Domenici, others cleared in probe of Iglesias’ firing

Former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici and others won’t face criminal charges related to the 2006 firing of then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

The department sent a letter to members of Congress who sought the probe stating that special prosecutor Nora Dannehy concluded that “evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias.”

“There was insufficient evidence that former Senator Pete V. Domenici, other New Mexico Republicans, persons in the White House, or anyone at DOJ attempted to prospectively influence Iglesias’s actions,” the letter states. “The weight of the evidence established not an attempt to influence but rather an attempt to remove David Iglesias from office, in other words, to eliminate the possibility of any future action or inaction by him.”

The letter, which concluded a two-year investigation, also stated that Domenici’s efforts to have Iglesias fired were “in part politically motivated.”

Domenici, R-N.M., and others have claimed all along that they sought Iglesias’ removal from the position because he wasn’t doing a good job. Another New Mexico Republican involved was then-state GOP Chairman Allen Weh, who asked then-President Bush Senior Adviser Karl Rove to have Iglesias fired in late 2005.

Domenici is relieved

Domenici was quoted by the Albuquerque Journal as saying he is relieved that the investigation is over.

“The Justice Department has now confirmed what I have always said and believed – I never attempted to interfere with any government investigation,” the newspaper quoted Domenici as saying. “I am glad that this matter has concluded.”

Former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, who was also embroiled in the scandal, said in a statement to NMPolitics.net that the probe “confirms what I have said before: the Justice Department badly mishandled Mr. Iglesias’ termination.”

“Senator Domenici apologized a long time ago for any misunderstanding of his motives and I’m glad he is now able to put this matter behind him,” Wilson said.

Iglesias’ claim in February 2007 that his firing was a political “fragging” helped spark a national scandal into the firings of several U.S. attorneys that included congressional hearings, an internal Justice Department review and Dannehy’s criminal investigation.

Dannehy’s probe didn’t look into whether any crimes were committed in the firings of the other U.S. attorneys. The letter states that the evidence “did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias.”

Investigators also looked into whether anyone lied during testimony before Congress or to investigators after the U.S. attorney scandal erupted in early 2007. According to the letter, there was “insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly made material false statements.”

Iglesias is ‘glad the matter is over’

Domenici and Wilson separately called Iglesias in October 2006. Iglesias claims they called to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation involving a high-ranking Democrat, though Wilson says she didn’t call to discuss any specific case or person and did not discuss a case involving that high-ranking Democrat, Manny Aragon, with Iglesias. At the time, Wilson was in a tough re-election battle that she ended up winning by fewer than 1,000 votes out of about 211,000 cast.

Iglesias has alleged that Domenici and Wilson pressured him to speed indictments against Aragon, a former state Senate president, and others involved in the case in an attempt to sway voters, a charge both deny. Days after the election, Iglesias was fired.

Iglesias, who is now prosecuting cases at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for the military, told NMPolitics.net he is “glad the matter is over.”

“I’m grateful for the nearly two years it took for federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy to investigate the matter,” Iglesias said. “I trust future administrations and political leaders never again attempt to improperly politicize U.S. attorneys.”

Situation threatened Domenici’s legacy

Last year, a grand jury subpoenaed records from Domenici as part of its investigation, and some said charges against him were possible. Wednesday’s letter makes clear that investigators took a very close look at Domenici’s actions before clearing him of any criminal wrongdoing.

The situation threatened to tarnish the legacy of Domenici, New Mexico’s longest-serving senator who retired in 2008. He had little to say about the probe while it was ongoing. In September, his only comment was to complain that such investigations take too long.

While the probe led by Dannehy found no prosecutable offenses, that doesn’t mean the motives of Domenici and others who sought Iglesias’ removal were pure. From the letter:

“Although Senator Domenici’s motive for seeking Iglesias’s removal were in part politically motivated, a public official does not violate the law by seeking the removal of a United States Attorney for his failure either to pursue a particular case the official believes is legitimate or to pursue certain types of cases the official believes should be brought, even if the public official’s motives are partisan and inconsistent with the values of DOJ.”

The letter goes on to state that the Justice Department “never determined whether the complaints about Mr. Iglesias were legitimate,” which “bespeaks undue sensitivity to politics on the part of DOJ officials who should answer not to partisan politics but to principles of fairness and justice.”

Committee issued ‘qualified admonition’ to Domenici in 2008

Legislative ethics committees also looked into the actions of Domenici and Wilson. In 2008, the Senate Ethics Committee stated in a “public letter of qualified admonition” that it found no evidence that Domenici attempted to improperly influence the investigation involving Aragon.

But the committee did find, according to the letter, that Domenici “should have known that a federal prosecutor receiving such a telephone call, coupled with an approaching election which may have turned on or been influenced by the prosecutor’s actions in the corruption matter, created an appearance of impropriety that reflected unfavorably on the Senate.”

Iglesias talked with staffers for the House ethics committee in July 2007 about Wilson. After considering the matter, the committee took no action.

A prior version of this posting failed to state that Wilson disputes Iglesias’ claim that she called to talk about the case involving Aragon. It also stated that the House ethics committee investigated Wilson, when in fact it decided against a formal investigation after informally reviewing the matter. My apologies to Wilson.