Iglesiasgate: Domenici Makes An Admission

So I guess that, given the fact that David Iglesias is going to testify and name Sen. Pete Domenici as one of the two members of Congress who called him requesting that he speed up his investigation into Democratic corruption and get an indictment before Election Day, Domenici felt compelled to try and get ahead of the story. So he sent this out.

I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.

Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.

I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.

In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.

So Domenici essentially admits to everything Iglesias has alleged, but then severs the link between that action and the eventual firing of Iglesias by claiming he never threatened or pressured him. He claims that constituents pushed him to make the call, which seems dubious to me unless by constituents he means Rep. Heather Wilson, who sought that indictment to help her in a tight re-election campaign.

After admitting to the phone call, Domenici essentially takes the White House line that it was problems with not prosecuting immigration cases in a timely manner that led him to recommend a new US Attorney for New Mexico (meaning that he admits to requesting that Iglesias be fired):

During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.

My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.

My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.

This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.

He says that he recommended that Iglesias be fired "several months" before the phone call. Why didn't it happen, then, until after the election, at the same time as a series of 7 other firings of US Attorneys around the country? If the problem was with caseload, wouldn't that get worse as time went on? And the entire arguement is kind of incoherent. Domenici says he was concerned with a lack of resources. The US Attorney's office agreed with him. Then Domenici blames Iglesias for not moving more quickly on cases. I would assume that if you didn't have the resources, you COULDN'T move any more quickly. Domenici says that in 2004 and 2005 he asked the Justice Department to look into resource allocation, but doesn't say if it was carried out. It's not like the US Attorney's office can magically increase their budget and hire staff and make the caseload go away.

So, shorter Domenici: The US Attorney's office had too much work, and it's their fault for not getting the work done, not my fault for getting them the proper resources to get the work done.

This is an attempt to get out in front of the criticism that's sure to abound on Tuesday. But I'm not certain it'll work. It's a complex explanation for what appears to be a simple problem: David Iglesias wasn't acting in the manner that the White House and New Mexico Republicans desired, so they cut him loose.