Thanks for Commenting
Clearly the only responsible thing we can possibly do is to suspend the elections pending resolution of the current crisis. We have a financial crisis, a military crisis in Afghanistan and Iraq, a crisis in the Justice Department, an ecological crisis, an unemployment crisis, and a crisis in the culture wars. This is no time for uncertainty - we must stay the course with the administration and policies which have so bravely and forthrightly led us into these crises during the last seven and a half years. As long as there's even the remotest possibility that one unqualified person might vote, we cannot have legitimate elections - an no elections at all are better than an election of qquestionable legitimacy.
I always find it funny when Republicans wail about voter fraud given their blatant vote suppression campaigns in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Oh no some of these registrations are fake what evah will we do mah oh mah i have the vapers!
Meanwhile they've still never found a single instance of someone actually trying to vote using a phony registration, just of college kids trying to scam a few extra bucks by faking some registrations.
David Iglesias refused to pursue "voter fraud" because he couldn't find any evidence that it was actually occurring Mario, but keep pretending he was somehow some kind of Democratic Manchurian candidate that slipped by the Bush admin's careful vetting process (by which I mean creepy entirely religion-based hiring practices.)
Dan, let's not be too quick to condemn Mario and believe Iglesias. Let's consider the facts about whether Iglesias made the correct decision in not pursuing claims of voter fraud.
1. Iglesias had access to all the facts, and the resources of the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate. AFAIK, Mario had no access to facts, only to media reports.
2. Iglesias studied law, graduated from law school, and passed a bar exam. Mario, AFAIK, has no expertise in the law.
3. Iglesias has years of experience in applying federal law, in prosecuting cases, in seeing what works in court and what juries will believe. Mario has no comparable experience.
4. Iglesias is bound by professional rules (and, I think, an oath) that require him not to seek convictions but to seek justice, and prohibit him from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. Mario has no such restrictions.
5. Iglesias, if he makes a bad decisions and pursues a bad case, can face professional criticism and be made a laughingstock, perhaps affecting his ability to get a good job after leaving government service. Consider the case of the Wisconsin US Attorney who was criticized by the appellate court for bringing a charge of voter fraud where the evidence was "beyond thin". AFAIK, Mario faces no penalties if he's wrong.
So who should we believe, a man with the facts, the nowledge, the training, whose career may be on the line? Or should we believe Mario? It's a close question.
The USA Today article you link to is from 2007 -- it summarizes Sampson's congressional testimony, which was in spring of 2007. Iglesias is not "back in the news."
Just thought you'd want to know.
Michael,
Fair enough. Of course, you forgot one more important fact. David Iglesias held off on prosecuting Manny Aragon because he didn't want to make it a political decision - a political decision in and of itself.
Of course, I'm sure all of the other facts you presented have a lot to do with Mr. Iglesias' decision not to prosecute Senator Manny Aragon, right?
Just like I'm sure that Attorney General Gary King's extensive legal training is the reason behind the fact that there is "nothing new to report about the more than two-year-old investigation of the scandal that toppled most of the state’s affordable housing system in 2006."
Now Michael, if you really want to test the validity of your facts, maybe you can put together a scholarship fund to send me to law school (also will need some extra money to be able to continue to support my family). I'm pretty sure after that education I will feel the same. Heck, I'll even pledge to run for Attorney General.
...anyone, any takers?
Half truths from a half-assed blogger. You've been arguing the same three things since you've started blogging. Any new material, Mario?
I can stop reading your blog for months and come back and your at the same place. Sort of like a soap opera!
How does it feel to know Fernando C. De Baca was smeared all over the media for a week and still has more of a following than you ever will?
Nice moving target Mario. The Manny Aragon prosecution has nothing to do with voter fraud and you know it.
Iglesias refused to speed up the Aragon prosecution as requested by Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici because he felt it would ultimately damage the case to rush it and because he thought it was inappropriate to use the legal process to improve the election chances of GOP candidates. You act like that's an act of corruption or cowardice instead of being an act of integrity.
It disgusts me that you apparently believe that Iglesias's loyalty should be to the Republicans rather than to the Republic.
Your pretense that Iglesias was dragging his feet on the Aragon case when in fact it was Wilson & Dominici who were trying to get him to move it up to coincide with their political needs is transparently dishonest, by the way.
Iglesias held off on prosecuting Manny Aragon because he didn't want to make it a political decision
My impression - and I wish I could remember where I read about this - is that there has been a long standing (several decades) policy of not bringing politically sensitive cases right before an election. My recollection is that there are two reasons: first, not wanting to give the appearance of seeking partisan political advantage rather than justice; and second, not wanting to taint the jury pool by increasing the amount and stridency of pre-trial publicity.
As Dan mentioned, both Wilson and Dominici tried to get the DOJ to abandon this policy, to time the indictments precisely for maximum partisan political advantage. Iglesias, if he is to be believed, refused. Considering the other efforts to politicize the DOJ (remember Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, the hiring scandal, the firing scandal, etc? Not to mention John Yoo, David Addington, et al.?) I find it most plausible that Iglesias was acting in the interest of justice and contrary to the wishes of the Republican administration.
Mr. Iglesias' decision not to prosecute Senator Manny Aragon
I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm having a senior moment. I really thought I remembered that Manny Aragon had been prosecuted. Didn't I see that on the news? Wasn't it only that Iglesias decided not to hurry the indictiment process for partisan reasons?
I'm sorry that you feel your poverty has deprived you of educational apportunities. Personally, I've always favored taxpayer supported educational opportunities, and have voted in favor of politicians who have preferred improving UNM and keeping tuition costs down rather than cutting taxes. I don't know what the tuition at UNM law school is now, but I think that when I was young it was $247 a semester - but then, I think I'm older than you. Perhaps f we all supported politicians who preferred to support valuable government programs rather than reduce taxes, more people would be able to take advantage of educational opportunities and the whole country would gain the benefit of a better educated work force and electorate.
However, I'm not sure that you're suited to the rigors of law school. At a minimum you should have taken a logic course as an undergraduate, which would have taught you not to introduce such red herrings as Bruce King, which Dan correctly identifies as a fallacy of relevance.
Sorry, Gary, not Bruce. Definitely a senior moment.
"I'm sorry that you feel your poverty has deprived you of educational opportunities."
I realize this was probably written tongue in cheek. I've got my Masters, so I don't think I qualify as deprived of educational opportunities. Although it should be noted that like many others, I worked full-time during my undergraduate and graduate studies in order to support myself during the former and my family during the latter. And, I still have student loans that I am paying off. I don't know how anyone can use poverty as an excuse to not get an education in this country.
The problem with UNM Law School is that until recently you were forbidden from working during the first year. I know, I looked into it. It looks like this has been recently changed:
May I work while attending school?
Pursuant to a pilot project due for review in 2009, first-year law students may work, subject to the following restrictions:
1. Due to the intensity and importance of the first semester curriculum, UNM strongly recommends that students refrain from any employment during the first semester.
2. Students who decide to work during their first semester must attend a counseling session with Career & Student Services prior to the start of the second week of law school.
3. First-year law students may work no more than 15 hours per week, unless they are enrolled in the Flexible-Time Legal Education Program (FTLEP).
Second- and third-year law students may work no more than 20 hours per week, unless they are enrolled in the Flexible-Time Legal Education Program (FTLEP).
With these changes going into effect, I might reconsider. If I did, I'm sure I'd understand how someone who hasn't been indicted could be considered prosecuted.
I realize this was probably written tongue in cheek.
Only in part. Student loans are good, but my impression is that people are coming out with debts that seem to me to be staggering. I can't imagine such high debt loads. I think they distort the labor market, deter people from seeking all the education they'd benefit from, and thus impoverish society as a whole.
A well educated work force, and a well educated electorate, benefit all of us. Not only immediately (through greater productivity and better political decisions) but far into the future: better educated parents tend to produce children who become better educated (or so say studies I think I've seen).
That's a real benefit to me, a benefit that's worth money, and so I'm happy to pay higher taxes in exchange for this benefit. I know that money alone won't improve education, but I'm also quite sure that lack of money (both for students and schools) can definitely hurt.
It's rather like my paying taxes to help build highways in Alabama. I'll never drive on that road, but I'll buy products shipped on that road from salespeople who moved here because it was easy to get here on that road. Similarly, I get the benefit of others' schooling, so I'll help pay for it. It's all part of my belief in paying my fair share for the benefits I get from being a part of this society.
So yes, I really do think it's bad that the government, using my taxes, didn't do more to help you take full advantage of educational opportunities. I don't have answers to all the detailed questions - how much should your own decision to start a family affect support? to what extent should support be contingent on previous grades? should we draw line somewhere, or just keep paying if someone wants to stay in school until they're 70? is the prohibition on law students working full time educationally necessary, or just a way of keeping out the riffraff? - but in general, I think publicly supported education is good.
Another wild card is the market monopoly factor. Currently, only graduates of accredited law schools are allowed to take the bar exam and get a license, and practice without a license is a crime (AFAIK). This unnaturally restricts the number of lawyers and increases the fees. I don't think this is an area one can leave entirely to an unregulated market, but if we make it easier to go to law school we'll be taking a step towards making the legal system fairer and more accessible to all.
I'd understand how someone who hasn't been indicted could be considered prosecuted
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. As a famous political philosopher one said, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."
Aragon was indicted and prosecuted in the spring. I'm not clear on whether this was before or after Iglesias was fired, but Iglesias was definitely working towards the indictment. That was the basis of my claim that Aragon was, indeed, prosecuted. Just not before
Commenting by HaloScan
