Looking Back on the Justice Department Scandal

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.

David Iglesias was a rising star in the Republican Party when, just before Christmas in 2006, he received an unexpected phone call from a superior at the Justice Department telling him to resign as U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico. He was given no reason, but ultimately learned that his firing was part of a larger effort by political appointees at the top of the department to dismiss U.S. attorneys who appeared to have raised the ire of Republican leadership. Iglesias's dismissal, along with that of seven other U.S. attorneys, set off one of the biggest scandals at the Justice Department in decades, ultimately leading to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The firings and subsequent fallout exposed how the Justice Department had become heavily politicized in its appointment of immigration judges and new attorneys and in its choice of civil rights cases. Still, many of the key players have never testified publicly, and the House of Representatives recently filed a lawsuit seeking to compel testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. In a new book, In Justice: Inside the Scandal that Rocked the Bush Administration, Iglesias details how he came to realize that his dismissal was part of a broader politicization of the Justice Department.

How do you think the scandal impacted the Justice Department in both the short and long term?
It had a catastrophic effect on morale both within main Justice and also in the 93 U.S. attorneys offices across the country. I've actually had conversations with currently serving U.S. attorneys and some people at main Justice as recently as a week ago and they said it was a really hard time for DOJ because [it] had been the untouchable department in terms of politicization. Something like this had never happened previously, at least to this level, to this extent. The good news is that with [Attorney General Michael] Mukasey, what I'm hearing is that things have calmed down. Things aren't back to normal yet, but at least there is not the sense that we have an incompetent leader or a leader who may have perjured himself, which is what the sense was when Gonzales was there.

Some people say that the scandal did not reach down to most career prosecutors. Do you think some of the politicization was overblown?
I think it kind of had a reverse effect. There was a sense at first that maybe it was going to make it less likely for U.S. attorneys to take more controversial cases, public corruption cases. It's had the opposite effect. You've got U.S. attorneys that are really independent in a way they haven't been in years.

Any examples?
They've been emboldened. I'll give you a very minor example. There was an edict from the executive office of U.S. attorneys that U.S. attorneys were not allowed to use the DOJ seal of the Justice Department for any kind of gift. I used to give away coins with the DOJ seal to any assistant U.S. attorney that won a case. Nothing wrong with it. Well, [the executive office] said you have to stop doing this. This is since I left. U.S. attorneys pushed back, saying this is ridiculous, we've been doing this for decades. And EOUSA backed down. Under Gonzales's reign they would have enforced it.

Did you realize how politicized certain aspects of the department—civil rights, immigration judges—had gotten before you were fired? Were there obvious signs?
The only hint that I had that there were other problems were the allegations about the immigration law judges [that the posts were given away as political prizes to loyal Republicans with little knowledge of immigration]. So for the most part I wasn't aware, and I don't remember my colleagues saying, "Hey, there are some real problems at main Justice." We were the symptoms of a much bigger problem. When it went so high [visibility] and Congress started exercising its oversight role...they realized we have an enormous problem here, that it was a lot bigger than just eight U.S. attorneys who were forced out.

As a loyal Republican, you seemed an odd choice for the firing list. In your book, you mention some possibilities: concern over voter fraud cases and the corruption investigation into a leading New Mexico Democrat. Why do you think you ultimately landed on the list?

I think there had been a simmering discontent by the state Republican Party in New Mexico that I didn't find any prosecutable voter fraud cases. I think they were willing to give me a reprieve, thinking I was going to quickly investigate and prosecute Manny Aragon, who was a very prominent local Democrat [and former state Senate president] in New Mexico. There has been an aura of corruption around him for decades, but he has never been charged with anything [until 2007]. The Republicans thought this is our chance to take this guy out. Well, white-collar investigations take a long time. We wanted to get ready, do it right, and then I get the call from [Republican Rep.] Heather Wilson and then from [Republican Sen.] Pete Dominici [both of New Mexico]. They're both talking about this case. And when they didn't hear the answer that they wanted to hear, which was, "Yeah, I'll hurry this up so that Heather Wilson can use this for her campaign," they figured this guy is out because he's politically tone deaf. And I think that was the trigger.

Do you think we'll ever get a full accounting of exactly what happened?
It depends on if the House's lawsuit is successful in forcing production of those missing E-mails and memorandums. I think there are some smoking gun E-mails that haven't been produced.

Do you know they exist or do you think they must exist?
I think they must exist. Things don't happen in a vacuum, especially relating to the Justice Department. Everything is papered. There is always a memorandum or document that explains it. That's how lawyers are.... Right now they are claiming this incredibly expansive view of executive privilege, which I believe, as do 24 other former U.S. attorneys who joined in the lawsuit with us, that executive privilege exists, but not to that extent.

In retrospect, is there anything you would have done differently as U.S. attorney?
In terms of the voter fraud, no. I was really looking to prosecute a good voter fraud case. I thought it existed. We looked hard. But you can't make up evidence. Nor can you ethically file a case that you don't think you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So I wouldn't change that.

The Manny Aragon thing? Absolutely not. I mean that case was not ready in the fall of 2006 when I got those phone calls. In fact, had I rushed it, it would have been transparent to his defense team and they would have filed motions to remove me, to sanction me. I could have ended up getting disbarred like the Duke lacrosse prosecutor. Bad things happen to prosecutors when they start acting unethically, and there was no way I was going to go down that street.

What do you think the most important lessons are for the Justice Department from the scandal?
That everybody is subject to the law, including prosecutors.... Also that you can't mix politics and prosecutions any more than you can mix oil and vinegar. They are two completely separate entities and when you try to [mix them] bad things happen then too. I hope Congress or DOJ comes up with a law that forbids members of Congress from contacting U.S. attorneys about pending investigations, except going through main Justice. Require the members not to do any backdoor channels like they tried to do with me and [former Washington State U.S. Attorney John] McKay and [former Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul] Charlton. Require that contact to be through one central clearinghouse so main Justice knows what's going on so there is no illicit pressure put on prosecutors to take any kind of action.

You said that you felt you had to let the people in charge of the Aragon case know about the calls. Do you think that created additional pressure on them?
I've maintained since Day One that I should have reported those calls right away to main Justice. I didn't. I should have. I offer no excuse for it.

Why didn't you?
Well, I felt very conflicted because I knew Heather Wilson. She was a friend of mine. Pete Dominici I view as a mentor. Quite frankly, I wanted to run for office after my term as U.S. attorney and I knew that if I reported them there would be no chance I would get any support. And [Wilson and Dominici] knew that. They knew they had political leverage on me. So they were hoping that I wouldn't say anything. And they were initially right. But long term, I kept saying to myself, "This is wrong. I have to speak up. If they are going to do it to me, they are going to do it to other U.S. attorneys." And not knowing that they had in fact tried to do it to McKay and Charlton. I didn't know about those calls until they testified about them.

I also think to further insulate U.S. attorneys from political pressure, give them a six-year term and subject to removal only upon misconduct.

What other changes do you think Justice should consider?
I think what Mukasey did makes a lot of sense—that is, limit the contacts between the White House and main Justice. And I think it ought to be permanent, regardless of who is going to be taking over DOJ next year.

So do you think you might run for office again or are you done with politics?
I doubt it. I have a very sour taste in my mouth for politics.