53414818.

doc
Page 1 of 4

Feb 29, 2008, 01:00

Fired US attorney calls upon White

House to let Miers and Bolten to testify
By Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer

David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was one of nine federal
prosecutors fired two years ago for reasons that appear to be politically motivated,
said a recent House vote to hold former White House counsel Harriet Miers and
President Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, in contempt for refusing to testify before
Congress about the matter was encouraging. But he said questions related to his
dismissal remain unanswered.
In an interview following the historic vote, the first time in 25 years a full chamber of
Congress voted on contempt of Congress citation, Iglesias called upon the White
House to "do the right thing."
"Congress is exercising its legitimate oversight role in this unfinished matter," said
Iglesias, who has written a book on the ordeal, "In Justice: Inside the Scandal that
Rocked the Bush Administration," that is due to be published in June. "I implore the
White House to do the right thing and produce Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to the
Congress."
The White House said it has no intention of producing documents to the House
Judiciary Committee or allowing Bolten and Miers to testify on grounds that the
information is covered by executive privilege. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
testified before Congress two weeks ago that he has no plans to enforce the
contempt citations.
But Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said even if Mukasey refuses to act on the
contempt citations, Congress will pursue civil litigation to enforce the subpoenas and
Bolten and Miers' testimony.
"It's pretty clear to me that senior White House and U.S. Department of Justice
officials deliberately fired U.S. attorneys who they felt were not acting in ways that
were politically advantageous to the Bush administration and the Republican Party,"
Hinchey said. "Those subpoenas have been ignored for far too long, which is why . . .
we finally passed resolutions of contempt against them to begin the legal process of
forcing them to comply or, if they continue to refuse, imposing tough consequences."
John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, agreed,
and said he would vigorously pursue legal action to enforce the subpoenas to
"vindicate Congress' authority."
“The Privilege Resolution introduced [February 13] follows the suggestion first made
by former Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner last year and
authorizes the House general counsel to file a civil suit to enforce the subpoenas,"
Conyers said. "That way, if the administration refuses to enforce the contempt
finding, we can take action in the courts. . . . Although Mr. Sensenbrenner suggested
53414818.doc
Page 2 of 4

a civil lawsuit as an alternative to contempt, the courts have made clear that
statutory contempt must be tried first. In a lawsuit in the 1980s, when the Justice
Department tried to get a civil court ruling after the House had found a former EPA
administrator in contempt, the court ruled that it should 'defer to established
statutory procedures' on contempt and that a civil lawsuit could be pursued only
after statutory contempt remedies are exhausted. Here, a civil suit would be filed
only after the administration refuses to allow statutory contempt to go forward."
Iglesias said the legal wrangling clearly indicates that the executive branch and
Congress are headed for a showdown, but he added that documents in the case
released thus far goes far beyond the realm of circumstantial evidence and shows
culpability--and perhaps criminal behavior--on the part of several high-level former
Justice Department and White House officials who were involved in his firing and
sought to cover-up their involvement. Iglesias points to a transcript of an interview
with career Justice Department official David Margolis conducted by congressional
investigators in May 2007 in which Margolis said that he participated in a
"brainstorming" session with other senior DOJ officials to come up with a reason to
sell to the public and to lawmakers in the event that questions were raised about why
Iglesias was ousted.
John McKay, the former US attorney for the Western District of Washington who was
also fired in late 2006 for reasons that appear to have been motivated by partisan
politics, wrote in a lengthy article in the January edition of the Seattle University Law
Review that Iglesias's firing stands out among the other eight federal prosecutors
because it demonstrates "the very real prospect of improper interference with an
ongoing criminal investigation involving public corruption and the seeking of political
advantage."
"Violations of the obstruction of justice statute may have occurred and should be
investigated," McKay wrote. "Even as the role of the White House remains shrouded
in its claims of executive privilege, 23 certain White House employees appear to have
been heavily involved in the dismissal of U.S. Attorney Iglesias. In several e-mails it
appears that these officials were reacting directly to the complaints of Senator Pete
Domenici (R-NM) and the ongoing investigation into public corruption in New Mexico.
For example, Deputy White House Counsel Bill Kelley smugly e-mailed Gonzales’
Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson to report that Domenici’s office was 'happy as a clam' on
learning of Iglesias’s ouster. Senior Counselor to the President Karl Rove bragged
about Iglesias’s dismissal by proclaiming 'he’s gone' to the New Mexico Republican
Party Chairman, who had previously complained to Rove about Iglesias."
McKay wrote that multiple investigations at the DOJ, which are said to be in the final
stages, could result in "criminal charges" against former Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and other former DOJ officials involved in the dismissals "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 wrote in the 32-page law review 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 a few weeks before the
2006 midterm elections he received telephone calls from Domenici, and the state's
Republican congresswoman, Heather Wilson, inquiring about the timing of an
indictment against a popular Democratic official in the state who was the target of a
53414818.doc
Page 3 of 4

corruption investigation. Iglesias told Domenici and Wilson he could not discuss
indictments with them. Iglesias was added to a list of US attorneys to be fired on
Election Day in November 2006. The official or officials responsible for drafting the
list is still unknown.
Domenici is currently the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe for allegedly
trying to pressure Iglesias into securing indictments prior to the November 2006
midterm election.
Last April, Iglesias filed a Hatch Act complaint with the White House Office of Special
Counsel, alleging former White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Bush
administration officials may have broken the law by orchestrating his firing. That
investigation is still ongoing, but the obscure shop has hit some roadblocks. Special
Counsel Scott Bloch, a Bush appointee, said he has been unable to obtain certain
documents from the Justice Department (DOJ) to advance his probe into the firings.
The OSC sent a request to the DOJ late last year seeking a wide range of documents
including email correspondence between DOJ and White House officials who had
discussed which US attorneys should be selected for dismissal. The OSC set a
deadline for turning over the documents. However, the deadline has since passed
and the DOJ has not formally responded to the OSC's request, nor has the agency
stated a reason it would not turn over documents. The OSC appears to have been
particularly interested in obtaining documents from the DOJ surrounding the
circumstances that led to Iglesias's firing, according to people knowledgeable about
the probe.
The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Justice Department's
inspector general have been investigating the issue, with particular attention being
paid to Iglesias's dismissal. Recently, the OPR contacted Iglesias's former executive
assistant, Rumaldo Armijo, to interview him about whether he was pressured by Pat
Rogers, a Republican attorney in Albuquerque, and Mickey Barnett, a Republican
lobbyist, to bring charges of voter fraud against Democrats in the state, Iglesias
confirmed when asked about the matter during an interview.
Rogers was affiliated with the American Center for Voting Rights, a now defunct non-
profit organization that sought to defend voter rights and increase public confidence
in the fairness and outcome of elections. However, it has since emerged that the
organization played a major role in suppressing the votes of people who intended to
cast ballots for Democrats in various states. Rogers is also the former chief counsel
to the New Mexico Republican Party, and was tapped by Domenici to replace Iglesias
as US Attorney for New Mexico.
Rogers did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Armijo was also unavailable for comment. During his tenure in the US attorney's
office he was in charge of issues related to voter fraud in New Mexico. Iglesias said in
an interview that he launched an in-depth investigation into claims of voter fraud in
New Mexico and found the allegations to be “non-provable in court.” He said he is
certain that his firing was due, in part, to the fact that he would not file criminal
charges of voter fraud in New Mexico. Iglesias added that, based on evidence that
had surfaced thus far and "Karl Rove's obsession with voter fraud issues throughout
the country," he now believes GOP operatives had wanted him to go after
Democratic-funded organizations in an attempt to swing the 2006 midterm elections
to Republicans.
Armijo spoke to the Senate Ethics Committee last year about numerous telephone
calls and emails dating back to 2005 he received from Rogers related to voter fraud,
and Iglesias's alleged failure to investigate the matter while Iglesias was US attorney,
Iglesias confirmed.
53414818.doc
Page 4 of 4

Last May, House Democrats released a transcript of an interview congressional

investigators had with one of Gonzales's senior Justice Department staffers, Matthew
Friedrich, in which Friedrich recounted that over breakfast in November 2006, Rogers
and Barnett told him they were frustrated about Iglesias's refusal to pursue cases of
voter fraud and that they had spoken to Karl Rove and Domenici about having
Iglesias fired.
"I remember them repeating basically what they had said before in terms of
unhappiness with Dave Iglesias and the fact that this case hadn't gone anyplace,"
Friedrich said, according to a copy of the interview transcript. "It was clear to me that
they did not want him to be the US attorney. And they mentioned that they had
essentially . . . they were sort of working towards that."
According to media reports, Rogers said he does not recall speaking to Rove about
Iglesias.
Additionally, Barnett and Rogers met with Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's
White House liaison, in June 2006 to complain that Iglesias was ignoring voter fraud.
Goodling's meeting with Rogers and Barnett took place at the urging of a colleague.
Rogers also drafted a lengthy letter that he sent to Domenici detailing what he
claimed were Iglesias's prosecutorial failures, Iglesias said he had been told.
Allen Weh, the New Mexico Republican Party chairman, told McClatchy Newspapers in
March that he urged Rove to use his influence to have Iglesias fired because Weh
was unhappy with Iglesias's alleged refusal to bring criminal charges against
Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.
Weh told McClatchy Newspapers that he followed up with Rove personally in late
2006 during a visit to the White House.
"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White
House holiday event that month, according to McClatchy's report.
"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.
"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.
This chain of events troubles McKay who wrote in his law review article that former
Attorney General Gonzales ultimately approved Iglesias's termination with the full
knowledge that it was based on partisan politics.
Gonzales admitted "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," McKay wrote.
”Gonzales has even admitted that one of the reasons that Iglesias was fired was
because Senator Domenici had "lost confidence" in Iglesias. “While these allegations
are troubling under any analysis, a thorough and independent investigation is
necessary to determine whether criminal laws have been violated,” McKay added.
“Among the considerations facing the inspector general is whether the actions of
former Attorney General Gonzales constituted obstruction of justice by removing
Iglesias.”