Domenici: October 2006 telephone call
Publications naming Pete V. Domenici
Official document text is available via an indexed copy. The original PDF is unavailable in this collection.
The committee issued a qualified admonition and stated that the matter was closed.
Original documents
Read indexed document text
The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.
BAR8AHA BOXER, CAUFOflNIA, CHAIRMAN JOW COBHYN, T^?(AS,V)CE CHAmMAN MASK FBYOR, ARKANSAS KEN SAtAZAR, COLORADO PAT ROBERTS, KAKSAS JOHNNY 1SAKSON, GEORGIA TELEPHONE: (202) 224-2981 FACSlMitE: (202> 224-7416 TDD: (202) 228-3752 ROBERT L WALKER, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR ANMETTE GILLIS, DEPUrC STAFF DIRECTOR ^nteti States; ^>snate SELECT COMMiTTEE ON ETHICS HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220 SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425 April 24, 2008 The Honorable Pete V. Dome.nici .United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Public Letter of Qualified Admonition Dear Senator Domemci: la response to a complaint of improper conduct reflecting upon the United States Senate, the Select Conunittee on Etihics of the United States Senate issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition to you pursuant to Section 2(d)(3) of Senate Resolution 33 8, 88 Congress, 2Ild Session (1964), as amended by Senate Resolution 222,106th Cong., 1st Session (1999) and its Supplementary Procedural Rules, Rule 3(g)(2). The Committee's action in this matter addresses your conduct ia calling David C. Iglesias, then the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, in October 2006 to inquire about the tuning ofmdictments in a pending NewMexico.federal grand jnry ; investigation into allegations of public cormption relatmg to the construction of the Bemalillo County courthouse. The Committee finds no substantial evidence to determine that you attempted to improperly influence an ongoing investigation. The Conmiittee does find that you should have ktiown that a federal prosecutor receiving such a telephone call, coupled with an approachmg election which may have turned on or been influenced by the prosecutors actions in the comiption matter, created an appearance of impropriety that reflected unfavorably on the Senate. In making this detennmation, the Committee relied on general guidance under Rule 43 to avoid conununicatioris with a federal agency on a matter in which it is "engaged ia an on-going enforcement, investigative or other quasi-judicial proceeding" (Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 ecL, page 179). The Committee also considered the well-known duty of prosecutors to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice and fhe publicity at the time of your call about thehandling of public corruption matters as an issue m the close election contest in the First Congressional District of New Mexico. On March 7, 2007, the Committee began its review offhis matter. Jn the course of the preliminary mquiry the Committee deposed, obtained sworn affidavits Scorn or interviewed numerous witoesses, iacludmg you, Mr. Iglesias, members of your Senate staff, current and former executive brancli officials and attorneys, and otiier private mdividuals. The Committee reviewed extensive documents and records, obtained through subpoena, by voluntary production, or available in the public record. The Comauttee also considered several submissions made by you through, or made on your behalf by, your counsel. In its inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding your October 2006 telephone call to Mr. Iglesias, the Committee considered a number of questions, concerns and factual issues which we do not discuss in fbis letter because, as previously stated, fhe evidentiary record did not provide sufficient support for any detemiiaation by the Committee beyond that expressed above. We do emphasize, however, that the Committee confined its inquiry to your October 2006 call to Mr. Iglesias, its context and consequences and related actions by you or your office. It was never a purpose of the Committee in this matter to inquire more broadly into actions that may have been taken by others with regard to other United States Attorneys in the fall of 2006. The Committee specifically notes and took into consideration your March 2007 public statement wherein you stated that: I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, mcluding public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, aad a growing number of mquiries 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 contmuing for a lengthy period. la retrospect, I regret making the 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.The Committee appreciates your candor. With this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition, this matter is closed. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer Chainuan t\AA^2^-%-v/ ?^ Mark Pryor, Member Sherrod Brown, Member ^ Pat Roberts, Member akson. Member
Publication title and source
Senator Pete V. Domenici - Public Letter of Qualified Admonition