Wednesday, May 23, 2007

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

This afternoon 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."

Labels: , , , ,


At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Ken!

Great highlights.



Post a Comment

<< Home