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\u2019ll also be covering a House subcommittee hearing later today and will have analysis of the situation this evening or tomorrow morning.<\/p>\n
The Senate Judiciary Committee<\/a> is about to begin its hearing on the Bush Administration\u2019s firing of eight I\u2019ll also have live updates every few minutes, so check back often.<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:10 a.m.<\/p>\n \n Sen. Charles Schumer<\/a>, D-N.Y. and the hearing chairman, said his concerns have grown in recent weeks as the scandal over whether \u201cpolitical warfare\u201d led to the firings has continued to spread.<\/p>\n \u201cIt 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\u2019 allegations that politics led to his departure.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat are we to think when prosecutors appear to have been fired for no reason, or worse, are part of a political vendetta?\u201d Schumer asked.<\/p>\n Schumer said the \u201cmost shocking\u201d allegations come from Iglesias.<\/p>\n \u201cWe will not rest until we get the answers we seek, and the American people get the answers they deserve,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:15 a.m.<\/p>\n Sen. Arlen Specter<\/a>, R-Penn. and a committee member, said he agrees with Schumer\u2019s concerns, if the allegations are true, but cautioned that the committee doesn\u2019t yet know the truth.<\/p>\n He said Iglesias has not named the two publicly, but is expected to do it at this hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cLet\u2019s keep it in perspective and find out what was said,\u201d Specter said.<\/p>\n \n He said it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n \n Specter said the committee is dealing with a massive investigation that \u201cmay take a lot of time and a lot of hearings, but if we\u2019re going to find out if there\u2019s wrongdoing \u2026 we\u2019ve got a big job to do.\u201d<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:30 a.m.<\/p>\n Sen. Dianne Feinstein<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:40 a.m.<\/p>\n 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. \u201cBud\u201d Cummins II, former U.S. attorney for Eastern Arkansas.<\/p>\n The committee began by hearing from Lam, who made introductory remarks on behalf of all four.<\/p>\n \u201cEach of us is very appreciative of the president and our home-state senators, who entrusted us\u201d 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.<\/p>\n They believed their opinions could be freely shared and debated, Lam said.<\/p>\n She said they were asked to resign without being given reasons and will decline to speculate.<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:45 a.m.<\/p>\n Sen. Patrick Leahy<\/a>, D-Vermont and the committee chairman, said he is extremely concerned by what has happened, and said it\u2019s vital that U.S. attorneys be independent and be given \u201cthe ability to use your own discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n He said it\u2019s apparent that was not the case.<\/p>\n \u201cThere has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses from the administration,\u201d Leahy said. \u201c\u2026 We know (politics) did play a role in these matters, and the question that arises now is, \u2018Where is the accountability?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis lack of checks and balances has to end,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \n Update, 8:55 a.m.<\/p>\n Schumer began by questioning Iglesias about his allegations, and said the questions would be \u201cawkward \u2026 as they involve a colleague in the Senate.\u201d<\/p>\n Iglesias told the committee that Domenici and Wilson were the two who called him in October, the first time he has said so publicly.<\/p>\n The first call was made \u201con or about Oct. 16,\u201d he said, by \u201cHe said, \u2018Are these going to be filed before November?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Iglesias told Domenici they would not, he said. Domenici, he testified, said, \u201cI\u2019m very sorry to hear that,\u201d and hung up the phone.<\/p>\n \u201cI felt sick after that,\u201d Iglesias said. \u201c\u2026 I felt leaned on. I felt pressured to get these matters moving.\u201d<\/p>\n He said it was \u201cunprecedented\u201d for a senator to call him at home.<\/p>\n As for the initial call from \u201cYou cannot talk about indictments,\u201d Iglesias testified. \u201c\u2026 I was evasive and unresponsive.\u201d<\/p>\n He said he tried to explain to her why he could not talk about the indictments.<\/p>\n \u201cShe was not happy\u2026 and she said, \u2018Well, I guess I\u2019ll have to take your word for it,\u2019\u201d and ended the call, Iglesias testified.<\/p>\n \n Update, 9:05 a.m.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 and he\u2019s the one the Justice Department has admitted was let go to make room for a political adviser to Karl Rove.<\/p>\n The official indicated that, if he and others kept talking to the press and stirring up controversy, \u201cmore damaging information\u201d about him and the others would be brought out.<\/p>\n Cummins said he shared that with the other fired attorneys in an e-mail.<\/p>\n McKay said his interpretation was that the Department of Justice didn\u2019t want them to speak publicly \u201cand that we could face repercussions\u201d if they continued to speak. He noted that the threat came after Congress began its investigation.<\/p>\n \u201cI felt that that was a threat, I felt it was hugely inappropriate,\u201d he said. \u201c\u2026 While it was a threat, I\u2019m not intimidated, and I don\u2019t think my colleagues are either.\u201d<\/p>\n Iglesias said the threat was \u201ca warning shot across the bow.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt didn\u2019t intimidate me. It made me angry,\u201d Iglesias said. \u201cSo, hence my presence here.\u201d<\/p>\n Lam said she was concerned by the threat.<\/p>\n \n All four said they do not believe they were fired because of poor performance.<\/p>\n \n Update, 9:20 a.m.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n He said he stopped Cassidy, telling him such inquiries would be improper. Cassidy agreed, he said, and immediately and awkwardly ended the call.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI 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<\/a>, R-Calif., noted in response to a question that the case is ongoing with pending indictments against two others. Feinstein didn\u2019t make clear why she asked the question.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n She defended that shift, saying such prosecutions dropped because of a shift to focus on tougher sentences for high-level smugglers \u2013 a shift she said the Justice Department sought.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think anything we have done has been inconsistent with the mandates of the department,\u201d Lam said.<\/p>\n \n Update, 9:40 a.m.<\/p>\n Specter asked Lam if she believes she was improperly removed.<\/p>\n \u201cI think it was unusual,\u201d Lam said. \u201c\u2026 I think this was unusual. I\u2019m 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\u2019t know why she was removed.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI did not receive any pressure from the Department of Justice or any intimation that I was being removed because of the Cunningham investigation,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Specter asked Iglesias about Domenici\u2019s and Wilson\u2019s statements, in which they have admitted to calling but denied pressuring Iglesias.<\/p>\n \u201cIs Sen. Domenici wrong?\u201d Specter asked.<\/p>\n Iglesias said Domenici didn\u2019t directly threaten him, but \u201cthe fact that he would call and ask about any specific investigation was a threatening call.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cPublic corruption was a huge battle being waged by Patricia Madrid and Heather Wilson, and I assiduously tried to stay out of that,\u201d Iglesias said, adding that Domenici\u2019s inquiry, because of that, was inappropriate and threatening.<\/p>\n Iglesias admitted that Domenici said no more than Domenici asserts \u2013 that he called to ask about the case \u2013 but \u201cthe fact that the line went dead\u201d after that led to him feeling pressured.<\/p>\n In a statement released Monday night, Asked if \u201cShe wanted to talk about the \u2018so-called\u2019 sealed indictments \u2013 something I could not talk about,\u201d Iglesias said.<\/p>\n Iglesias said he felt the calls were inappropriate but admitted not reporting them.<\/p>\n \u201cSen. Domenici had been a mentor to me\u2026 and Heather Wilson was a friend,\u201d he said, adding that he felt a conflict between his loyalty to them and his duty to report what he claims happened.<\/p>\n \n Update, 9:50 a.m.<\/p>\n