Thanks for Commenting
this is about serving at the pleasure of the president, in the same way that Clinton was impeached for "boinking an intern."
just because you have the right to do something; does not mean that it is right to do that thing.
We would be better served if there were some expectation of justifiable cause for a firing.
The "real" Bill lied to a Federal grand jury which gets me and maybe you jail time. Mr. Iglesias aided by the getBush media is into the old strech my fifteen minutes of uh fame routine. We all know the deal even insane, worm killers prepare press releases for NBC( who were overjoyed to be selected to extend fame to a creep for high ratings) know the deal. So as I think somebody in that movie "A veryfew good guys" said "Truth? WE ain't lookin for no stinken truth we lookin for 30 seconds 0f air time".
when, and where, does the discourse get around to whether or not political plum attorneyships are in the public best interests in the first place.
It seems to me that that whole aspect of government bears some reexamination and overhaul.
I have to tell you mario after visiting your blog for about a month now, I am very disapointed that you did not win the chairmanship for the repubs. With you at the helm I don't think you guys could get elected for dog catcher.
David has served his country with honor well at most you have served a congresswoman coffee. Your attempts to dishonor him have become laughable.
I hope you hitch your wagon to Mr White after Heathers defeat. He also applaudes unethical behavior.
Iglesias has stated on more than once he understood he served at the pleasure of the President. Had the DOJ not made the ridiculous performance claims this would all be history. But we now see the outlines, of what may be some very sinister partisan manipulation of Federal prosecutors.
... I fail to see what it matters if the White House was involved. I would expect the White House to be involved. ?????? Do you think we are really that stupid? The White House should be involved in firing prosecutors for not filing charges in bogus partisan voter fraud cases? Where is the massive evidence you and Whitney claim to have? You cannot win on this issue unless you produce evidence. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Or do you subscribe to the Rovian logic of "if you say it enough, it must be true."
Elections have consequences and I expect that the DOJ would reorder priorities with a new administration. It is an entirely different matter when prosecutions are motived by partisanship. The phony voter fraud issues raises by Republicans and the RNLA (the R's voter suppression squad)were not prosecuted because NO EVIDENCE exists. The conviction of a Democratic official, for these very issues, in Wisconsin was just overturned and the woman was release ON THE SPOT. The Federal Appeals Court called the prosecution and conviction a sham. That particular Appeals Court also happens to be one the MOST Conservative benches in the country. The NM GOP needs to find a more honest way of winning elections. Suppressing voter turnout ain't the way to win. The GOP has been working this voter fraud angle on a national level for more than 30 years. Maybe you need a new strategy?
The Democrats have a few issues to deal with here in NM, but they pale in comparison to the criminality we see from the Republicans. I sleep better at might knowing the NM GOP has got no game and NO EVIDENCE. Here's to another 90 years in the minority!
Mario,
I don't know if you saw David Iglesias on "Real Time with Bill Maher" this week, it was quite interesting.
Especially when he points out, once again, that it is unprecedented for a sitting president to fire his own guys before he leaves office.
Then he gave the line of the night when he said "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the Republican Party of New Mexico."
(Is that why he had to go? Because he decided loyalty to his country was a little more important than loyalty to the NMGOP? Anyway, that's a discussion for another time.)
Iglesias got fired not for "bad performance" but because he would not speed up his prosecutions to benefit Heather Wilson's re-election campaign. It appears to be that simple, his firing was politically-motivated payback for not carrying water for Heather Wilson. (and if Billy Clinton did the same thing, everyone would be up in arms about it)
Iglesias is a guy who said he would have gone quietly into the night if DOJ officials hadn't testified that his, and the other USAttn. firings, were performance related. If y'all have the evidence to prove that it was performance related, I think it would have surfaced by now.
The U.S. Attorney's do work at the pleasure of the president, and he has admitted that. However, using the U.S. Attorney's for election manipulation is wrong and, quite frankly, continuing these attacks against Iglesias isn't going to benefit the GOP.
John Ashcroft, of all people to quote, told Iglesias that politics stay out of his decision making as a U.S. Attorney. I guess someone should have passed that on to the rest of the GOP in Washington.
Ben
Ben,
The simple fact is that David Iglesias DID NOT let politics stay out of his decision making.
1) He is on record as saying that he didn't want to bring the indictments before the election because he didn't want them to be used politically. That, in and of itself, is a political decision.
2) He is on record as saying that he didn't report the phone calls of Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson they occurred, because he wanted to stay loyal to a political mentor and friend. I don't think there was anything wrong with the phone calls. But, according to Mr. Iglesias' testimony, he did. Therefore, he was obligated to report them. He didn't. Again, he made a political decision.
We are all better off with Mr. Iglesias doing something else.
Mario,
First off, are you conceding the rest of my comment? That Iglesias was fired for political, not performance issues?
1 - Iglesias also said that those indictment were not ready when Heather and Pete called him and tried to influence his legal case. There's where the John Ashcroft argument comes in, he was asked to move up the indictment for political, not legal, reasons.
Saying that his decision was a political one is an interesting argument, in a "well anything you do is going to have an impact"/"butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil" Chaos Theory sort of way. And one we can address later on.
2 - You are right, Iglesias should have reported Pete and Heather's contact right away. There he did show loyalty to his friends and his party. Of course, I also think he should have reported it to the press right away as well. Couldn't you see the Journal banner headline the next morning:
"Heather Influencing Investigation for Political Ends" 
I have to run and get an engagement ring, so I'll have to continue this later on today.
Ben
Nah, I'm not conceding your other points. I just feel I've already addressed Mr. Iglesias' performance failures in other posts. And, even if you were to successfully argue it is political, not performance issues, that were at play, then the fact remains that this is a political appointment and can be taken away at anytime for political reasons.
What I will concede is that, from a public relations standpoint, this firing has not been handled well. By the same token, the Democrats have been extremely artful in manipulating the PR failures for political gain. Although, I do believe this horse has long since died. So, what do you say we move onto another more interesting topic.
By the way, congratulations on the engagement.
Commenting by HaloScan
