Sen. Domenici Admits Urging DOJ to Fire Prosecutor

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:12:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: CREW has filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Domenici.

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) violated Senate Rules by contacting the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, and pressuring him about an ongoing corruption probe.

Also, see this Albuquerque Tribune article:

Ethics rules permit members of congress to request a status report on a case from federal agents if they're doing so at the behest of constituents.

In his statement, Domenici seemingly moved to insulate himself from ethics charges, saying he'd received a "growing number of inquiries from constituents" about the courthouse case.

*****

Sen. Domenici Admits Urging DOJ to Fire Prosecutor

New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici today acknowledged not only calling U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to inquire about the progress of a corruption case against a Democrat, but recommending to DOJ that he be fired.

< Walter Reed Not the Only Hospital Providing Substandard Care | Libby Judge Responds to Jury's Questions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sen. Domenici Admits Urging DOJ to Fire Prosecutor | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What does that mean? (none / 0) (#1)
by TomStewart on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:15:55 AM EST

Could Domenici be in leagle trouble over this, or just it just make him look like a jerk?

In New Mexico... (none / 0) (#2)
by desertswine on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 10:03:51 AM EST

the great oil-whore Domenici can do no wrong.

this is one of those things (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:20:20 AM EST

where it is perhaps impossible to prove the "line was crossed" but that just illustrates the difficulty of drawing a line that does not impinge upon freedom of speech and to petition government.

Without proving that one is intending to use one's position to intimidate, pressure or coerce an official to take or not take a certain official action therer is probably little that can be done beyond publicizing it and letting voters decide what to make of it.

That would make sense (none / 0) (#4)
by nolo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:55:39 AM EST

If the Senator was a private citizen.


Strange as it may seem... (none / 0) (#6)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:12:46 PM EST

... you don't lose constitutional rights by getting elected to office.

Requesting information or expressing an opinion is and should be protected. As I said the line is crossed where it can be establihed one went further and one's intent was to use position to intimidate but a senator is no less free to say "I want this looked into than are you."


: You do, however, become subject (none / 0) (#8)
by nolo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:39:28 PM EST

to Senate ethics rules, which is what this all is about. CREW is alleging the Senator has violated Senate ethics rules. Which is why your original comment (and your follow-up) are non-sequiturs.

Interferring (none / 0) (#9)
by wlgriffi on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:42:40 PM EST

"this is one of those things (none / 0) (#3)
"by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:20:20 AM EST

where it is perhaps impossible to prove the "line was crossed" but that just illustrates the difficulty of drawing a line that does not impinge upon freedom of speech and to petition government.
Without proving that one is intending to use one's position to intimidate, pressure or coerce an official to take or not take a certain official action therer is probably little that can be done beyond publicizing it and letting voters decide what to make of it."

What a crock. The line was crossed. Why do you think Domenici at first declared he knew nothing about what was charged? Only when trapped did he start his mealy mouth excuses. For some reason Deconstructionist has a funny interpretation of what constitutes interference when it comes to Republicans.


Status report..... (none / 0) (#5)
by Skyho on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:55:42 AM EST

If, indeed, the rule is that a congress person can request a "status report" on a case at the behest of their constituents, I am certain Domenici can produce proof of such requests.

However, I cannot quite fathom that "attempting to influence" an officer of the court falls within the realm, much less intent, of requesting a "status report".

It's clearly (none / 0) (#7)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:32:37 PM EST

OK to "attempt to influence" DOJ. Congressmen are elected, in part, to attempt to influence executive decisions. If Senator A reads an article in the paper and then calls the U.S. Attorney or other DOJ official to request an investigation-- that alone is not, and should not be, forbidden. There needs to be some corrupt motive and for a case to go anywhere it needs to be one that be proven.

It's easy to suspect but unless the Senator is really stupid it's likely going to be very hard to prove.


: Arrogance (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:28:37 PM EST

more likely than stupidity. These guys are still operating as if there is no oversight.

: Uhh, no (none / 0) (#11)
by Sailor on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM EST

they are not to attempt to influence investigations. And that is what Domenici did and it should be easy to prove because not only did the senator call (after earlier denying it "I have no idea what he's talking about," the senior senator said"), but rep Wilson also called and at the time Wilson "was then locked in a bitterly close race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid, whom Wilson had accused of being soft on corruption."
It was an obvious pattern of abuse of office to pressure the USA to bring indictments just before the election.

Well... (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:10:12 PM EST

...when you get appointed judge, jury and executioner things will become much simpler.

Until then, it pays to understand that things in reality are much more complex and tat substantive and procedural rules don't allow for: "it's obvious end of discussion."

I'm just saying ... (none / 0) (#13)
by Sailor on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:21:25 PM EST

there's a pattern there that I believe any reasonable person could detect.

I find it suspicious and trobling as well (none / 0) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:25:55 PM EST

but with what is known in the links provided it's just a basis to start looking deeper and not one to reach conclusions-- at least in a society governed by a rule of law.