Thanks for Commenting
If there were a test to grade what type of a citizen a person were I would fall in the middle. I am an average citizen.
This whole issue of the fired justices seems like a political smokescreen.
I wish everyone would accept a subpoena, plead the fifth, and make congress get on with business.
If this is the way our new congress is going to do their work they won't get much done.
When you serve at the pleasure of another, you can be replaced at any time without cause.
Get over it.
For all the intensity and hostility awash in our politics, there are some lines we just assume aren't going to be crossed, lines that are so basic that the civil compact itself can't easily survive if they're not respected.
One of those is the vote. Whoever is in power and however intense things get, most of us assume that the party in power won't interfere with the vote count. We also assume that the administration won't use the IRS to harass or imprison political opponents. And we assume that criminal prosecutions will be undertaken or not undertaken on the facts.
Yes, there's prosecutorial discretion. And the grandstanding, press-hungry DA is almost a cliche. But when a politician gets indicted for corruption we basically all assume it's because they're corrupt -- or, given the assumption of innocence, that the prosecution is undertaken because the prosecutor believes their case is strong and that the defendant committed the crime.
Now, again, life is made of gray areas. And our laws and regulations often take into account that even people of good faith may not be able to impartially investigate their own. That's why we had the Independent Counsel statute. The partisan affiliation of prosecutors and judges often hangs in the background of cases. Most Democrats and Republicans most likely feel a bit better when a member of their party is brought down by a prosecutor of the same party because then you can assume -- whatever bias may have been involved -- that partisanship wasn't a factor.
So, all of this is to say that no system is perfect and partisan affiliation may distort the justice system at the margins.
But none of what we're seeing here is at the margins. What we seem to see are repeated cases in which US Attorneys were fired for not pursuing bogus prosecutions of persons of the opposite party. Or vice versa. There's little doubt that that is why McKay and Iglesias were fired and there is mounting evidence that this was the case in other firings as well. The idea that a Senator calls a US Attorney at home just weeks before a federal elections and tries to jawbone him into indicting someone to help a friend get reelected is shocking. Think about it for a second. It's genuinely shocking. At a minimum one would imagine such bad acts take place with more indirection and deniability. And yet the Domenici-Iglesias call has now been relegated to the status of a footnote in the expanding scandal, notwithstanding the fact that there's now documentary evidence showing that Domenici's substantial calls to the White House and Justice Department played a direct role in getting Iglesias fired.
So what you have here is this basic line being breached. But not only that. What is equally threatening is the systematic nature of the offense. This isn't one US Attorney out to get Democrats or one rogue Senator trying to monkey around with the justice system. The same thing happened in Washington state and New Mexico -- with
David, first let me apologize that you were cutoff. Unfortunately, the comment system I use has a limit. That said, there is one part of your argument that may very well fall apart in the near future:
But none of what we're seeing here is at the margins. What we seem to see are repeated cases in which US Attorneys were fired for not pursuing bogus prosecutionsof persons of the opposite party.
New Mexicans have every reason to believe that VERY real prosecutions are going to be brought forth on the Courthouse construction. This is based on several news reports. If this is in fact the case, your argument falls apart.
Mario:
Once again, you are grasping at straws. No one is saying that there are folks that shouldn't be indicted here. The issue is the timing of when those indictments might come and the implication that our elected officials were trying to get them filed before the election so that it would benefit one candidate. That is not how justice should work. US DA's are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the laws, no matter what. What we have here is the Republican US DA's that were doing that, and then they get axed because they didn't do the bidding of politicians. They (the fired DAs) are saying that. You insist on toeing that party line when many fellow Republicans are now realizing the implication this has on our whole system of justice. No matter what party we belong to, we should uphold the integrity of how laws are enforced and that should be based on ethics and morals. Otherwise, our whole society's underpinnings are undermined.
Gus O'Riley
Gus, I didn't come up with the "bogus prosecutions" argument. I was simply responding to D. Jacob's theory.
By the same token, I've heard nothing to indicate that Mr. Iglesias was "pressured." Granted, his tale continues to grow every time a camera is turned on, but the simple fact remains that he knew people were disappointed with his unwillingness to prosecute voter fraud in New Mexico (aka "interfering with the vote count").
Examine Mr. Iglesias' own early recounts of what was going through his mind, and you'll find he was far from being an "impartial arbiters of the laws." He was purposely avoiding moving forward with the case because it would put him in a difficult political position. If he was being impartial, he would have proceeded without regard to the election. Moreover, until those indictments are handed down, it is speculation on everyone's part as to whom would have benefited the most.
Mario,
I was not clear in my analysis. I was referring to "voter fraud". Iglesias has gotten a bad rap from his own party on that matter as per my comment on your last post.
I do agree with you about the courthouse case. My hope is that the former Democratic leader allegedly involved in the case is indicted. If what I have read is correct, it appears that this individual will be brought to justice. He has a long history of questionable activities and his previous "shenanigans" were--at best--a clever way to game the system. This particular case looks like he has stepped over the line and committed a crime. If convicted, he should go to prison.
When Democrats are caught with their hands in the cookie jar they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Period. I actually take it more personally when a Democrat is guilty of violating the law. It generally means that someone I voted for, or would have voted for if I lived in their district, has betrayed my confidence in them.
david & gus, you guys are wasting your time here. this super mario here reflexively takes the mainstream republican position first and then searches for facts and arguments to justify that position. there is no hint of any critical insight or search for truth on this website. the truth is not republican or democratic-the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts. no wonder he ran for party chairman- a position where you get paid to parrot the party line regardless of the facts. you might as well discuss these things with your bedroom wall.
Chris, for the record, the Republican chairman positions in New Mexico are volunteer positions, not paid. If anything, money comes out of the chairman's pocket to help support Republican efforts.
As far as taking a Republican position, no argument there. If I wasn't in agreement with the Republican position the majority of the time, I wouldn't be a Republican.
I've always tried to be straightforward about where I'm coming from with my views. And many of my links are to those far, far to the left of me. It's not my fault that they support my arguments.
We all know the deal it's classic "gotcha" politics 101. The long winded, hey this time I'm serious tone is still spin , oh yeah. In a politacal system appointed job where one serves at the pleasure of the President it is a political appointment and thus subject to removel. Sen.Domenici and Rep. Wilson as part their jobs should be aware of prosecutions of illegal immigration, corrupt state officials and voter fraud as they help make the laws used in these prosecutions and thus have a legal interest in how and if these laws are followed. Now Sandy Berger......silence....
Chris:
Unfortunately, I believe you are right about Mario. Party line first and then seek verbage to support his position. At least on Monahan's blog you get some semblance of seeking out the other side of the story.
I am desperately trying to find someone in the Republican party to give me a reason to stay with it. As it now stand, we are losing all the momentum we gathered in Reagan and Bush the Elder years. We are now looking like all we care about is maintaining our power versus doing what is right. Sometimes that means you have to admit your mistakes and change for the better. I am not seeing that and I am getting very disillusioned. Young people like Mario should be taking up the gauntlet and reforming the party and not just kissing up to the party establishment so that he can be next in line.
Gus
Commenting by HaloScan
