Why I Was Fired

[NickCole]

David C. Iglesias explains why he was fired.

The full op-ed, published in today's New York Times, is at the link below. Emphasis added by me.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. ...

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. 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. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Mr. Iglesias demonstrates there are honorable Republicans with integrity. His firing demonstrates that those Republicans are a breed apart from the smarmy BushRepublicans.

 

[jackoroe]

Mr. Iglesias demonstrates a serious deficiency as it relates to the law. The legal standard for going to trial is having probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the legal standard for obtaining a conviction. If that's his thinking, he should have been fired. Maybe his bar card should be revoked as well.

 

[NickCole]

No Jack.

If you're going to play with semantics to try to distract from the point that BushRepublicans fired honorable Republicans because they refused to do their political dirty work of inappropriately prosecuting Democrats, you ought to at least get it right.

Probable cause is used to determine whether a search or an arrest is warranted, and whether to issue an indictment.

It's fully appropriate to say, "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."

 

[thewiz]

Semantics aside, I believe that you just answered Jack's comment in the affirmative: Probable Cause is used to determine whether to issue a search warrant or arrest warrant or whether to issue an indictment. The job of "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is the charge given to the jury of peers chosen to judge the case (or the judge himself). The prosecutor seems to justify his own firing if he did not understand that if there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed, he should have pursued the charges and sought indictments/issued warrants.

He should have then been competent enough to work with investigators to present the evidence that would convince a jury that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If this is the guy's justification, he should have been fired for he does not understand what the job of a prosecutor, judge and jury should be.

 

[NickCole]

He should have then been competent enough to work with investigators to present the evidence that would convince a jury that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

He reviewed all the evidence; you have not. What makes you think you know better than he whether or not there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Further:

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Are they all wrong?

 

[thewiz]

Well, he left one big thing out from your last quote:

"After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally." Did the cases get forwarded to state or local officials? Perhaps federal law was not violated but was there follow up with other officials to prosecute?

If he was as cautious with other cases as he apparently is with these, no wonder he had a 95 percent conviction rate. The job of a prosecutor (and I worked with a number of them) is to bring a case to court based on the probable cause that a crime has been committed. Did I see a lot of dog cases and problematic cases that had witness credibility issues, conflicts, etc? You bet. But you present the case, warts and all, and it is the job of a group of peers to determine the guilt or innocence. The prosecutors' job is not to determine guilt or innocence unless he/she wants to eliminate our judicial system and serve as chief law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, and jury. That's why there are the different positions -- so that different sets of eyes look at the evidence and make the determinations.

As to me deciding whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- that is not my job nor should it have been his. His was to determine probable cause upon which a warrant would be issued. The facts are then presented -- that's the system. If he is setting a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all his cases, I would say he was a pretty shitty prosecutor in that he only got a 95 percent conviction rate.

 

[NickCole]

This is not what one finds in the history of incompetent prosecutors:

Along with documents released last week, the new records show that the firing lists drawn up by D. Kyle Sampson, a former Gonzales aide who resigned last week, frequently changed, rarely including the same group of allegedly inferior U.S. attorneys. Only four of those fired were included on an initial March 2005 ranking chart.

The new records show that Sampson called one prosecutor, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, a "diverse up-and-comer." Sampson listed Iglesias as a candidate for three important jobs in 2004: the U.S. attorney in Manhattan; the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia; and the head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the division that would eventually fire him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001943_pf.html

 

[thewiz]

Before we go back and forth too much...I don't doubt that the firings were political. The prosecutor positions are political appointees. They are appointed by the political party in charge of the white house. They serve at the pleasure of the president.

He or she (we can only hope someday) has the power to fire any one of these people at any time for no reason at all or for cause. That is always the danger of these jobs: they don't come with job security. President Clinton chose to get rid of all of the prosecutors which was totally within his right and was the authority that is vested in him.

What I do have a problem with is his own statements. If this is his belief, he probably should have been fired and should not have been considered for the other jobs unless they were trying to pigeon hole him which is also very common in politics. If they are visible and screwing up and politically connected -- you don't get rid of them, you find them a better job with (probably) more pay -- and reward their incompetence.

I do not agree with this but it is the reason our government is as fine tuned as we all know it to be!

 

[jackoroe]

No Jack.

If you're going to play with semantics to try to distract from the point that BushRepublicans fired honorable Republicans because they refused to do their political dirty work of inappropriately prosecuting Democrats, you ought to at least get it right.

Probable cause is used to determine whether a search or an arrest is warranted, and whether to issue an indictment.

It's fully appropriate to say, "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."

Not semantics as much as facts. By your own statement, you admit that probable cause is the determining factor in issuance of an indictment. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more on that later.

All eight of these lawyers, were fired two years ago, at the start of Bush's second term. Once again, the were fired by the President for whatever reason he deemed appropriate. If it was for political reasons, that is within the President's authority. If he didn't like the color of their shoes, that would be fine. If he wanted to replace them all with circus midgets, that's OK too.

In terms of who the US Attorney prosecutes, it is an interesting matter to consider. The US Attorney has all kinds of latitude in deciding who gets prosecuted and who does not. Contrast that behavior with your average District Attorney or States Prosecutor. The state attorney gets a case handed to him by a cop and he disposes of it in many different ways.

There are diversionay programs keeping offenders out of the system. Prosecutors frequently downgrade charges to less serious offenses to get a plea. Then there is a plea bargaining. Finally there is the trial. If the Prosecutor wins, great. If he loses, oh well.

The US Attorney does not like to lose. So they cherry pick what they prosecute. Their conviction rates are vastly higher than local prosecutors, sometimes as high as 90% depending on what district you are in. So I can understand what Iglesias was saying when he referred to having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He was only willing to prosecute a sure winner. He feared failure.

We deserve better than that. Justice should not be contingent on a public servant's fear of losing a couple of points on his batting average. Quite thoughtful of you to defend Bush's appointments, however. Maybe you're really a closet Republican!

 

[JackFTwist]

Mr. Iglesias demonstrates a serious deficiency as it relates to the law. The legal standard for going to trial is having probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the legal standard for obtaining a conviction. If that's his thinking, he should have been fired. Maybe his bar card should be revoked as well.

That is utter bullshit.

Of course what do I know, being a member of the Michigan state bar and having done prosecutorial work.

In fact there is no "standard" - each prosecutor does her/his judgment based on believing whether there is enough for conviction.

If there is a prelim in those states that have it a district judge - NOT THE PROSECUTOR - may have to rule on whether there is probable cause. But, ahem, that is a prosecutor's cause.

You want to drool on my bar card, I'll let you. But as for legal knowledge (in my best Trump voice): You're fired.

 

[iman]

So, I take it that the Republican posters are willing to accept Congresswoman Heather Wilson's and Senator Domenici's legal judgement, but not Iglesias's. Not surprising.

 

[JayHawk]

SO his proof that the reason he was added is ?????

They have reasonable circumstance.....I guess in politics your not required to provide proof.

 

[jackoroe]

That is utter bullshit.

Of course what do I know, being a member of the Michigan state bar and having done prosecutorial work.

In fact there is no "standard" - each prosecutor does her/his judgment based on believing whether there is enough for conviction.

If there is a prelim in those states that have it a district judge - NOT THE PROSECUTOR - may have to rule on whether there is probable cause. But, ahem, that is a prosecutor's cause.

You want to drool on my bar card, I'll let you. But as for legal knowledge (in my best Trump voice): You're fired.

It's OK that you're a lawyer, we'll let you stay and play. So, you agree with this particular former US Attorney. Perhaps you've conducted your own prosecutions in a similar manner. You had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in every instance. Not simply the probable cause required to bind a case over for trial. So it would seem reasonable to assume if you conducted yourself in such a manner that you won each and every case. Or maybe you really didn't have the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you thought you did.

You can keep your bar card in your pocket. Never been much impressed by lawyers. They're a dime in dozen in NJ, as I'm sure you know. Lawyers and politicians are the two leading causes for this country being as fucked up as it is. Keep the Trump voice, if you must. Just don't do his hair!

 

[NickCole]

jackoroe, that's all a very interesting analysis but doesn't have much if anything to do with the circumstances at hand.

Iglesias was pressured by Republicans to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud right before an election and he, having reviewed the evidence with FBI and the Justice Department, determined that there was insufficient evidence to prevail in court. That's his job. His record indicates he was good at his job and received positive evaluations. He's a Republican who got his job from Republicans, he clearly had no anti-Republican axe to grind.

It's inappropriate, or anyway wrong, if Bush & Co are firing US Attorneys because they're not prosecuting Democrats (against whom there isn't enough evidence of wrongdoing) or because they are prosecuting Republicans (who are being convicted). It may not be illegal, but it's inappropriate and the people of the United States ought to know that's what BushRepublicans are about. Bush can do it, but Congress is right to expose it because that's not what Americans expect of our Judicial system. We expect it to be fair and balanced and nonpartisan.

 

[jackoroe]

OK, that's fair. But to pretend that political prosecutions on both sides don't exist or that political non-prosecutions on both sides don't exist is disingenuous. As someone who did prosecutorial work, I'm sure you've had some experience with both issues.

The position of US Attorney is politically appointed. Senators and Congressman as well as political hangers on of all stripes have input into the process. These people also make inquiry regarding ongoing investigations and requests for people to be investigated by the government. It is silly to assume that the politics will stop after you have been appointed to such a position.

 

[NickCole]

OK, that's fair. But to pretend that political prosecutions on both sides don't exist or that political non-prosecutions on both sides don't exist is disingenuous. As someone who did prosecutorial work, I'm sure you've had some experience with both issues.

Maybe this is for JackTwist but if this is addressed to me, you've misunderstood. I'm not a lawyer and I've never worked in a prosecutor's office.

And of course politics gets into prosecutorial decisions sometimes; it shouldn't but it does.

Also, of course Clinton firing Bush's US Attorneys and Bush firing Clinton's was political.

But what Bush & Co apparently did was too political and too specific. It has Karl Rove written all over it -- revengeful and manipulative and controlling all with one goal in mind: winning elections and gaining/preserving party power. It's not right and it's poisonous.

It is silly to assume that the politics will stop after you have been appointed to such a position.

Well these 8 Republican US Attorneys showed that even if politics didn't stop for them, they wouldn't be party to corruption. I say hooray for those 8 Republicans and shame on Rove and Meiers and Gonzales and Bush and whomever else was involved in the shenanigans.

 

[JackFTwist]

It's OK that you're a lawyer, we'll let you stay and play. So, you agree with this particular former US Attorney. Perhaps you've conducted your own prosecutions in a similar manner. You had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in every instance. Not simply the probable cause required to bind a case over for trial. So it would seem reasonable to assume if you conducted yourself in such a manner that you won each and every case. Or maybe you really didn't have the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you thought you did.

You can keep your bar card in your pocket. Never been much impressed by lawyers. They're a dime in dozen in NJ, as I'm sure you know. Lawyers and politicians are the two leading causes for this country being as fucked up as it is. Keep the Trump voice, if you must. Just don't do his hair!

Oh, the lawyer jokes, So original, so cute.

However you did not read closely or with comprehension. I did not say I was a lawyer. I said I was a member of the State Bar. And have done prosecutorial work. I reviewed cases precisely to know what we could prove in a court of law - not allege, but prove. No where did I say I was an attorney although I have worked with many in many areas of law.

Now....

When we want to talk fucking up this country...

let me say that people whose talk impresses them more than thinking, that is who fucks things up.

You were wrong and cannot admit it, so you insult lawyers. Ok. Your game is out there.

And you want prosecutors to take cases to court when they are not convinced they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You won't pay the taxes to expand the size of the prosecutors staff and trial courts to handle the drastically expanded case load, and you'd object on constitutional grounds anyway, since this country does not operate on star chambers seeking convictions. So this is all hypocrisy from your end. A prosecutor may once or twice go to court when she/he has probable cause but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt on a roll of the dice - but that would be egregious (and woefully expensive) expansion of prosecutorial power to do that in every matter a prosecutor handles. You go to court - a very expensive and time consuming process - with what you believe you can win because you have the case. If you don't have the case, you don't go to court.

I don't suppose that most people really know the difference, but that is what real life law is all about. But go ahead and make some lawyer jokes.

And in real life, any prosecutor who drags people into court without being convinced of the standard of guilt they can prove is a threat to us all. A criminal prosecution is a serious matter and not good to leave it to amateurs.

 

[jackoroe]

^ Lawyer jokes are funny because there is a degree of truth in them. Fact is I currently have four lawyers doing work for me. They are paid quite well and I have no qualms about making jokes about their profession in their presence. They, unlike some, have a sense of humor about their jobs.

I want crime aggressively pursued and prosecuted. I don't want a US Attorney worrying about his batting average and letting somebody go because there is a chance he may lose. I want, no demand, my money's worth from the people who work for me.

I stand by my original assertion. All that is needed to go to trial is PC (as determined by a magistrate) not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My opinion is that there are lazy US Attorneys, more concerned by their careers than by doing their jobs, who let the hard cases go in the interest of keeping a pristine win-loss record. Mr. Iglesias would appear to have been one of these people by virtue of his statements.

Mr. Iglesias firing was lawful, no matter what the reason.

 

[NickCole]

My opinion is that there are lazy US Attorneys, more concerned by their careers than by doing their jobs, who let the hard cases go in the interest of keeping a pristine win-loss record.

That's true but there's not any evidence that Iglesias or any of the other fired US Attorneys were lazy US Attorneys. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.

Mr. Iglesias would appear to have been one of these people by virtue of his statements.

That's debatable so go by the record of his work, that's where facts and the truth of his choices and work will be found.

 

[NickCole]

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

WASHINGTON — Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

The data on prosecutions and convictions, provided to TRAC by the Justice Department's executive office that oversees U.S. attorneys, indicates the majority of the fired prosecutors were hardly slackers.

They show:

• Except for Chiara and Bud Cummins in Little Rock, the group ranked in the top third among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys in contributing to an overall 106,188 federal prosecutions filed last year.

• Of those six, all but Kevin Ryan in San Francisco also scored among the top third in winning a collective 98,939 convictions. ...

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS08/703210440

Reported today.