|
|
Add to My Group
Sen. Pete Domenici, (R-NM) called Iglesias as well. According to Iglesias, there was a clearly implied request for a pre midterm Democratic sacrifice at the altar of election injustice. Iglesias reports that when he refused on the grounds that he lacked evidence (one of those minor details that tends to annoy those in power), Domenici simply stayed on the phone … silent. Iglesias was gone in a heartbeat for not cooperating with a prosecution that would influence the 2006 midterm elections in his state. But who made the decision? Fingers were pointed but nothing stuck until last week. The Albuquerque Journal reports that during talks with Sen. Domenici, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to fire Iglesias unless the president gave the OK. Well, Iglesias was fired wasn’t he? Gonzales denied culpability, inferring his DOJ subordinate Kyle Sampson made those decisions. Sampson fired that charge back at Gonzales. But the Albuquerque Journal article provides the missing piece. Gonzales wouldn’t move on Iglesias without a Bush sanction. How do these pieces fit together? It’s simple. Wilson needed help. Both Wilson and Domenici called Iglesias. No deal Iglesias said. Then Domenici made the call to Gonzales who said, no way without a nod by from Bush. Iglesias was fired. Therefore, Bush is tagged for giving the order, Get rid of him. Gonzales passed the word and the deed was done. That sequence of events points directly to Bush as the final decider. He’s told us “I’m the decider” in public. Gonzales said as much to Domenici, no way unless the boss says so. The problem is not only political but legal. Pressuring a U.S. Attorney into a bogus indictment is a federal crime. Domenici lawyered up after Iglesias described his conversation with the senator. Gonzales and Sampson both denied initiating the call on the firing. So it’s Bush, and only Bush, as the author of a punishment delivered to a U.S. Attorney who failed to indict a citizen for purely political purposes. Now that’s what you call a high crime. Actually, it’s called election fraud, which is defined as “corruption of the electoral process … (by) elected or election officials, candidates, party organizations, advocacy groups or campaign workers.” Here we have politicians actively planning improper and illegal acts to influence an election through a contrived prosecution. It’s not that complicated. High Crimes The New Mexico affair is critical to determining if and how election fraud was committed in the White House. We have a lot of people talking, some getting lawyers, and a critical conversation reported in the Albuquerque Journal, 15 April 2007: In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
That’s the smoking gun. It’s the vital link to Bush committing election fraud. He’s a politician, the senior politician, corrupting the election process by replacing an honest prosecutor with someone who will cooperate the next time the Senator and the Congresswoman call with their requests that some prominent Democrat be indicted to give a hand to a campaign. There is enough testimony, from a U.S. Attorney no less, to make a prima facie case that Bush committed election fraud. Ironically, the probable election fraud took place while the White House was promoting the Republican myth of voter fraud. Let the impeachment process begin. Previous “Scoop” coverage of the voter fraud scandal and the U.S. Attorneys: Fired Federal Prosecutors and Election Fraud M. Collins 12 March 2007
http://electionfraudnews.com Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. See this summary of his articles plus Election 2004: The Urban Legend and groundbreaking research and commentary in "" His web site, Election Fraud News & The Money Party, offers a collection of resources and commentary on critical issues facing the country.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
