Iglesias recounts a lunch with politics on the menu

[maddezmom]

Source: LATimes

The fired U.S. attorney says he was targeted for not pressing charges that could have helped the GOP.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — Weeks before the 2006 midterm election, then-New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was invited to dine with a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque who had been after him for years to prosecute allegations of voter fraud.

"I had a bad feeling about that lunch," said Iglesias, describing his meeting at Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen with Patrick Rogers, a lawyer who provided occasional counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party.

When the voter fraud issue came up, Iglesias said, he explained to Rogers that in reviewing more than 100 complaints, he hadn't found any solid enough to justify criminal charges.

Iglesias recounted the episode in an interview with The Times after meeting behind closed doors with federal investigators this week to provide new details of the events leading up to his termination as U.S. attorney. He said he now believed he was targeted because he was seen as slow to bring criminal charges that would have helped GOP election prospects.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19may19,1,2373460.story?track=rss

[tanyev]

1. He should have had a bad feeling about that lunch.

Well-connected Republican lawyers don't take people they want to impress to Pappadeaux's. :+

[Rose Siding]

2. McKay charges obstruction of justice, predicts launch of criminal inquiry-

from that piece>
This week, another fired U.S. attorney who has said he felt pressure on voter fraud cases, John McKay of Seattle, said he thought interference with Iglesias and other prosecutors amounted to "possible obstruction of justice." He predicted that a criminal inquiry would be launched. He said he felt pressure to bring voter fraud charges in his district after a 129-vote margin put a Democratic governor into office in Washington.

"Suffice it to say that we thoroughly investigated at every appropriate turn. My job is to look at the evidence, and frankly, there wasn't any evidence of a crime," McKay said.

[L. Coyote]

3. Is the USA for N. Ohio doing the same, or just covering up for Bush?

It seems the current DoJ works only one way on the election investigation front. The US attorney for Northern Ohio has been informed that there is evidence of voting irregularities in the 2004 Presidential election. So far, they have not responded to that information.

Check out the evidence for yourself, of a 6% Kerry-Bush vote switch:
OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620

The Kerry to Bush 6.15% vote-switch differential is seen when the large sample is sorted by probability a Kerry wrong-precinct vote counts for Bush. When the same large voter sample is sorted by the probability Kerry votes count for third-party candidates, Kerry votes are instead equal in both subsets.

Read the revised article with graphs of new findings:

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Perhaps McKay has some spare time to be the special prosecutor for the Ohio election?? We know the current crowd isn't doing the job.