Comments on: Iglesias Timing: More Suspicious Than Ever http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/ Harangues that just make sense Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:58:39 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Patterico’s Pontifications » That Report on the U.S. Attorneys http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-400173 Patterico’s Pontifications » That Report on the U.S. Attorneys Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:06:36 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-400173 [...] I had made in the spring: I found the timing of the addition of David Iglesias to the list to be highly suspicious. It certainly raised concerns that Kyle Sampson had proposed to lie to Congress about Bud Cummins. [...] [...] I had made in the spring: I found the timing of the addition of David Iglesias to the list to be highly suspicious. It certainly raised concerns that Kyle Sampson had proposed to lie to Congress about Bud Cummins. [...]

]]> By: semanticleo http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-260022 semanticleo Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:17:13 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-260022 Pat; Much as I'd like to take credit for discovering the Law.com story, it was TPM. My admiration for our host increases in proportion to the honesty he continues to reveal. MayBee; "Only the President can fire a USA." Bingo!!! Pat;

Much as I’d like to take credit for discovering the Law.com story, it was TPM. My admiration for our host increases in proportion to the honesty he continues to reveal.

MayBee;

“Only the President can fire a USA.”

Bingo!!!

]]> By: Al Maviva http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-260003 Al Maviva Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:56:31 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-260003 It's clearly a huge coverup here. The Bushies fired Iglesias after the election in an effort to get him to retroactively prosecute democrat organizers for vote fraud, real or imagined, occurring prior to the election, thereby tipping it in favor of Republicans. Presumably, Kyl Sampson would have used the same time machine he used when firing Carol Lam two months after the election, in order to get her to do something to retroactively undo the conviction and scandal relating to Duke Cunningham, which occurred in another federal district. It's probably the same time machine they used after the 2008 election, when Dennis Kucinich won, to get John Kerry to announce today that he's thinking about running for President. Y'know, to split the lunatic vote, which apparently is approaching 50% of the entire country these days. I've said all along that the proper stance for the Adminstration to take in the Schumer star chamber hearings is an attitude of mock horror, followed by a pledge to ensure US Attorney hirings, firings and operations are insulated from Senate influence. I'd even whip out a 5 or 6 page draft bill making it illegal to attempt to exert political influence on U.S. Attorneys or any other federal investigative arm, and dare Schumer to refuse it. Yeah, we've got nothing better to do in this country than this crap. It’s clearly a huge coverup here. The Bushies fired Iglesias after the election in an effort to get him to retroactively prosecute democrat organizers for vote fraud, real or imagined, occurring prior to the election, thereby tipping it in favor of Republicans.

Presumably, Kyl Sampson would have used the same time machine he used when firing Carol Lam two months after the election, in order to get her to do something to retroactively undo the conviction and scandal relating to Duke Cunningham, which occurred in another federal district. It’s probably the same time machine they used after the 2008 election, when Dennis Kucinich won, to get John Kerry to announce today that he’s thinking about running for President. Y’know, to split the lunatic vote, which apparently is approaching 50% of the entire country these days.

I’ve said all along that the proper stance for the Adminstration to take in the Schumer star chamber hearings is an attitude of mock horror, followed by a pledge to ensure US Attorney hirings, firings and operations are insulated from Senate influence. I’d even whip out a 5 or 6 page draft bill making it illegal to attempt to exert political influence on U.S. Attorneys or any other federal investigative arm, and dare Schumer to refuse it.

Yeah, we’ve got nothing better to do in this country than this crap.

]]> By: Andrew J. Lazarus http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259952 Andrew J. Lazarus Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:31:52 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259952 <b>The firing isn’t the scandal; the lies by Gonzales and his staff are.</b> I just can't imagine that they might have lied to cover up something even more embarrassing. The firing isn’t the scandal; the lies by Gonzales and his staff are.

I just can’t imagine that they might have lied to cover up something even more embarrassing.

]]> By: JRM http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259950 JRM Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:16:43 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259950 9/TB: No, you've got it right. The firing isn't the scandal; the lies by Gonzales and his staff are. Even if handled marginally competently, these firings would have resulted in only a little blowback. They weren't. --JRM 9/TB:

No, you’ve got it right. The firing isn’t the scandal; the lies by Gonzales and his staff are.

Even if handled marginally competently, these firings would have resulted in only a little blowback. They weren’t.

–JRM

]]> By: MayBee http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259949 MayBee Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:14:05 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259949 Was it wrong for Domenici to contact Iglesias in 2005? Was it wrong for Domenici to try to get him a position in the DoJ? Was it wrong for Domenici to contact Iglesias in 2005?
Was it wrong for Domenici to try to get him a position in the DoJ?

]]> By: Pablo http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259943 Pablo Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:52:17 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259943 <blockquote>I will stipulate that the Senator was wrong to contact Mr. Iglesias directly</blockquote> I don't think that's even the case, and as Patterico noted in the post, Schumer doesn't have much room to complain. Congress does oversight, let's remember, and a Senator sticking his nose in to the workings of the Federal Government in his state is not the least bit uncommon. In fact, it's part of the job of representing his constituents. Where is it written that a Senator shouldn't discuss anything he pleases with a US Attorney? I'm guessing that it's the same place it's written that a President can't fire a US Attorney for any reason he chooses: in the Democrat talking points list, under "Rules When the Officeholder is a Republican"

I will stipulate that the Senator was wrong to contact Mr. Iglesias directly

I don’t think that’s even the case, and as Patterico noted in the post, Schumer doesn’t have much room to complain. Congress does oversight, let’s remember, and a Senator sticking his nose in to the workings of the Federal Government in his state is not the least bit uncommon. In fact, it’s part of the job of representing his constituents.

Where is it written that a Senator shouldn’t discuss anything he pleases with a US Attorney? I’m guessing that it’s the same place it’s written that a President can’t fire a US Attorney for any reason he chooses: in the Democrat talking points list, under “Rules When the Officeholder is a Republican”

]]> By: TB http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259938 TB Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:20:41 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259938 Please help me out, I'm genuinely interested and confused. The U.S. Attorney is a political appointment, and deference is normally given to the senator(s) of the state. Mr. Domenici, who was apparently responsible for the political appointment of Mr. Iglesias, became increasingly unhappy with his results and therefore lobbied the president for his firing. The president, who has the authority and responsibility to fire his political appointments, evidently deferred to Mr. Domenici again and instructed the attorney general to get rid of Mr. Iglesias. I will stipulate that the Senator was wrong to contact Mr. Iglesias directly, but do we know that the president or the Attorney General knew that this had occurred? I will also stipulate that the Attorney General and his staff have handled this very poorly. Please explain to me why the actual firing is such a scandal? I simply don't understand what the president, or even the AG, for that matter, did wrong in the firing of Mr. Iglesias. The Senator, yes, and the AG in the aftermath, yes. But isn't a political appointee fired for not pleasing the appointer a fairly mundane event? Please help me out, I’m genuinely interested and confused. The U.S. Attorney is a political appointment, and deference is normally given to the senator(s) of the state. Mr. Domenici, who was apparently responsible for the political appointment of Mr. Iglesias, became increasingly unhappy with his results and therefore lobbied the president for his firing. The president, who has the authority and responsibility to fire his political appointments, evidently deferred to Mr. Domenici again and instructed the attorney general to get rid of Mr. Iglesias.

I will stipulate that the Senator was wrong to contact Mr. Iglesias directly, but do we know that the president or the Attorney General knew that this had occurred?

I will also stipulate that the Attorney General and his staff have handled this very poorly.

Please explain to me why the actual firing is such a scandal? I simply don’t understand what the president, or even the AG, for that matter, did wrong in the firing of Mr. Iglesias. The Senator, yes, and the AG in the aftermath, yes. But isn’t a political appointee fired for not pleasing the appointer a fairly mundane event?

]]> By: MayBee http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259925 MayBee Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:48:20 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259925 Shouldn't we know if Domenici had spoken to Iglesias before? from the article: <blockquote>According to Justice Department memos turned over to congressional investigators, Domenici approached Iglesias in late 2005 and asked if he needed additional prosecutors for corruption cases. Iglesias, according to the memo, told Domenici he didn't need white-collar crime prosecutors.</blockquote> So they'd communicated before, Iglesias and Domenici. The 2006 phone call wasn't their first direct (and contentious) communication. <blockquote>At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested.</blockquote> It was a long-running dispute between them, and it sounds as if Domenici had long been trying to get rid of Iglesias. Eventually, there was going to be the event which happened before Iglesias was fired, though it certainly doesn't sound to me like Domenici waited for this one thing to try to get Iglesias fired. So why should Bush/Gonzales <b>not</b> listen to Domenici about his years-long issue with the USA? Shouldn’t we know if Domenici had spoken to Iglesias before?

from the article:

According to Justice Department memos turned over to congressional investigators, Domenici approached Iglesias in late 2005 and asked if he needed additional prosecutors for corruption cases. Iglesias, according to the memo, told Domenici he didn’t need white-collar crime prosecutors.

So they’d communicated before, Iglesias and Domenici. The 2006 phone call wasn’t their first direct (and contentious) communication.

At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn’t interested.

It was a long-running dispute between them, and it sounds as if Domenici had long been trying to get rid of Iglesias. Eventually, there was going to be the event which happened before Iglesias was fired, though it certainly doesn’t sound to me like Domenici waited for this one thing to try to get Iglesias fired.
So why should Bush/Gonzales not listen to Domenici about his years-long issue with the USA?

]]> By: MayBee http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-259922 MayBee Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:27:23 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/04/15/iglesias-timing-more-suspicious-than-ever/#comment-259922 <i>The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.</i> Sounds like an ongoing problem Dominici was having with Iglesias. Not new with this particular case. If I wanted to spin, I would say Democrats are trying to keep this particular case from being prosecuted. I won't say that, though. I'll just say what do we know about Iglesias that makes us think he should have been fire-proof? His own Senator was unhappy with him for years. <blockquote>Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.</blockquote> Only the President can fire a USA. The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.

Sounds like an ongoing problem Dominici was having with Iglesias. Not new with this particular case. If I wanted to spin, I would say Democrats are trying to keep this particular case from being prosecuted.
I won’t say that, though. I’ll just say what do we know about Iglesias that makes us think he should have been fire-proof? His own Senator was unhappy with him for years.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

Only the President can fire a USA.

]]>