IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New still more on the attorney firings
From [link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013648.php|Talking Points Memo]:
It was Sen. Domenici's (R-NM) call to David Iglesias to get him to game the November election with an election-timed indictment that got this scandal really rolling. And it's always been the key question just how and whether Domenici's failed play to get Iglesias to tamper with the November election led to his firing on December 7th.

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

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

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

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

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

No one disputes that Domenici's call to Iglesias was at best inappropriate. But there's been a lack of direct evidence that Iglesias's refusal to bow to political pressure led directly to his firing. Now we have that evidence. And it's not Kyle Sampson or even Alberto Gonzales whom Domenici went to to get sign off for Iglesias's ouster. It was right to the president. And the available evidence now points strongly to the conclusion that the final decision to fire David Iglesias came from the President of the United States.
I hate to wax optimistic here, having been disappointed so many times before, but I seem to note an increasingly dense agglomeration of peasants, pitchforks and torches at the base of the castle.

cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
New well they are not gibbering yet but getting there
I wouldnt trust the collective ability of this administration to handle cleaning the womens restroom at Augusta in the off season.
I believe it rests on the place being ridden with graduates of Regent University.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Watching Bill Maher, are we?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New no, why? Those clips were mine
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New That is bad for Bush
If that holds up (I don't doubt that it is true but making it stick is another thing) then it is very bad for Rove and Bush.

That is an obviously impeachable offense, and has both Bush's and Rove's direct fingerprints on it. With that, even having Gonzales fall on his sword might not be enough.

With everything the Bush cabal is guilty of, it will be somewhat ironic if this is what takes them down. But it has several tactical advantages, the Democrats and the press are united against*, it is simple enough to explain to the public**, it is obviously wrong and an abuse of office***, it has the advantage of being the final straw and it has shades of Nixon to boot.

Jay

* As opposed to the war and the information leading up to it. Too many Democrats and pundits don't want to admit their complicity in causing the war or that they where duped by obvious false information. Thus there is no obvious consensus on what went wrong and who is at fault.

** I'm pretty sure that the complexity of the crime is what kept the Plame case from blowing up even worse then it did. There where so many levels, so many connections and so much indirection that even explaining what happened would require a book. Thus it was easy for the White House to block the investigation from reaching the top.

*** Unlike Bush's various unitary executive initatives, among others. They are an attempt to undermine or bypass the constitution and normal balance of power. But there is just enough legal and moral cover and the argument abstract enough that most people just don't care.

Jay
     more on the attorney firings - (rcareaga) - (7)
         raucus colonies of howler monkeys apt description of those - (boxley) - (1)
             oh, sure, left-howlers too... - (rcareaga)
         still more on the attorney firings - (rcareaga) - (4)
             well they are not gibbering yet but getting there - (boxley) - (2)
                 Watching Bill Maher, are we? -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                     no, why? Those clips were mine -NT - (boxley)
             That is bad for Bush - (JayMehaffey)

Life was hard for the pioneers, but every now and again, someone would get out the fiddle and make it all worse.
43 ms