An interesting interview with Iglesias by Democracynow.

An excerpt from Democracynow.org:

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is the former US attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias. We are talking about his new book In Justice: Inside the Scandal that Rocked the Bush Administration. Go back to that day when Senator Domenici called you.

DAVID IGLESIAS: Yes. I had never received any call from any member of Congress at home while I was a sitting US attorney, so it completely set me back on my heels. Fortunately, my wife was standing just about five feet away, so she was able to hear my side of the conversation. She was later interviewed by some investigations that are currently ongoing. That’s one thing I want to make clear, Amy. There are still five pending investigations into this matter. It’s not over. It’s not resolved.

But I was at home, and I get a call out of the blue from Steve Bell, who is Domenici’s chief of staff. He indicated to me there were complaints about me, and then he passed the phone over to Senator Pete Domenici, who just got right down to brass tacks. No “How are you doing? How’s the family?” Nothing like that. It was—I mean, what he said was “I’ve been hearing about these corruption cases or corruption matters, and I want to know, are these going to get filed before November?” And I said I didn’t think so, which is about as much as I could say without getting into trouble myself. And then he said, “I’m very sorry to hear that,” and then he hung up on me. The line went dead.

And then I looked at my wife, and it was one of those moments where you’ll never forget, knowing something really bad just happened. But we weren’t sure what the repercussions were.

So, those are the two phone calls, and which I believe led to removal my removal, that I didn’t rush indictments against a prominent Democrat, and I didn’t file any bogus voter fraud cases. You have to understand, the Justice Department had sent out emails to every US attorney, both in ’02 and ’04, asking us to work with election officials and enforce election law. I thought that was the MO for the Justice Department long-term, later found out that was a Bush administration thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was one of Gonzales’s harshest congressional critics. In his opening remarks that day, Leahy suggested Gonzales had engaged in misconduct.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: One thing abundantly clear is if the phrase “performance-related” is to retain any meaning, that rationale should be withdrawn as the justification for the firing of David Iglesias, John McKay, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Carol Lam, and perhaps others. Indeed, the apparent reason for these terminations has a lot more to do with politics than performance. In his written testimony for this hearing, in his newspaper columns, the Attorney General makes the conclusory statement that nothing improper occurred. The truth is that these firings haven’t been explained, and there is mounting evidence of improper considerations and actions resulting in the dismissals.

AMY GOODMAN: David Iglesias, your response to what Gonzales had to say?

DAVID IGLESIAS: Well, and that’s precisely why Gonzales has retained criminal counsel, is he realizes he’s at jeopardy for being possibly investigated on obstruction of justice, perjury charges. And John McKay in a law review piece in the Seattle Law Review Journal just argued that precise point, that what Gonzales did could amount to obstruction of justice. I agree with what Leahy said. The department still has not explained our firings. Nobody knows who put our names on the list.

And to put this into context, Amy, no president, no administration has ever fired nine of their own US attorneys for any reason. I mean, this is unprecedented. A lot of people point to what President Clinton did, but he was firing President H.W. Bush’s US attorneys, which is completely appropriate. Reagan fired his predecessors. Nothing wrong with that. But no sitting US president has ever fired that many US attorneys at the same time and offered up flimsy reasons like were proffered for us.

AMY GOODMAN: And Karl Rove vowing to fight a congressional subpoena to testify on the politicization of the Justice Department, now demanding that he not have to testify under oath or that there be any transcript of his testimony?

DAVID IGLESIAS: Which is a completely unacceptable offer. I mean, any prosecutor worth his or her salt is going to say that that testimony is worthless. If it’s not under oath, not subject to the penalties of perjury, if it’s not transcribed and if it’s not public, it’s a worthless statement. I mean, I know Congress will never accept that. I believe Rove will not show up. This will—he’ll be added to the current litigation between the House of Representatives and Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, who similarly thumb their nose at the rule of law, didn’t even show up to claim privilege.

I mean, anybody out there who’s been in the courts realizes when you get a subpoena, you can’t just ignore it. You have to show up. You have to state why you’re privileged, what information you can’t talk about for whatever reason, documents—you have to create a privilege log and specify what they are and what privilege you’re claiming. One thing you can’t do is ignore a subpoena, which is exactly what they’re doing.