There is a Difference Between Zero Tolerance For Fraud & Zero Enforcement Of Fraud

Harry Markopolis, the whistle blower who Bush's anti-regulatory SEC ignored when he kept warning them that Bernie Madoff was in the process of stealing $50 billion for investors, told Congress yesterday that there was basically no regulation of the capital markets-- or at least of fraud in the capital markets for the eight years Bush was overseeing the functions of government. Watch Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) questioning Mr. Markopolis at a House Financial Services Committee hearing yesterday:



On his blog today former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explained that Americans actually bought into Obama's campaign message of Change and that now they want it-- and they want the real thing, not the Tom Daschle version, which labors under the false premise that people won't mind corrupt Democrats because they're not nearly as corrupt as corrupt Republicans.

Official Washington underestimated the public's pique at what appeared to be the old ways of Washington. Hill staffers tell me that many offices have been inundated with telephone calls, emails, letters and faxes expressing concern (to put it mildly) about Daschle-- not only his failure to pay back taxes but his relationships with major players in the health care industry and rich consulting contracts with the private sector since leaving the Senate, and even the fact that he was given a car and driver by one of them.

What's going on here? Maybe official Washington, much like most of Wall Street, is still not quite getting it.

Typical Americans are hurting very badly right now. They resent people who appear to be living high off a system dominated by insiders with the right connections. They've become increasingly suspicious of the conflicts of interest, cozy relationships, and payoffs that seem to pervade not only official Washington but our biggest banks and corporations. In short, many Americans who have worked hard, saved as much as they can, bought a home, obeyed the law, and paid every cent of taxes that were due are beginning to feel like chumps. Their jobs are disappearing, their savings are disappearing, their homes are worth far less than they thought they were, their tax bills are as high as ever if not higher.

Meanwhile, people at the top seem to be living far different lives in a different universe. They're the executives and traders on Wall Street who have lived like kings for years off a bubble of their own making while ripping off small investors, the financial louts who are now taking hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money while awarding themselves huge bonuses and throwing lavish parties, the corporate CEOs who are earning seven figures while laying off thousands of workers, the billionaire hedge-fund and private-equity managers who are paying a marginal tax rate of 15 percent on what they say are capital gains while people who earn a fraction of that are paying a higher rate, and, not the least, the Washington insiders who have served on the Hill or in an administration and then gone on to pocket millions as lobbyists for the same companies they once regulated or subsidized. To the American who's outside the power centers-- the places of entitlement and I'll-scratch-your-back-while-you-scratch-mine deal making-- the entire system seems rotten.

Markopolis noticed about the SEC exactly what anyone who has given even the most cursory looks at the Bush Regime regulatory agencies-- all of them-- has noticed: "The SEC is... captive to the industry it regulates and is afraid" [to bring big cases against prominent individuals and] is busy protecting the big financial predators from investors."

He attributes it to incompetence rather than to the venality and purposeful mendacity with which the Bush Regime ruled, although he did testify that the securities industry's self-policing organization, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is "very corrupt," which is very disturbing since the head of that outfit is Obama's new SEC chief. She and the holdovers from the Bush Regime are already acting in bad faith and impeding the congressional investigation. They claimed they were restricted in what they could tell Congress. Obama should have called Ms. Schapiro and told her to clean off her desk, but I have no doubt that she is another of Rahm "The Vetter" Emanuel's personal picks.

Mr. Kanjorski, the hearing chairman, condemned that argument as an expression of arrogance that was at the root of the agency’s regulatory failures.

Congress is in the midst of creating regulatory changes that could change the agency’s fate, the congressman warned the panel of official witnesses. Lawmakers want immediate candor about the handling of the Madoff matter, not an “oatmeal” of generalities, he said.

“We didn’t call you up here to hear a traveler’s guide of the S.E.C.,” Mr. Kanjorski added.

Linda Chatman Thomsen, the S.E.C. enforcement director, told lawmakers that the agency staff had demonstrated its willingness and ability to pursue major fraud cases, including 70 Ponzi schemes.

Ms. Thomsen said the agency, under its new chairwoman, Mary L. Schapiro, would work hard to improve its receptiveness and responsiveness to whistle-blowers like Mr. Markopolos.

Her responses did not satisfy any of the half-dozen lawmakers who stayed at the hearing after Mr. Markopolos left. Their attacks were fierce and strident, with Representative Gary L. Ackerman saying at one point: “We thought the enemy was Mr. Madoff. I think it is you.”

The hearing at times seemed to enter verbal territory more often explored at organized crime hearings.

And speaking of organized crime hearings, let's not take our eyes off the ball and look over here when there's something going on over there... and over there.

The first is a continuation of the Justice Department scandals, this particular one featuring retired Senator Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici and his role in persuading the Bush Regime to fire David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. Reading between the lines, it looks like Bush-- or at minimum, Rove-- may have been guilty of obstructing justice.

The federal grand jury is investigating whether Domenici and other political figures attempted to improperly press Iglesias to bring a criminal prosecution against New Mexico Democrats just prior to the 2006 congressional midterm elections, according to legal sources close to the investigation and private attorneys representing officials who prosecutors want to question.  Investigators appear to be scrutinizing Iglesias' firing in the context of whether he was fired in retaliation because Domenici and others believed that he would not manipulate the timing of prosecutions to help Republicans.

The second is another Rahm Emanuel vetting screwup. Turns out the Republican loon Obama picked to be Commerce Secretary for God only knows why was in bed with Abramoff through Kevin Koonce, his legislative director.

[Koonce] was cited in a guilty plea last week by Todd Boulanger, a former deputy to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In federal court, Boulanger admitted he plied the staffer with front-row tickets to a hockey game, meals and drinks and other tickets to a baseball game, and in exchange received favors in spending legislation. The total value of the gifts Staffer F took from Boulanger exceeded $10,000, court papers said.

All this corruption-- and they've destroyed the country and are now obstructing the new president from doing anything to clean up their mess!

With Bush In Albuquerque We're Live-blogging With Martin Heinrich At Crooks & Liars

Wanna go to a party with these two losers?

A grotesque event just began in Albuquerque, New Mexico. A failed and disgraced lameduck is trying to perpetuate his toxic agenda by rallying a strange combination of bigots and greedy multimillionaires to the cause of one of the worst of all the candidates the ill-starred Republicans are putting up this year: ex-Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Darren White. You can get your picture taken with Bush at White's event for $5,000 (and for an extra $1.75 you can get it without White in the picture).

While most sane Republicans are running as fast and as far from Bush and his toxic policies as they can, White is running around town yelling "Four more years!" One respected Republican who worked for the Bush Regime in New Mexico, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias explained to the NY Times on Sunday why he considers himself a disallusioned Republican. A few days before, he explained on video why he feels Darren White is unfit for public office. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans in New Mexico this year who will be voting for Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall and Bill McCamley.

Today Martin Heinrich will be a special Blue America guest at Crooks & Liars at 2pm (PT). As president of the Albuquerque City Council, Martin made his bones passing an historic minimum wage law for his city and by working with Governor Richardson on some of America's most forward-thinking conservationist policies. Blue America has endorsed Martin and we want to urge you to donate to his campaign at our ActBlue page, especially today when Bush is in Albuquerque scooping up Republican dollars for White. Today we're debuting Martin's latest video on which he explains his position on Bush's occupation of Iraq. Be sure to show up at the Crooks and Liars comment section and ask Martin anything you'd like about his campaign.



UPDATE: McCAIN'S DILEMMA

Although of late his "coattails" have proven to be toxic for every Republican he campaigns for, McCain is showing up at the fundraiser for White too; he feels like he couldn't avoid it. It will the "first time in nearly three months that the Republican presidential candidate will be seen beside the man he hopes to succeed."

With Mr. Bush's popularity at a record low, the McCain campaign has made sure that television footage of the two men together will be minimal. The maneuvering is the latest example of Sen. McCain's aggressive effort to separate himself from the White House, even as he embraces many of the policies that Mr. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency-- and even as he benefits from the money that the president remains adept at raising. With growing frequency, Sen. McCain goes out of his way to highlight his differences with Mr. Bush.

Some congressional Republicans are doing the same, as Republicans brace for what they fear will be a brutal election year. Party leaders now talk openly about the badly damaged "Republican brand," as does Sen. McCain.

"Large numbers of voters are clearly motivated to action because they dislike George Bush. That's a big problem for John McCain and a big problem for congressional Republicans," said former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber, who advised Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

A senior adviser to Sen. McCain said the campaign considered the risk of having the candidate appear with the president at all but concluded there was no way to avoid it given that the event was in Sen. McCain's home state. Mr. Bush will headline two fund-raisers this week in Utah that Sen. McCain doesn't plan to attend.

After advertising that the Phoenix event would be at the local convention center, the campaign changed course and opted to hold the event at a private home; Bush fund-raisers held at public places typically are open to the press.

Now McCain is fretting about what to do with Bush-- and, worse, Cheney-- during the Republican Convention. And this morning CNN has been asking how badly Bush will hurt McCain's slim chances.

DAVID IGLESIAS ISN'T SAYING WHO HE'S VOTING FOR, BUT HE'S CLEAR WHO HE ISN'T VOTING FOR: CROOKED REPUBLICANS HEATHER WILSON AND DARREN WHITE

Thursday we posted a startling video of fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias discussing Bush Regime interference in the Justice Department and how hack Republican politicians like Darren White "put loyalty to their party at a higher level than their loyalty to the Constitution." Iglesias still considers himself a Republican-- "a disillusioned Republican," in his words. He's featured in a Q&A today's NY Times Magazine

Republican or not, one gets the impression from the interview that he'll be voting for Barack Obama for president and, certainly from the video, for Martin Heinrich for Congress. Deborah Solomon:

Q: In 2001, you were tapped by President Bush for your dream job-- U.S. attorney for New Mexico-- only to end up as one of the eight federal prosecutors whose firing five years later set off an outcry. With your book "In Justice" about to come out, have you heard anything from President Bush? No, not even a little note of thanks. If somebody served honorably, you at least have your staff member send a form letter or something: thanks for your service.

Are you still a Republican? Yes, a disillusioned Republican. I can't blame the Democrats for this mess. It was fellow conservatives, people who thought and acted and dressed like me, who threw away their moral compass.

Just last month, the Senate Ethics Committee officially admonished Pete Domenici, the longtime New Mexico senator, for making an improper phone call to you. I thought their public rebuke was a roughly fair result.

He pressured you into indicting Democrats before the 2006 election? He attempted to get me to hurry, and he was unsuccessful. He called me at home on a weekend and asked me for some very sensitive information, which was: Is this going to get filed before November?

After serving as senator for 36 years, he has said he won't be seeking re-election this year because of his health, in particular degenerative brain disease. He would have found a way to work around his illness. I think he's stepping down in part because his legacy was tarnished.

And Heather Wilson, the U.S. congresswoman who also called you about that same case, is now running for his Senate seat. Do you think she can win? No. She's damaged goods.

Why is Domenici so loyal to her? She is his protégée.

But so are you. I was. I'm the fallen protégé.

The primary for the U.S. Senate seat in New Mexico is coming up on June 3. Whom will you vote for? I'll tell you who I am not voting for. I am not voting for Heather Wilson.

What makes all of this so startling is that you're practically a poster boy for a new kind of Karl Rove-style Republican. I'm a military veteran, I'm Hispanic and I'm an evangelical Christian. Those are three enormous pillars of the Republican base.

This week we're going to have Martin back for a chat-- this time over at Crooks & Liars-- while his opponent, the same Darren White who David Iglesias accuses of putting the GOP before the Constitution, hosts George Bush at a fundraiser in Albuquerque. White is one of Bush's posterboys for pushing warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity. Fellow-Republican Iglesias tells us he doesn't care about the Constitution. Is it an enormous jump to imagine Darren White going along with-- leading the charge for-- a police state?

Martin has made FISA and the defeat of Bush's unconstitutional powergrab an important aspect of his campaign. His election is one of the highest priorities for progressives in 2008. Take a look at his latest campaign ad, running on TV in New Mexico now, and please think about donating to his campaign (but only if you believe in the rule of law). Donate here.

CONGRESS SUBPOENAS KARL ROVE!

Yesterday I watched a video of former U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, a Republican, speaking about GOP election fraud. He was targeted by Senator Pete Domenici, Rep. Heather Wilson, and lame congressional wannabe Darren White and then ordered fired by Karl Rove, an order ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was happy to carry out. It was one of many orders Happy Alberto carried out in a purge of honest men from the Justice Department. If someone works in the upper echelons of the Justice Department today, it is because they were willing to pervert and subvert Justice at the behest of criminals like Rove and Cheney. Take a look at the video:



David Iglesias: "I've been very disappointed in Darren [White]. He doesn't understand his duties as a Sheriff. He put, and, this is what I'm very critical of Gonzales (as well), they put loyalty to their party at a higher level than their loyalty to the Constitution. Darren did the same thing."

And Iglesias was far from the only example of how Rove and the Bush Regime wrecked the American Justice system for their own purposes. Ken and I have been writing a lot about former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was also targeted for political extinction by Rove-- and then dragged off and imprisoned. Today we are one small step closer to restoring the rule of law in our country with the subpoena served on Karl Rove by the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman John Conyers:

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests. Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”

Here's the full text of Conyers letter to Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney:

Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Luskin:

We were disappointed to receive your May 21 letter, which fails to explain why Mr. Rove is willing to answer questions in writing for the House Judiciary Committee, and has spoken on the record to the media, but continues to refuse to testify voluntarily before the Committee on the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because of that continuing refusal, we enclose with this letter a subpoena for Mr. Rove's appearance before the Committee's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2008.

In light of specific statements in your letter, we want to clarify several points. Your letter is incorrect in suggesting that the enclosed subpoena will raise the same issues as the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Mr. Rove and the pending lawsuit concerning our Committee's subpoena to Harriet Miers. Both these matters focus on the firing of U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and efforts to mislead Congress and the public on that subject. Here, as we have made clear from the outset, the Siegelman case is a principal focus of our request for Mr. Rove to testify. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has made a number of on-the-record comments to the media about the Siegelman case and the U.S. Attorney firings, extending far beyond "general denials of wrongdoing." There is no question that both the prior subpoenas to Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should have been complied with. But it is even more clear that Mr. Rove should testify as we have now directed.

We would also dispute your contention that we are "provoking a gratuitous confrontation while the issues raised by the Committee's request are being litigated in U.S. District Court or why the Committee refuses to consider a reasonable accommodation." There are a variety of mechanisms for resolution of any dispute between us, and we need not wait for resolution of separate and ongoing litigation to attempt to employ or consider those other mechanisms. We have also previously noted that we do not believe your proposal to respond in writing to written questions is reasonable or consistent with the precedents of this Committee.

Your letter also suggests that Mr. Rove is not a "free agent" and would follow the requests of the White House with respect to his testimony. Particularly in light of the factors discussed above, we hope that the White House will not take the position that Mr. Rove should not testify. Other former White House officials, including Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings who worked with Mr. Rove in the White House's political office, have in fact testified in response to congressional subpoenas, and dealt with questions of privilege on a question-by-question basis. Mr. Rove should follow the same course.

We should make clear, however, that Mr. Rove, as a private party not employed by the government, is himself responsible for the decision on how to respond to the enclosed subpoena, which is a legally binding directive that he appear before the Committee on July 10. In an analogous situation in the 1970s, when the White House attempted to instruct a private party, AT&T, not to comply with a House Subcommittee subpoena, AT&T "felt obligated to disregard those instructions and to comply with the subpoena," resulting in a lawsuit by the Administration seeking to enjoin such compliance.1 We very much hope that will not be necessary in this case, but we also hope that you will understand that Mr. Rove's obligation, as a private party, is to seek to comply with the enclosed subpoena. Indeed, you appeared to recognize this yourself when you responded to an earlier media inquiry as to whether Mr. Rove would comply with such a subpoena by e-mailing "sure."

Finally, we want to make clear that we are very willing to meet with you and your client to discuss this matter. Please direct any questions or communications to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680).

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO DOMENICI: "NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY"-- SO CAN HE RUN FOR PRESIDENT NOW?

Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM) is well liked in the Senate-- on both sides of the aisle. That he outrageously breached Senate ethics by threatening-- and then following through on his threat-- U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' job in an attempt to get him to bring some politically-motivated indictments against Democrats, hasn't gotten many senators riled up enough to do anything to discipline him in any meaningful way. The Ethics Committee admonished him today, totally meaningless, especially for someone who is retiring.

Even if he weren't retiring it wouldn't mean much. When McCain was caught taking massive bribes for special favors from corrupt banker-- and close family friend-- Charles Keating, all the Senate did was "admonish" him. Now many Republicans are backing this corrupt turd in his lifelong goal to capture the presidency. Like in McCain's case, the pathetic and irrelevant Ethics committee did its best to soften the blow on the doddering Domenici, claiming it found "no 'substantial evidence' that Mr. Domenici 'attempted to improperly influence an ongoing investigation.'” Did it look? And wasn't he actually trying to do something else anyway-- get his execrable political protege, Heather Wilson, re-elected?

Wilson is running for Domenici's Senate seat now, though she isn't expected to win. The House Ethics Committee, every bit as much of a joke as the Senate Ethics Committee, hasn't hauled Wilson's ass in to answer questions about her role in the firing of Iglesias.


UPDATE: CREW ISN'T SATISFIED WITH SENATE'S DERELICTION OF DUTY

After reminding us that when Domenici was first asked about why he made the call, he denied everything, CREW issued a statement by Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

"The ethics committee may have been unable to wholeheartedly condemn Senator Domenici's conduct, but we have no such compunction. The committee's effort to minimize its reprimand of Senator Domenici itself reflects poorly on the Senate. Little is more destructive to our democracy than an attempt to use political power to influence a criminal investigation and it should be distressing to all Americans that the Senate Ethics Committee does not appear to share that view."

Congress again proves that it is fundamentally incapable of making or enforcing rules to regulate its own behavior. 

DAVID IGLESIAS BOOK LIKELY TO RUIN HEATHER WILSON'S SLIM CHANCE TO REMAIN IN POLITICS

Come on, Pete, tell us who put you up to it

Pete Domenici, wisely, is following the advice of friends, family and medical practitioners and retiring from the Senate before he further disgraces himself and his state. His protégé, Rep. Heather Wilson, on whose behalf he illegally harrassed and threatened U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, is not only unwilling to go voluntarily, she is seeking to move up from the House to the Senate. Heather Wilson fully intends to allow Domenici to take the fall but she participated in the outrageous interference with the U.S. Attorney's office and the political firing of one of New Mexico's brightest Republican stars, David Iglesias. Wilson is damaged goods-- very damaged. And a new book by Iglesias In Justice is not likely to help her longshot bid to hold the New Mexico seat for theGOP.

Today the McClatchy papers broke a story about a longtime Bush crony, Johnny Sutton (a Texas U.S. Attorney and Karl Rove lackey) telling Iglesias he was fired for political reasons and he should just "go quietly" and not fight it. This isn't likely to go away soon, although, no doubt, the Regime is eager to ardon everyone involved with this and every other scandal reminding voters that the GOP has been, first and foremost, a criminal conspiracy.

"This is political," Iglesias recalls Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton telling him shortly after he was ousted. "If I were you, I'd just go quietly."

Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is one of nine federal prosecutors-- including Seattle's John McKay-- whose firings triggered a yearlong controversy at the Justice Department and led to the resignations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and 11 other Justice Department officials.

Iglesias cites the exchange with Sutton in his upcoming book, "In Justice," as further evidence that he was forced out because Republicans were displeased with his refusal to prosecute Democrats.

"I couldn't believe what I was hearing: a U.S. attorney all but admitting that a colleague was being hung out to dry for reasons that had nothing to do with performance or professionalism," he wrote in a draft of the book, which McClatchy obtained.

Sutton, who's the top U.S. attorney in San Antonio, didn't return phone calls Thursday seeking comment.

Justice Department officials said they couldn't comment on Iglesias's account because of a continuing investigation of the firings by the department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

And this isn't the only scandal dogging Wilson. There's a dirty little vote buying scandal in Bernalillo County that Wilson is trying hard not to deal with now. And then there's the best reason at all not to vote for her: her voting record. Even as she desperately tries to move up the political ladder she is still voting the selfish interests of the lobbyists and campaign donors instead of ordinary New Mexico families. Earlier this week she was one of the minority of radical right Republicans who refused to back the bipartisan Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The man she hopes to run against for the New Mexico U.S. Senate seat, Tom Udall, voted for the bill, as did all the moderate congressmembers on both sides of the aisle.

SNEAKY PETE'S PLAN REVEALED: BEQUEST "HIS" SENATE SEAT TO REPUBLICAN RUBBER STAMP HEATHER WILSON

Tweedledee wants to sell you Tweedledum

OK, so Domenici says he's retiring because he has dementia-- which he clearly does-- not because his poll numbers show he would lose a re-election bid (which they do) and not because the Purge-Gate investigation into the brutal, unwarranted political firing of David Iglesias would destroy whatever positive perception that is left of New Mexico's longest-serving senator (which it would). He's out and his equally tainted protege, Heather Wilson, has decided to check the congressional seat she was unlikely to win again and run for the Sneaky Pete senate seat instead.

Remember, Sneaky Pete's reason for involving himself in what became the U.S. Attorneys scandal had nothing to do with his own election. He-- and Wilson-- demanded that Iglesias aggressively pursue Democrats, regardless of evidence, in order to make the case before the Wilson's tough re-election bid that it isn't only Republicans who are corrupt and untrustworthy but that Democrats get in trouble too. When Iglesias told them that their was no basis for the case to go forward, they called Karl Rove and had him fired.

Sneaky Pete, who has become famous for his notorious "lapses of memory"-- like when he forgot to get dressed and went strolling through the Capitol in his pajamas-- knew he would have to retire soon. He, and his establishment supporters, felt the only possibility for the GOP to retain the New Mexico senate seat-- in a state that has been turning bluer and bluer-- would be to run the relatively "moderate" Wilson, not the extremely ambitious extremist, Steve Pearce (NM-02) who already ran and lost s Republican senatorial primary.

Now, if you take a close look at the actual voting records of Wilson and Pearce, they're not really that different, at least not in the real world. Both are, basically, rubber stamp Republicans who have reflexively followed the Bush-Cheney line on every hideous part of the far right agenda that has been shoved down Americans' throats in the past 7 years. A case can be made that Pearce is more extreme and more of a true-believer whackadoodle and that Wilson, while basically voting nearly as badly, at least wrings her hands and moans about voting like a true reactionary.

Thanks to Karl or Monica or Kyle or Idiot Al or whoever, a star of sorts is born. Ladies and gents, we bring you fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias!

"Want to get to the bottom of this? Get Rove and company in to testify under oath."
--former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, today on washingtonpost.com

This afternoon washingtonpost.com celebrated Monica Goodling Testimony Day by having an online chat with one of her most celebrated victims, former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.


DI took advantage of numerous opportunities to express his support for most of his fellow U.S. attorneys and to repeat his view that a number of his fired colleagues shouldn't have been fired, noting in particular that a number of them--himself included--had ongoing investigations interrupted. Here's a question about a U.S. attorney who might have been fired:

Cheyenne, Wyo.: It was reported today that Wyoming's U.S. Attorney, Matt Mead, was on one of the first lists for consideration. This was a surprise to many of us and is hard to figure out. Have you learned what the White House originally sought to gain by carrying out these mass terminations? What political benefit did they think they would accrue by firing many of their own appointees?

IGLESIAS: Cheyenne: Matt Mead is a standup guy, and I enjoyed serving with him. What political gain could be served by firing appointees who were doing a good job? None. It was a terrible miscalculation.

DI, like the rest of us, seems focused on the mysterious provenance of The List. It has to have come from somewhere, and the possibilities aren't exactly endless.

Boston: I believe we have heard the AG and now Monica Goodling state that they did not know how the list of attorneys to be fired was developed, yet they both stated that the White House was not involved. Does this seem like a strange statement? If they do not know about the development of the list, how do they know the White House was not involved?

IGLESIAS: Boston: The list did not appear magically. Someone compiled it, and if DoJ didn't do it, then the White House did.

A number of questioners had watched or were watching Monica's House Judiciary Committee testimony.

Washington: I am half-listening to the hearing today, and get the sense we will be no closer to the bottom of this issue. What do you think it will take to finally answer all the questions pertaining to the DOJ?

IGLESIAS: Washington: Monica has dropped the dime on [recently resigned Deputy Attorney General Paul] McNulty, so that's one thing I've learned. Want to get to the bottom of this? Get Rove and company in to testify under oath. [Later Iglesias referred again to Monica's testimony that McNulty had been "appropriately briefed by Goodling."]

Many participants had questions or comments about Sen. Pete Domenici's and Rep. Heather Wilson's clearly inappropriate inquiries to DI about voter-fraud indictments, which he has previously acknowledged he should have reported immediately. (He pointed out today that his Arizona colleague Paul Charlton did, and it didn't accomplish anything, including saving Charlton's job.) When a questioner asked what the Senate should do about Senator Domenici's conduct, DI noted simply, "The Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary inquiry."

One questioner elicited this tribute to the law of unintended consequences:

Washington: Has your view of the GOP changed in light of your treatment of late? Have employment prospects improved with this publicity?

IGLESIAS: Washington: I'm a disaffected Republican. My party doesn't practice what it preaches as to compassion. That being said, this scandal has resulted in unimaginable employment possibilites. Good can really come from bad.

My favorite question, I think, came from a participant in Chicago, who asked DI to forget "the underlying subject of this matter" and offer a veteran prosecutor's evaluation of the constantly shifting testimony of Attorney General Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales.

IGLESIAS: Chicago: Any witness that keeps changing his story as to basic facts is an unreliable witness. You have to decide if you want to put this person on the stand due to credibility issues. You have to have a frank discussion with them before they testify because you know you can't put a witness on the stand that you believe may be lying.

Spoken like a canny veteran prosecutor!

A Hispanic questioner from Princeton, pronouncing himself "very dissapointed and extremely disillusioned" with Idiot Al, wondered about the effect of this scandal "on other aspiring Hispanics in the future":

IGLESIAS: Princeton: I hope this scandal does not have a chilling effect on other Hispanics/Latinos seeking public office.

What DI didn't have to say is that, ironically, he has wound up giving Hispanic-Americans a healthy jolt of the ethnic pride that was supposed to come from the appointment of "The Torture Guy" as attorney general.

It was left to a questioner from Las Cruces, in DI's home state, to wonder whether Sen. Arlen Specter will ever learn how to pronounce Iglesias's name.

IGLESIAS: Las Cruces: I sure hope so. It's not any harder than "Specter."

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY DAVID IGLESIAS WAS FIRED? BUSH WON'T ALLOW ROVE TO TESIFY UNDER OATH. SO LET'S HEAR WHAT IGLESIAS SAYS

David Iglesias is a straight arrow attorney, the United States Naval Reserve commander whose character was portrayed by Tom Cruise in the film A Few Good Men. Until recently he was one of the GOP's best and brightest hopes for making political headway in the fast-growing Mexican-American community in the southwest. Bush appointed him to be U.S. Attorney for New Mexico in 2001. His official performance review was exemplary. And then he was fired-- and smeared. What went wrong?

Today's New York Times has an OpEd that may help us understand what happened. It's entitled Why I Was Fired and it was written by David Iglesias.

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.

OK, now I understand... completely. Darkness hates Light; that easy.


UPDATE: AND IT LOOKS LIKE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS

Things may be more genteel in the Senate and Sneaky Pete may be allowed to retire graciously instead of being held up to the public for the bucket of stinking raw sewage he's long been. But in the House, Chris Van Hollen of the DCCC is wasting no time to drive home the point to Heather Wilson's constituents what they have representing them in Congress. Go listen to the ad. It's great having someone in charge of the DCCC who knows how to fight corrupt and reactionary Republicans.