WP: (Fired) U.S. Attorney Says He Was Pressured by Lawmakers

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801502_pf.html

A political tempest over the mass firing of federal prosecutors escalated yesterday with allegations from the departing U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who said that two members of Congress attempted to pressure him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections.

David C. Iglesias, who left yesterday after more than five years in office, said he received the calls in October and believes that complaints from the lawmakers may have led the Justice Department to fire him late last year.

Iglesias also responded to allegations from Justice officials that he had performed poorly and was too often absent, citing positive job reviews and data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions. He also noted that he is required to serve 40 days a year in the Navy Reserve.

Iglesias declined to name the lawmakers who called him, but he said in an interview: "I didn't give them what they wanted. That was probably a political problem that caused them to go to the White House or whomever and complain that I wasn't a team player."

Iglesias's allegations were met with strong denials from the Justice Department yesterday but prompted the Democratic-controlled House and Senate judiciary committees to announce that they would issue subpoenas for testimony from Iglesias and other fired prosecutors if necessary. Iglesias said he would not testify unless subpoenaed.

[longship]

1. This is going to blow up.

Rec #5 -- Get thee to the Greatest Page

I keep saying that Scandal X--name the scandal du jour--is going to blow up. I keep holding out hope that some Democrat will sieze the opportunity to skewer these asshat ChimpCo jerks. I keep on getting disappointed by the extreme lack of backbone from the Congress-critters in my party.

But surely they are not going to let this one pass.

:popcorn:

[tanyev]

10. Lawd, I hope so.

:nuke:

[drm604]

2. "Iglesias said he would not testify unless subpoenaed."

He won't testify unless subpoenaed? I wonder if he's been threatened.

[prolesunited]

3. I saw it more that he's *hoping* they will force testimony

He's signalling he's ready to spill, and it will mean far more — and keep the others from lying (hopefully) — if they are sworn in.

[Bozita]

8. Yes! ... Sounds like he WANTS to talk. -- IMHO, he's praying for a subpoena.

He could be my American idol.

[Bicoastal]

4. It never fails to amaze me...

...how all this is going on within FULL VIEW of the public. Nixon was a paranoid creep who did things like this under a veil of secrecy, but Bush and Co. are such arrogant bastards that they don't how transparent their evil deeds are--just as long as they have Fox News and talk radio to cover the spin.

But it's also the American public's fault for being apathetic. Time to take action--write to Henry Waxman and tell him to lock and load!

[youngdem]

7. They have a brilliant strategy

1. They do it out in the open, with NO remorse. This puts forth an image of a confidence that you are doing no wrong, when in fact what you are really seeing is a bought off sociopath committing multiple felonies. It gives your supporters plausible deniability and the undecideds a more difficult choice to make.

2. Crisis fatigue. They do SO MUCH wrong, you can't focus your rage long enough to attack them. If anyone had proposed this as a viable strategy for a US president to take while in office, I would have laughed heartily at the image of the press eating up crisis after crisis. Yet, here we are. And it works. Stuff I was supremely pissed about last year I can't even remember because I am newly pissed about the US Attorneys, Walter Reed, cuts to Medicare and first responders, etc.

3. Don't defend yourself. Just refusing to answer while appearing to answer seems to suffice with our lapdog media.

[Auntie Bush]

5. K & R The Rethug's are such bastards!

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg of all the crimes and disgraceful deeds they have committed.

[ShockediSay]

6. the power to investigate, issue subpoenas, is the power that took Nixon down

and he WAS the crook he denied being;

is the power that took Abramoff and his cohorts down

[reprobate]

9. True. But first you need Dems with the cajones to DO something.

[DrRang]

11. Latest scuttlebutt in New Mexico is that the Repubs were

fed up with Iglesias for two reasons, reasons that have now entangled GOPs Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson. Iglesias oversaw two trials of the Democratic state treasure on dozens of charges and only managed to get a conviction on one charge. Other thing was a pending investigation of the construction of a courthouse in Albuquerque that supposedly involved kickbacks to local Dem powerhouse Manny Aragon. Theory is that Wilson/Domenici called Iglesias last October, pressuring for an indictment of Aragon before the election, which was a squeaker. Wilson nearly lost to Dem. state atty. general Patricia Madrid, and tried to tar Madrid with both legal messes during the campaign.

PS. And it's "cojones," not "cajones."

[Solo_in_MD]

12. This came up at the watercooler today...have some questions

As political appointees, even though they are confirmed, they serve at the pleasure of the president, like many members of the executive branch. Why is there an issue for releasing a political appointee?

Did Clinton fire all of the people in those jobs when he took over? A couple of people here insist he did

[formercia]

13. Jonior can have them fired whenever he wants

but he has to have their replacements confirmed by the Senate.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Junior or any president?

[formercia]

16. Some Presidents have morals. n/t

[antonialee839]

17. The issue is that the ratbags

managed to sneak a provision into the Patriot Act that no longer requires them to seek Senate confirmation, they can keep one
of their political hacks (such as Karl Rove's highly unqualified friend) in place indefinitely.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. I'm aware of that

but many seem to be upset about the actual firings, which seem to be routine when an administration changes over. They do serve at the pleasure of the president

[antonialee839]

19. This administration has been "changed over" for more than

five years, why all of a sudden? And why so many? These are the burning questions.

[Morgana LaFey]

23. No, new administrations do NOT routinely replace all

the U.S. attorneys. Yes, they're political appointments, but until the Patriot Act they had to be confirmed by the Senate. Normally these are fairly nonpartisan positions, or should be, because we NEED an independent, NOT politically motivated law enforcement system. The law is the law (or so it should be) and should be applied equally to people without regard for party affiliation.

They may serve for a particular number of years -- and firing them like this is rare and NOT a good idea. It's an abuse of the new provision in the Patriot Act.

Anyone who doesn't see this as extremely dangerous -- a power-hungry, secretive administration making sure that "their people" are in charge of what laws get enforced and who gets investigated and picked up and tried -- needs to take a much larger look at all the power grabs by this administration. It's very, very frightening (What's that, you say I am repeating myself??).

[antonialee839]

25. Not to mention the fact that this is not

a new administration. It's not like they just came into power and wanted to appoint some of their own people. Anyone with a clue knows what's going on here.

[NashVegas]

20. The Question Is the Timing, Solo

This is coming during the Bush administration's *outgoing* years.

[antonialee839]

21. Exactly! Why now?

Not like we don't know the answer to that question. This has nothing to do with serving at the pleasure of Charles in Charge.

[Morgana LaFey]

24. Well, some of them (Carol Lam, for example)

were involved in investigating GOP friends. And who knows, maybe they were getting a little too close to the seat of power????

Plus, I have never been totally convinced that this administration would EVER be willing to give up power (in Jan. 2009). If that paranoid idea of mine ends up having any validity, it would be extremely helpful to have "their people" in key smaller positions like that around the country.

[Cha]

15. Of course..and I can't wait until

all these, FIRED by bushit, US Attorneys get their jobs Back!

[burrowowl]

22. I didn't hear NPR

but someone told me there is a similar senario in Arizona.