Comments (36)

islandliberal wrote on March 5, 2007 5:57 PM:

TPM Muckraker shines a spotlight on New Mexico and catches Domenici scurrying like a rat for cover. Bet that huge, winning grin (see photo above) is nowhere to be seen today.

Anonymous wrote on March 5, 2007 6:02 PM:

That looks a lot like Tom DeLay's mugshot.

biggerbox wrote on March 5, 2007 6:04 PM:

The facts, like reality, have a noticably liberal bias.

How appropriate, given the picture of Domenici on this post, that my security code for this comment is 'goat'.

Jamie wrote on March 5, 2007 6:05 PM:

So if Domenici resigns or gets forced out of office how does New Mexico select a replacement? They aren't like South Dakota, where the governor appoints a replacement, are they? That sure would be nice for our side.

Jamie
http://www.intoxination.net

howard wrote on March 5, 2007 6:06 PM:

so why is it beyond the mainstream media to have conducted precisely this little fact check?

congrats to the tpm crew for reminding us, yet again, of the IF Stone dictum: forget about sources, read documents.

Cliff wrote on March 5, 2007 6:07 PM:

Thanks for the outstanding investigative work you all do here!

Cliff
Fresno, CA

Ron Byers wrote on March 5, 2007 6:08 PM:

Come on, didn't Pete announce that he had been pushing for more funding for Iglesias' office but couldnt get it. Didn't he say that lead him directly to the conclusion that Iglesias had to be fired.

After this little tidbit, I wonder if the big time newspapers are going to continue buying the administration's argument that Iglesias wasn't working hard enough. Any bets.

I have to commend the entire Muckracker team for their wonderful reporting of this story. Nobody anywhere in the country is doing it better.

EH wrote on March 5, 2007 6:10 PM:

Nice work TPM!

MsInformed wrote on March 5, 2007 6:19 PM:

How appropriate, given the picture of Domenici on this post, that my security code for this comment is 'bent'.
Thanx, biggerbox!

Tom Ames wrote on March 5, 2007 6:26 PM:

My security code war "crime".

Dennis wrote on March 5, 2007 6:26 PM:

Still no word from N.M. Rep. Heather Wilson?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Phil wrote on March 5, 2007 6:28 PM:

Excellent work, but wouldn't this contradict your reader's comment this morning that the US Attys' offices were all underfunded? Which is it--are they underfunded to the point that the office is in shambles, or are they superproductive?

LW wrote on March 5, 2007 6:31 PM:

Domenici wasn't lying when he said he was "frustrated with New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' 'inability' to 'move more quickly on cases.'" He just hasn't told us yet which case he's talking about.

David Jacobs wrote on March 5, 2007 6:34 PM:

Excellent work! R's here in NM are so focused on a few cases they wanted their boy to get moving on they missed the big picture. I suggest the campaign slogan for the D running against Pete in 08 be:

NO RE-PETE in '08.

oldtree wrote on March 5, 2007 6:37 PM:

think governor's are charged with replacing any member of congress that is replaced during a term. anyone want to confirm that is with all states or only some?

Anonymous wrote on March 5, 2007 6:39 PM:

Could it be Domenici was told by the Justice Dept, Administration, etc. that they would NOT increase funds to NM unless Inglesias was removed?

linda wrote on March 5, 2007 7:26 PM:

any new mexico folks here? i'm curious how this is playing in the state -- are people taking note and reacting.

Jeff wrote on March 5, 2007 7:37 PM:

Also, NM at 3.7 months for 2,909 cases had the 2nd best overall record. NM was second only to OK,W at 2.3 months. OK,W had only 769 cases.

drinkof wrote on March 5, 2007 7:49 PM:

There's almost no chance that Domenici had any notion about efficiency of processing of cases, other than the 1 or 2 with political implications. He should be asked where he got the information about Iglesias's performance, who gave it to him, what did it show? He won't know, of course.

EH wrote on March 5, 2007 8:10 PM:

Heather Wilson cannot say anything at this point that won't make things worse. She made the first call that Pajama Pete was following up on and she has said nothing of substance since the story broke. Likely she is lawyered up and possibly knows exactly which laws she broke, if any (presumed innocent and all). Her silence speaks volumes though, and it will likely involve some kind of oath for her to open her mouth.

tekel wrote on March 5, 2007 9:14 PM:

well, now she's admitted to making the call, says WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501241.html

someone has been a very bad girl.

grandpa john wrote on March 5, 2007 9:27 PM:

hmmm and my security codde word is snake

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 5, 2007 9:45 PM:

New Mexico appears solved . . . Whose fingers are in the other seven firings (. . . Other than the Torture Czar's of course)?

dcwp wrote on March 5, 2007 9:47 PM:

Are there comparable statistics for other USA offices? It would be interesting to see how Iglesias compared on productivity to those that weren't fired.

Robin Boerner wrote on March 6, 2007 12:01 AM:

think governor's are charged with replacing any member of congress that is replaced during a term. anyone want to confirm that is with all states or only some?

Posted by: oldtree
Date: March 5, 2007 06:37 PM

Sen. Frank Murkowski became Gov. Frank Murkowski and promptly declared that his daughter, Lisa Murkowski was the most qualified person in all of Alaska to take his place. And, he actually pulled it off with a straight face, no giggles or bourbon hiccup. Really.

Ever since the law has been changed to hold special elections. See, corrupt politcians do eventually create changes in the law. Like the audacity of the Bush Regime to usurp the Senate in the USA appointment will surely be changed back.

addie loggins wrote on March 6, 2007 12:07 AM:

Much as I love these numbers, I'm not sure they tell the whole story. When Justice folks talk about "moving more quickly on cases," I don't think they are talking about the lapse of time between filing and disposition. My guess is they are talking about the time between beginning an investigation and filing the indictment -- indeed, even under your (very persuasive) theory, it sounds like Dominici's concern was that the USAO had been investigating and investigating on this Democratic corruption case, but that Inglesias wouldn't pull the trigger and file the indictment.

The stats you cite show a fairly efficient office once the charges were filed (and given that the overwhelming majority of NM cases are of the frighteningly easy to prosecute illegal immigration variety, that's not too surprising). But that's comparing apples to oranges, if the concern is that the USAO is gun-shy about bring the cases in the first place.

(And as to that, even though the total number of cases increased substantially, immigration cases account for almost the entire increase).

Don't get me wrong. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and I'm grateful for your excellent coverage. Looking forward to hearing what the ex-USAs say tomorrow (and wondering if Mike Elston will be getting a subpoena as well).

Tom Burka wrote on April 13, 2007 3:53 PM:

Is that even a terribly useful way of measuring the performance of a U.S. Attorney? Jumping from investigation to indictment or from indictment to disposition is not necessarily qualitatively superior to taking the time to do a thorough investigation (of a complex case, as federal cases often can be) or, for instance, going to trial (very time consuming) instead of taking a weak plea. Also, when we talk about dispositions, is a dismissal of the charges a disposition? Are we even measuring desirable outcomes here? This number-crunching approach is exactly the kind of bureacratic nonsense used by middle and upper managers who have no knowledge of the performance they're evaluating.

What interest could Pete Domenici legitimately have in seeing the U.S. Attorney move more quickly on any case or cases? That's like telling a baker he's not baking the cakes fast enough. Maybe the cakes need more time to bake.

wls wrote on April 14, 2007 4:41 AM:

When a border district increases its 1325 and 1326 prosecutions, it generally does so on a "fast track" program that trades quick plea dispositions for shorter sentences.

Most border districts have such policies in place, having negotiated standard dispositions with the local federal defender's office.

This is the only way a US Attorneys office can dramatically increase the number of cases filed, while at the same time decreasing the time between filing and disposition.

Every defendant's indictment looks the same, every plea agreement looks the same, and every sentence looks the same.

Its quite routine in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

jessica@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:05 PM:

hello

jessica@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:05 PM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 9:23 AM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 8:38 AM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 8:38 AM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 8:38 AM:

hello

bruce@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 9:48 PM:

hello

larra@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 2:27 AM:

buy cialis