Iglesias: Next DOJ Report Will Likely Recommend Special Counsel Probe
By Jason Leopold, The Public Record , Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine testified before Congress Wednesday that an investigation he conducted into the politicization of the agency did not turn up any evidence that showed former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was aware his senior aides used a political litmus test to guide their hiring decisions in violation of federal civil service laws.

But the next installment of the DOJ’s inspector general’s report—which is still being worked on—related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 will likely recommend that Attorney General Michael Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales and his former number two, Paul McNulty, committed crimes, said David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired in December 2006.

For nearly a year, Fine’s office has been investigating whether any of the firings were improper, the role Gonzales played in the firings, whether he tried to influence the congressional testimony of one of his aides and misled Congress. The investigation is being conducted jointly with the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

“Here’s how I think that will go down,” Iglesias said in an interview with The Public Record. “The IG will find enough evidence to refer the matter to a special prosecutor. There will be more than enough evidence to make that recommendation. Mukasey will then decide whether or not to accept that recommendation. He will have to do so in consulation with the White House. That's where the road block will be. ”

Iglesias added that he also suspects that when a separate IG report about alleged malfeasance at the DOJ’s Civil Rights division is released it will show the department was “compromised.”

“I believe that when the rest of the report drops it will show the Civil Rights section was compromised in terms of their core historic mission, which is representing minorities,” Iglesias said. “I am hearing preliminarily those class of cases were not prosecuted, which if true is a remarkable turn of events.”

John McKay, the the former US attorney for the Western District of Washington, who was also part of the group fired for alleged partisan political reasons, wrote a lengthy law review article in earlier this year and suggested that if Fine determines federal laws were broken a special prosecutor should be appointed to probe the matter.

McKay wrote that Gonzales may have obstructed justice and that McNulty may have lied to Congress.

McKay wrote that Iglesias’s firing could result in "criminal charges" against Gonzales and McNulty "for impeding justice."

"The elements of a prima facie case of obstruction of justice are: (1) the existence of the judicial proceeding; (2) knowledge of or notice of the judicial proceeding; (3) acting 'corruptly' with intent to influence, obstruct or impede the proceeding in the due administration of justice; and (4) a nexus (although not necessarily one which is material) between the judicial proceeding sought to be corruptly influenced and the defendant's efforts," McKay writes in a 34-page article. "The (federal) omnibus clause is a 'catchall' provision, which is broadly construed to include a wide variety of corrupt methods."

In testimony before Congress last year, Iglesias said that he received telephone calls from New Mexico's Republican Senator, Pete Domenici, and the state's Republican Congresswoman, Heather Wilson, before the 2006 midterm elections inquiring about the timing of an indictment against a popular Democratic official in the state who was the target of a corruption investigation. Iglesias told Domenici and Wilson he could not discuss the issue of indictments with them. A couple of weeks later, Iglesias's name was added to a list of US attorneys selected for termination.

McKay wrote that when Gonzales testified before Congress about Iglesias he said "he took multiple phone calls from Domenici concerning (Iglesias), urging that he be replaced, and has admitted that (President Bush) spoke with him about the 'problems' with Iglesias."

"Gonzales has even admitted that one of the reasons that Iglesias was fired was because Senator Domenici had "lost confidence" in Iglesias," McKay writes. "While these allegations are troubling under any analysis, a thorough and independent investigation is necessary to determine whether criminal laws have been violated. Among the considerations facing the inspector general is whether the actions of former Attorney General Gonzales constituted obstruction of justice by removing Iglesias. That [Gonzales] had knowledge of the high profile public corruption case being investigated by Iglesias in New Mexico is virtually certain, given that [Gonzales] has admitted speaking to Domenici and would almost certainly be expected to have such knowledge as the leader of the Justice Department. Under the broad language of [the federal statute regarding obstruction of justice], it would be hard to imagine that 'corruptly influence' would not extend to firing of the United States attorney in the middle of a public corruption case because he 'lost confidence' of a senator who sought to manipulate the indictments for crass political advantage."

McKay also wrote that "McNulty also may have sought to conceal an important phone call from Senator Domenici regarding US Attorney Iglesias, instructing [then DOJ White House liaison] Monica Goodling to delete reference to that call from his Senate testimony," McKay wrote, using Goodling's congressional testimony last year, to back up his argument.

McKay said that the firing of Carol Lam, the former US attorney for the Southern District of California, is just as troubling because it took place while Lam was "supervising the highest profile public corruption prosecution in America," Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Republican congressman from San Diego.

Cunningham pleaded guilty in March 2006 to mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit bribery and is serving an eight-year federal prison term. At the time of Cunningham's sentencing, Lam said in a prepared statement the investigation would continue "with respect to other co-conspirators."

The co-conspirators Lam was referring to included Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former executive director of the CIA, who resigned from the agency in early May 2006, a few days before search warrants were executed on his residence. McKay believes Lam's dogged pursuit of Cunningham's co-conspirators in the spring of 2006, a year in which Republicans faced tough reelection campaigns, may have led directly to her firing.

"Lam alerted the Justice Department that FBI agents would, at her direction, search Foggo's home in connection with the Duke Cunningham case, and the following day [former Gonzales Chief of Staff] Kyle Sampson emailed the White House from the attorney general's office that 'we have a real problem with Carol Lam' and urged that she be dismissed at the conclusion of her term," McKay wrote. "Given the wide publicity of the Cunningham political corruption case ... it is reasonable to conclude that Gonzales, [former Deputy Attorney General Paul] McNulty, Sampson and other senior Justice Department officials were aware of the underlying judicial proceeding being handled by Carol Lam, Gonzales, McNulty and Sampson, at minimum, will have to demonstrate that their complicity in the removal of Lam had nothing to do with her aggressive prosecution of power Republicans for public corruption. In addition to the Sampson email ... investigators will seek to establish whether other senior officials knowingly sought her removal in connection with the Cunningham investigation. If such evidence is found, removal of the United States Attorney in where the US Attorney was personally supervising the case would undoubtedly come within the omnibus provisions of the federal obstruction of justice statute."

But, Iglesias said, he believes its highly unlikely the White House will allow Mukasey to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales, one of President George W. Bush’s most trusted allies, and doubtful Mukasey, who has proven himself to be a Bush loyalist, would support such a recommendation to begin with.

Mukasey’s “got five months left,” Iglesias said. “There is no way he is going to right this ship that’s sinking in five months.”

The only way Gonzales and McNulty will likely be held accountable is if a new president decides to pursue the matter, Iglesias said, which Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has indicated he may do.

In testimony before Congress last year, Sampson, Gonzales’s former chief of staff Kyle Sampson and Goodling, both of whom were singled out in Monday’s IG report for violating federal laws when they took an applicant’s political beliefs into account before deciding on who to hire for career positions, said McNulty and Gonzales did not testify honestly before Congress about their prior knowledge of the attorney firings and the reasons behind the purge.

McNulty testified in February 2006 that the attorney firings were “performance related” and the decision to terminate the federal prosecutors was made solely by the Department of Justice. McNulty also told lawmakers that Goodling and Sampson withheld crucial information from him before he spoke to investigators and testified before Congress.

But Goodling disputed McNulty’s assertions. She said McNulty was well aware the White House was involved to some extent in the decision to fire the U.S. attorneys.

"I believe the deputy was not fully candid," Goodling said in testimony before Congress last May.

Goodling, who testified under a grant of immunity, said McNulty’s testimony was incomplete and inaccurate and that he was not candid with members of Congress.

"The allegation is false," Goodling testified last May. "I didn't withhold information from the deputy."

Goodling also told lawmakers she believed Gonzales tried to coach her before she testified before Congress by reviewing his recollection of the events that transpired around the time of the attorney firings.

Gonzales had testified before a Senate panel in April that he could not recall certain details related to the attorney firings and that he was steering clear of witnesses such as Goodling so as not to influence their testimony.

"I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations," Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2007.

But Goodling contradicted Gonzales.

She said Gonzales reviewed the attorney firings with her in March 2007, two months before she testified, during a meeting she requested before she left the DOJ on a leave of absence.

"I was somewhat paralyzed. I was distraught, and I felt like I wanted to make a transfer," Goodling told members of the House Judiciary Committee in May 2007. Gonzales “then proceeded to say, 'Let me tell you what I can remember,' and he laid out for me his general recollection ... of some of the process" of the firings, When Gonzales finished, "he asked me if I had any reaction to his iteration."

Goodling said the conversation made her feel uncomfortable because she knew she and Gonzales would be compelled to testify about the matter.

Sampson also disputed a public statement Gonzales made during a March 13, 2007 news conference in which he attempted to explain the attorney firings by stating his chief of staff failed to brief him or his deputy, McNulty.

"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," Gonzales said at the news conference.

Sampson testified in March 2007 that Gonzales’s statement was “not accurate.”

Moreover, documents released by the DOJ last year showed that Gonzales and McNulty participated in an hour-long meeting with Sampson and three other DOJ officials on Nov. 27, 2006—about two weeks before the U.S. attorneys were fired—to review the plan to fire the attorneys, contradicting their sworn testimonies that they were left out of the loop.

Staffers working for Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett, the head of the OPR, interviewed Iglesias, who said, Goodling was on the interview team to search for his replacement, the head of the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, in person last June and in follow up interviews several months later and questioned about the politics behind his termination.

He said he did not have confidence at first that the joint investigation by the IG and OPR was going to be conducted thoroughly. “I had to get talked into doing it,” said Iglesias, who published a book on the U.S. attorney firings, In-Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked The Bush Administration. “I felt nothing was going to happen. But I was told that the people who work in those offices are professional career people. They are not politicos.”

Iglesias said he believes the last two IG reports on the politicization of the Justice Department have been “extremely professional and thorough.”

But the report released Monday has opened up the DOJ to serious legal exposure and Iglesias believes it’s likely an individual who was rejected for a job based on their political beliefs or sexual orientation could file a lawsuit against Goodling and the DOJ seeking class-action status.

“There’s lots of evidence Goodling violated federal law,” Iglesias said. “She should be concerned, and the DOJ should be concerned, about being [a defendant] in a class-action lawsuit. I’m not talking about my colleagues or me. We were political appointees and don’t have the type of employment rights that career prosecutors have.”

Last year, a document surfaced showing that Gonzales signed a confidential order in March 2006 that gave Sampson and Goodling "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of non civil-service employees at the DOJ. A month after the order was signed, Goodling was promoted to the position of White House liaison.

Iglesias said that a new administration should form an internal Justice Department task force to ensure the recommendations in Fine’s reports are acted upon.

“They can’t ignore this,” Iglesias said. “This is not going away with a new president. The fact that the Justice Department is the agency that enforces individual rights and they were violating those rights is just a really awful situation. What do you do when the watchdog isn’t watching but is in fact violating the rights?”

Ex-Official Who Fired U.S. Attorneys Speaks Out
by Ari Shapiro, NPR Radio
LINK

"I can't say that it was anything other than just distasteful," former Justice Department official Michael Battle says of his role in the dismissal of seven federal prosecutors.

See also:
An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program

In Depth

* Administration Officials' Roles
* Timeline: Behind the Firing of Eight U.S. Attorneys
* Fired U.S. Attorneys: A Who's Who
* Full Coverage

Morning Edition, November 2, 2007 · The man who asked for the resignation of seven federal prosecutors, leading to the eventual ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, publicly described his role in the dismissals for the first time on Thursday.

Michael Battle was the director of the Justice Department's Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys until last spring. Even today, Battle says, "I still have lingering feelings" about the firings. "I can't say that it was anything other than just distasteful."

Before he came to Washington, Battle was the U.S. attorney for Buffalo, N.Y. He still considers himself friends with many of the people he had to fire, saying, "Once a U.S. attorney, always a U.S. attorney."

Battle first saw the list of U.S. attorneys to be dismissed at a meeting in the attorney general's conference room in November 2006. Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, told the assembled staffers, "Everybody here knows the purpose of the meeting except Battle." The conversation focused on how the firings should work, not whether the prosecutors should be fired. By the time everyone left the room, Battle says, "It was very clear that I was going to be the one to make those calls."

In the last several months, evidence has emerged suggesting that some U.S. attorneys were fired because they weren't partisan enough in their law-enforcement decisions. Battle says he had no inside information then to suggest that anything nefarious was going on, and he still doesn't. He was just the messenger.

When asked whether Battle remembers what he told the prosecutors when he asked for their resignation, he says, "I don't know that I'll ever forget it."

The people he called greeted him warmly — which made the part that came next much more difficult.

"Listen," Battle said he told the U.S. attorneys. "I've been asked to call you and advise you that you're being asked to submit your resignation as U.S. attorney."

He says everyone reacted with surprise and shock. The responses varied from, "Could you repeat yourself?" to "Are you sure? Is there anyone I can call?"

That's when it got to be uncomfortable. Battle was not allowed to answer any of their questions. He had been instructed to say as little as possible.

As the public leaves the U.S. attorney firings in the past, there is one thing Battle wants to clarify. He has been described as one of the casualties of the U.S. attorney scandal, since he left the Justice Department just as the dismissals were starting to catch the public's attention.

In fact, he started looking for a new job six months before the scandal broke. A member of Congress who served as a job reference for Battle independently confirmed that fact.

Today, Battle works in a law firm with offices across the street from the Justice Department. He still looks across Pennsylvania Avenue with pride.

"I know there's some great work being done in there," Battle says. "I feel badly that some people look upon the [Justice] Department with a bit of disdain, and I feel bad for the people there who have to deal with that. And I know that it hurts them."

Justice Dept.'s Hiring Tactics Illegal, Report Says
by Ari Shapiro
LINK

Justice IG Report

* Read The July 28 Report (PDF)

The Justice Department concludes that Monica Goodling, senior counsel to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrongly considered political and ideological affiliations when hiring.

All Things Considered, July 28, 2008 · An internal Justice Department investigation released Monday has concluded that senior officials broke the law by hiring immigration and other officials based on partisan considerations. The report — issued by the inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility — culminates an investigation that lasted more than a year, stemming from the firing of seven U.S. attorneys in one day in 2006.

The report focuses on some of the senior officials in the circle of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Specifically, the report names senior counselor and White House liaison Monica Goodling and Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Both have left the department. Another official, John Nowacki, still works at the Justice Department, and the report recommends disciplining him for knowingly issuing false press statements.

The report concludes that Goodling, Sampson and others broke the law by considering political and ideological affiliations in selecting immigration judges, federal prosecutors and other candidates for jobs that are supposed to be free from politics.

According to the report, Goodling would regularly ask job applicants:

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

"Aside from the president, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."

"Why are you a Republican?"

One applicant told investigators that when he told Goodling he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling frowned and commented, "But she's pro-choice."

According to the report, Goodling knew that what she was doing was wrong. She would give career applicants questionnaires that were only supposed to be for political jobs. If the applicant pointed it out, she would say it was a mistake and take away the questionnaire.

"This is the way you ruin a really stellar government agency," former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who served during the Clinton administration, told NPR. "The credibility of the Department of Justice depends on the American people understanding and believing that the process for administration of justice is completely nonpartisan, and when you undermine that, you grievously harm the American people."

Goodling's attorney, Jeffrey King, released a statement saying: "Each and every one of the core conclusions of the OIG/OPR report released today is consistent with, and indeed derived from, Ms. Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee."

The report says Goodling screened hundreds of job applicants in many different parts of the Justice Department.

One experienced counterterrorism prosecutor did not get a job in Washington because his wife was a Democrat. As a result, the report says, a much less experienced but politically acceptable attorney was assigned to handle counterterrorism issues.

The inspector general also concluded that Goodling ousted Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen from her assignment in Washington and blocked her from other positions based on Goodling's belief that Hagen was a lesbian.

NPR first broke that story last spring. Hagen's lawyer, Lisa Banks, told NPR that Goodling's actions were devastating to Hagen's career. "She's a 20-year prosecutor with an unblemished record of excellent performance (and) departmental awards, and when Monica Goodling and this administration believed that she might be gay, all of a sudden her career was completely derailed," Banks says.

Goodling was not the only one responsible for politicized hiring. According to the report, Kyle Sampson took the lead on hiring immigration judges. He was the attorney general's chief of staff, and he treated immigration judges as political appointments instead of the career jobs that they are, taking recommendations from the White House and other Republican officials.

Crystal Williams, of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association, said the report's findings are not a surprise to those who've been watching the changing profile of the country's immigration courts.

"We've seen some people who perhaps were very helpful in the Florida elections in 2000 and who really have no other qualifications or knowledge of immigration who might be sitting in an immigration judge position now," Williams says.

In a press release, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he was disturbed by the report's findings.

"I have said many times, both to members of the public and to department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in hiring of career department employees," Mukasey said. He also noted that the Justice Department has made many institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in the report and will make more.

Today's report says Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft were not aware that Goodling, Sampson and others were breaking the law.

One senior Justice official who worked very closely with Goodling reacted to the report this way: "I didn't realize how widespread Monica's activity was, or how she got away with it. She was definitely on a mission. I had no clue."

Related NPR Stories

*Nov. 2, 2007
Ex-Official Who Fired U.S. Attorneys Speaks Out
*Nov. 10, 2007
Ex-U.S. Attorneys Continue To Scrutinize Gonzales
*April 15, 2008
Justice Inquiry Centers On Dismissal, Gay Rumors

Justice Department Hiring Practices Scrutinized
LINK

Morning Edition, June 24, 2008 · The Justice Department's Inspector General has released the first installment of a long-awaited report on allegations of misconduct at the department during the Bush administration.

This first section is about its prestigious hiring program. The Honors Program is the way lawyers get into the Justice department for career jobs.

July 29, 2008
Editorial, NY TIMES
There Was Smoke — and Fire

It was hardly news that President Bush’s Justice Department has been illegally politicized, but it was important that the Justice Department finally owned up to that sorry state of affairs. An internal investigation released on Monday found that the department’s top staff routinely took politics and ideology into account in filling nonpolitical positions — and lied about it.

The details of what the investigators found were appalling, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s response was disgracefully lukewarm. If he hopes to leave office with any sort of reputation for integrity, he needs to get serious about punishing this sort of wrongdoing.

The report, prepared by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector General, does not delve deep enough. There is much more work to be done. But even this dip into the murky waters of the Justice Department found that senior officials took into account applicants’ political views in hiring United States attorneys and other nonpolitical positions. This, the report said, “violated federal law and department policy, and also constituted misconduct.”

The department was so determined to hire only reliable, conservative Republicans for what are supposed to be apolitical jobs that Monica Goodling, then the White House liaison for the Justice Department, rejected an experienced career terrorism prosecutor to work on counterterrorism because of his wife’s politics. Instead, the department hired a junior attorney without counterterrorism experience who was considered unqualified by department officials.

Ms. Goodling “provided inaccurate information,” the report found, to a department attorney defending a lawsuit from a rejected applicant. Another official, still employed at the department, prepared a statement for a reporter — who was asking questions about politicized hiring — that “he knew to be inaccurate.”

Despite these incriminating findings, the report is disappointing for what it omits. Did these hiring practices have any impact on the handling of political cases — like those involving phony charges of election fraud — or its prosecution of individuals? What role did White House officials, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, play in the politicization?

And what about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose memory went so conveniently fuzzy under questioning by Congress? It strains credulity to believe that a functionary like Ms. Goodling could act so brazenly unless she knew that she was doing what her bosses wanted.

Mr. Mukasey’s response to the report focused on making sure that the improper and illegal activity “does not occur again.” He does not seem to understand that, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, he has a duty to investigate crimes committed in his own department and to punish the offenders. The report’s authors could not interview Ms. Goodling because she no longer works at the Justice Department. Mr. Mukasey, who has subpoena power, presumably could get her to talk — as well as Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers and all of the others who need to testify under oath before this matter can be put to rest.

The strength of American democracy depends on our ability to be shocked by abuses like these — and to punish them appropriately.

U.S. Attorney Firings: An Ethical Line for Lawmakers
by Peter Overby, NPR
LINK

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias testifies before a House panel investigating his firing and that of seven other U.S. attorneys. Iglesias says that he was politically pressured in a case by Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans from New Mexico.

NPR.org, March 6, 2007 · As Congress examines the Bush administration's ouster of eight U.S. attorneys, the hottest controversy comes from New Mexico. The former chief federal prosecutor there, David Iglesias, told a Senate panel Tuesday that Republican Pete Domenici, New Mexico's senior senator, called him at home 12 or 13 days before last November's election.

Political Pressure?

Iglesias said that Domenici brought up a high-profile corruption case and asked if more indictments were coming before November.

"I said I didn't think so," Iglesias told lawmakers investigating the firings. "To which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."

Iglesias says he also heard from Republican Rep. Heather Wilson, who was then fighting for re-election against New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. The race turned out to be one of the closest in the nation last year. Iglesias said Wilson called him earlier in October and asked about sealed indictments. He said he felt political pressure in both calls.

Just what was the case that so concerned Domenici and Wilson?

It's about a long-running kickback scheme involving two former New Mexico state treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil. They were indicted in 2005. Montoya quickly pleaded guilty to one count of extortion. Last September, Vigil was convicted on one count of attempted extortion, but was acquitted on some two dozen other charges.

Montoya and Vigil are Democrats. Republicans alleged that as attorney general, Madrid failed to dig out the corruption. Last fall, Wilson made it a campaign issue.

But the phone calls mean trouble for both Domenici and Wilson. The liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed complaints with the House and Senate ethics committees.

The two chambers write their own ethics rules, but both impose limits on how lawmakers can approach an executive-branch agency. Asking for status reports or urging prompt consideration of a matter is acceptable — but not, as the Senate Ethics Manual notes, when the agency is "engaged in an on-going enforcement, investigative, or other quasi-judicial proceeding."

When a Legal Line Is Crossed

The issues at stake in this case are not just ethical. The Senate manual also warns: "Courts also have set aside agency action when congressional intervention into an ongoing adjudication created the appearance of partiality." There are two major precedents.

In 1955, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee grilled the Federal Trade Commission on an antitrust case. A federal court ruled that the senators were so explicit in their questions that the hearing violated due process. The FTC had to drop the case.

And in 1979, then-Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) pressured the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate a company. A federal appeals court refused to quash an SEC subpoena in that case, but the court said it would have done so if the investigation had been prompted solely by political pressure.

Those legal standards mean that Wilson's and Domenici's phone calls could jeopardize any future indictments in the New Mexico case. Defense attorneys would argue that Domenici's and Wilson's phone calls violated due process.

Stanley Brand, a longtime practitioner of ethics law in Washington, says this is one reason that the Justice Department could end up naming a special prosecutor to examine all eight of the U.S. attorney firings — as Patrick Fitzgerald was named to investigate the Valerie Plame-Lewis Libby case.

Domenici just held a fundraiser for his 2008 re-election campaign. But now, at age 74, he could decide that the Iglesias controversy tips the balance against running again. Wilson, after squeaking through to re-election last fall, was seen by Republicans as Domenici's logical successor.

The biggest break for Domenici and Wilson may be that the Democrats don't have strong candidates ready to go.