TPM: Can I get your attention for a second?

[babylonsister]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013648.php

Can I get your attention for a second?

You're going to hear a lot about Al Gonzales on the Hill, document dumps and timelines and a lot of other stuff. But not much else you're going to see in the Purge story is going to be as important as this story that ran this morning in The Albuquerque Journal. I mentioned it below and Paul Kiel has a detailed analysis of it here.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003017.php

But here's what it amounts to.

It was Sen. Domenici's (R-NM) call to David Iglesias to get him to game the November election with an election-timed indictment that got this scandal really rolling. And it's always been the key question just how and whether Domenici's failed play to get Iglesias to tamper with the November election led to his firing on December 7th.

Now, we know a much more detailed timeline about just what happened.

As we've known Domenici had been complaining about Iglesias for some time. President Bush and Karl Rove had also been complaining to Gonzales about Iglesias's record prosecuting 'voter fraud'. Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out back in the Spring of 2006. But Gonzales said he would only fire Iglesias on the president's orders.

Now, let's fast foward to just before the November election. Iglesias didn't show up on the firing list prepared in October 2006. Then Domenici makes his call sometime a couple weeks or so before the election. He doesn't get satisfaction from Iglesias. And then shortly after the election, Domenici puts in a call to Karl Rove. He tells Rove he wants Iglesias fired. And he asks Rove to take his message directly to the president. That led to a telephone conversation between Domenici and the president himself, presumably arranged by Rove.

Do you think it's possible that Domenici didn't mention his call to Iglesias just before the election and Iglesias's alleged foot-dragging on indicting Democrats?

From the article we don't know the precise date of the Rove and Bush conversations. But we do know that Iglesias's name first shows up on the firing list on November 15th.

No one disputes that Domenici's call to Iglesias was at best inappropriate. But there's been a lack of direct evidence that Iglesias's refusal to bow to political pressure led directly to his firing. Now we have that evidence. And it's not Kyle Sampson or even Alberto Gonzales whom Domenici went to to get sign off for Iglesias's ouster. It was right to the president. And the available evidence now points strongly to the conclusion that the final decision to fire David Iglesias came from the President of the United States.


-- Josh Marshall

[seemslikeadream]

1. came from the President of the United States

[Spiffarino]

4. I don't know why

...that made me laugh so hard, but it did. I had to retype these sentences three times.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thank you, Josh Marshal--and Babylonsister for posting this!

This simplifies the matter considerably. Bush was engaged in obstruction of justice--or something akin to that. Not sure what what the charge would be. Firing somebody for not prosecuting something for which there was no evidence has to be something like obstruction. Trying to game a federal election, by bullying a prosecutor, must come under some statute as well.

The other item I picked up at FireDogLake was that Gonzales may have perjured himself--but folks aren't too clear yet about the timeline and if it's true. Gonzo was sent a chart and details of the reasons for the firings, but it's not clear whether this was before or after he testified that he had no part in it. At the least, the emails show underlings trying to make up reasons for why they fired perfectly competent people--indeed, excellent people. There is also one email in which they say that want to "muddy" the public discussion. I'll check back there and see what they've found recently.

But this very clear presentation by Marshall is very welcome. The pieces are falling into place.

[babylonsister]

3. I also liked this; short, to the point, and relatively easy to understand.

The cast of characters is huge and with all these facts, it can be daunting to try to comprehend.

[Hart2008]

6. "Abuse of power" works for me n/t

[hlthe2b]

5. Josh Marshall and his crew are doing so much good with this story

As it starts getting more and more detailed, I appreciate so much his "cutting to the chase" and keeping us on track.

[disndat]

7. In bold black and white

To the anxious doubters, here it is in bold black and white. Get another container of popcorn and sit back.

[Canuckistanian]

8. It's like the mafia

Somebody is defying a minor boss. A hit must be made to "show a lesson".

The minor boss calls up the lieutenant of the Capo di tutti Capi.

A "sit-down" is arranged. The unfortunate transgressor's name is put down on a list.

The hits are made.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. is there a copy of the convy between Domenici and the POTUS?

if there is it could be very interesting?

[babylonsister]

10. Reference to the conversation and the timeline is in this article:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm