BUSH INVOLVED IN ATTORNEY FIRING: Timeline/Details Of Phone Conversation -Albuquerque Journal

[kpete]

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster

By Mike Gallagher

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

.....................

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.

The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment.

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

[ThomWV]

1. This is like an atom bomb going off

Direct involvement

[malaise]

17. Holy Sh$t!

No surprise. Will the I M P E A C H M E N T hearings be live on TV?

Stock up DUers. This is huge.

[Subdivisions]

21. The final outrage? Again? n/t

[exlrrp]

40. Maybe its the really REALLY final one

but I doubt it

[JTG of the PRB]

32. Oh SNAP!

This could be huge. Linking Bush to the whole thing... The Republican spin machine will, of course, deny it all. But there is so much coming to light, and so much information coming forward... Somebody is going to be toast very, VERY soon.

[truedelphi]

34. The way things work, Iran will be toast

And this will be swept underneath a radioactive rug (I say this hoping I will be wrong)

[NewJeffCT]

46. welcome to DU

But, they'll spin it as an innocent conversation and how attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

2. Subpeona the lot of them.

This could be the lynchpin.

Thank you for this and all you do kpete! :pals: :loveya: :yourock:

[Joanne98]

3. I would just love to see Domenici go!

[peacetalksforall]

52. Can the Senate call a Senator to testify? nt

[napi21]

4. Dirty, rotten, and underhanded, but legal! Shrub has the right to hire and fire USA's.

Did he do it to keep NM pubs from being investigated or demand that only Dems be investigated, that's another question. To have don't that is obstruction of justice!

[EVDebs]

23. ...but not to obstruct justice. Carol Lam's CIA/GOP $ spigot investigation

was getting a bit too hot.

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

Bush fired Lam in order to obstruct justice and stop her investigation(s). NOW do you get it ? The "others" sure lobbied Bush to step in too I'll bet.

[napi21]

24. I admit I didn't type it very well this AM, but that's what I said.

They are guilty of obstruction! I think they already know that and they're pulling out all the stops to prevent being caught.

[EVDebs]

58. SMOM, Knights of Malta connections to all of this fascism perhaps ?

See the DU link at

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Knight_of_Malta

and note Pete's name listed. And Pete's committee assignments make ties to the Cunningham case and anything related to CIA and Indians (think Wackenhut and Cabazon tribal WMD demonstrations) potentially interesting...

Also, Joseph Schmitz, a former DOD funding official is now out but his work continues at Blackwater with this company copy of his bio showing SMOM allegiance (last sentence).

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/press/schmitz.asp

Who, praytell, elected these guys to do what they're doing ?

[BuyingThyme]

61. We know the connections are there, so maybe the names which link them

are not all that important. It's getting to be that the Republican label is enough to tie any suspect to corruption.

[EVDebs]

62. The excessive SMOM influence upon the CIA since its founding makes

investigating this case all the more imperative:

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250 /

Insiders of the SMOM variety will be some of 'those others in Congress and the CIA'. The DU list of SMOM names I see failed to list James Jesus Angleton. Now there's a starting point for some real 'funandgames' if I ever saw ! The movie The Good Shepherd was all about Angleton but the weirdness wasn't the centerpiece. Too bad. A PR coup again for the 'crazies in the basement' (of the WH).

[Maraya1969]

33. It seems to me that they wanted some Dems indicted for a scandal before the election.

The calls were from October. What better way to win an election than to try and make the other party look corrupt. Unfortunately for them their corruption was real. And now there is more corruption with them since they have tried to make up false corruption for the Dems.

That is breaking a law somehow. I don't know which one.

[EVDebs]

63. Precisely why the hurried Feinstein ouster from her committee assignment recently

Gotta try to arm-twist those D's in order to silence them ! Trouble is the broad didn't like being pushed around. She followed Jesse Unruh's maxim, 'if you can't take their money and vote against them, you don't belong there in the first place' !

[meldroc]

51. That's exactly why he did it.

Iglesias refused to file voter fraud charges against Democrats, because of lack of evidence. Carol Lam was fired because she was prosecuting Republicans for corruption, and had already landed Duke Cunningham in prison.

This whole thing is a huge glom of obstruction of justice.

On top of that, there's the coverup - the "lost" emails, the lies to Congress under oath, etc.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Didn't we already know this?

My understanding was that the only person who could fire the DAs was Bush, he was the one who appointed them and he was the only one with the power to remove them. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point, but I am pretty sure that this is the case.

[Lerkfish]

8. yeah, I'm not sure what this means, except proving Bush lied about not knowing

but their lies conflict so its hard to know which lie is being disproven

[KoKo]

10. Domenici was so hot to get Iglesias fired that he went to Rove and told

him to get Bush to overule Gonzales on firing.

This might not get Bush..but if it can be proved that Iglesias was not prosecuting something important to Dominici and Dominici went on to try to obstruct justice by going to Rove and the P-Resident...that Dominici will go down. And Richardson can appoint a Democrat to the Senate if this story moves fast enough.

Article seems to point to someone in Dominici's staff leaking this to cover their butt which would make it seem he's in big trouble.

And, there's an "obstruction of justice" issue if Iglesias was being forced out because Bush and Rove wanted him out because of politics. But, not as important as Dominici having to resign from the Senate.

:shrug:

[LizW]

11. Yes, but

it heads off the argument that Gonzalez was acting on his own. Yes, Bush is the only one with authority to fire the USAs. But ever since it came out that the firings were political, they've been trying to shield Bush by having Gonzo take the heat.

This is another piece of the corruption case, and it's a good one.

[snappyturtle]

6. Thanks kpete! K&R Wouldn't you love to see

the top white house officials including * be subjected to just one dose of truth serum and then placed in front of congressional hearings? Even if it were a one time occurrence to have a smidgen of truth about anything,just once,would give us all some hope.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. k(pete)nr! .....n/t

[Hepburn]

9. Wow!!!

IMO, the shit is mega hitting the fan is even some of this is true.

[halobeam]

12. K & R!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. kpete! As ever

:yourock: :hug:

[paparush]

14. Imus, Anna Nicole, American Idol, Baseball, NASCAR, Fat Gene,

Spring Break, Dancing with the Stars, Desperate Housewives, Blades of Glory...


I'm sorry...what were you saying?

[Blackhatjack]

15. IMHO the 'no comment' from Domenici's Office is equivalent to non-denial & highly significant....

Kpete has done it again. Brought to us a distilled story that everyone can understand. This deserves to be pinned to the Greatest Page.

K & R and big thanks for the link Kpete!

[orleans]

16. (how does mike gallagher know?) n/t

[solara]

18. Thank you, thank you kpete

This could be very big! No wonder Pete hired a lawyer. He may actually resign before '08! Good on Mike Gallagher for doing his job! :applause:



INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :bounce:

[The Count]

19. Oh, noo! Not Bush! he trusted Gonzales, see?

[Uncle Joe]

20. Thanks for the thread kpete

Kicked and recommended

[wildbilln864]

22. K&R! nt/

[magellan]

25. Only on orders of the President, huh?

That's a mite tricky since it was reported on March 15:

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers said they wanted to know more about any involvement by Bush and Rove in the firings. Bush said he passed along complaints about prosecutors to Gonzales, but didn't urge any firings.

"I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions," Bush said. "When members of the Senate come up and say to me, 'I've got a complaint,' I think it's entirely appropriate and necessary for me to pass those complaints on."

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/138181.html

So we're supposed to believe Bush** passed on Domenici's complaint but wasn't specific? What, he called Gonzales and said something like, "Abu, a certain Senator's got a certain problem with a certain USA. Figure it out and decide what to do" ??????

Come on. The message of complaint Bush** passed on from Domenici was clear, and I doubt Gonzales construed it as anything less than the instruction it was, coming from the president as it did.

LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES.

[JDPriestly]

45. So now we know why it is taking Gonzales so long to "prepare" his story for Congress.

He is having to weave something together. Wow! Wonder what the 04/17/07 story will be. Wonder how they are going to tie all the loose strings together to make a whole.

[redacted]

26. BOOM!

:nuke:


Thank you once again Kpete; amazing work, as usual.

[lovuian]

27. Gonzales wants coverage that the President ordered it

and a wartime President can do anything he wants

Himler and others used that line too

they still went to prison

[Supersedeas]

28. Dunno....when asked did YOU (Gonzo) have a conversation with * about Iglesias...what will Abu say?

[Miss Chybil]

29. The fact is all the US prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Saying that the president was personally involved in the firing of one really doesn't do anyone any good. It would do some good, in my opinion, if the president's chief political operative were in charge of the firing. That would prove the argument the Justice Department was being politicized.

[DaveT]

31. Ahem -- Talking Point Alert!

Yes, for the thousandth time, the President can fire a Federal Prosecutor. That means nothing to this investigation because it is not about the President's power to choose or replace Federal Prosecutors.

The issue under investigation is whether the Bush Administration put pressure on Federal Attorneys to help Republicans get elected and to get away with graft. Part of the mechanism for putting that pressure was the threat of losing their job -- or at least there is available evidence suggesting that might have been the case.

Further investigation is amply warranted.

This distinction between the general right to fire someone and the particular motivation for firing a particular individual comes up very often in the law. As an example, an employer has a right to terminate a probationary employee that is very similar to the President's authority to fire a prosecutor. It is called "at-will employment." Yet an employer who fires somebody because she is female, or African American violates the law. The motivation is what makes the otherwise lawful act unlawful.

Subjective motivation is difficult to prove. Not many lawyers can make a living litigating that kind of employment discrimination cases. But if the Plaintiff in an such a case can produce an e-mail from the owner of a company to the Human Resources Director saying -- "As you know, we don't want any women or blacks working for this company. It is your job to get rid of them before they make probation." -- that Plaintiff is going to win the case.

In Bush's case, it is perfectly acceptable -- legally, constitutionally and even as a matter of practical politics -- for him to fire a prosecutor for not carrying out Administration political policy priorities. For example, Bush could get a feather up his nose about pornography and insist that all his prosecutors make that their top priority, and fire any or all of them for not putting enough smut peddlers in jail. You or I might disagree with this on policy grounds as an unwise use of public resources, but our remedy would be the same as for all political questions -- we could try to win the next election to change public policy. This is the GOP talking point, and like many of that species, it is true but completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

In contrast to this rationale, however, the unproven suspicion is that Karl Rove wanted to use the Federal Prosecution force as a wing of the GOP election effort. There are several different strands that need to be invesitigated. First, firing prosecutors who were going after Republican office holders and their campaign contributors for graft. Second, demanding that prosecutors hoke up bogus cases against Democrats running for office. Third, hoking up bogus cases about "voter fraud" -- helping with the Rove PR effort to convince the general public that there is a huge problem with non-white people stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent votes. Fourth, ignoring evidence of election fraud by GOP operatives.

Each of these efforts, if the Bush Government can be proven to have engaged in them, are criminal conspiracies. And the President cannot use the fact that he has a general right to fire prosecutors as a defense. He does not have a right to oblige Federal Prosecutors to help rig elections.

The article from the Albuquerque Journal does not by itself incriminate anybody. But it does add much circumstantial evidence to the suspicions listed in the last paragraph. And it does put the lie to previous public statements, which I think reasonably leads a concerned citizen to suspect that the lies were intended to cover up what they were doing. Intent can legitimately be inferred from the effort to conceal.

Just because an idea fits into a GOP talking point does not automatically make it invalid. But in this case it is absolutely bogus.

[truedelphi]

35. Thank you - that was very well done (The argument about the

President's pleasure crops up all the time - and in this case it is bogus.)

[Miss Chybil]

37. I know what the issue is. I told you what the fact is.

I don't think anyone will be able to touch the president with this. Shit, they can't touch him for lying us into a war. They might be able to nail Rove and Gonzales, though. Much good it will do. They'll both get the medal of freedom and write a book.

The good thing about all this is the plan has been discovered and foiled. God knows, how many innocent Democrats would have been sent to jail in 2008.

[exlrrp]

42. Its more than that

I agree with you that the President ccan fire a US Attorney for any reason he wants, even if he doesn't like the guys haircut.
But he can't lie about it under oath and neither can his aides.
This is another case like Libby's where there may have been no specific crimes--other than lying about what was done under oath.
This will be good for America because, whether there's crimes here or not, it will show everyone exactly how the Bush administration politicized the "Justice" Department---which they swore they didn't do. They don't want to get caught wioth their hands in the cookie jar, even though what they did may not have been illegal or quasilegal. (Do I have to say they always skate as close to the edge of morality and legality as they think they can get away with?)
Its actually good for our side bad that the BUsh administration are habitual liars--otherwise they'd get away with a lot more.

[DaveT]

49. Actually, you made a prediction

and what you predict may or may not come true. But it is not a fact. And the Presidential power to fire prosecutors is not a defense to the crime of obstruction of justice for the reasons I outlined above. I did not claim and still do not claim that the evidence currently supports a criminal charge against Bush. But it is not a "fact" that he can't be touched by this investigation.

I disagree with the fatalism of your comparison of this investigation to the general question of Bush lying us into war. As a matter of fact, the book is not closed on that issue, either.

If I had to bet money on the proposition, I would not risk the rent on whether Bush will be impeached and convicted. I guess that is generally what you are getting at.

Nevertheless, politics is never static. Things are changing very quickly out in America's body politic. I am old enough to remember Watergate, and the bulk of the main stream media of the day refused to believe that it would ever amount to anything until the Supreme Court ruled against him on the tapes. Indeed, there was a huge amount of speculation on the "political" nose counting on the Court, with many sages predicting a 4-4 tie which would have carried the day for Nixon.

Stay tuned.

[Miss Chybil]

54. Oh, I'm staying tuned and I remember Watergate, as well.

Watergate was nursery school compared to what we're in now. I'm not fatalistic, but I'm very pessimistic after watching these people get away with murder for the last five years and everyday learning more and more how they have turned our governmental system into a propaganda machine for their party. Pessimisstic as I have gotten, though, I still have a little hope. I will be watching, every second, and waiting, with bells on, for the party to begin. But, like you, I won't be betting the farm.

We shall see what happens...

BTW - I get your point about the obstruction of justice. I hope my own theory of their seeming invincibility is wrong. I really do.

[Supersedeas]

44. once you establish the phone call, then ask whether the subject involved Domenici's complaints

[JDPriestly]

48. Great post.

[JDPriestly]

47. Theoretically, the president can fire and appoint as he wishes.

Politically, he has no such authority. Senators are jealous of their traditional right to have a say in who is appointed or at least to approve it. The US attorneys are the most powerful of all non-elected officials outside of the courts themselves. California has two Democratic senators. Two attorneys in California were fired (possibly three) -- for political reasons. That does not sit well with the very politically popular senators from California. The distribution of power in D.C. is shifting. Bush chose a bad time to fire these attorneys, and he fired them for obviously bad reasons. The political cost to him is going to be just enormous. His conduct may be legal, but it undermines the integrity of our justice system -- and that is an extremely serious threat to our entire government. It is as if the pivot of justice and fairness on which the whole idea of democracy rests has been pulled out. Our whole system relies on the idea that power will be used in a measured way so as to encourage democratic participation and allow creative ideas to emerge. Wielding the threat of arrest and imprisonment to silence political opponents is criminal -- even if not illegal. Bush has used the methods of a dictator with regard to the firing and hiring of the US attorneys. He has placed his own political interests above the interests of the nation as a whole.

[EVDebs]

65. The 'Octopus' that Casolaro and Webb investigated is the key

but if you continue as far back as Iran/Contra the Wackenhut-Cabazon tribe's agreement to use the sovereignty of the tribal lands for WMD weapons demonstrations is the first inkling of what was to come. Foggo seems to have gotten his experience in the Octopus system from about that time.

Black ops funding combined with the greed of the GOP and the go-go '90s eventually leads to a violation of Myer Lansky's cardinal rule of the skim, keep it under 15% and don't attract attention. The shear volume of cash being thrown around, $2.3 TRILLION can't be accounted for at the DOD, and the eventual "take" by the CIA for it's purposes and Congressional payoffs--as the Cunningham case shows--is sooooo huge it can't be ignored or laughed off as the $400K toilet seats anymore.

[phiddle]

30. Sounds like Gonzo has some more studying to do!

He try to stretch "executive privilege" to cover conversations with *, but there's no way he can claim it with regard to conversations with a member of the legislative branch, i.e., Domenici.

[FatDave]

36. Wheeee!

All the way to the top now. Hope Olbermann picks this up.

:popcorn:

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Holy Smoking Gun!

Domenici is toast, and he's jammed up Georgie with this one.

[ThomWV]

39. Has The Proof Been Found In Bush's Phone Logs?

Because you know every phone call he makes or takes is recorded (if not the conversation itself recorded at least the call itself is logged) there should be a record of the call Domenici made to Bush. I'd like to see the log to confirm that the call was made. Its not that I doubt it at all, I would just like to see it.

[myrna minx]

41. Kick. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

43. Duh ...

After all we have heard about the USAs serving at the "President's pleasure" I would hope so. Otherwise the firings would be illegal.

[Skidmore]

50. So if these AGs "serve at the president's pleasure," why all the

hiding of activities around their firing by the administration? Why not just straight up and fire them. Will some reporter ask this question of *? Will Gonzo get asked this question directly?

If there wasn't something shady going on, then why did y'all behave the way you did?

[IWantAChange]

53. this fungus just keeps growing and growing

[BuyingThyme]

55. Fuck you, Domenici. You have taken corruption to it's highest possible level.

You should die in prison with the rest of them. And if the people ever get a say in this, you will.

[EVDebs]

59. See post #58

The fascist connections go deep, don't they ?

Schmitz's effectiveness, the DOD can't account for a missing $2.3 TRILLION, according to CBS New's War on Waste

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

How involved are these Knights of Malta (Sovereign Military Order of Malta--SMOM) in all of this corruption ? Shouldn't Congress be investigating this ?

[King Coal]

56. Question: How did domenici know firings were going to take place?

Rove.

[EVDebs]

60. Karnak ! nt

[Fovea]

57. Hail Fortuna!

In medieval iconography the figure of Dame Fortune is portrayed with a giant wheel, at the top of which was a king on his throne, on the bottom a wretch lying in misery. On the left side, was a fellow climbing up the wheel, but the right side is the place Dubya and company should pay close attention to.

It is all about the fall from a high place.

[L. Coyote]

64. This may become a question for Gonzales tomorrow, and little more

because, just like with Ronnie, these guys don't finger the BOSS. They fall on the sword, ask Ollie, Poindexter, et.al., and they get their pardons, and then they go on to serve in the next administration or get great jobs for corporations that funded their exploits--via campaign contributions in the first place.

Sure, this is a HUGE inference.
But, a hill of beans it will make in the end.

It is the sum of all the different aspects of the story that add up to something significant.
Is that summation too complicated for the American politic to grasp? Perhaps not.

Cross-posted at:
Email-Gate FACTS: Felons, georgewbush.com, gwb43.com , et. al.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x523978

[bobthedrummer]

66. kick

[bobthedrummer]

67. kick

[L. Coyote]

71. kick

[AuntPatsy]

68. Hopefully this will be used today in the hearings..kick

[bobthedrummer]

69. .

[bobthedrummer]

70. We, the people aren't declining to comment. eom