Gonzales talked with Rove, Bush about Iglesias

During today’s hearing, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continued his assertion that he wasn’t intimately involved in the decision to fire former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico and approved Iglesias’ firing based on the recommendation of subordinates in the department.

Before speaking specifically about Iglesias, Gonzales said he takes responsibility for the mishandling of the firings. There have been repeated contradictions in the explanations by the Justice Department and White House that have caused the situation to explode into a full-blown scandal.

“Those eight attorneys deserved better. They deserved better from me and from the Department of Justice,” Gonzales said. “I accept full responsibility for this.”

Gonzales also admitted to making statements that directly contradict those of the staffers he said made the recommendations on who would be fired.

“My misstatements were my mistakes, no one else’s,” he said. “I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the people.”

Under questioning from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, and during a testy exchange with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., Gonzales said he had only limited involvement in the firings.

In the case of Iglesias, he said he recalls a conversation with White House political adviser Karl Rove “in the fall of 2006.” Rove, he said, mentioned concerns about a lack of pursuit of voter fraud cases in New Mexico and two other jurisdictions. He said he doesn’t recall the date of the conversation or whether it was a phone or in-person conversation.

Gonzales said he also has record that he had an Oct. 11 meeting with President Bush at which the president “relayed to me similar concerns about pursuing voter fraud,” but said he doesn’t recall the conversation. He said the record shows Iglesias was added to the list of those who would be fired sometime between Oct. 17 and Nov. 15, but said he doesn’t know the specific date.

“I was not responsible for compiling that information,” Gonzales said.

He said he approved Iglesias’ firing “based upon what I believed to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership in the department.”

But, Gonzales said, he “was not surprised” that Iglesias was added to the list by senior department staffers because of the complaints he had received from Rove, Bush, and U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who he said called him to complain in 2005 that Iglesias “was in over his head” and needed more resources to prosecute “public corruption cases.”

Statements shed light on timeline of events

His statements shed some light on the timeline related to Iglesias’ firing. U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., called Iglesias on Oct. 16. Iglesias alleges Wilson inquired about potential sealed indictments in the Bernalillo County Metro Courthouse investigation and pressured him to issue indictments. Wilson admits the call but says she didn’t ask about sealed indictments or pressure Iglesias.

Gonzales says the next day is the first potential day Iglesias was added to the firing list. Then Domenici called Iglesias about the case on Oct. 27. Iglesias alleges the senator also pressured him on indictments, but Domenici says that isn’t true.

The Albuquerque Journal reported this weekend that a conversation between Rove and Domenici took place sometime after the Nov. 6 election, so it must have occurred between Nov. 6 and 15. Sometime in that period, Domenici and Bush also had a conversation about Iglesias.

The attorneys were then notified they were being fired on Dec. 7.

Is it just coincidence that the phone calls from Domenici and Wilson to Iglesias and the conversations between Bush, Rove, Gonzales and Domenici occurred in such close proximity to the November 2006 election? That’s what a bipartisan group of senators want to know, and this morning’s hearing has included some testy exchanges and strong statements of concern from Democrats and Republicans.

It’s noteworthy that Rove was intimately involved in helping Wilson keep her seat last year. Wilson was in the fight for her political life and won re-election last year by 861 votes out of more than 211,000 cast. At the time of the October 2006 calls, Wilson, Domenici’s protégé, had fallen behind in the polls for the first time in the election cycle.

It’s also noteworthy that a bipartisan group of senators have said today they understand U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, but it would be highly improper to fire a U.S. attorney for the political reasons alleged by Iglesias, and would compromise the federal law-enforcement system.

That’s what’s at stake here: Whether Domenici, Wilson, Bush, Rove and Gonzales compromised or attempted to compromise the integrity of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Mexico for the sake of Wilson’s political career.

Gonzales said the department hasn’t politicized any cases, adding that his office took a plea from former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney, a Republican, on felony charges related to the Jack Abramoff scandal weeks before the November 2006 election. He said that probably upset some Republicans but was the best decision for the case.