Go ahead….

I thought that DOJ officials in this mock scandal seemed a bit “loose” in their reactions, now I know why.

Everything you know about fired attorney David Igalias - about being a ‘rising star’ - may be bogus, and in fact it appears Iglesias was screwing up left and right. Persons who got a peak at some of the docs involved in his dismissal say that they more than substantiate (although again, that isn’t necessary - as US Attorneys serve at the will of the President), his termination.

Which is most likely why at the White House briefing today White House Counsel Dan Bartlett ecluded to some of the specifics reponding to a question from a reporter:

“Q But one quick follow. When you say that this was based on managerial decisions, performance — the Justice Department’s own evaluation of Iglesias, the New Mexico U.S. attorney, in 2005 gave him a strong recommendation. So how does that square with then firing him for poor performance?

MR. BARTLETT: Well, he was fired two years later than 2005, and there was a series of issues that they looked at. They looked at his managerial responsibilities and what they had found in a review process that was undertaken at the Department of Justice, that they felt that he was not managing the office as well as it should be; there was issues about his lack of leadership on key committees that prosecutors, U.S. attorneys serve in capacity for the Attorney General. He served on a key immigration subcommittee, and they felt like he didn’t possess leadership skills there and fulfill that job in a way that he should have.

And, also, they took into consideration the complaints that they were fielding from local officials about the lack of prosecution of cases, and the fact that he had lost a high-profile case, when I think 24 or 25 counts were thrown out by a jury against the government. It was a devastating loss for the government.”

In other words Iglesias was deemed two years after his last eval to be less than compentant and maybe worse. Bartlett stated that not only did he lose an important case, but there were a mulitude of complaints that came out of his office in the last two years which have yet to see the light of day, but painted his tenure as hapzard.

Yet the deal breaker was when he refused to prosecute democratic voter fraud stemming from the 2004 election when the evidence for such fraud was overwhelming.

But you see according to those close with knowledge it is believed that Mr. Iglesias may have been influenced in his investigation - not by republicans who simply wanted to know why he was sitting on his hands in the matter, but apparently by a certain democratic presidential candidate who wanted the furor over voter fraud to calm down a bit.

From a lefty website with details:

Democratic Officials Block the Recount

New Mexico’s Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron were against the recount effort from the start, possibly because much of the alleged fraud happened in Hispanic precincts. Although the alleged fraud seems to have helped Republicans, having a recount would cast a shadow on the state’s two highest-ranking Hispanic Democrats. Governor Richardson has presidential aspirations, and Ms. Vigil-Giron currently serves as national president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

The fact is the evidence of fraud was clearly on the democrats and Richardson knew it (offending the hispanic vote my eye).

So go ahead and subpoena because I believe - as democrats always do - they’ve overplayed their hand again.