David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired

David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:05:05 PM)
Much has been said about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Today's New York Times offers the chance to hear from one of those people--a Republican named David Iglesias. A few excerpts: 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. When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.) President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

missturbation -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:08:32 PM)
Is he related to julio and enrique by any chance? [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:14:49 PM)
Obviously, the part about "serving at the pleasure of the President" went totally over his head. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:15:57 PM)
"But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me. " PERFORMANCE... It's the defamatory LIE that he didn't meet the expected PERFORMANCE GOALS, when in fact, he was one of the most highly rated.

dcnovice -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:19:17 PM)
Isn't it more complicated than that, Firm? If I understand correctly (always a big if), these eight U.S. Attorneys have been publicly branded as poor performers when there seems to be little evidence that they actually were. Is that honest? Is it right? It's one thing to remove someone who serves at your pleasure. It's another thing to do so for political reasons and then cover your tracks by dissing the people you've removed.

FirmhandKY -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Isn't it more complicated than that, Firm? If I understand correctly (always a big if), these eight U.S. Attorneys have been publicly branded as poor performers when there seems to be little evidence that they actually were. Is that honest? Is it right? It's one thing to remove someone who serves at your pleasure. It's another thing to do so for political reasons and then cover your tracks by dissing the people you've removed. dc, Dissing them, if it wasn't really for performance purposes wouldn't have been the best way to approach it. Kinda stupid, actually. But not illegal. Removing someone for political purposes, from a political position, is perfectly legitimate. FirmKY

dcnovice -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:41:51 PM)
quote: Removing someone for political purposes, from a political position, is perfectly legitimate. But is a U.S. Attorney truly a political position? Iglesias says that John Ashcroft -- hardly a liberal Bush-basher -- told him that politics should play no role during his tenure (emphasis mine).

puella -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:54:11 PM)
The process of appointing the US Attourney's is political, and that is what the term 'at the pleasure of the president' is referring to. The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers, are sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law. Requiring them to be Repbulican operatives implementing the politial machinations of the President's agenda does not full under the compass of 'serving at the pleasure of the President' as the bottom line is.. they are serving the constitution at the pleasure of the President, not the illegal manipulations of Judicial System by the President via hand picked agents.

dcnovice -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 5:57:31 PM)
quote: But not illegal. That's a depressingly low bar for executive conduct, though, isn't it?

FirmhandKY -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: But not illegal. That's a depressingly low bar for executive conduct, though, isn't it? True. But politics tends to revert to the lowest bar. Can't say I like it either, but it is what it is. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:06:24 PM)
I know you hate the plain reading of 18USC1001, but lies are crimes. Hmmm.. damage to reputation, emotional distress, and undermining his future prospects for employment. It's actionable, too.

FirmhandKY -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella The process of appointing the US Attourney's is political, and that is what the term 'at the pleasure of the president' is referring to. The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers, are sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law. Requiring them to be Repbulican operatives implementing the politial machinations of the President's agenda does not full under the compass of 'serving at the pleasure of the President' as the bottom line is.. they are serving the constitution at the pleasure of the President, not the illegal manipulations of Judicial System by the President via hand picked agents. Change all the "Republicans" to "Democrats" and say the same thing. There is no party without mud to sling in this matter. But, it is important to you, now, simply for the fact that you are ideologically opposed to Republicans. It's nice, in theory, to wish for a system that is non-partisan. but, in fact, serving "at the pleasure of the President" is exactly how the system was designed to work, and works. All the other stuff is nice, but unless you wish to change the law, not pertinent. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:15:03 PM)
"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." Well, if John Ashcroft thinks that politics should be kept out of the USAs office, who's going to argue with him?

Sinergy -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:24:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's actionable, too. While you make an interesting point, FirmhandKY, please clarify what the Democrats did (You said they were both doing the same thing) that qualifies as being "actionable" in terms of slandering another person professional or personal abilities, performance, etc. Take your time, we will all wait patiently. Sinergy

FirmhandKY -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I know you hate the plain reading of 18USC1001, but lies are crimes. Hmmm.. damage to reputation, emotional distress, and undermining his future prospects for employment. It's actionable, too. uhhh ... FB, you are rapidly approaching my "don't even bother to read his shit" category. You are currently in the "skim over quickly" group. Not that I expect you to care, but if I start to ignore your posts, you'll know why. Lies are not crimes, unless they fit certain very restrictive situations. We did this on the other thread, already. FirmKY

Real0ne -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Isn't it more complicated than that, Firm? If I understand correctly (always a big if), these eight U.S. Attorneys have been publicly branded as poor performers when there seems to be little evidence that they actually were. Is that honest? Is it right? It's one thing to remove someone who serves at your pleasure. It's another thing to do so for political reasons and then cover your tracks by dissing the people you've removed. dc, Dissing them, if it wasn't really for performance purposes wouldn't have been the best way to approach it. Kinda stupid, actually. But not illegal. Removing someone for political purposes, from a political position, is perfectly legitimate. FirmKY slan·der /ˈslæn[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]dər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] –noun 1.defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2.a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. 3.Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. –verb (used with object) 4.to utter slander against; defame. –verb (used without object) 5.to utter or circulate slander.

dcnovice -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:35:54 PM)
quote: uhhh ... FB, you are rapidly approaching my "don't even bother to read his shit" category. You are currently in the "skim over quickly" group. Do we get different icons, like the ice cream cones and paddles, depending on what group we're in? [:)]

puella -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:36:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Change all the "Republicans" to "Democrats" and say the same thing. There is no party without mud to sling in this matter. But, it is important to you, now, simply for the fact that you are ideologically opposed to Republicans. It's nice, in theory, to wish for a system that is non-partisan. but, in fact, serving "at the pleasure of the President" is exactly how the system was designed to work, and works. All the other stuff is nice, but unless you wish to change the law, not pertinent. FirmKY Please stick to the topic and stop trying to make this about me, personally. You need to stop thinking of yourself as the definitive interpreter of is important to me, and what my personal ideals are based upon. You do not know me well enough to make such broad statements, and thus far you have a pretty poor track record in your pronouncements. I listed those Republicans, because they are involved in one degree or another in the situation which is currently being discussed in this topic. If you want to discuss other issues which embroil Democrats, you might want to start a separate thread for that. Maybe you can tuck it into the 'Clinton got a blowjob' thread, to save yourself the effort. Unfortunately, the issue of these prosecutors being sacked and replaced has no Democratic culpability. I never said that firing the prosecutors was illegal, but firing them for not going against their sworn oath to protect the Constitution and to uphold the concept of law being impartial and indiscriminate is unethical. Appointing new State's Prosecutors at the onset of a new administration is a common and understandable precident...just as understandable as the President appointing an entirely new cabinet, who also serves at his pleasure, btw. Firing hand picked individuals who had stellar job performance ratings, is completely unprecidented... add to that that they were also linked to congressional scandal investigations within the President's own party or the lack of proceeding in an investigation of the opposite party because there was no evidence to support it is not only unprecedented, it is an abuse of power, quite possibly criminal...that will have to be determined by the Judicial Committee. Here is an interesting entry in the Law Bog on the Wall Street Jounral. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/03/15/bushs-us-attorney-purge-vs-president-clintons-discuss/ To compound the issue, Senator Arlen Specter slipped in the provision under the Patriot Act (at the 11th hour when it has already been voted on) which allowed for this to happen, by releasing approval from the Senate of the Presidential appointees.

cyberdude611 -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:44:43 PM)
This whole thing is a joke. The president has the authority to fire people in his administration for whatever reason he desires. That's the advantage of being the executive branch. That's how the country's seperation of powers is set up. It's not up to congress to enforce the law. That's the president's job. It's all about politics.

Sinergy -> RE: David Iglesias: Why I Was Fired (3/21/2007 6:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 This whole thing is a joke. The president has the authority to fire people in his administration for whatever reason he desires. That's the advantage of being the executive branch. That's how the country's seperation of powers is set up. It's not up to congress to enforce the law. That's the president's job. It's all about politics. Yes, he can fire anybody he wants, cyberdude611. He cannot publicly slander people without it being legally actionable. Sinergy p.s. It would be a lot easier if you started to view Monkeyboy as somebody who truly believes he was given an unlimited use "get out of jail free" card in life. Nothing he has ever done in life has ever had any negative consequences for him.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125