U.S. attorney scandal heats up again

Report details why Iglesias was fired; AG appoints prosecutor to consider criminal charges

The 392-page report released Monday about the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys — including New Mexico’s David Iglesias — contains a number of interesting tidbits but not new revelations that significantly change what we already knew: that the reasons Bush administration staffers gave Congress last year for firing Iglesias were hogwash.

Perhaps more significant than the report, however, was the news that Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed a federal prosecutor to determine whether the situation should lead to criminal charges against former AG Alberto Gonzales and others.

You can read the full report by clicking here. The section about Iglesias’ firing starts on page 149. Read about some of the details revealed in the report from the New Mexico Independent and Albuquerque Journal.

The overall tone of the section about Iglesias is summed up in these paragraphs from the report:

“… we believe the evidence we uncovered showed that Iglesias was removed because of complaints to the Department of Justice and the White House by New Mexico Republican members of Congress (Sen. Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson) and party activists about Iglesias’s handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases. We concluded that the other reasons proffered by the Department after his removal were after-the-fact rationalizations that did not actually contribute to Iglesias’s removal.

“Moreover, we determined that the Department never objectively assessed the complaints raised by New Mexico politicians and activists about Iglesias’s actions on the voter fraud or public corruption cases, or even asked Iglesias about them. Rather, based upon these complaints alone and the resulting ‘loss of confidence’ in Iglesias, the Department placed Iglesias on the removal list and told him to resign along with the other U.S. Attorneys.

“As we discuss below, by these actions we believe Department leaders abdicated their responsibility to ensure that prosecutorial decisions would be based on the law, the evidence, and Department policy, not political pressure.”

Also noteworthy is this section in the report:

“… we believe it is also important to point out that Iglesias was not completely blameless in this matter. … We believe that Iglesias committed misconduct both in answering Domenici’s question and in failing to report the contacts from Wilson and Domenici pursuant to Department policy. However, while we believe Iglesias committed misconduct, this does not excuse or mitigate in any way the Department’s actions in this matter.”

A little context: Domenici and Wilson both called Iglesias in October 2006 to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation weeks before the November 2006 election. Iglesias alleges Domenici and Wilson pressured him to speed indictments to sway voters, a charge both deny. Weeks after the election, Iglesias was fired.

The report notes a huge stumbling block investigators encountered in the course of their investigation: Many refused to submit to interviews. That included Domenici, his chief of staff and several White House and Department of Justice officials. In addition, the White House refused to provide investigators with internal documents related to the firings. That’s one of the reasons the report recommends a criminal investigation, which would have greater access to information.

Iglesias, Wilson and Domenici comment

Iglesias told The Associated Press that criminal charges should be pursued against Domenici — who investigators said in the report was instrumental in Iglesias’ firing — and anyone else who may have broken the law.

“I’ve said all along that these moves were improper and illegal, and now it appears that they were criminal as well,” the news service quoted Iglesias as saying. “Our complaints weren’t just complaints of disgruntled former employees.”

You can also listen to Iglesias’ interviews with 770 KKOB-AM radio by clicking here.

Wilson, in a news release, said the report “confirms that the Justice Department never investigated complaints about Mr. Iglesias’ job performance and badly mishandled his termination.” The release noted that Wilson cooperated with investigators by providing a written statement and answering follow-up questions. She said some statements in the report are incorrect or incomplete, and released several documents, including a Sept. 26, 2007 letter to investigators, to set the record straight.

Though the report states that Wilson spoke with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers about Iglesias’ job performance, Wilson said the “third-hand references” in the report that lead to that conclusion are false, and she never had such a conversation.

“As I have consistently said, my call in the fall of 2006 to Mr. Iglesias was not about any particular case or person, nor was it motivated by politics or partisanship,” she said. “I did not ask about the timing of any indictments and I did not tell Mr. Iglesias what course of action I thought he should take or pressure him in any way.”

Domenici’s attorney, K. Lee Blalack, released a statement in which he said the report is “replete with innuendos that pass as findings.” Though Domenici was unwilling to submit to an interview, he was willing to submit written responses to investigators’ questions, Blalack said.

“The Senate Ethics Committee has already investigated and rejected the allegation that Senator Domenici may have obstructed or otherwise interfered with an ongoing criminal investigation,” Blalack said.

That isn’t quite accurate. The Ethics Committee’s letter states that the committee found no “substantial evidence” that Domenici “attempted to improperly influence an ongoing investigation,” but it doesn’t conclude that he didn’t do it (or that he did do it). The Ethics Committee also scolded the senator, saying he should have known that his call to Iglesias would create “an appearance of impropriety that reflected unfavorably on the Senate.”

Darren White’s involvement

The report also names Republican 1st Congressional District candidate Darren White, mostly because of his involvement, as Bernalillo County sheriff, in a GOP push to get Iglesias to investigate voter fraud in 2004. White’s opponent, Democrat Martin Heinrich, seized on the opportunity to attack, accusing White in a news release of “using the sheriff’s office to try to inappropriately influence a federal investigation.”

“Darren White is knee-deep in one of the largest scandals in the history of the DOJ, and he needs to come clean immediately to the voters of central New Mexico about his role in the potentially illegal firing of U.S. Attorneys,” Heinrich said. “Central New Mexican voters deserve to know the truth before Darren White testifies under penalty of perjury for the newly appointed special prosecutor.”

In response, White provided a 2004 letter he sent to Iglesias in which he passed on information about complaints he had received as sheriff that he said were more appropriately investigated by federal authorities. He also provided a 2004 response from Iglesias acknowledging his receipt of his letter.

“If Martin Heinrich is criticizing Darren for passing along information about potential criminal activity to the U.S. attorney, Martin should be asked what he would have done in that situation,” White spokesman Stephen Schatz said. “Darren was simply doing his job as sheriff.”