Fired Prosecutor David C. Iglesias Speaks Out

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Too much! Republicans Wilson and Domenici got him fired (turned him into Bush and Gonzales) for not prosecuting Democrats.

------------------------------------------------------------
Op-Ed Contributor
Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Published: March 21, 2007

Albuquerque

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

[spdirty]

he speaked out against the evil Bush administration. What a brave soul, though his time on this Earth will obviously be short now.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by spdirty

he speaked out against the evil Bush administration. What a brave soul, though his time on this Earth will obviously be short now.

Probably longer than Gonzales's term in office.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Probably longer than Gonzales's term in office.

I wanted Gonzalez fired the day he got in office...but not now. In 6 months, when this story is dead, then fire him.

[Garcia Bronco]

This whole thing is so sad. These people shouldn't be card carrying republicans or democrats and they should up hold the law. But this guy sounds like he should have been fored for not doing his job.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

This whole thing is so sad. These people shouldn't be card carrying republicans or democrats and they should up hold the law. But this guy sounds like he should have been fored for not doing his job.

WTF are you talking about. It sure sounds like he WAS doing his job, but NOT doing the JOB the Republican machine wanted him to do.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

WTF are you talking about. It sure sounds like he WAS doing his job, but NOT doing the JOB the Republican machine wanted him to do.

He should prosecute anyone he can make a case against...It sounds like he wasn't doing that in one instance. I wouldn't have fired him over that, but I am not his super either.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He should prosecute anyone he can make a case against...It sounds like he wasn't doing that in one instance. I wouldn't have fired him over that, but I am not his super either.

Let's see. In your previous post you said "But this guy sounds like he should have been fored for not doing his job". I assume fored is fired in your native language.

Now you state "I wouldn't have fired him over that, but I am not his super either".

Just doesn't compute!

[Barry Ramey]

Yeah, and I bet when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fired 93 lawyers during their reign, it couldn't have been because they didn't think they were doing their jobs. They fired them for what then? This firing of lawyers has been done by all presidents, yet not a peep was made by those oh so offended now that Bush has done it. Why don't people admit it and it's just because the lefty media and lefties in general hate Bush for winning in 2000 and 2004 and have never gotten over it that they get all irate over ANYTHING Bush and his admin does? You'd actually might feel better and maybe get over your hate for a change.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Yeah, and I bet when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fired 93 lawyers during their reign, it couldn't have been because they didn't think they were doing their jobs. They fired them for what then? This firing of lawyers has been done by all presidents, yet not a peep was made by those oh so offended now that Bush has done it. Why don't people admit it and it's just because the lefty media and lefties in general hate Bush for winning in 2000 and 2004 and have never gotten over it that they get all irate over ANYTHING Bush and his admin does? You'd actually might feel better and maybe get over your hate for a change.

You're going in the ignore file with W*gs. I can't believe someone with this minute amount of gray matter can actually type and breathe at the same time. It's a wonder your brain hasn't popped a circuit.

With your statements you do erase any doubt as to why you support Bush. Two peas in a pod.

Good night Sally!

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Let's see. In your previous post you said "But this guy sounds like he should have been fored for not doing his job". I assume fored is fired in your native language.

Now you state "I wouldn't have fired him over that, but I am not his super either".

Just doesn't compute!

What I am saying is that I wouldn't have fired him but I can see why his boss did. Don't be obtuse.

[bendog]

Barrry, barry, barry, you need to turn faux off. The longstanding practice is that every potus gets to name his own US Attorneys. The appointed US Attorneys essentially run the offices where career attorney's work. These guys come in knowing it's a one administration gig. Bushii did the same in 2001. What's different is that bushii was firing his own team.

That's what caught congress's intention in the first place. bushii fires them, and then uses the Pat Act to get around having congress confirm them. That's what drew BI-PARTISAN congressional questions. Then, Bushii and Gonzo's explanations started conflicting with the facts. That's when the question became whether bushii was firing US Attorney's for political reasons.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Yeah, and I bet when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fired 93 lawyers during their reign, it couldn't have been because they didn't think they were doing their jobs. They fired them for what then? This firing of lawyers has been done by all presidents, yet not a peep was made by those oh so offended now that Bush has done it. Why don't people admit it and it's just because the lefty media and lefties in general hate Bush for winning in 2000 and 2004 and have never gotten over it that they get all irate over ANYTHING Bush and his admin does? You'd actually might feel better and maybe get over your hate for a change.

That is about the truth. It's very sad. I am not saying that the President is perfect or hasn't made mistakes and bad decisions, but you are dead on right.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Yeah, and I bet when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fired 93 lawyers during their reign, it couldn't have been because they didn't think they were doing their jobs.

Please pay attention. Clinton fired
all 93 when he first took office. Not well into his second term. And the people
Bush fired were loyal Republicans. Just not loyal enough for Bush.

This firing of lawyers has been done by all presidents, yet not a peep was made by those oh so offended now that Bush has done it.

Once again you aren't paying attention. Lots of peeps were made when
Clinton fired the 93. The GOP sounded like a brooder farm, there were
so many peeps.

Why don't people admit it and it's just because the lefty media and lefties in general hate Bush for winning in 2000 and 2004 and have never gotten over it that they get all irate over ANYTHING Bush and his admin does? You'd actually might feel better and maybe get over your hate for a change.

Why don't you just admit it, your boy is completely
corrupt, and now that the rubber stamp congress is gone,
it is all coming out of the woodwork.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What I am saying is that I wouldn't have fired him but I can see why his boss did. Don't be obtuse.

He was fired for not bringing a case that he thought he'd lose? More importantly, a prosecutor should never prosecute a person he didn't think was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. If he did, that would prosecutorial misconduct.

The guy got fired because Wilson and Dominici wanted to see demoRats prosecuted regardless of whether they were guilty. Firing the guy prolly isn't illegal, but it's wrong.

[TheDave]

Only took 9 posts for the "But, But, But... Clinton" argument to take effect... Looks like business as usual in the WRP's forum

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Only took 9 posts for the "But, But, But... Clinton" argument to take effect... Looks like business as usual in the WRP's forum

There ought to be an equivalent of a Godwin's Law for when a poster brings
up Clinton to defend one of Bush's screw-ups.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by bendog

He was fired for not bringing a case that he thought he'd lose? More importantly, a prosecutor should never prosecute a person he didn't think was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. If he did, that would prosecutorial misconduct.

The guy got fired because Wilson and Dominici wanted to see demoRats prosecuted regardless of whether they were guilty. Firing the guy prolly isn't illegal, but it's wrong.

Again...based of the article...it doesn't sound as if he was diligent as he could have been. But I agree with you from a perspective that the guy didn't really do anything worthy of getting fired. But like I said before...I am not his boss.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

There ought to be an equivalent of a Godwin's Law for when a poster brings
up Clinton to defend one of Bush's screw-ups.

Do you think Clinton was a good President?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by bendog

Barrry, barry, barry, you need to turn faux off. The longstanding practice is that every potus gets to name his own US Attorneys. The appointed US Attorneys essentially run the offices where career attorney's work. These guys come in knowing it's a one administration gig. Bushii did the same in 2001. What's different is that bushii was firing his own team.

That's what caught congress's intention in the first place. bushii fires them, and then uses the Pat Act to get around having congress confirm them. That's what drew BI-PARTISAN congressional questions. Then, Bushii and Gonzo's explanations started conflicting with the facts. That's when the question became whether bushii was firing US Attorney's for political reasons.

Not only was he firing his own team, there are some timing questions which when answered will reveal what George is trying to hide. If he had nothing to hide he would'nt act as if he had been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I personally feel that everything Bush does is either politically motivated or is done for monetary gain. He does not love, nor care for this country, he doesn't put America first. He is, IMO, a disgrace to the office and to this country. The worst person ever to sit in the oval office.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

That is about the truth. It's very sad. I am not saying that the President is perfect or hasn't made mistakes and bad decisions, but you are dead on right.

For christ's sake, Garcia. Every potus puts in his own guys at the beginning of his admin. Giving JR the best light possible, he fired these guys cause the Pat Act said he could do so and get around congress confirming them. He did it, just cause he thought he could. Like a new toy, he wanted to try out. But to compare what WJC did in getting rid of 12 years of the gop running DOJ offices .... please.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Do you think Clinton was a good President?

Do you think
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
James Knox Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Simpson Grant
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
James Abram Garfield
Chester Alan Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Gamaliel Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Clark Hoover
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Dwight David Eisenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Richard Milhous Nixon
Gerald Rudolph Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Wilson Reagan
George Herbert Walker Bush
were good presidents? And if so, what the hell does that have to do with George Walker Bush?

[TailgateNut]

Don't you know that the only "out" the right has remaining in it's arsenal is to deflect from the issues. It's actually very sad to think that in lieu of facing the realities, they prefer to lie to themselves.