often.
Update, 8:10 a.m.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. and the hearing chairman, said his concerns have grown in recent weeks as the scandal over whether “political warfare” led to the firings has continued to spread.
“It seems all too likely that some in the administration were seeking to turn
He said six of the eight were given great performance reviews, and made reference to Iglesias’ allegations that politics led to his departure.
“What are we to think when prosecutors appear to have been fired for no reason, or worse, are part of a political vendetta?” Schumer asked.
Schumer said the “most shocking” allegations come from Iglesias.
“We will not rest until we get the answers we seek, and the American people get the answers they deserve,” he said.
Update, 8:15 a.m.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn. and a committee member, said he agrees with Schumer’s concerns, if the allegations are true, but cautioned that the committee doesn’t yet know the truth.
He said
Iglesias has not named the two publicly, but is expected to do it at this hearing.
“Let’s keep it in perspective and find out what was said,” Specter said.
He said it’s important to note that the administration has the authority to replace
Both Specter and Schumer made reference to new allegations that a former California U.S. attorney, Carol Lam, was replaced in retaliation for prosecuting a Republican.
Specter said the committee is dealing with a massive investigation that “may take a lot of time and a lot of hearings, but if we’re going to find out if there’s wrongdoing … we’ve got a big job to do.”
Update, 8:30 a.m.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who was one of the first to express concern about the firings, said the Department of Justice initially denied that politics had anything to do with the firings, but has slowly had to back off that assertion a piece at a time.
She noted that the
Feinstein made reference to a proposal to revoke a provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint interim
The new proposal would allow interim appointments for 180 days while the confirmation process is ongoing, which is what was in place before the Patriot Act changed it.
Update, 8:40 a.m.
Four former U.S. attorneys will testify today: Iglesias; Carol Lam, former U.S. attorney for Southern California; John McKay, former U.S. attorney for Western Washington; and H.E. “Bud” Cummins II, former U.S. attorney for Eastern Arkansas.
The committee began by hearing from Lam, who made introductory remarks on behalf of all four.
“Each of us is very appreciative of the president and our home-state senators, who entrusted us” with the positions of
After 9/11, she said, the
The attorneys know they are political appointees, she said, but also believe in having the ability to independently carry out their jobs free from political influence. She said the four believed they had the freedom to use their resources to meet the needs of their unique districts, and pointed out that they knew well what their districts needed.
They believed their opinions could be freely shared and debated, Lam said.
She said they were asked to resign without being given reasons and will decline to speculate.
Update, 8:45 a.m.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and the committee chairman, said he is extremely concerned by what has happened, and said it’s vital that U.S. attorneys be independent and be given “the ability to use your own discretion.”
He said it’s apparent that was not the case.
“There has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses from the administration,” Leahy said. “… We know (politics) did play a role in these matters, and the question that arises now is, ‘Where is the accountability?’”
“This lack of checks and balances has to end,” he said.
Update, 8:55 a.m.
Schumer began by questioning Iglesias about his allegations, and said the questions would be “awkward … as they involve a colleague in the Senate.”
Iglesias told the committee that Domenici and Wilson were the two who called him in October, the first time he has said so publicly.
The first call was made “on or about Oct. 16,” he said, by
“He said, ‘Are these going to be filed before November?’”
Iglesias told Domenici they would not, he said. Domenici, he testified, said, “I’m very sorry to hear that,” and hung up the phone.
“I felt sick after that,” Iglesias said. “… I felt leaned on. I felt pressured to get these matters moving.”
He said it was “unprecedented” for a senator to call him at home.
As for the initial call from
“You cannot talk about indictments,” Iglesias testified. “… I was evasive and unresponsive.”
He said he tried to explain to her why he could not talk about the indictments.
“She was not happy… and she said, ‘Well, I guess I’ll have to take your word for it,’” and ended the call, Iglesias testified.
Update, 9:05 a.m.
Cummins testified that he had been pressured by a Justice Department official to stop speaking out after he was fired. Cummins was among the first to share concerns – and he’s the one the Justice Department has admitted was let go to make room for a political adviser to Karl Rove.
The official indicated that, if he and others kept talking to the press and stirring up controversy, “more damaging information” about him and the others would be brought out.
Cummins said he shared that with the other fired attorneys in an e-mail.
McKay said his interpretation was that the Department of Justice didn’t want them to speak publicly “and that we could face repercussions” if they continued to speak. He noted that the threat came after Congress began its investigation.
“I felt that that was a threat, I felt it was hugely inappropriate,” he said. “… While it was a threat, I’m not intimidated, and I don’t think my colleagues are either.”
Iglesias said the threat was “a warning shot across the bow.”
“It didn’t intimidate me. It made me angry,” Iglesias said. “So, hence my presence here.”
Lam said she was concerned by the threat.
All four said they do not believe they were fired because of poor performance.
Update, 9:20 a.m.
Feinstein asked McKay whether a member of Congress or staffer contacted him on any pending investigations. He indicated that he was contacted following the 2004 gubernatorial election in
The race was narrowly won by the Democrat, and McKay said the former chief of staff, Ed Cassidy, called to inquire about any pending investigations or future actions related to voter fraud or other potentially criminal issues.
He said he stopped Cassidy, telling him such inquiries would be improper. Cassidy agreed, he said, and immediately and awkwardly ended the call.
He said he does not know whether that situation had anything to do with his ouster, because he was given no reason. He said he agrees with Specter that he serves at the pleasure of the president.
“I did try to go quietly. I did feel that was my duty to the president of the
Lam, whose office prosecuted the bribery case of former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., noted in response to a question that the case is ongoing with pending indictments against two others. Feinstein didn’t make clear why she asked the question.
Her office has been criticized for handing immigration cases, and she noted that the Border Patrol union has complained that she had cut back on some prosecution of low-level smugglers because of its high volume of cases.
She defended that shift, saying such prosecutions dropped because of a shift to focus on tougher sentences for high-level smugglers – a shift she said the Justice Department sought.
“I don’t think anything we have done has been inconsistent with the mandates of the department,” Lam said.
Update, 9:40 a.m.
Specter asked Lam if she believes she was improperly removed.
“I think it was unusual,” Lam said. “… I think this was unusual. I’m troubled by it because of the potential chilling effect it has on
Lam was asked again, and declined to directly answer whether she believes her removal was improper, saying she doesn’t know why she was removed.
“I don’t feel that I did anything in my role as
Specter asked about Cunningham. Lam said it has been suggested that she may have been removed because of the prosecution and ongoing investigation, but she has no direct knowledge of that.
“I did not receive any pressure from the Department of Justice or any intimation that I was being removed because of the Cunningham investigation,” she said.
Specter asked Iglesias about Domenici’s and Wilson’s statements, in which they have admitted to calling but denied pressuring Iglesias.
“Is Sen. Domenici wrong?” Specter asked.
Iglesias said Domenici didn’t directly threaten him, but “the fact that he would call and ask about any specific investigation was a threatening call.”
The timing of the call was a factor in making him feel threatened, Iglesias said. Iglesias said his prosecution of the treasurer scandal had become the focus of the First Congressional District campaign.
“Public corruption was a huge battle being waged by Patricia Madrid and Heather Wilson, and I assiduously tried to stay out of that,” Iglesias said, adding that Domenici’s inquiry, because of that, was inappropriate and threatening.
Iglesias admitted that Domenici said no more than Domenici asserts – that he called to ask about the case – but “the fact that the line went dead” after that led to him feeling pressured.
In a statement released Monday night,
Asked if
“She wanted to talk about the ‘so-called’ sealed indictments – something I could not talk about,” Iglesias said.
Iglesias said he felt the calls were inappropriate but admitted not reporting them.
“Sen. Domenici had been a mentor to me… and Heather Wilson was a friend,” he said, adding that he felt a conflict between his loyalty to them and his duty to report what he claims happened.
Update, 9:50 a.m.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., asked about the Department of Justice’s new assertion that the fired attorneys failed to line up with Bush Administration policies. Lam testified that there were so many priorities named that it was difficult to make every issue a top priority.
Iglesias read a statement from a Justice Department official thanking him for doing such a good job of focusing on the department’s priorities.
McKay said he was also commended for “the outstanding work of my office and for meeting the priorities of the Department of Justice.”
Cummins pointed out that every administration is entitled to set its own priorities and put people in place who will focus on those priorities. He also noted that, since the department admits his dismissal was political, it’s not alleged that he failed to meet priorities.
Iglesias also said he was told the decision to fire him came from “on high,” with he took to mean the attorney general or White House.
Update, 10:10 a.m.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked and Cummins said that “intimidation of witnesses” in criminal cases is taken very seriously, but said that’s not quite the same as the threat that he and the others stop talking to the press, because at the time they weren’t under subpoena.
McKay, Iglesias and Lam said intimidating witnesses in a pending federal case can lead to obstruction of justice charges.
Whitehouse asked what effect the “purge” would have on other
“It becomes a guessing game as to how the department is pleased,” she said.
Iglesias said the controversy is about “separation of powers and the independence of the
McKay said he has confidence that the remaining
Cummins said he never believed that the Department of Justice would turn on him because, through is prosecutions, he made enemies in powerful places. He said there is a “chilling” effect to the allegation that members of Congress were able to influence employment of
The committee has taken a 10-minute recess.
Update, 11:15 a.m.
At the closing of the hearing, Schumer thanked the former
“I think you’ve proven the case of what fine prosecutors you are, and what fine Americans you are,” he said. “… I would just say to the administration that this is not going to go away by intimidating or name calling. … The one thing I can assure the public is that we’re going to get to the bottom of this.”
The hearing has ended.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly identified Specter as a Democrat.