Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A thunderstorm named David Iglesias will come crashing down next Tuesday in DC.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-07 09:01 AM
Original message
A thunderstorm named David Iglesias will come crashing down next Tuesday in DC.
WASHINGTON - Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts.

The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.

The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.

David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.

According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.

Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.

Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.

<snip>
On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued subpoenas to require Iglesias and three other ousted U.S. attorneys to testify before Congress.

The judiciary subcommittee on administrative law authorized the subpoenas by a 7-0 vote. The five Republican members of the subcommittee didn't show up for the vote.

The subpoenas require Iglesias, and former U.S. attorneys Carol Lam of San Diego, H.E. "Bud" Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., and John McKay of Seattle to appear before the subcommittee next week.

"The former U.S. attorneys are alleging very serious charges against the administration and we need to hear from them," Conyers said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is sending letters to the same four asking them to testify voluntarily on Tuesday.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16813951.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-07 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is a huge bombshell.
Is what Domenici and Wilson did obstruction of justice. But why the heck is the Senate JC asking them to testify voluntarily. I thought they said they'd only testify if compelled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They are being compelled to testify for the House and after doing so
there would be no point in not doing the same for the Senate....:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. They should still have the protection of subpoenas from the Senate before testifying there.
Edited on Fri Mar-02-07 09:31 AM by Divernan
I would expect that these former federal employees continue to be bound by confidentiality agreements regarding much of their work. The fact that they spoke in one circumstance, under subpoena, does not void such agreements as to that information. Additionally, the Senators who question them could well ask for different information, or more details than had been provided in response to the House subpoenas.

If these very skilled lawyers believed they could only discuss the matter with the House committee if they were "forced" to do so by subpoenas, why would they be willing to go before the Senate without the same protection?

Their testimony should be explosive. A key fact is that each of these attorneys were appointed by Bush early in his first term. These people were not holdovers appointed by a Dem. president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC