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?

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.

"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.

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.