Democracy for New Mexico

Fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias Signs Book Deal

This can't hurt Dems' chances against Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson. According to TPMmuckraker:

The book promises to focus on Iglesias' experiences as a U.S. attorney in the Bush administration and his role in the scandal, before and after the firing. It's anticipated to be released in April, 2008.

Also, we hear that the book will spend some time discussing Iglesias' handling of voter fraud cases -- how the administration directed Iglesias' focus on the issue, and how that direction made Iglesias uncomfortable. Remember that Republicans all the way on up to Karl Rove and President Bush were frustrated with Iglesias' failure to indict liberals for alleged instances of voter fraud. Apparently Iglesias was no stranger to such pressure.

The End (and Beginning) of Rove

Watch till the end to see the future "brain of Bush" working at Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President in 1972.

Ah, sweet sorrow, as reported in the Washington Post:

Rove's voice and face betrayed emotion as he then offered his farewell. "I'm grateful to have been a witness to history," he said. "It has been the joy and the honor of a lifetime." Rove added that when he leaves, he will become one of those "ordinary Americans who tell you they are praying for you."

... Rove, 56, who escaped indictment in the CIA leak case, has been under scrutiny by the new Democratic Congress for his role in the firings of U.S. attorneys and in a series of political briefings provided to various agencies across government. Citing executive privilege, he defied a subpoena and refused to show up for a congressional hearing just two weeks ago on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts. Fellow Bush advisers have said they believe the congressional probes have been aimed in part at driving Rove out.

But, but, "The White House said Rove's departure was unrelated to the investigations." Right.

Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy had to say in a statement today:

“Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove’s apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.

“The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.” [emphasis mine]

The plot thickens ....

Rep. Tom Udall to Cosponsor Gonzales Impeachment Resolution

The plot thickens. An AP story reports Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM3) will join other House Dems today in introducing a resolution directing the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether to impeach Alberto Gonzales:

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., who was a prosecutor in Washington state in the late 1970s and 1980s, is the lead sponsor of the measure.

Co-sponsors of the resolution include Democratic Reps. Xavier Becerra of California, Michael Arcuri of New York, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Bruce Braley of Iowa and Tom Udall of New Mexico.

Iglesias to Testify to House Ethics Committee on Pressure Call From Heather Wilson

Oh to be a fly on the wall. As reported by Jason Leopold at Truthout:

David Iglesias, the former US attorney for New Mexico who was fired last year along with eight other federal prosecutors, will testify Wednesday before the House Ethics Committee about a phone call he received from Representative Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), who queried Iglesias about the status of public corruption cases he was pursuing in the state.

In a brief interview Monday, Iglesias said he will testify in a closed-door session of the Ethics Committee about the call he received from Wilson last October. The committee has opened a preliminary investigation into allegations that Wilson violated House ethics rules by calling Iglesias to find out about corruption cases involving Democrats weeks before last year's midterm elections. Wilson faced a tough reelection campaign last fall.

NY Times Editorial: Impeach Gonzales

© 2007 Stephen Pitt

Well, it would be a start. Read the editorial: Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story.

Must See TV Tonight on NOW: Repub Plan to Disqualify Dem Voters in NM, Other Battleground States

Tonight, July 27, 2007 at 8:00 PM Mountain Time on PBS' NOW on KNME: How Secure Is Your Right to Vote? Those interviewed include investigative journalist Greg Palast, who has done extensive work on the issue in New Mexico and elsewhere. (Check local listings.) NOW investigates a secret Republican plan designed to disqualify voters by various means including voter caging:

Was there a White House plot to illegally suppress votes in 2004? Is there a similar plan for the upcoming elections? NOW examines documents and evidence pointing to a Republican Party plan designed to keep Democrats from voting, by targeting people based on their race and ethnicity. Congress is investigating, and so are we. NOW speaks with David Iglesias, one of eight fired US attorneys, who says he lost his job because he refused to go along with the White House plan to suppress votes.

Was the White House involved? David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, thinks so: "It's reprehensible. It's unethical, it's unlawful. It may very well be criminal." Iglesias told NOW he was repeatedly urged by his superiors at the Justice Department to investigate allegations of false voter registrations. After his investigations came up short, Iglesias said Republican officials got angry, complained to White House aide Karl Rove. Soon after Iglesias lost his job. As a result of allegations by Iglesias and others, Congress is investigating whether the White House acted unlawfully.

The NOW website also reveals key emails and documents covered in their investigation and also features an extended interview with David Iglesias, as well as one with another fired U.S. Attorney, Bud Collins. Excerpts of Iglesias interview:

NOW: It wasn't only officials at the Department of Justice who were expressing an interest in pursuing such [voter fraud] cases. You were getting requests from other individuals, correct?

DI: That's correct. In fact, there was a Republican attorney, Pat Rogers, who was a prominent local attorney who tried to pressure me to come up with cases. He would send emails to my assistant, who I had tasked with running this election fraud taskforce ... And I had lunch with Mr. Rogers last fall and he expressed his concern about what he believed to be this systemic, ongoing election fraud. I did not know at the time that he belonged to an organization called the American Center for Voting Rights. He did not disclose to me that he was representing any other interest. And I've also found out that the Republican Party was very interested in stamping out what it believed to be instances of voter fraud.

NOW: The State Republican Party or the National Republican Party?

DI: Both. But who contacted me or some of my assistants was the State Republican Party.

... NOW: In one press account you're quoted as characterizing Mr. Rogers' interest in this issue as "obsessive."

DI: Yes. I was aware of grumbling within the State Republican Party. I had friends of mine who were attorneys. One was a former federal prosecutor himself and he would tell me during the course of early 2005 through mid-2006 ... "The Republicans are still upset with you. They still expect you to prosecute cases."

So I knew there was this belief that was I intentionally not prosecuting prosecutable cases. And I knew Rogers, as a prominent Republican, who had actually represented the State Republican Party in some civil litigation related to the voter ID issue ... I knew he was interested in the issue. And then I was also aware of the emails and phone calls he had been leaving with my assistant, who I had tasked with prosecuting this. So I knew there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction of me not prosecuting any cases.

What I believed, however, was consistent with historic practice—that the Justice Department would insulate me from any partisan political pressure. As it turns out, they didn't do that. And that was one of the bases for forcing my resignation.

... NOW: Trying to use the office of a U.S. Attorney for partisan political purposes is unethical. But you're saying it is actually illegal?

DI: Right. That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda. That's why the White House doesn't want to produce it to Congress.

At Last! Leahy Subpoenas Rove (and Jennings)

You can find the subpoenas, cover letters and Sen. Patrick Leahy's floor statement today (video and text) right here. The vibrations in the battle against a lawless White House just moved up an octave in intensity and speed ....

"... Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration that this Administration refuses to abide by the rule of law."

“... The evidence shows that senior White House political operatives were focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases.  It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort,” Leahy said.  “The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances.  Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

"... E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquires at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys.  The evidence also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal.  He was fired a few weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported “voter fraud” enforcement cases in his jurisdiction."

"...With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys.  I hope that the White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward interference with federal law enforcement.  That interference has threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.  Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda.  Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other Administration has done and find and accommodation with the Congress. If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the course they have chosen.

"There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm.  I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American people’s trust and confidence in federal law enforcement." [emphais mine]

You really, really should read or watch the entire statement. Constitutional crisis, here we come.

The Contemptuous Alberto Gonzales

Keith Olbermann's report on Gonzales appearance

Last night, I forced myself to sit through most of CSPAN's rebroadcast of AG Alberto Gonzales' smirking, sullen appearance (I won't call it testimony) before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I admit it -- I yelled at the TV set. Again.

Alberto's rude arrogance, his abject refusal to answer legitimate questions and his "I can't recall" refrains were frustrating enough, but his obvious lying and dissembling were executed without even a smidgeon of shame. Publicly. As if daring the Committee members to do something about it. He obviously feels protected by the Bush-Cheney cabal. As long as he continues to provide them cover, he can break any rule, any law, any protocol, for Bush himself has said he won't allow the Justice Department to investigate or prosecute Alberto for anything.

In any other era, the mainstream media would be all over the story of Alberto's deceit, incompetence and refusal to answer questions representing entirely legal constitutional oversight by the Congress. It would be on TV 24/7, like the Clinton stories were back in the days of Special Prosecutor Starr. Citizens would be up in arms, demanding action.

In any other era, of course, the person serving as president would never have appointed a slug like Gonzales and certainly would have forced a resignation if the AG behaved like Gonzales. In the Bush era, however, this is mere business as usual -- incompetence, dishonesty and acting above the law are commonplace, from the highest echelons of the White House on down. It's the modus operadi of the Bush administration: anti-democratic, unconstitutional and venal.

Will the Congress ever reach its limit and make a stand against Gonzales and his partners in crime? At least the language used by Senators yesterday was blunt indeed. Some Senatorial quotes from the SJC hearing, provided by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:

"The department is dysfunctional. . . . Every week a new issue arises. . . . That is just decimating, Mr. Attorney General. . . . The list goes on and on. . . . Is your department functioning? . . . What credibility is left for you? . . . Do you expect us to believe that? . . . Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."

And that was just from the top Republican on the committee, Arlen Specter (Pa.). Democrats had to scramble to keep up with the ranking member's contempt.

"I don't trust you," announced Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who paused, while swearing in the witness, to emphasize "nothing but the truth" -- as if lecturing a child.

"You just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught," added Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"You, sir, are in fact the problem," submitted Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

What are the Senate's options to get at Gonzales? The choices are confusing, to say the least. A special prosecutor? Contempt of Congress or perjury charges? Impeachment of the AG? What's called "inherent contempt," whereby a trial would be held in the Senate and Gonzales would be seized by the Sergeant-at-Arms if convicted? Legal minds are no doubt working overtime to come up with something that can puncture the in-your-face criminality of Bush and company. Let's hope they get somewhere.

If the precedents being set by this bunch are allowed to stand unchallenged, what hope can we possibly have for the survival of our democracy, constitution or civil liberties?

More video:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer vs. Gonzales
• Sen. Arlen Specter vs. Gonzales
• Chair Patrick Leahy's closing statement (and Code Pink chants to resign)
• CSPAN's complete video of the hearing

High School Basketball Players Illegally Searched at NM Regional Tournament

From ACLU-NM:
TO’HAJIILEE, NM—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit today on behalf of To’hajiilee Community School basketball players and the To’hajiilee School Board of Education, Inc., against three New Mexico State law enforcement officers for their illegal searches during a regional basketball tournament.

“Fortunately, our young clients know that the police cannot just willy-nilly accuse them of a crime and then detain and search them, and they also know that something is very wrong when the police arbitrarily turn their power against Native Americans and no one else,” said Jane Gagne, ACLU of New Mexico co-legal director.

On March 3, 2006, basketball teams from the To’hajiilee Community School, Temple Baptist High School, the Springer High School, and the Des Moines High School competed in a regional basketball tournament hosted by Des Moines High School, in Des Moines, New Mexico. During the tournament the Temple Baptist coach reported to the police that items had been stolen from their locker room.  After items were reported missing, the police searched only the To’hajiilee team members, despite statements from coaches that the search was not necessary, and no indication that any To’hajiilee player had taken the items.  To’hajiilee is a Chapter of the Navajo Nation, and the To’hajiilee Community School is a Native American high school.

The policemen ordered the To’hajiilee team to line up on the basketball court, in front of the spectators, and then ordered the team to go into the locker room, where the team members were confined while the policemen searched their belongings.  Following the search in the locker room, police officials searched the To’hajiilee team bus which had been locked and attended to by the bus driver the entire time the alleged thefts could have occurred.  Police officials neither requested nor received consent to search any of the team members’ belongings or the To’hajiilee team bus, nor did they have any reason to believe that any of the To’hajiilee team members had stolen the items or that they would be on the team bus.  None of the stolen items were found.

“Police officials do not have a blank check to conduct searches at their will,” said Whitney Potter, spokesperson for the ACLU of New Mexico.  “Allowing police to conduct these kinds of searches of students with no consent or probable cause turns our schoolhouses into jailhouses.”

ACLU of New Mexico Staff Attorney George Bach and co-legal directors Jane Gagne and Phil Davis filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

###

Download the complaint: https://aclu-nm.org/PDF/ToHajiilee_Complaint.pdf

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship. For more information, visit us on the web: www.aclu-nm.org.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
PO BOX 566, Albuquerque, NM 87103
Tel: (505) 266-5915 ext 1003 | Fax: (505) 266-5916
Email: wpotter@aclu-nm.org | Web: https://www.aclu-nm.org

Visit the ACLU of New Mexico's New Blog

To donate to the ACLU of New Mexico securely online, click here.

Public Down on Libby Commutation, Up on Impeachment

As reported at Pollster.com:

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

• 31% approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

• 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

• 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

• 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Then you've got General William Odom, Reagan's NSA Chief, suggesting a way to get Bush to get out of Iraq that is based on a threat of impeachment for the "high crime" of sacrificing the lives of troops for "his own personal interest":

As reported on Think Progress:

Reagan’s NSA Chief: Withdraw funds, pull out, impeach. Gen. William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, writes that Congress should begin cutting off funds for Iraq and must force Bush to begin a withdrawal before he leaves office:

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what “supporting the troops” really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.