Did you know that a reason given for former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias’ firing was that he was considered an “absentee landlord” in the parlance of the Bush administration’s Department of Justice? But a new Department of Justice report released this month shows that DOJ executives either didn’t know where the allegation came from or they pin it on someone who later refutes it.

 

The new report dedicates about 50 pages to the firing of Iglesias. Many of the facts are known, but it makes for some compelling reading. A few facts may be worth repeating too. 

 

Like the fact that U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici called former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales three times to complain about Iglesias and once placed a call to one of Gonzales’ top deputies, Paul McNulty. Yet those complaints were never given as a reason for Iglesias’ name winding up on a removal list in the fall of 2006.

 

When testifying before Congress, McNulty said that Iglesias was “under-performing”; was an “absentee landlord,” who was out of the office a fair amount of time and who relied on the First Assistant U.S. Attorney to run the office; and The Department had received congressional complaints about Iglesias.

 

Later McNulty confirmed to investigators that he did not mention Senator Domenici in this congressional briefing.

 

McNulty said that he did not want to refer to Domenici because he was “concerned about . . . putting the Senator in a bad light or in a difficult position” and that he wanted to keep his conversation with Domenici “confidential . . . . It was just a courtesy.” In her written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, (DOJ’s White House liaison Monica) Goodling, the Department’s White House Liaison, also stated that Domenici’s complaints about Iglesias were omitted from the list of reasons for Iglesias’s removal at McNulty’s suggestion.

 

On the absentee landlord matter, McNulty and another DOJ executive testified that:

 

they did not know the basis for the allegations that Iglesias was an absentee landlord or that he overly delegated authority.

 

A DOJ executive told Goodling after hearing the allegation that Iglesias was an absentee landlord that it had been “corroborated” by New Mexico First Assistant U.S. Attorney Gomez when
he interviewed with Margolis and Goodling for Iglesias’s vacant U.S. Attorney
position,” but after Iglesias had been removed.

 

But Gomez told congressional investigators “that he did not think that Iglesias over-delegated authority or was an absentee landlord.”

 

The investigators concluded “that the allegation that Iglesias was an absentee manager who had delegated too much authority to his First Assistant was an after-the-fact justification for Iglesias’s termination and was not in fact a reason he was placed on the removal list.”

 

The investigators, who said their inquiry was not complete did include this caveat:

It is important to note that our investigation into Iglesias’s removal was hampered, and is not complete, because key witnesses declined to cooperate with our investigation. In particular, former White House officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, both of whom appear to have significant first-hand knowledge regarding Iglesias’s dismissal, refused our requests for an interview even though the White House Counsel’s Office informed them both, as it did all current and former White House staff who we wanted to interview, that the Counsel’s Office encouraged them to cooperate with our investigation and submit to an interview.

In addition, Senator Domenici and his Chief of Staff, Steve Bell, also declined to be interviewed by us. Domenici initially told us through his counsel that he would be “pleased to assist” our investigation once a pending Senate Ethics Committee investigation of his phone call to Iglesias was completed. We renewed our requests for interviews after the Senate ethics inquiry was concluded. Bell continued to decline to be interviewed. Domenici also declined to be interviewed, but said he would provide written answers to questions through his attorney. We declined this offer because we did not believe it would be a reliable or appropriate investigative method under these circumstances. In contrast, Representative Wilson cooperated with our investigation and was interviewed by us three separate times.

 

 And there’s more.