Mario Burgos

Clear thinking and straight talk from the top of a mountain.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Why Not Just Provide a Complete Correction?

More and more people everyday get their news from blogs. The argument has been made that blogs don't do as good of a job of presenting the news as the mainstream media. Now, in a lot of cases, I would agree with that. For example, I've never pretended to be a reporter. In fact, I go out of my way to make it clear that everything written here is my opinion, albeit based on the facts as I see them.

With all that said, there is one place where a great many blogs clearly outperform the mainstream media - correcting mistakes. Let me give you one example. Yesterday, I wrote about an article published a little over a year ago in the Albuquerque Journal in which they incorrectly reported that Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District, Darren White, attended a Department of Justice meeting during the 2006 election cycle regarding the inaction by then U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in prosecuting voter fraud cases.

I also pointed out that if either his opponent, Democrat Martin Heinrich or, his alter ego, the DCCC, tried to use that information in an ad, they would be continuing Heinrich's track record of misrepresenting the facts. I was confident in making this statement because I had looked up the article in question [subscription] and noted that a correction had been added to the article on the Journal's website:
FOR THE RECORD: This story has been corrected to reflect that Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White met with Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Washington in 2005 — not in 2006.
I thought that was that until I got an email from Darren White's campaign with a little more information. They sent me a copy of an email they received from Journal editor Ken Walz [Note: I edited the email to remove ">" that were appearing before each line and so the paragraph formatting may be a little off, but other than that it remains unedited]:
------ Original Message --------
[Fwd: Re: white]
Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:01:00 -0600
Kent Walz
To:, Mike Gallagher

Sheriff White:

I have reviewed our David Iglesias stories with investigative reporter Mike Gallagher. It appears that in a story published April 15, 2007, we incorrectly placed you in a convesation with Kyle Sampson of DOJ during a meeting in the spring of 2006. We reported that you complained to Sampson about Iglesias and that Sampson produced statistics showing Iglesias was doing a good job.

In fact, based on other reporting, it appears to us the participants in that conversation with Sampson were Pat Rogers and Mickey Barnett and that you were not present.

Your met with Sampson in 2005 on a different topic, although Iglesi as came up during casual discussion. We have no information that you registered complaints about Iglesias during that meeting.

We did interview you for the story published in April of 2007, and you commented on other matters involving direct dealings between Iglesias and youir office. We no longer have notes from this period, so we cannot cite to additional specifics.

Kent Walz

cc: Mike Gallagher
And, herein lays the problem. This emails verifies that the content of the story is dramatically changed. It's more than just the incorrect usage of dates. So, in the interest of setting the record straight, shouldn't the Journal have prefaced the online archived version of the article with the entire letter above? There is nothing wrong with making a mistake. It happens to everyone, but not fully correcting the mistake, that's just wrong.

The Albuquerque Journal needs to take a page here from bloggers and keep in mind that in online postings, there is no cost per inch factor. So, there is no reason not to provide a full and complete correction. It keeps everyone honest. The good news is that it's not too late. All they need to do is go back to the article and put it up now.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Waiting for the Iglesias's Ad

Joel Gay put up an article today in which he acknowledges the fireworks have begun in the 1st Congressional District race between Darren White and Martin Heinrich. And, by fireworks he means the negative ads.
If you think the race for New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District seems quieter than anticipated, you’re not alone. What was widely expected to be a barn-burner has largely been a snoozer. The candidates have kept relatively low profiles and the airwaves have been largely devoid of their names and faces.

That’s started to change, with Republican Darren White and Democrat Martin Heinrich trading blows over debate schedules, resumes and flip-flops on various policies. And just this week, White came out with the first negative ad.
Hmm, Joel, you might want to go back and review the ad releases dates. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Heinrich beat Darren in the "first negative ad" category. There was that embarrassingly cheesy hit piece that Mr. Heinrich put out a couple of weeks ago, and there was at least on other one before that. Although, on second thought that first ad I'm recalling may have been paid for by the DCCC, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the Heinrich campaign - just like Martin Heinrich didn't really need to register as a lobbyist when he was lobbying.

But, I will agree with your assessment that the negative ads are going to start to fly now from both camps. In fact, I couldn't help but notice that David Iglesias was back in the news:
"Looking back on all of this, in hindsight, I wish the department had not gone down this road," he said. He said he would not have included on the dismissal list U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, who has said he was pressured over a corruption investigation.
Of course, we all know that the "pressure" that David Iglesias received was not over a corruption investigation (he would have been required to report that - kind of the requirement to report you're a lobbyist], but the pressure was about his unwillingness to prosecute ACORN's fraudulent voter registration election cycle after election cycle.

You probably have noticed the result of Mr. Iglesias ongoing failure to prosecute has embolden the organization. ACORN is now acting in such a fraudulently criminal manner that even the Democratic Bernalillo County Clerk has had to call in to question their practices - something Mr. Iglesias never had the stomach for.
Such is the situation for Bernalillo County, which reported, the day before Obama’s Española rally, that it had received 1,100 fraudulent voter-registration cards. While there is no information, yet, on where those cards came from, Matthew Henderson, ACORN’s New Mexico head organizer, acknowledges some could have come from his group. ACORN, he says, has registered 75,000 New Mexicans during this election cycle. While the group separates suspect forms into a separate stack, he says, it’s ultimately up to county clerks to decide which are valid.

In the case of Bernalillo, County Clerk Maggie Toulouse-Oliver notified the district attorney, Attorney General and US Attorney Offices about the bogus voter-registration cards. “If they want to conduct an investigation,” she says, “that’s their prerogative.”
Now, I've got a prediction. I'm willing to bet that Heinrich's campaign (or it's alter ego, the DCCC) will put out an ad trying to link Darren White to David Iglesias as Election Day gets closer. Heck, they'll probably even use an article the Albuquerque Journal published on April 15, 2007, which places Darren White at a meeting with the Department of Justice during the 2006 election cycle. Of course, there would be one problem with that tactic...
FOR THE RECORD: This story has been corrected to reflect that Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White met with Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Washington in 2005 — not in 2006.
Now, if I know the record has been corrected, we know that Martin Heinrich and his alter ego the DCCC know that it's been corrected. The question is will they let the truth get in their way? You know, like the truth about needing to register as a lobbyist when you're lobbying.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, June 18, 2007

Honor Among Lawyers

Oh, I'm so confused....

It is accepted as fact in New Mexico that former, fired and disgruntled U.S. Attorney David Iglesias served as the inspiration for the Tom Cruise character in a A Few Good Men. More than one local story has used it to bring a little bit of Hollywood to their coverage of Mr. Iglesias' firing for performance reasons:
After graduating from the University of New Mexico School of Law, Iglesias became a Navy judge advocate general. Early in his career, he was assigned to defend court-martialed sailors at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There, his involvement in a hazing case became the basis for Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men."
But, here is where it gets weird. Former GOP State Party Chairman John Dendahl recently had a letter published (subscription) in the Albuquerque Journal where he points out that Mr. Iglesias is not alone in his claim to fame:
Political campaigns being what they are, we were pleased to tout Iglesias' story that he was the dauntless Navy court-martial prosecutor portrayed by Tom Cruise in the movie "A Few Good Men." Now I find sources, including Wikipedia, revealing the Tom Cruise character to be another Navy lawyer, Don Marcari, currently in private practice in Virginia. But the Cruise-plays-Iglesias myth lives on, adding gloss to the voluminous 2007 press Iglesias has attracted to obscure his justified firing.

Iglesias' résumé needs corroboration. Pending that, I'm reminded of Bill Richardson's claim of having been drafted to play major league baseball, debunked— but only after about 40 years.

It often takes the truth too long to catch up with a well-told lie.
So, I did a little bit of digging, and sure enough, there is another lawyer out there claiming to be the inspiration for A Few Good Men:
Don first gained national attention when his exploits as a young defense attorney with the U.S. Navy JAG Corp became the basis for the motion picture "A Few Good Men." For the last 19 years, Don has been fighting for injured people throughout North Carolina and Virginia. His skill in the courtroom has lead to his selection to the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association Board of Governors and the Ethics & Professionalism Committee.
Now who am I supposed to believe? The trial lawyer or the former U.S. Attorney with a well-documented history of honing his performance.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Maybe We Should Define Perjury

Well, here's a question....

If a sharp legal mind, the kind of mind that was portrayed on the silver screen in A Few Good Men, answers a question one way under oath in front of Congress, and answers a question another way when asked by a reporter, does that constitute perjury?

I'm just kind of wondering. You see, I'm not a lawyer, but from a layman's perspective, it sure seems that David Iglesias' well-rehearsed and dramatically delivered testimony before Congress might now come back to bite him. In case you missed, it the first time, here is the re-run of the relevant part:

Go ahead, play it again. It's pretty clear isn't it? Mr. Iglesias said he felt pressured after receiving a call from Senator Domenici. So, maybe Mr. Iglesias can explain this response in a recent interview with his old work buddy and fellow attorney, Jim Scarantino, for the Alibi. First, we have this admission from David Iglesias:
Could [Senator Domenici's] phone call to me [concerning the timing of charges in the court house corruption investigation] constitute a criminal offense? I’m not sure. I suspect ethics charges are more likely than criminal charges as I doubt he called me to interfere with the courthouse cases. Having me removed for not prosecuting voter fraud cases or [not] prosecuting cases fast enough probably does not constitute obstruction of justice.
That's followed up by this whopper of a confession:
Domenici and [U.S. Rep. Heather] Wilson never directly pressured me to take action—it was the New Mexico GOP.
Whoa, hold the presses! Domenici and Wilson never directly pressured him? Well, then how does he explain his sworn testimony before Senator Schumer? David Iglesias clearly stated, "I felt pressured to get these matters moving." He said it regarding Senator Pete Domenici, and Iglesias said it again when asked about a call from Congresswoman Heather Wilson:

Hmm, I wonder if this might negatively impact that book deal?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Equal Opportunity Offender

Folks on the left and on the right are taking note of the creative liberties taken by Sridhar Pappu, a reporter - and I use that term loosely - for the Washington Post.

Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:

At 9 a.m. on the very edge of the dusty, desolate collection of adobe homes and Vietnamese restaurants that seem to form this city, David Iglesias begins his run through the foothills of the Sandia Mountains.

Ok, that is without a doubt one of the most bizarre descriptions I've ever heard of Albuquerque. But, Mr. Pappu's creativity only improves as the story continues:
Back home, [David Iglesias] told his wife, Cyndy, and his shock became hers. For weeks she sat with him in their backyard hot tub, trying to retrace the steps.
And here I thought it was inadvisable to sit in a hot tub for more than ten minutes. Imagine it, these folks sat for weeks in their backyard hot tub. This might very well explain the hallucinations Mr. Iglesias has seemingly begun to endure. Weeks in a hot tub undoubtedly affects not only the skin, but the mind.
Now a "disaffected Republican," Iglesias continues to support all the articles of modern Republican faith.
"Republican faith?" Whoa, when did this become a religion? Does this mean that my contributions are now deductible as a charitable contribution?

But, my favorite part of this whole story is:
"I've seen how Democrats have really reached out and helped me," Iglesias says. "This whole scandal has really made me appreciate different people more. The people who stuck it to me are people who share [the same values]. The people who have helped me -- the Schumers, the Leahys, the Feinsteins -- have value systems different than mine."
No Mr. Iglesias, I'd say those people have value systems very much like yours.

Labels: ,

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Facts Are on His Side

You may not like what Palast has to say but the facts are on his side.
This was in a comment by David Jacobs left yesterday. Now, Mr. Jacobs is a frequent commentator on this blog, and I sincerely appreciate the dialogue. But, to argue that Mr. Palast has facts on his side is a bit of a stretch. Granted, Mr. Palast can spin the facts with the best of them, and like our own Joe Monahan, he pretends to be reporting the facts in an unbiased investigative manner, but nothing could be further from the truth.

It may surprise some people to know that I actually own one of Mr. Palast's book, The Best Money Democracy Can Buy. However, it was a New York Times best seller on politics, and I am always curious what the other side is putting out there.

Here is what I discovered... If you are removed from the facts (i.e. don't have first hand knowledge), then Mr. Palast's "investigative reporting" is very believable. However, if you are living what he is reporting, then it quickly becomes clear for what it is... Democratic Spin.

Case in point can be found in this exchange from the David Iglesias segment on Democracy NOW:

AMY GOODMAN: And Healther Wilson, of course, also called, and Heather Wilson at the time in an extremely close race for her political life as a congress member from New Mexico.

GREG PALAST: Well, in fact, from my investigation, she didn't win. There was voter fraud, and that the majority of the votes went to the Democrats.

Do you hear that sound? It is the sound of the last of Mr. Palast's credibility going down the drain. Anyone who is going to go on record stating that Republicans are in a position to steal an election in the NM's 1st CD is either a fool or the ultimate spinmeister. Since I don't think fools can write a NYT best seller, I'm going to acknowledge Mr. Palast's tremendous spin abilities.

One of my very first posts as a political blogger pointed out the absurdity of claims that Republicans could steal elections in New Mexico, and in the 2006 elections in the Land of Enchantment the same reality existed as in 2004. The same powerful Democrats were in all of the same election controlling positions, so the absurdity of the premise remains the same.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 17, 2007

You Can Handle the Truth - Right?

Dear Mr. Iglesias:

I read in a recent article that, in addition to spending time mowing your lawn, you have a couple of other interesting activities to fill your days:
Besides [shuttling his daughters to and from school and their various activities, Iglesias] goes jogging in the Foothills, fields calls from reporters, reads a few blogs and tries to spend a little time each day by the bubbling rock.
I''ve noticed that one of those "reporters" you've been spending time on the phone with is Greg Palast, and I'm concerned that maybe someone failed to make you aware the Greg Palast is basically a writer who makes his money peddling conspiracy theory books to further the agenda of the far left. This could become problematic for you as I know you are struggling against those who have portrayed you as a poster boy of the far left:
Whitney Cheshire, a former spokeswoman for the New Mexico GOP, has used her blog to call Iglesias a "poster child" for the Democrats and question what kind of reward he'll get for his statements.

Iglesias says he's been approached by envoys for two prominent Democrats - one on the state level and another on the national stage. He won't say who, and says he doesn't know what they wanted because he rebuffed the entreaties.

"I told them I'm not interested," he says. "I'm not a Democratic stooge."

See, this is a problem. I'm truly afraid that someone is going to question your sincerity. Some may find it difficult to take you at your word regarding that whole "Democratic stooge" thing while you are willing actor in Democratic productions such as this one by Democracy NOW delivering lines like this:
DAVID IGLESIAS: I had no idea that a few local yokels in New Mexico would have enough stroke to get the President to complain.
Mr. Iglesias, we all know that Senator Pete Domenici began complaining about your unwillingness to prosecute voter fraud in New Mexicoin September of 2005 . And, it has been well documented that this led to his asking for your replacement. However, for you to call New Mexico's senior Senator, a "local yokel" is, well, something that could be portrayed as the act of a Democratic stooge.

But, no worries. I've decided to help you set the record straight. I don't want people to start labeling David Iglesias as "a man who can't handle the truth." So, you might have noticed that I'm having a little bit of trouble getting some answers from the Department of Justice to my FOIA requests. Their unwillingness to release documents about you is only going to reinforce the rumors that you can't handle the truth.

However, together, you and I, can prove once and for all that David Iglesias CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH. Just take a moment and write up a little note authorizing the Department of Justice to release all of the information I requested in my intitial FOIA request. I'll be happy to swing by and pick up a notarized copy at your earliest convenience.

In pursuit of the truth,


Labels: ,

Friday, May 11, 2007

Last Night Turned Into This Morning

To those who came back to check before going to bed, "Sorry." The day flew by, and by the time I got home from work it was after midnight, and I was beat. Of course, I'm running late this morning for a breakfast meeting, so let me just address the David Iglesias FOIA responses received to date.

It seems that Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that the easiest way to address my request is one item at a time. I'll give you the original question and the response below:
Q4: Mr. Iglesias has recently stated that public corruption cases were not ignored during his tenure. Please provide details of Mr. Iglesias’ calendar during the Vigil trials?

A4: A request must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to allow location of the records with a reasonable amount of effort (i.e., processing the request should not require an unduly burdenson effort or be disruptive of Department operations). Please provide more specific information about the records you seek, such as appropriate dates, locations, names, natures of the records, etc.
Ok, let's consider this a group exercise. If someone would be so kind as to provide me the exact dates of the Vigil trial, I will happily re-submit my request.
Q14: Please produce the name of any USA that has ever been appointed outside of the current political/constitutional process for the appointments of USAs.

A14: The Freedom of Information Act only applies to records already in existence and does not require an agency to conduct research, create new records, or answer questions presented as FOIA requests.
Hmm, it doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this one.
Q3: Letter(s) signed by Assistant United States Attorneys concerning Mr. Iglesias’ foreign travels, management or other perceived shortcomings.

A3: It is the policy of the Executive Office neither to confirm or deny that records concerning living third parties exist. Further, any release to you of such records, if they do exist, would be in violation of the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The requested material would also be exempt from release pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and/or (b)(7)(C) which pertain to records whose disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Now, this response did also include an outline for an appeal to this ruling. So, if one of you legal begals that read this blog religiously would like to step up and help guide me on how best to respond in the name of the public good, I would be much obliged.

The next set of questions was lumped together as a third party request:
Q5: Please provide the result of the investigation and review of the Eric Serna information concerning possible public corruption, bribery, political and "charitable" contributions involving but not limited to Con Alma and Southwest Charities.

Q7: Please provide a list of the public corruption crimes and related crimes that will be, have been or may be adversely impacted by the statute of limitations and the failure of the office, under Mr. Iglesias to proceed in a more prompt manner?

Q9: Mr. Iglesias, since leaving the office of the United States Attorney, has referred to emails concerning contacts with members of the public concerning voter fraud or the “voter fraud task force.” Please provide a set of all copies of DOJ/USA correspondence and emails provided to Mr. Iglesias concerning voter fraud or the Voter Fraud Task Force from members of the public.

Q10: Please provide copies of his responses. Please provide the DOJ/USA policy concerning employee access to emails for personal purposes, both during and after employment.

Q12: Copies of all of Iglesias’ emails received from, or sent to, members of the public.

A5,7,9,10,12: You have request records concerning a thrid party (or third parties). records pertaining to a third party generally cannot be released absent express authorization and consent of the third party, blah, blah, blah.
So, that's where we stand to date.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

David Iglesias' Performance

Finally, New Mexico's left of center blogger political blogger, Joe Monahan characterizes the David Iglesias media tour for what it is: a "performance."
As you an see in this tape, Iglesias' performance is getting more polished as he continues the drumbeat that is damaging the eardrums of two of our state's most prominent R's. He is also more precise in detailing why he believes he was wrongfully fired at the urging of Pete and his fellow R's.
And let's not forget the bottom line here:
This is the tightest explanation I have seen from Iglesias. It's important politically because the charges, if they are to be effectively used against Domenici and Wilson next year in short paid media ads, will have to make sense to a general audience. Iglesias has honed his message and in doing so is laying the groundwork for the Dem consultants who will ultimately market this story to the electorate.
Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? After all, the truth does not have to get honed. A truthful story is the same every time it is told. It DOES NOT go through redrafts and "honing" to better fit a 30 second attack ad.

Labels: ,

Monday, April 23, 2007

Another Iglesais Media Moment

So, a lot has been made of the fact that fired, disgruntled former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' was the inspiration for Tom Cruise's character in a Few Good Men. However, based on Mr. Iglesias' side-splitting analysis of the testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, I'm guessing Hollywood took a lot of liberties in creating that character. Seriously, you've got to read this:
David Iglesias, the former New Mexico U.S. attorney and one of the eight fired last year, said investigating the White House's role is the logical next step -- one that would follow existing clues about Rove's involvement.

"If I were Congress, I would say, 'If the attorney general doesn't have answers, then who would?' There's enough evidence to indicate that Karl Rove was involved up to his eyeballs."

Iglesias said another clue that the White House may have been the driving force is the relative lack of Justice Department documentation for the firings in the 6,000 pages of documents turned over to Congress.

"If you want to justify getting rid of someone, you should have at least some paper trail," Iglesias said. "There's been a remarkable absence of that. I'm wondering if the paper trail is at the White House."
Whoa, didn't Mr. Iglesias read the fine print in his political appointment? You know, the part the explained the political appointment made by the president that allowed him to serve as U.S. Attorney at the pleasure of the president. Maybe he should hire himself a good employment lawyer who could explain to him exactly what all that legal mumbo jumbo means.

Obviously, Mr. Iglesias is finding it all very confusing. He is having a tremendously difficult time understanding that whole "at-will" component. Mr. Iglesias just can't seem to comprehend that no paper trail was required to fire him. Then again, maybe he just thought that whole U.S. Attorney appointment was like an appointment to the Supreme Court - one of those lifetime gigs.

One more thing... I fail to see what it matters if the White House was involved. I would expect the White House to be involved. How else could someone who serves at the pleasure of the president be terminated? I'd be concerned if the White House was not involved. So forget this whole "paper trail is at the White House nonsense."

Speaking of paper trails, I'm wondering how that FOIA request is progressing?


Wednesday, April 18, 2007

2004 Election Fraud Concerned Democrats

It turns out that the election fraud perpetrated in New Mexico in 2004 was a concern to Democrats as well as as Republicans (Hat tip: American Spectator). In fact, it was a big enough deal that recently released documents by the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary show that Senator Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) office called not once, but twice before the election in 2004 to determine the status. See the released supporting documentation below:

So, what does this all mean? Well, the folks over at the American Spectator have this take:

Is there anything wrong with this? Probably not. But it shows that it can be an entirely innocent and normal thing for senators to inquire, during election season, about the status of investigations with political ramifications. It takes at least some of the sting out of the breathless allegations against Domenici.

Granted, there are two differences in the cases. First, Domenici called Iglesias directly, whereas it was Bingaman's chief of staff who called and it was to the legislative affairs office at Justice, not to Iglesias, that he made his call. Second, there is no evidence that Bingaman did anything further that could be interpreted as putting political pressure on Iglesias or on DoJ, whereas it appeared that Domenici forwarded his complaints to the White House.

But the fact remains that it is just flat-out inaccurate to assert that senators are necessarily out of line to express concern about politically tinged investigations. The Democrats' pretense to the contrary is not just hypocritical, but a rank descent into character assassination of a sort that can, by tying up resources, distract attention from the actual job of law enforcement.

For those of you out there who are trying to pretend voter fraud did not occur in 2004, please take special note that it was Democrat County Clerk Mary Herrera "who asked to meet about 3,000 suspicious registrations." And, the lack of prosecutorial action by David Iglesias in after a year's passage is what led to Senator Domenici's well documented first complaint in September of 2005 to the Department of Justice.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

How Much More Proof Do You Want?

Several weeks back, I put up the video that showed the press was covering the 2004 Voter Fraud problems. The problems that disgruntled former, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias never saw fit to get around to prosecuting. At least one blogger feels that seeing the evidence documented in the evening news is just not enough proof.

So, I'm wondering if this Albuquerque Tribune article from earlier this years might constitute proof that we have a voter fraud problem in New Mexico that would have warranted prosecution by Mr. Iglesias:

The new state elections director's anecdote about personal brushes with voting fraud have riled a number of county clerks and left others scratching their heads.

At a meeting of county clerks in Santa Fe on Jan. 23, Daniel Ivey-Soto recounted several conversations he'd had over the years with people who told him they'd used other people's identities to cast multiple votes, according to Ivey-Soto and others in attendance.

"I have been in conversations with people who have told me that, at various times, they've voted more than once on Election Day," Ivey Soto said in an interview this week. "It happens. Apparently some people were shocked by that."

Santa Fe County Clerk Valerie Espinoza, a Democrat, was one of them.

"To make those comments to a group of county clerks was really just unbelievable," she said. "As a lawyer, he knew that voting fraud is a felony, and if you know someone who does that, why don't you tell the attorney general?"

Otero County Clerk Robyn Silva, a Republican, echoed those comments.

Okay, obviously this is an issue that is offensive to both sides of the aisle - at least those that care about fair elections. Oh, and lest anyone say this was a joke that got out of hand:

Other clerks said they thought Ivey-Soto might have been joking.

He wasn't.

Ivey-Soto, who took over as election chief three weeks ago despite having no experience running elections, said he recounted the conversations to make a serious point.

"In any system where people are allowed to express their opinion, you're going to get a certain amount of fraud," he said. "On `American Idol' you get people who call in to vote 16 or 17 times."

He said the conversations about voting fraud happened more than three years ago and suggested some may have been protected by attorney-client privilege.

Ok, am I the only one who finds it unnerving that the state's election director believes a certain amount of fraud is ok? Folks, he actually compares New Mexico voter fraud to American Idol, where people are encouraged to vote as many times as possbile for their favorite candidate.

With attitudes like this running rampant in Democratic circles that control state elections, is it really any wonder that people were frustrated by the lack of action by Mr. Iglesias? A Republican U.S. Attorney in a Democratic state plagued by public corruption scandals and voter fraud should be a proactive prosecutor, not a guy who is so inactive (subscription) that New Mexicans don't know what he does:
At his farewell news conference, Iglesias joked that he was often referred to as the "District Attorney" and that many New Mexicans were unfamiliar with what his position actually was.
From a public relations standpoint, the Department of Justice did not handle the firings of the U.S. Attorney's well. And, in the case of David Iglesias, part of the problem is that they kept him in the job too long.

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 13, 2007

Department of Justice First Response to FOIA

I promised to keep you informed, so I wanted to let you know that I did receive in yesterday's mail the following response from the Department of Justice (DOJ) dated April 11, 2007:

Dear Mr . Burgos:

Your letter was received by this office via facsimile on April 10, 2007, and was forwarded to the Freedon of Information Act Unit, Executive Office for the United States Attorneys, in Washington, D.C.

Federal Regulation 28 U.S.C. § 16.3 requires that we forward FOIA requests to the FOIA Unit in Washington, D.C. That office coordinates the processing of FOIA requests for all of the United states Attorney offices, and will respond directly to you regarding your request.

Please direct all of your subsequent FOIA matters to the FOIA Unit in Washington, D.C. as this will accelerate the processing of your request. The address for the FOIA Unit is as follows:

Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Unit
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
600 E Street, N.W., Room 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-6575
Facsimile: (202) 616-6478

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please direct them to the FOIA Unit in Washington, D.C.


acting United States Attorney

Executive Assistant United States Attorney
I also found it interesting that someone in the DOJ decided to use Google to do a little research to learn more about me.
I wonder if that's standard operating procedure or just a little extracurricular activity? It's good to know that people in the government use the same research tools that we do. Who knows, maybe they'll become regular readers.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

FOIA Request - David Iglesias

I faxed this over this morning, and I'll keep you posted as I receive responses:

Facsimile: 346-7296

FOIA Officer for the United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Rumaldo Armijo, Esq.
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0607

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear FOIA Officer:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) for documents concerning David Iglesias.

I request that a copy of the following documents, or documents containing the following information, be provided to me on an expedited basis:
  1. Mr. Iglesias has claimed publicly he was required to go to various out-of-county and out-of-state locations on the orders of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Provide copies of any such orders or instructions. Provide any information that any other US Attorney (USA) traveled out-of-state, using DOJ funds, as much as Mr. Iglesias, during 2000-2007.

  2. DOJ/USA records, including itinerary and expenses for David Iglesias’ DOJ/USA out-of-state travel including but not limited to travel to Mexico, Columbia, Laos from 2000-2007.

  3. Letter(s) signed by Assistant United States Attorneys concerning Mr. Iglesias’ foreign travels, management or other perceived shortcomings.

  4. Mr. Iglesias has recently stated that public corruption cases were not ignored during his tenure. Please provide details of Mr. Iglesias’ calendar during the Vigil trials?

  5. Please provide the result of the investigation and review of the Eric Serna information concerning possible public corruption, bribery, political and "charitable" contributions involving but not limited to Con Alma and Southwest Charities.

  6. Please provide records or statistics as to the public corruption leads and referrals that were not pursued by the USA?

  7. Please provide a list of the public corruption crimes and related crimes that will be, have been or may be adversely impacted by the statute of limitations and the failure of the office, under Mr. Iglesias to proceed in a more prompt manner?

  8. Any 2004 Voter Fraud Task Force report, study or collected documents. Please produce a list of persons on the task force, minutes of meetings, or any correspondence concerning the Task Force.

  9. Mr. Iglesias, since leaving the office of the United States Attorney, has referred to emails concerning contacts with members of the public concerning voter fraud or the “voter fraud task force.” Please provide a set of all copies of DOJ/USA correspondence and emails provided to Mr. Iglesias concerning voter fraud or the Voter Fraud Task Force from members of the public.

  10. Please provide copies of his responses. Please provide the DOJ/USA policy concerning employee access to emails for personal purposes, both during and after employment.

  11. Mr. Iglesias’ presentation to DOJ/USA personnel concerning the formation and operation of voter fraud task forces.

  12. Copies of all of Iglesias’ emails received from, or sent to, members of the public.

  13. Presumably you are aware that Mr. Iglesias stated publicly that "politics" should not play any part in the selection of the next permanent USA for New Mexico. Please produce any correspondence, including e-mails received from or sent to Mr. Iglesias from you or Mr. Gomez, on the topic of the appointment of the next USA.

  14. Please produce the name of any USA that has ever been appointed outside of the current political/constitutional process for the appointments of USAs.

While several of these requests may take some time to locate documents, please do not delay any responses to the more simple requests.

I request a waiver of fees for this request. I intend to make the documents available on a website so that the public has a chance to see the basis of Mr. Iglesias’ public statements and to judge the validity of the criticisms of Mr. Iglesias supposedly contained in letter(s) signed by the AUSAs, reported in the media.

The disclosure of the requested information is important to me and to the public because the former United States Attorney is now giving media interviews, attempting to use selective facts and opinions to argue he was competent and diligent. The requested records, if produced, should allow the public to judge for themselves whether his media arguments are factually based. The disclosure of this information will assist the public to understand whether the chief federal law enforcement official for New Mexico was discharging his duties and, if so, whether those duties were performed in an appropriate and prompt manner.

If charges are absolutely necessary, I will pay up to $100 for these documents with this important public information.


Mario Burgos

Labels: ,

Friday, April 06, 2007

"How to Ink a Book Deal" by David Iglesias

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias is suffering from withdrawal - media limelight withdrawal. Iglesias fatigue has set in with the media and the public in general, so the media focus has shifted on to the prosecution of the LONG AWAITED courthouse indictments - something actually newsworthy.

So, what's Mr. Iglesias to do? Well, according to the Albuquerque Journal (subscription):
Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias is seeking the help of a federal investigative office to determine if he was fired illegally for missing work to serve in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

Iglesias, who was forced to resign Dec. 7 after five years as New Mexico's U.S. attorney, has previously contended he was fired for political reasons. He has also suggested the Justice Department later developed a case to show he was fired for poor job performance.

This week, he filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, an investigative arm of the federal government, asking it to investigate if he was illegally fired for fulfilling his Naval Reserve obligations.

Iglesias said he was approached by officials from the Office of Special Counsel about filing a complaint.
Now, it's that last paragraph above that warrants your additional attention. The disgruntled former U.S. Attorney is attempting to paint the picture that he is just responding to a request from the Office of Special Counsel, but this is where it gets a little suspect:
Loren Smith, an OSC spokesman, confirmed that Iglesias has filed a complaint and that the agency is investigating.

Smith said he was unsure exactly how the complaint was initiated but said Iglesias is a friend of a staffer at the agency and that the two had discussed the matter before the complaint was filed.
Hmm, if I was a cynic, I might think this is all about trying to add a few chapters to that planned "inspirational" book (subscription) and maybe improve the chances of inking a deal:
Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias said Thursday he might write a book to tell his life story and wants a government retraction and apology for his firing.

Iglesias told the Journal on Thursday that he has been approached by three "literary agents"— two from the East Coast and one from the West Coast— who have expressed interest in signing him to a book deal.

The New Mexico Republican, who was forced to resign as the state's U.S. attorney on Dec. 7, declined to name the agents or publishing houses and said he has not yet inked a deal.
After all, it's not like the major publishing houses need to put out another travel guide.

NOTE: Turn on KNME's The Line tonight at 7:00 p.m. to catch me talking about the latest and greatest.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Schumer Releases Official Transcript of Domenici Call to Iglesias

I don't usually write on Sunday's, but this is just too important to wait until tomorrow. In an apparent attempt to keep the partisan bashing of New Mexico's Republican Congressional Representatives alive, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) earlier today released the official transcripts of the now infamous call between former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM).

Under a little known section of the Patriot Act, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been recording all conversations between its members and other branches of U.S. Government. When the Senate was under Republican control, this information was only used to keep the caucus voting as a block. However, now that the tide has turned, and the Democrats control the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee (DSCC) is on record as saying they will shamelessly use the information as often as necessary to win additional seats in the Senate for Democrats.

In what will most likely go down in the history books as the beginning of a new dawn in American politics, Senator Schumer, at the urging of former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid, has released the transcript below from that fateful day in October:

5:04 p.m. October 27, 2006

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: Hello, this is Pete. I want to -

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Just a second, Pete. Honey, can you turn up the volume.

Heard in the background: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Ah, I love that scene. Pete, did I ever tell you the movie a Few Good Men was based on my life?

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: Yes, David. Now listen, I have something important to ask you?

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Pete, hold on a second. Sweetheart, where's the suntan lotion? Oh, thanks. Pete, have you ever been to Bali Bali?

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: No, David, I haven't. The reason I'm calling -

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Me neither. I can't thank you enough for getting me this job. The foreign travel perks have been FANTASTIC. I've seen more of the world in this job than in my whole time in the service. In fact, if it wasn't for the all this legal stuff they keep asking me to do, I'd say this was the best darn job in the whole world.

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: David, that's why I'm calling. You see, people are calling me, and complaining about -

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Oh, Pete, don't worry about that. You're so old school. People call me all the time. I just have them put straight into voicemail. After all, a guy can only listen to so much whining about voter fraud. This is New Mexico, of course we have voter fraud. Pete, you got to learn to just ignore folks.

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: David, are you going to file indictments before your next trip abroad in November?

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: No.

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici: I'm sorry to hear that.

Sound of line going dead.

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: Pete, Pete, are you still there? Huh? Honey, where is that travel itinerary? Oh, and bring me my antacids. You know how I always feel sick to my stomach before traveling.

5:07 p.m. October 27, 2006

New Mexico Democratic Party Chairman, John Wertheim, held a press conference today in front of the Bernalillo County Courthouse, in which he stated:
I'm glad the good Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, released this transcript today. People were beginning to lose focus. Too much emphasis was being placed on the indictments against my good friend and a New Mexico treasure, former State Senator and fired Highlands University President, Manny Aragon. So, what if former Senator Aragon took a little bit of money for himself. He worked tirelessly handing out New Mexico taxpayers' money to his friends for years. Is it really a crime that he should finally keep a bit for himself? Do you realize that our state legislators don't get paid?

No, what's really important is the total disregard Senator Pete Domenici showed when he violated U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in his own home and emasculated him in the presence of his wife.

The transcripts clearly show that the Senator doesn't understand that the work day ends at 5:00 p.m. Maybe back in the old days people put in long hours, but this is the 21st century, and we have rights. The U.S. Attorney is not a greeter at Walmart. He doesn't even get overtime. No, my friends, Senator Pete Domenici stepped over the line, and showed little regard for David Iglesias.

The transcripts clearly showed that the Senator did not even once ask David how long he would be gone? He didn't even think to ask if he should send someone to check on David's house while he was traveling. He didn't even have the courtesy to say goodbye before ending the conversation.

Let us not lose sight of what it truly important. Another New Mexico kickback scandal is nothing compared to a Senator who answers the phone when his constituents call and then proceeds to take action. Senator Domenici set a very dangerous precedent here for all New Mexico politicians.

In fact, I have it on good authority, that in 35 years of service, Senator Pete has never even taken a kickback. No, this cannot go on. We must unite and take back this U.S. Senate seat. In the name of Manny Aragon, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, our future, the future of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, depends on it.
Stay tuned for more on this developing story.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 30, 2007

What a World of Difference a Change Can Make

Successful prosecution of public corruption under former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias (R) and former Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) was, well, practically non-existent. They were the perfect example of the gang who couldn't shoot straight. First, Mr. Iglesias botched the Vigil case, and then Ms. Madrid makes a bad situation worse be indicting the witnesses.

Compare that to what just happened yesterday:
Acting United States Attorney Larry Gomez and New Mexico Attorney General Gary King in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) SAC Thomas McClenaghan announce the filing today, Thursday, March 29th, of a federal grand jury indictment charging four defendants in a conspiracy, mail fraud and money laundering public corruption case. Those charged defendants are Toby Martinez, Manny Aragon, Raul Parra and Sandra Mata Martinez. The loss to the State of New Mexico taxpayers of approximately $4.2 million forms the basis of the indictment.
Now, anyone still wonder why neither the former U.S. Attorney or Attorney General have a job. Yeah, I didn't think so. Oh, and just for the record, Ken Schultz, the former Albuquerque Mayor who plead guilty in this thing, is a registered Republican, so any blogger trying to pretend that these are all Democrats is purposely trying to mislead his readers to keep the Democratic campaign against our Congresswoman and Senator alive.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

A Hispanic Who Should Know Better

This guy, Ruben Navarrette, Jr., has got to be kidding, right? (hat tip: Monahan) I mean how can anyone in their right mind, let alone a Harvard graduate, come to the conclusion that the outcry against "voter fraud" is all about keeping a lid on "surging Hispanic political power." Have you ever heard of the Viva Bush campaign efforts? We're not exactly talking about Republicans running away from Hispanics.

But what truly amazes me, is how can anyone who reads a newspaper, let alone a columnist who is syndicated in the Albuquerque Journal, can think that any elected official in New Mexico, especially ones who get elected term after term, could possibly do anything other than embrace the Hispanic vote?

Give me a break.

Mr. Navarrette, allow me to take a moment to introduce you to the state of New Mexico. We have a Hispanic Governor. We have a Hispanic Speaker of the House. We have a Hispanic President Pro-tempore of the Senate. We have a Hispanic Mayor of the State's largest city. We have a Hispanic Secretary of State. Do I really need to go on? Heck, even the recent Bernalillo County Republican Chairman race was between two Hispanic candidates. Are you starting to get a picture here?

If you want to argue the merits of Mr. Iglesias' firing, by all means, please do. However, to try and turn this into a race issue is offensive. It is offensive to New Mexicans, and it is offensive and demeaning to all Hispanics.

And as long, I'm talking about the absurd and offensive statements, let's look at one of the quotes you attribute to Mr. Iglesias:
“I'm a little bit suspicious of the theory that there are a persuasive and large number of illegal immigrants who are voting,” [disgruntled former U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias] acknowledged. “Have some voted in the past? I'm sure some have. But is it large enough to skew an election? I don't think so.”
Mr. Iglesias how is it that you are "sure some have" voted? Could it be because proof of voter fraud has come before you, but you decided not to prosecute? And since when is it okay for a prosecutor to believe that the law should only be enforced if it is going to skew an election?

Oh, and do I really need to mention the margin in this last election for the 1st Congressional District? We're not talking about the need for large numbers of unregistered voters - garden variety will do, no need to be here illegally. Just three or so more per precinct would have swung the election the other way.

So, at the end of the day, we have a columnist who shamelessly plays the race card in order to come up with a unique angle on what is becoming a very tired story. And, a former U.S. Attorney who looks more foolish each and every time he opens his mouth to the press. No one needs to attempt to suppress
"surging Hispanic political power" when we have spokesmen like these making us look foolish.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007

DNC is Pulling the Strings

David Iglesias continued his media tour this weekend with a stop on Meet the Press. The Albuquerque Journal covered his appearance today, and this is the money quote:
Iglesias, whom Bush appointed to the U.S. attorney job, hinted that he was pleased with the aggressive inquiry of congressional Democrats into the White House and Justice Department into the firings.

"I'm seeing Congress exercising an oversight role that's been absent for six years," Iglesias said.
It seems that Mr. Iglesias is now unabashedly utilizing the Democrats' talking points in his media appearances. The Democratic Party's theme has been to time and time again state "there has been no Congressional oversight" for the last six years no matter what the topic. But, don't take my word for it:
Regarding business lobbyists - "Business lobbyists have been powerful players with the Congress and the White House under Republican control the past six years. The emphasis was on minimal regulation, easy access to federal rulemakers, many of whom came from industry, and almost no congressional oversight."

Regarding Domestic Spying - "And there really has to be in our system of law and government, checks and balance, separation of powers, congressional oversight and bob, there has been no meaningful congressional oversight on these programs."

Regarding Foreign Policy
- "In the past six years, however, congressional oversight of the executive across a range of policies, but especially on foreign and national security policy, has virtually collapsed."
Interestingly enough, Mr. Iglesias did not express any concern with the supposed lack of "congressional oversight" during his six years as a U.S. Attorney. No, he was more than happy with the status quo as long as he had a political appointment. However, take away that political appointment, and this guy starts looking for his meal ticket - the DNC. As I've said before, Mr. Iglesias now seems to have found his place as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 22, 2007

YouTube Video Proves Inglesias Failed

David Iglesias must really be hating YouTube right now. Yesterday morning, he had an op-ed show up in the New York Times in which he wrote:
"...much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico...What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Within hours, The Wednesday Morning Quarterback, put up the video that provides the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Mr. Iglesias failed to do his job after the 2004 voter election fraud.

Well, in all fairness, maybe Mr. Iglesias never saw the video. After all, he did cite to reporters when this all began that his fondest memories of being U.S. Attorney would be the trips he got to take abroad. I'm sure with the busy travel schedule, it was hard to find the time to actually do that whole prosecuting thing.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Political Speak for Do Nothing

I don't have time this morning to scour the web, but I'm wondering if there is such a thing as dictionary for laymen of political doublespeak. For example, close observers of Governor Richardson's administration have learned that when they hear "I'm forming a task force," what that really means is that "this is an issue too many people care about right now, so I'm going to wait awhile until it cools down, so that we can ignore the problem."

Just so you understand, here are a couple of examples:
Dealing with DWI's
Dealing with fiscal accountability
Dealing with Gambling
Dealing with ethics scandals
Dealing with eminent domain

Now, I have to be honest. Up to this point, I thought this was primarily a Richardson form of doublespeak. However, it has now become clear to me that this is a part of the lexicon of any politician wishing to avoid performing their job (subscription):
Mickey Barnett, an Albuquerque lawyer and former Republican national committeeman, e-mailed Iglesias in September 2004, chastising him for appointing a task force to investigate voter fraud instead of bringing charges against suspects.

"Most of us think a task force is a joke and unlikely to make any citizen believe our elections and voter registrations are honest," Barnett wrote.

E-mails released by the Justice Department show Barnett and Pat Rogers, another GOP lawyer in Albuquerque, complained about Iglesias to Justice Department officials in June 2006.

E-mails show Barnett asked the White House Office of Political Affairs for a meeting with Justice Department officials to "discuss the USATTY situation" in New Mexico. Rogers and Barnett met with Justice officials the next day.

"The meeting was to discuss perceived management issues and his failure to give priority and attention to voter fraud and corruption cases," Rogers said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Well, now that we've got "task force" clearly defined, maybe next time we'll look at what a politician means when they say, "We're making progress."

Labels: , ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Back on T.V.

I'll be back on KOB-TV's Eye on New Mexico this Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. Be sure to tune in as we'll be tackling the latest on David Iglesias' noisy departure from the U.S. Attorney job.


Monday, March 05, 2007

Dancing Pink Elephants and Moving Cheese

When it comes to the David Iglesias "scandal," no one, well there is one exception, is talking about the big pink elephants doing pirouettes in the middle of the room. What am I talking about?

For one, no one is saying that indictments should not be coming down. In fact, as early as June of last year, people were already googling to try and discover more on the impending, still impending nine months later, Manny Aragon indictments. NINE MONTHS after the FBI investigation is completed, and we're still waiting for indictments. I know this is the Land of Manana, but this is getting a little ridiculous, even by New Mexico standards.

Now, I could understand all of the hoopla if it came out that Mr. Iglesias was contacted by Congressional representatives and was asked to manufacture indictments were none existed, but that does not seem to be the case here. Instead, we're talking about folks calling him up and wondering what in blazes is taking so long? Kind of like I've been wondering about this case.

Should Mr. Iglesias have brought in the indictments before the election? ABSOLUTELY! At the time rumors were abounding that Mr. Iglesias was worried about bringing down the indictments before the election lest they seem political. Hello, they are political. We're talking about politicians taking kickbacks at taxpayer expense. Can anyone think about a more relevant political point prior to an election? Nah, me neither.

Ok, back to the dancing pink elephants.

Anyone else find it odd that Mr. Iglesias waited FIVE MONTHS to cry foul? Seriously folks, this upstanding lawyer, who refused to give in to alleged pressure by Congressional Representatives, never made so much as a squeak in October to the Department of Justice - something that he was bound to do.

Nor, did he come forward with his allegations in December of last year, when it became public knowledge that he was resigning (subscription):
U.S. Attorney David Iglesias will resign in the next few months— more than two years before his appointment expires, an office spokesman confirmed Monday night.

Iglesias, appointed by President Bush in 2001, would normally have served as the state's chief federal lawman until the end of Bush's term in 2008.

U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Norm Cairns said Iglesias "has had discussions with officials in Washington, D.C. Based on those discussions, he has decided to move on."

Rumors that Iglesias was in trouble with his superiors at the Department of Justice have been circulating for months.

The chief criticism of Iglesias has been that he had not provided enough resources for public corruption investigations. Some of that criticism has come from the political arena and some from the FBI, which has made political corruption its No. 2 priority behind terrorism.

Iglesias' defenders, in private conversations, argued that the federal prosecutors are overwhelmed with immigration and narcotics cases because of the state's southern border with Mexico.
No, it took Mr. Iglesias another three months to create a stir. I'm beginning to think that Mr. Iglesias has his own political agenda in the works. David Iglesias is going out, not as a prosecutor whose number one interest is seeing bad guys end up behind bars, but as a politician whose number one interest is self promotion. What other reason could he have for doing this (subscription):
At a news conference in his Albuquerque office, Iglesias displayed charts with statistics showing that the number of defendants charged during his tenure rose 13 percent and immigration cases increased 78 percent. At the same time, the caseload of his assistant U.S. attorneys went up 24 percent, while the number of full-time employees in the office went up just 7 percent.
I feel for the Justice Department. I've been there. I've had to fire an employee who thought they were doing a bang-up job. Someone who said, "Look at all the great work I've been doing. What do you mean, I'm failing? I've been working really hard on all of these projects. But, you told me I was doing well last year."

Yup, we've all been there.

Mr. Iglesias, I've got a book for you to read, Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson, M.D. You see, your bosses at the Department of Justice wanted you to focus on public corruption, and you wanted to focus on increasing your immigration and narcotics caseload. The "cheese" was moved and you didn't follow it. That's the reason you lost your job, and all of the charts and statistics combined with cries of political fouls isn't going to change that simple fact. So, get over it, move on with your life, and try and learn when the boss moves the cheese, it's up to you follow it.

Labels: , ,

Clicky Web Analytics