Comments on: Fired US Attorney David Iglesias Speaks

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:27:35 +0000

They got rid of this guy because they didn’t feel he was going after voter fraud. Sure it’s political – voter fraud is a much bigger issue among Republicans, and the groups that were alleged to have committed fraud in this case were left-leaning. He may not think he had much of a case, but that’s almost irrelevant – the people in power disagreed with them, and so he’s out of a job.

There was a good article in Sunday’s NYT on this – much more detailed and balanced than most of what is seen in the press. (If you hurry, you can read it before it goes into the archives: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/washington/18attorneys.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
)

Here’s the lead:

“The first whiff of something suspicious came when a 15-year-old boy received a voter registration card in the mail. Soon a second one arrived. Then his 13-year-old neighbor got one, too.

Neither boy had applied for the cards, and it looked as if their signatures and birthdates had been forged. It was August 2004, and the local authorities quickly traced the problems to a canvasser for a liberal group [ACORN] that had signed up tens of thousands of voters for the presidential election in this swing state.”

The first scandal isn’t that this guy got whacked – it’s that the administration mislead the American people as to how and why the decisions were made. The second scandal is that the administration isn’t willing to air their laundry – there is no reason why the A.G. shouldn’t be on the stand under oath. Democracy demands accountability.

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:21:48 +0000

I get so tired of hearing “Clinton fired all of them”. Correct – at the beginning of his term. So have all other presidents for the past 25 years or so, including Bush Junior. Mid-term, Clinton fired only 2. One bit a strip club dancer & the other slugged a reporter. Telling only part of the truth is lying.

As far as the investigation goes, investigations for Obstruction of Justice is very mush an issue here. Another is slander against some of the US Attorneys & lying to Congress about who did & knew what, when – another form of Obstruction of Justice, even though they were not under oath when doing so.

The claims Iglesias makes match with everything else I have read lately about the case.

By: Sir Farquhar

Sir Farquhar — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:39:51 +0000

Bottom line – either they serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed for any reason or they donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t. Which is it?

Oh, they’re fired all right. However, the issue (or fact) is that this might have been punishment for failing to procede in a specific manner on a specific case (or cases). That becomes obstruction of justice, to hold the job over your head to force you to perform in a certain manner.

By: Jeff Ranck

Jeff Ranck — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:44:44 +0000

With all of the play time this is getting, there seems to be one fact that is overlooked – these people serve at the pleasure of the president (whichever president inhabits the white house). So why aren’t we comparing this instance to when Clinton asked all of the US attorneys to resign? Let we forget, there was one that was vigorously pursuing the Whitewather issue at the time he was asked to resign. Hard to say that at least some of those were not politically motivated as well.

Bottom line – either they serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed for any reason or they don’t. Which is it?