Attorneys probe deepens

The federal investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys could jolt the political landscape ahead of the November elections, according to several people close to the inquiry.

Washington’s attention has been diverted from the scandal since the August resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, and has focused instead on Democrats’ efforts to hold White House officials in contempt for ignoring congressional subpoenas to testify on Capitol Hill about the firings.

{mosads}But recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year. Two inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees are examining whether several congressional Republicans, including one running for the Senate this year, improperly interfered with investigations.

As potent as the congressional probes might be, they appear to be far narrower than a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department’s Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation.

The internal Justice Department probe cannot bring charges but can refer findings to a U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or a special prosecutor, who could then pursue a criminal investigation. One source close to the investigation expects the offices to issue a scathing report within the next three months, but they have not announced a timeline for their joint inquiry.

“I think it could be historic,” said David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who was one of the nine ordered to resign by the Bush administration. “Arguably it’s the most significant investigation OPR and OIG have done in a generation, or maybe ever.”

Spokesmen for the offices spearheading the inquiries refused to comment.

The administration has faced sharp criticism for giving conflicting explanations for the 2006 firings and for appearing to target attorneys who did not pursue GOP political objectives. The Bush administration and its allies deny this, saying the investigations are overblown by Democrats to smear the White House.

But Justice Department investigators appear to be taking them seriously. They have interviewed all nine attorneys and scores of staffers, as well as other attorneys who were targeted for firings and some who left their posts before being replaced by Bush loyalists, say people familiar with the review.

 Iglesias’s case is in the crosshairs of all three investigations. Testifying before Congress, he alleged last year that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) pressured him to accelerate an investigation of a Democratic politician in New Mexico ahead of Wilson’s tight reelection bid. Iglesias said he did not plan to bring charges before the November elections, and was fired in December 2006. The administration says it was not satisfied with his pursuit of voter-fraud cases.

Public records show that the Senate ethics committee spent nearly $5,000 to send three staff members to Albuquerque in March and July last year.

According to one source, investigators met last September with Iglesias’s wife, Cindy, who was in the room when Domenici placed the telephone call asking about the status of the investigation. Both Domenici and Wilson have admitted placing phone calls, but deny trying to influence Iglesias or put any political pressure on his investigation.

Last month, the Senate panel’s investigators returned to Albuquerque to interview Iglesias’s former staff members, the source said. With Domenici retiring this Congress, it is unclear whether the panel will take steps against him. These could include public hearings, an admonishment or, in the extreme, expulsion from the Senate. Wilson is seeking to replace Domenici in the Senate.

The investigation remains “open,” according to Natalie Ravitz, spokeswoman for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the ethics committee.

The status of the House ethics committee review is unclear, but the panel has been active. Iglesias met with the panel last year to discuss his firing and his allegation that Wilson put pressure on him to file charges before the election.

Following the Senate ethics committee visit to Albuquerque last month, Justice Department investigators interviewed Iglesias’s former staff, according to a well-placed source.

Justice Department investigators also interviewed Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, last year.

Weh reportedly complained about Iglesias in 2005 to Karl Rove, who was then White House deputy chief of staff.

Weh said last week that his interview with the investigators was brief, and he didn’t expect inquiries to amount to anything significant. “People don’t care about this; this is yesterday,” Weh said.

The investigators are trying to determine whether the firing was retaliatory, and whether that constitutes obstruction of justice by Gonzales, several sources said. The investigators also appear to be looking at whether the firing of Iglesias violated the criminal provisions of the Hatch Act, which is intended to limit the political activities of federal employees and avoid the appearance of politically driven justice.

“Firing a United States Attorney for refusing to participate in such a blatantly political scheme, could well result in the indictment of those government officials responsible for the firing and who were aware of and participating in the political purpose,” said former U.S. Attorney John McKay in an article about the scandal published in this month’s Seattle University Law Review.

McKay, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington until he was forced to resign in January 2007, says he met with the House ethics committee last June. It is suspected by some that McKay’s firing was tied to the 2004 governor’s election, in which Democrat Christine Gregoire narrowly won with 49 percent of the vote. The administration denies that charge.

McKay testified that the chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) asked whether he was investigating allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 governor’s race. A spokesman for Hastings, ranking member on the ethics committee, declined to comment on whether the congressman or staff have been interviewed about the firings.

Most of the fired U.S. attorneys said in interviews that Justice appeared to be casting a wide net in its inquiry, particularly on political interference issues.

“We pretty much spoke about everything throughout the whole interview process,” said Daniel Bogden, a former U.S. attorney in Nevada, who resigned February.

In a sign that the investigation has widened beyond the nine fired attorneys, Justice last summer interviewed Thomas Heffelfinger, U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who resigned before it was revealed that he was targeted for dismissal.

Congressional aides expect the status of the inquiries to arise Jan. 30, when Michael Mukasey testifies for the first time as attorney general before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Peter Carr, spokesman for the Justice Department, said the government is “not waiting for the results” of the inquiry, having already instituted changes to address some of the allegations.

“The sooner it comes out the better,” said fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Eastern Arkansas, who has communicated with Justice investigators more than half a dozen times during the inquiry. “It’s hanging like a cloud over the department.”