Skip to main content

Days after his non-denial denial of having called fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to pressure him to indict a Democrat before November's elections, New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici has suddenly remembered that, well, ok, he did call Iglesias.  Only he definitely didn't pressure him or anything.

Domenici also said he had told the Justice Department that U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias should be replaced, but said that occurred prior to the call about the criminal investigation of Democrats.

"In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize," Domenici said in a statement. "However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way."

So then why deny it, if the call was so blameless?  Couldn't be because it was a possible ethics violation, could it?

Stanley Brand, an ethics lawyer who served as House counsel in the 1980s, said Iglesias's allegation could result in internal congressional ethics probes. "It's going to precipitate a huge problem," Brand said, warning also of a potential review by the Justice Department.

At Talking Points Memo, David Kurtz analyzes Domenici's admission.

Well, when a U.S. Senator--a senior Senator from your own party, no less--calls you about a case, you can be damn sure it's not a social call. Here's what Domenici says transpired on the call:

I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.

What timeframe "we" were looking at? The royal "we." It's just us Republicans here, old boy. Notice too that Domenici's version of events doesn't preclude him having abruptly hung up the phone, as Iglesias claims.

Domenici is up for re-election in 2008; his recent bizarre behavior had already made it seem likely he'd be weakened if he ran again, and there was speculation about whether he'd do so.  A public scandal and possible ethics investigation has to figure into his thinking about that.  Meanwhile, the firing of Iglesias and 6 other U.S. attorneys continues to gain steam as a story, with House Judiciary Committee hearings coming up on Tuesday.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:39 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Denial is reflexive (11+ / 0-)

    for Republicans.

    I guess he started thinking about how we do have real investigations these days, and decided to change his story before perjuring himself.  Maybe the NSA has a record of the conversation, hmm.

    "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." -- George Orwell

    by joanneleon on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:38:49 PM PST

  •  is there a blog (15+ / 0-)

    tracking Domenici, both his behavior and the ways he's enabled the Bush regime?

    The DSCC or some other Dem group should put up some money to create blogs holding Republican Senators accountable.

    It could be powerful to build communities opposed to Republican Senators in 2007. When Dem challengers emerge they will be stronger for these communities existing.

    And the blogs will help shape the traditional media coverage.

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:40:17 PM PST

    •  Yeah, I'm tired ot the Presidential race already (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annefrank, ca democrat, madgranny

      lets have a look at potential congressional candidates. Maybe get some folks worried. Put a bit of stick about and what not.

    •  Nice idea. (4+ / 0-)

      Sort of a "Scandal Central".  Updated as endictments roll in.

      All day, all night, all schadenfreude, people.  Who's gonna step up?

      I think, therefore I vote. I vote, therefore I can bitch at length.

      by CJB on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:18:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Our midterms were so boring, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carl Nyberg

      Except in the NM-01 catfight, the Dems mostly won with 70% or so of the vote.  As exciting as watching paint dry.

      Richardson's running for President, so he'd have to appoint a Dem or torpedo his (already slim chances).  Too delicious.  Though Domeneci's not likely to give up his seat willingly ("cold dead hands") comes to mind.  If he retired, it woulda likely have been a hard-to-win contest between Tom Udall & Heather Wilson.  Domenici says he's running.  But maybe will change his mind.  If Wilson's wounded, Udall's chances improve.  Perhaps even moreso if he's got a little bit of appointed incumbency under his belt.  But, again, "cold dead hands".

      The idea of rendering Lieberman's recurring threats to switch to GOP irrelevant is really delicious, isn't it.

      Our midterms were so boring!  This is way more interesting than listening to Hillary give a speech in Selma.  Might need to get some popcorn.  This has the potential to get really interesting.

      "Every single Democratic candidate is immeasurably better than what we have in the White House now." - Sen. Joe Biden paraphrased

      by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:06:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This will be an interesting hearing. (14+ / 0-)

    I may need to tape it (I'm still pre-Tivo).

    The stolid Republican prosecutors, appointed by George W. Bush, being asked under oath whether they in fact deserved to be fired, or whether Bush was playing politics.

    By John Conyers and associates.

    Mmmm. Popcorn.

  •  If Domenici doesn't run... (21+ / 0-)

    ...the speculation has always been that Haliberton Heather Wilson (my district, damn it) would attempt to take over his seat. But if Heather is in the same ethics boat (the Titanic) and Domenici is doodling in his PJs,  it could turn that race wide open.

    New Mexico has been called a "red state" but it's really only a slight shade off of blue. It wouldn't take much...

  •  So Pete admits he lied... (4+ / 0-)

    Of course, he would characterize it that way. Some one needs to run against him: his lie is the campaign commercial of the year in NM.

    There's a certain circus-like atmosphere to the GOP, but the clowns there don't wear face paint and rubber noses.

    by Superskepticalman on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:45:17 PM PST

  •  Potential Dems in 2008? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    retriever, moosely2006

    Whether Domenici is running or not in 2008, any word on possible Dems who would run for the seat? All but one of the state-wide candidates(other than Senators)are Democrats, but I think many of them were elected in 2006 so they might not want to shift to another race so soon.  

  •  Never mind that I diaried this an hour ago... (15+ / 0-)

    As a New Mexican ex-pat,  and an ex-Domeneci phone banker, I feel I have a stake in this game.

    Diary here.

    Just sayin...

    Support the troops. Bring them home. All Spin Zone

    by Richard Cranium on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:50:18 PM PST

    •  and I (8+ / 0-)

      D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

      by dday on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:02:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The frontpage crowd (3+ / 0-)

        seems to have become very casual about writing their own posts on subjects that have been diaried before.  Often without even mentioning previous diaries.

        I don't know what the rules are about this.  But it isn't really right.

        (And no, I haven't been affected by this.)

        •  For the many-eth time (9+ / 0-)

          We can't and don't read every diary on this site. It would take beyond superhuman effort. (As in, never leaving home combined with staying away 24 hours a day.) Just like Richard Cranium diaried this presumably without seeing dday's effort, same here with MissLaura. On a site this big, it's going to happen all the time.

          And when it does happen, and it's politely brought to our attention, we usually will provide a link to the earlier diary or diaries as an update at the bottom of the post in question.

          But ascribing bad motives to us for why this happens is both cruel and implausible, given the size of this site.

          •  Sorry, I'm not buyin' this (7+ / 0-)

            As a diarist, I'm asked to check and see if the topic has been diaried previously.  Which I did.  And I picked up the previous diary, but mine was from a different perspective.

            Not bitchin' or anything, but don't the same basic rules apply to the front pagers?  A simple tag search is what I'm asked to do - and I would thing the same thing would apply to frontpagers.

            Just sayin'.  And that's my last word on the topic.

            Support the troops. Bring them home. All Spin Zone

            by Richard Cranium on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:33:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Answer: No (5+ / 0-)

              Not bitchin' or anything, but don't the same basic rules apply to the front pagers?

              The reason we have rules about duplicates in the diaries is because of scarcity - there are several hundred diaries a day, so it's not fair to have the limited recent dairies (and recommended diaries) space taken up by possible repeats.

              The FP, however, doesn't have that same problem of limited space.

              Moreover, with the FP, it's not about a race to see who was first. There are lots of reasons (not saying any are applicable here) why diaries on topics we wish to write about on the front page aren't themselves suitable for the front page.

          •  Richard Cranium is right. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Superskepticalman, ca democrat

            You guys can't do a simple search?  After all "Domenici" isn't that common a word.  Having a glance at the diaries that have referenced him over the last two days wouldn't kill y'all.

            And again, I've never had this happen to me, and I don't know Richard Cranium from Adam.

            •  You're asking a different question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ca democrat

              Which is, if we want to write about topic A, and we find a diary on topic A, why don't we promote it? The answer (as I discuss a little bit in my comment above) is that there are many reasons (again, I am not discussing this particular situation) why we might not wish to promote a diary to the front page. Just because someone writes a diary about topic A doesn't mean it has the requisite quality to appear on the front page.

              Moreover, as I also say above, there is no issue of scarcity on the front page, so if an FP story duplicates a diary, that's not a problem.

              •  Common courtesy. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cherryXXX69

                Sure, write your own posts for the front page.  Y'all are generally better informed (and better writers) than the average diarist.  (Really: that's sincere.)

                But a little respect is in order.

                Look at what you just wrote:

                And when it does happen, and it's politely brought to our attention, we usually will provide a link to the earlier diary or diaries as an update at the bottom of the post in question.

                That's arrogant.  And a bit insulting. "Politely"?  "Usually"?  "At the bottom"?

                Don't be so uppity.  Do the search and include a nice little note (and link) at the beginning of your post saying "I just read so-and-so's diary, and think this issue deserves more discussion."

                And I'm not trying to start a fight, so I won't be posting any more on this subject.

                •  Not sure what to make of this (2+ / 0-)

                  You tell me I'm "arrogant" and then proceed to give me explicit instructions on what I ought to be doing. You don't even phrase it in the form of a suggestion - just "do this," with boldface orders, no less. I find that quite arrogant.

                  Yes, politely - because I've seen way too many people make nasty remarks about this topic, rather than showing common courtesy. It's a sad day when asking for politeness is seen as a bad thing.

                  Yes, usually - because sometimes the earlier diaries in question are very shoddy. It's never going to be "always."

                  Yes, at the bottom - because, in the blogging world, that's how people almost always do updates. And, again, it's not a race to see who's first.

                  •  David, I Have Been Taken to Task (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Land of Enchantment

                    for not running a simple search to see if my subject has been diaried already.  I do not understand why doing the same is so difficult for FP'er.

                    Furthermore, given the nature of the current subject it seems almost a no-brainer to assume that someone has covered it before.  Those efforts deserve links.

                    Your explanation is thin.

                    Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

                    by creeper on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:45:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not a thin explanation. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's how the site works.  Different rules for the front page and the diaries.  Not for the individuals posting - when I'm posting in the diaries the same rules apply to me as to you - but for the different places on the site.  Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how it is and how it has been since long before you registered here.

          •  for the record (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DavidNYC, ptmflbcs, ca democrat

            I don't ascribe bad motives.  The FPers have a responsibility to comment on major news, whether they've been diaried or not, and especially if those diaries aren't rec'd.

            A link'd be nice, but isn't mandatory.  When it happens to me I usually just toss a link into the comments.

            D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

            by dday on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:51:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wouldn't it be less work... (0+ / 0-)

            ...to do a quick search before writing a story on a topic?  It could be promoted to FP if already done.  Seems like that would be less work than actually writing a story from scratch.

            Just sayin'

            "Every single Democratic candidate is immeasurably better than what we have in the White House now." - Sen. Joe Biden paraphrased

            by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:27:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, it's as much work (0+ / 0-)

              to promote a story as to write one.  When we promote a story, we own it.  That means we have to check every link and make sure none go places we're uncomfortable with.  It means that we own the grammar mistakes, the conclusions, the characterizations of public figures.  It takes a lot of work to check through all that.  That's one reason we tend to promote diaries that develop unique arguments or analyses rather than the first diary to get to a breaking story - for instance, the last diary I promoted was by The Angry Rakkasan and had some, if not totally unique analysis, at least new twists on some topics cogently and powerfully presented.  

        •  I quit counting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superskepticalman, SadTexan

          A long time ago...

          I know, I know, bitch bitch bitch whine whine whine

          Support the troops. Bring them home. All Spin Zone

          by Richard Cranium on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:26:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Something rotten in the state of New Mexico. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ca democrat

    I'm going to ask you a few questions. Since time is short and you may lie, I'm going to have to torture you. But I want you to know, it isn't personal.

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:03 PM PST

  •  Democrats have to fix these problems (5+ / 0-)

    All are due to Patriot Act and request by executive branch for increased police powers.

    As the current problem with Bush Jr firing prosecutors for failing to indict Democrats indicates, the changes are dangerous to Democracy.

    1. Repeal the increased powers over Federal Prosecutors.
    1. Restore the right of Habeas Corpus.

    Despite having a majority, Democrats do not act on these reforms despite clear evidence of abuse by the Bush Jr administration that would clearly justify the  restoration of rights and oversight.

    If Democrats do not act, they are in danger of losing the slim majorities they now hold as voters will see Democrats as incompetent and corrupt as Republicans.

    •  Democrats voted to renew the Patriot Act (7+ / 0-)

      They held up renewal in late 2005 by filibustering. However, a few months later, they caved in, and most senators voted for a so-called compromise that was even worse than the original act. They also repeated their sin of 2001--namely, passing legislation that they hadn't read.

      Russ Feingold accused fellow Democratic senators of having been spun by Beltway consultants who advised them to vote "yes" or risk being called "weak on terrorisim."

      "We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Republic, Tiro, remember my words."--Cicero, in Robert Harris's novel, Imperium.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:01:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  didn't Domenici tell the ranking Democrat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moosely2006, ca democrat

    on the committee he [Domenici] headed not to bother showing up for committee meetings because he and the other Democrats were just going to be ignored.
    Didn't someone else today say in another context something about another republikkkan exceeding his use-by date?

  •  man, I hope the damn breaks soon... (8+ / 0-)

    libby trial, walter reed fiasco, and this (part of the legal 7).

    •  The trouble is (5+ / 0-)

      that the masses just don't get the word.

      The media is so owned that the spin is always pro Bush & Co.    

      Wake up John Q!

    •  The damn broke in November except (11+ / 0-)

      no on on Capitol Hill seems to have noticed.

      The Republicans keep right on going and doing their dirty deeds and the Democrats continue to be "nice" to them in the interest of freakin' bipartasinship.

      Since when does bipartisanship trump the law anyway?

      The place is out of control and we should have been seeing some mordicum of control, but nooooo, we're being "nice" to the criminals in the interest of "bipartisanship".  Please don't tell me that this means that the corruption and disregard for the law is "bipartisan" because that will just depress me too much.

      •  One reason you're not seeing much movement (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bree, annefrank, ca democrat, madgranny, benmcc

        is because a lot is going on behind the scenes. It's only been a few months.

        Another reason is because there are many Dems feeding out of the same trough as the Rethugs.

        Watch closely and you'll see which side those dems are actually on. And take good notes so you know which way to vote and donate.

        To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The only native criminal class we have in this country...is the Congress."

        •  I used to be in your camp until today (16+ / 0-)

          when a hill staffer I ran into while shopping today told me that they weren't going after anyone because they were trying to be "bipartisan" after I mentioned that they should be making it perfectly clear that it is the Republicans who are throwing up the roadblocks.

          Bipartisanship is bullshit when the other partisans are trying to DESTROY the country and the democracy.  You don't say "Oh, okay... We'll agree to let you destroy "x" as long as we can keep a teeny tiny part of "y".  That's crazy.  That is NOT what the American people voted for in November.

          Were there a wave of Independents swept into Congress in November?  NOOOO there were NOT.  The people voted for Democrats - the people were "partisan" and now the Democrats are effectively saying that even though the people voted for them, they still think that the people want Democrats to bow down at the Republican alter.  That is complete and utter folly.  They're nuts.

          Typical Democrats bringing a freakin' butter knife to a gun fight.  No maybe it's worse.  They're bringing the criminals cakes and cookies so that everybody will think they are "nice".  We have people dying in Iraq; the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of getting them out of harms way; and these people are worried about being nice?  WTF?

          •  Thanks... (4+ / 0-)

            for expressing my frustrations so well.

            Your experience today mirrors mine with past encounters on the hill.

            Rock no boat.

            Support the troops. Bring them home. All Spin Zone

            by Richard Cranium on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:39:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really freakin' hate it when people waste my (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mickT, deantv, ca democrat, Judge Moonbox

              time.  Isn't that obnoxious of me to say?  But I really do.  Don't run around and tell me that you're going to do something new, get me all excited and energized to work for you and then not deliver.  That is poison.  I was so pissed off when I got back to my house and was putting my groceries away that I was running through countries that I could emigrate to in my head.  If Barak Obama doesn't stop talking about bipartisanship and get to work fighting these crazy people instead I will actively work against his nomination and that goes for the rest of them too.  Anyone running around talking about reasoning with rabid dogs will be summarily dismissed from my roster of possibilities.

              •  Well, didn't they hear? Joe Lieberman already has (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                inclusiveheart

                ...the market cornered on Bi-partisanship!

                Why not try something new like fighting for what the people elected Democrats to do in the first place?

                Put an end to the madness and CHANGE THE COURSE.

                So far, these candidates are simply letting these criminals back on the course so they can play again with the same old cozy rules...

                ...still waiting...

                •  Lieberman is so bi-partisan that he served as the (0+ / 0-)

                  Republican shill on Face the Nation yesterday.  You can't get more bi-partisan than that.  Thank you Connecticut Republicans.

                  And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

                  by MrJersey on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:00:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  This is a load of crap. (4+ / 0-)

        Dems' bi-partisanship and "fair and balanced" are killing this country. I'm sick of the MSM putting Conservatives on their staffs to "give the opposing views" (as in WaPo, as in Broder and Victoria Toensing). I'm sick of the cable shows having pundits from both parties discussing an issue. Sometimes there are just - you know, um - facts. No two-way spin. Tell the frickin' story. And bi-partisanship? What about my democracy, damn it?

        •  Democracy? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart

          There is no democracy involved in the MSM's profiteering off the "public's airwaves."

          When it comes to ratings, the best way to get them is to have perpetual stories that keep people antagonized, embattled and entertaining. That means keeping the "horse race" that has become our Elections a 24-7 perpetual fight; it means keeping our country at perpetual war; it means keeping pornography at a perpetual level that is in your face so that Bob Dole can sell you Viagra (errr, no offense here, just pontificatin').

          And if you try to turn it off, you'll see it somewhere else. There are basically only 5-7 news corporations that own it all and they are selling us less and less news.

          "THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!"

          Laura Bush should know that one bomb a day isn't enough content to feed the beasts...

  •  Can he be recalled or impeached? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue, Pink Lady

     Would be worth it, not just to remove a rotten scumbag from the Senate, but to suck all the air out of Joe Lieberman's bubble...

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:54:37 PM PST

    •  the Senate could... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moosely2006

      expel him.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:10:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good enough for me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annefrank, Sanam

          But I doubt they'll have the guts. (Imagine.)

          It's going to have to come from the people of New Mexico.

        "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

        by Buzzer on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:15:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How's that work and when did they last do it? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ogre

        They invented a device that could split open the very smallest particles of matter, and they used it to steal candy.

        by nu on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:15:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They came close in 1981 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ogre, Rumarhazzit

          Harrison Williams, D-NJ.

          He resigned rather than be expelled.

        •  It's not a bill, so... I don't think it's (0+ / 0-)

          something that can be filibustered.

          Expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member.

          The Senate has expelled 15 members; 14 during the Civil War (one later revoked), and one in 1797, for disloyalty.

          The House has expelled five members; including three during the Civil War for disloyalty. The other two are more interesting... Myers in 1980 after conviction of conspiracy and bribery in office, and Traficant in 2002 after conviction for conspiracy to commit bribery, receiving illegal gratuities, fraud against the Government (kickbacks" from staff, and obstruction of justice).

          So disloyalty is not the only precedential cause.

          Several members of Congress have chosen to resign in the face of what was seen as inevitable expulsion, as well.

          However, the Constitution is clear; it requires a 2/3 majority to expel. IOKIYAR is a high hurdle.

          "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

          by ogre on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 11:09:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Presumably filibusterable (0+ / 0-)

        GOP would NEVER go along with it.  Not a BJ, after all.

        "Every single Democratic candidate is immeasurably better than what we have in the White House now." - Sen. Joe Biden paraphrased

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:34:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I just watched Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood (0+ / 0-)

    let's hope this whole court-stacking prosecutor-manipulating Constitution-ignoring vigilante scenario ends the way that movie did. These criminals Bush and Gonzo are too stupid to "know their limitations".

    Jimmy Carter is right.

    by LandSurveyor on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:57:17 PM PST

  •  Iglesias should have reported Domenici. (3+ / 0-)

    It is that simple.

  •  Rotten to the Core (5+ / 0-)

    I guess it works kinda like this. Members of the Legislative Branch, having been emasculated by the Executive Branch,thought they would try to do the same to the Judicial Branch. One abuser begets another.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:58:16 PM PST

  •  from your lips to god's ears (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird, Terminus, madgranny

    Meanwhile, the firing of Iglesias and 6 other U.S. attorneys continues to gain steam as a story, with House Judiciary Committee hearings coming up on Tuesday.

    i hope this isnt one of those really confusing stories that the cable pundits will call a really confusing story (a la Libby and Plamegate) -- thus confusing an already confused electorate (you know the confused people who STILL think bush is doing a good job --- oh hell those people are hopeless)

    the thought of gonzalez out on his ass is so delightful

    He may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot. Send him back to his father and brothers...

    by distributorcap on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:59:33 PM PST

  •  The truth... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OHdog

    ...is shifting sand to the Rethugs.  I hope this means he's got a little fear working. Time to see some of these n'er do wells go down. Way down.

    "Methinks he doth protest too much."

  •  See also (4+ / 0-)

    me, now extra-crispy analysis!

    (Domenici) says that he recommended that Iglesias be fired "several months" before the phone call.  Why didn't it happen, then, until after the election, at the same time as a series of 7 other firings of US Attorneys around the country?  If the problem was with caseload, wouldn't that get worse as time went on?  And the entire arguement is kind of incoherent.  Domenici says he was concerned with a lack of resources.  The US Attorney's office agreed with him.  Then Domenici blames Iglesias for not moving more quickly on cases.  I would assume that if you didn't have the resources, you COULDN'T move any more quickly.  Domenici says that in 2004 and 2005 he asked the Justice Department to look into resource allocation, but doesn't say if it was carried out.  It's not like the US Attorney's office can magically increase their budget and hire staff and make the caseload go away.

    So, shorter Domenici: The US Attorney's office had too much work, and it's their fault for not getting the work done, not my fault for getting them the proper resources to get the work done.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:01:48 PM PST

  •  Review by the Justice Department? (6+ / 0-)

    Yeah, just like they reviewed the '03 DeLay redistricting.

    Just like they reviewed the treatment of John Walker Lindh.

    That's Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to you, Mr. Bush.

    by DC Pol Sci on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:02:43 PM PST

  •  Non-denial denial. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moosely2006, benmcc

    Note that Domenici says he didn't pressure him or threaten him (it'd be a pity if something were to happen to that cute kid of yours... is an observation, not a threat, right).

    He did NOT say that he didn't try to get him fired for political reasons.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:08:11 PM PST

  •  For whatever it's worth. (4+ / 0-)

    Iglasias admitted in the NPR piece from last Friday that he should have reported both calls from Domenici and Wilson (though did did not name them), but was too stunned to do so.  I'm not sure I'm buying the excuse, but he does at least admit that he made a mistake each time.

    Further, it is clear that he's squarely at odds with Domenici's version in that he says he was clearly pressured by this pair.

    That said, I agree with the lay down with fleas logic and will shed no tears for him.  The best thing he can do is come clean, as clean as he can, and let the chips fall as they may.

  •  They should burn the Constitution at the GOP... (7+ / 0-)

    Convention in '08.  They might as well be open about what they've spent this decade doing.

    Separation of powers is an utterly foreign concept to them.  Abu Gonzalez tells judges what they're competent to review, Domineci questions prosecutors about what they're doing, the unitary executive issues signing statements--the list is endless.

    Obama, Edwards, and HRC are all attys.  I'll be curious to see if any of them promise to rein in an  utterly out of control executive branch.  It's funny that Gore, who isn't an atty, appears to be more aware of the threats to the Constitution than the 3 attys are.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:14:19 PM PST

    •  Right on the money RFK lives....... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives, averybird

      This latest transgression is just another in a laundry list of transgressions, each of which should have brought this administration down. This one may have legs, and I have no doubt it will reach right into the oval office.

      LOOK OUT! Here comes the pendulum!!

      by Rumarhazzit on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Newt throws his hat in (0+ / 0-)

      in September, hold on to your free speech. He's already running around the country promoting "another look at this amendment". Trouble is, even if Newt doesn't run, he's trying to influence current candidates.

  •  Ah, a guilty mind (7+ / 0-)

    Trying to get his version of events out there - basically copping to what he imagines is a lesser offense ("just called to chat") rather than what six-plus years of living in Bushiana have taught me is almost assuredly the actual - and far graver - offense (trying to bully a prosecutor).

    I think this thread has way, way further to unravel. And I love seeing Heather Wilson continue to stonewall. It shows to me that the two of them don't have a united front, that there isn't a single message they are both getting behind - in other words, the Republicans are in disarray.

    •  The thread unraveling. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rumarhazzit, benmcc

      That's the great thing about this story: every day someone's coming out going "yeah, so, uh, what I said before? that wasn't true. the truth is this, and see, it's not so bad, nothing like what you were thinking."  And then the next day we get an admission of something a step closer to what we already thought.  

      •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madgranny

        Just like Watergate: That statement is no longer operative.

        The more they stonewall, the longer this draws out, the worse they look. And we know that, at the end, the truth is going to look truly awful for them. This just prolongs the pain for them.

        While it sickens me that we live in an environment where Republicans now think it's okay to bully public servants like petty mafiosi, I can't say I'm unhappy to see Wilson and Domenici get pounded over this one.

        Who knew, all these weeks ago, when Josh Marshall and his tireless crew of muckrakers started investigating this story, that the collateral damage would be so spectacular?

  •  nothing will happen (0+ / 0-)

    This Senate? What? If torture is OK, if warrantless searches are OK, if suspending habeas and Federalizing the National Guard is OK...what makes you think this is going to lead to anything?

  •  DAgate vs Travelgate (0+ / 0-)

    is this comparable???

    Have A Bloggy Day :)

    by eeff on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:22:57 PM PST

  •  Humpty Dumpty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird

    Sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.  All the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    The tide is turning

    Pass The Employee Free Choice Act

    by whatwoc1 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 03:23:27 PM PST

  •  December 7th, 2007 A day that will live in infamy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird, benmcc

    Has anyone pointed out yet that these firings happened on Pearl Harbor Day?  Irony?

  •  Lets all have a pajama party! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DanC, madgranny

    To celebrate! Oh my bad, lets have a "hunting pants" party.

  •  The Only Problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, Land of Enchantment

    is that the underlying story centers on Democratic shenanigans involving public construction contracts here in Albuquerque.  The Pete/Heather pressure story has some legs, but I'm betting the contracting story will have longer-lasting impact.  At least here in the state.  Your overall Bush Admin. firing of U.S. Attorney's nationwide may vary.

    •  Not a problem. (4+ / 0-)

      Root out corruption in all cases.

    •  Hopefully you are right outside of NM (2+ / 0-)

      Seven other US Attorneys were fired I'm sure the firing of Lam in CA, and the dude in Arkansas, and the guy in Washington will resonate locally.

      And if Madrid is corrupt, jail her.  I have nothing but contempt for corrupt dems - at this point in our nation's history, a corrupt democrat not only damages the public trust, but provides cover for the Republican party to engage in far greater corruption, point to the Democrats and say "they do it too".  We need zero tolerance within our own party if we are to go after the Republican party the way we should.

      •  Not Madrid. (0+ / 0-)

        State Treasurer, and (I think) some other cronies.  Madrid got jerked around a little as to who should be investigating, and who holding back to let someone else take the lead in the investigation.  Not the same thing.  Madrid not the corruption target.  Her problem was bad performance in a debate, and perhaps poor reponse to advertising attacks.  (Funded, BTW, by the same people that brought you the swiftboaters.)

        "Every single Democratic candidate is immeasurably better than what we have in the White House now." - Sen. Joe Biden paraphrased

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:40:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    I hope that Schumer finds a top-tier challenge for Domenici.

    http://www.keen.com/jiacinto For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 04:25:39 PM PST

  •  When will we see Pajamas Pete subpoenaed? (2+ / 0-)

    "Domenici Subpoenaed" is a headline I very much look forward to seeing.  The clock should be ticking on Pajamas Pete.

    As for how a Domenici-free NM-Sen race might shake out:

    If Domenici was too tainted by this potential-scandal to run for re-election (which would mean that Heather Wilson was also too tainted to run), it would likely leave Rep. Steve Pearce as the go-to Republican Senate nominee. Pearce is very conservative - fine for his district, and fine for a NM-GOP Senate primary if there is one, but most likely too far to the right for New Mexico statewide, meaning someone like Rep. Tom Udall, Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, or former state Attorney General Patricia Madrid could take the Senate seat.

    With Madrid publicly commenting about how she was, or more accurately was not, involved in the situation as state AG, it could seem sketchy, her being the Dem nominee to take Domenici's seat.  But Tom Udall or Diane Denish would be just fine to take out Steve Pearce, as the NM-GOP goes the way of the OH-GOP.

  •  Well, The Stage Is Set! (2+ / 0-)

    For the Hearing this week.  Will Iglesias' testimony corroberate Domenici's version of these phone calls, or will we find out that Iglesias' version differs from or includes other Pete statements that more directly implicate him?  If the latter is the case (as we all suspect), will the Committee call Pete to testify under oath?  I have seen sitting Senators testify before, but under oath?  Not sure.  Can Dems. on the Committee vote to subpeona him?  Do Repubs. on the Committee have any way to block it?  Inquiring minds want to know!

  •  What is the latest on Gonzo subpoena? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    Has one actually been issued?  When does he have to comply?  Will this be part of the fun on Tuesday?

    Do the right thing 'cause it feels better.

    by John Boy on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:13:20 PM PST

  •  Is there a list anywhere of all the lies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohcanada

    these fuckers have been caught in, or would it melt the internets?

    Vegetables of Mass Destruction: The T-Shirt. On sale now!

    by The Gryffin on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:13:31 PM PST

  •  An Ethics Committee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohcanada, Land of Enchantment

    inquiry concerning the phone call could be precipitated by the hearing set for next week. If these little items can continue to be brought forward and investigated, we may not have to consider Lieberman(R) any further. That sure would be nice.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:23:32 PM PST

  •  Is David Kurtz, in the Talking Points Article (0+ / 0-)

    linked in this story, suggesting a criminal conspiracy between the Republican Senator, Republican Congresswoman and the Justice Department?

    How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

    by ca democrat on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:45:46 PM PST

  •  Confused (0+ / 0-)

    Does Domenici having admitted to making the call make him a compassionate conservative or just a conservative? I'm confused.

    "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" - Love note from Dumbya to Condi

    by Curlew on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:00:17 PM PST

  •  2 words: 'prove it' (0+ / 0-)

    re: "Domenici also said he had told the Justice Department that U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias should be replaced, but said that occurred prior to the call about the criminal investigation of Democrats."

    2 words.

    'prove it'

    produce a phone log, notes detailing the call, and a corroberoating justice Dept log and the 'who, and what' of that 'when'.  and, as a further incriminating side bar, i'd like to see Rove's phone log(s).

    or

    look to be subpoenaed.

    or

    perhaps you'd perfer waterboarding you fascist bastard?  

    Stop the Lies - Start the Accounting

    and, btw... (part of the reason for this 'call') where the fuck is Mark Foley and, why isn't he under investigation (FL & Feds) and/or in jail?!

  •  This One's Got Legs. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

    by creeper on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:34:35 PM PST

  •  Tuesday's hearing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    ... is going to be downright entertainin'!

    "[Insert GOP presidential candidate here] is a racist, homophobic, child molester." Sufficiently Coulteresque? No, no, I need a veiled threat of violence. Damn!

    by Whigsboy on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:13:21 PM PST

  •  NYtimes (0+ / 0-)

    Probably most readers here knows this already but the NYTimes had the US attorney firings as a front page item on their webpage a day or so ago.  dkos was on to this many weeks before.  I feel proud to participate in this community.  I tend to think of the word "vanguard".

  •  Why the Attorneys are Silent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kosy Neophyte

    So now it seems (seems) that Republican Iglesias got a call from Republican Domenici obviously requesting the investigation of the Democrat happen before the election, Iglesias told him to get lost and hung up, and got fired for it.

    Domenici probably didn't fire him: once Gonzales heard that the investigation wasn't going to pay off in the election, or just didn't hear that it was, possibly expecting a call from Iglesias or a reporting chain between their points, Gonzales or some other DoJ stooge fired Iglesias.

    That's why Domenici is willing to divulge that he called Iglesias: he knows we'll never find a link after the hangup, never find that Domenici did another thing, until Iglesias got fired. Because he didn't, didn't have to. Domenici knows that Iglesias will talk now that he's getting subpoenaed, so he has nothing extra to lose, and can control the story and deflate the headlines on that hearing as "old news".

    That's how these sleazy lawyers work their nonlinear conspiracies: it's a messaging system of plausible deniability (yes, that term means that the CIA's taint is probably all over this conspiracy, even if just in Gonzales' operational training covering up all the Iran/Contra tracks muddying the White House carpet this decade).

    And we know at least one reason Iglesias has shut up until subpoenaed: he screwed up his party with the hangup. His tiny part in losing Congress last November by the ripple effect from the state Democrat's district that didn't get coattails into Congress, and didn't generate "neutralizing" headlines about "Democratic corruption" to counter the Delay/Cunningham aftertaste, Foley puke and Abramoff nausea driving the elections. By keeping silent until he is subpoenaed, he's "loyal", and Republican "justice" is satisfied just by firing him for fake "bad performance". Once subpoenaed, if he talks, it's the Democrats' fault. And the heat from this story might just be a firebreak that tosses enough truth to Congress that they don't look for further skeletons.

    But of course they should. They absolutely must find at least the chain of command/control/communications between Domenici's hangup and Iglesias' actual firing order. Especially if any paths run through Gonzales. Because it'll be a key to the other 6-7 fired attorneys. Which might each have been fired for "different" reasons (tho all "failing the Party"), but whose firings surely shared at least overlapping conspiracy structure.

    And conspiracy it is. Probably RICO-qualified. With Gonzales thereby responsible for every crime committed under him in the org chart.

    Which means the other attorneys can either cooperate with the RICO investigation, and Gonzales' impeachment/indictment, or they can go under for their parts in the bureaucratic gangland massacre. Every squeal will reveal more of the conspiracy network. And since these sleazy lawyers have run little else but conspiracies these past 6 years, that network could run through the entire Bush criminal organization. Including Abramoff/Delay, if not Foley (though nothing is beneath these weasels).

    This tiger is out of the bag. Let's poke it until it roars and devours a generation of Republicans. Along the way we'll get to hear the songs of a clutch of Republican second-rate collaborators not suited for the US Attorney's office by anyone's measure.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:59:47 PM PST

  •  The bombastic violations of law are too... (0+ / 0-)

    widespread to be anything but a clusterf**k strategy.

    Complete with threats of resignations by general officers, this is, indeed, a RICO violation.

    Run them all out of town!

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke Women, Get It Now: HPV Test

    by ezdidit on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 09:53:00 PM PST

  •  Bet that was first, only call from Senator (0+ / 0-)

    that USA has ever gotten since confirmation.  I'd like someone to ask why a staffer for Pete couldn't have called the assistant USA if it was only an informational call.  I suspect it's so that Pete could let this USA know personally who exactly wants what to move faster, and all you need for that is a call directly from the senator and a question implying that he's concerened about speed of prosecution.

    It's the proto-fascism.

    by Inland on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:46:17 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site