« Press Conference Today: Health Insurance, Pension Benefits and the Employee Free Choice Act | Main | KUNM 89.9, Espejos de Aztlan tonight @8:00 PM on Immigration Reform and Family Unity »

Monday, April 16, 2007

Domenici Got Bush Involved in Iglesias Firing

A copyrighted story in Sunday's Albuquerque Journal is getting big play in the media and on the net. Entitled "Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster," the article's opening paragraph reveals for the first time that Bush was involved in the decision to fire Iglesias, at the direct request of Sen. Domenici:

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.

The article explains the process this way:

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue. The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7. [emphasis mine]

Iglesias' name wasn't on an October 2006 list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired. In October, a few weeks before the November 6th election, Domenici phoned Iglesias at home and asked if indictments in the metro court investigation would be issued before the election. Iglesias said no. Iglesias' name suddenly appeared on another version of the list dated November 15, 2006. Domenici had called Rove after the election, then called Bush. Given what Gonzales told Domenici as reported in the Journal story -- that he'd fire Iglesias only on the order of the president -- it's logical to assume that Bush must have given an order to fire Iglesias sometime between November 6th and November 15th, when the list was created.

As Josh Marshall writes at Talking Points Memo:

No one disputes that Domenici's call to Iglesias was at best inappropriate. But there's been a lack of direct evidence that Iglesias's refusal to bow to political pressure led directly to his firing. Now we have that evidence. And it's not Kyle Sampson or even Alberto Gonzales whom Domenici went to to get sign off for Iglesias's ouster. It was right to the president. And the available evidence now points strongly to the conclusion that the final decision to fire David Iglesias came from the President of the United States.

Political motivation for Domenici's calls and Iglesias' firing? You might say.

Marshall also reports on an interesting exchange from today's White House press gaggle. And just think, AG Alberto Gonzales is set to testify under oath to Congress tomorrow.

April 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM in Candidates & Races, Ethics & Campaign Reform, U.S. Attorney Iglesias | Permalink

Comments

Is there anything that this WH hasn't corrupted and politicized? This also confirms that "Pajama" Pete is a liar along with Wilson, they both need to be fired next election.

Posted by: VP | Apr 16, 2007 1:01:56 PM

The issue is NOT the firings. The firings only uncovered the core issue.
Constant harping about the "firings" constantly undermines the real corruption and confuses the message to the public.
That corruption is the unconstitutional warrentless searches being turned on political adversaries on the left.
Any Dem that remains standing can be assumed to be proven uncorrupted. We can not assume the same for Rep office holders.
You can bet that all our Dem leaders and office holders have been tapped by Rep Feds.
The corruption is that Reps have used the federal justice system to not only dig dirt but to "contrive" to bring down as many Dem office holders as possible. The bigger the fish, the better.
The Fed Prosecutors were pressured to bring forth indictments even on flimsy evidence. They use the illegal wire-tapping to unearth a few "real" criminals that have an association with a Dem pol. They look for an excuse to go after the pol. Hence most convictions don't stick but the pol is brought down as well as any Dem pol nearby.
Take this courthouse "scandal". Mr. Aragon reported all monies in his taxes for those years. He wasn't hiding anything. Perhaps he considered the money as a payment for lobbiest services rendered. In the mean-time there are "real" criminals that dipped their beaks turned snitches. The actual criminals, the bad guys that have left long lines of victims are given immunity in exchange for their testimony against a political target.

Posted by: qofdisks | Apr 16, 2007 4:57:28 PM

I'm not surprised. The question however remains on whether Bush will be blamed, or whether he'll use another scapegoat, pretty much like he always has.

Posted by: | Apr 16, 2007 11:54:26 PM

Post a comment