« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Domenici: "I Still Do Not Know What He Is Talking About"
A new statement out from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM):
In his testimony today, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that our conversation was brief and that my words did not threaten him, nor did I direct him to take any course of action. While I recall, as I stated previously, that I asked Mr. Iglesias about timing of the investigation, neither I nor those who overheard my side of the brief conversation recall my mentioning the November election to him.When I was first asked, in response to a chorus of questions, about whether I pressured or threatened Mr. Iglesias, I responded that I did not know what he was talking about. Today he testified that he “felt violated.” I still do not know what he is talking about. In his own testimony, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that nothing I actually said was threatening or directive. I did not pressure him. I asked him a timing question. He responded. I concluded the conversation.
You can watch Iglesias' testimony about Domenici's call here.
Advertisement
Comments (22)
KC wrote on March 6, 2007 7:05 PM:Does Domenici always end his phone calls by hanging up on people? It's not what was said that was threatening, it was that the call was placed to Iglesias' home, and that when Iglesias didn't say what Domenici wanted to hear, the senator hung up on him. How is one supposed to interpret that kind of call?
NM kid wrote on March 6, 2007 7:10 PM:And Domenici IS the most powerful voice in NM Republican politics...
nofltwlt wrote on March 6, 2007 7:16 PM:It's the cover up stupid. Again, the GOP has never understodd this. Coupled with the pervausive distrust of the GOP Mr. Domenici is on the slippery slope. Goodbye Mr. Domenici, it won't be long now.
oldtree wrote on March 6, 2007 7:16 PM:It is called dementia Mr. Senator. you know, that whisper you keep hearing about Alzheimers behind your back. But you do forget little things like that don't you?
Dreggas wrote on March 6, 2007 7:19 PM:Please try the "I never beat my wife" defense in response to the question. Always effective. When did you stop obstructing justice?
A written reply is requested
Unless I am mistaken a threat does not need to be spelled out, merely implied. My take even after hearing both sides of the story is that Domenici called Iglesias, probed for info, didn't get what he was looking for and hung up, it wasn't what was said it was how it was said, the tone, and the abrupt end of the conversation, namely Domenici hanging up.
Anyone who ever had their parents tack on a "Or else" knows that even though the sentence isn't finish and there was no direct verbal threat the threat was still implied. Slamming down a phone after being curt is not much different
Dan wrote on March 6, 2007 7:21 PM:What about the lackey who got on the line first and said that the Senator wanted to speak with him because there were "complaints" from the public. That is the prelude the the Royal Domenici getting on the line. Domenici then asks if the indictments will come out before "November". When told "no" he says he is "sorry to hear that" and imperiously hangs up. Not threats needed, message delivered.
Domenici's red herring that he did not mention the "November elections" is laughable. No one said he did. He mentioned "November" and he does not deny that.
mtuning wrote on March 6, 2007 7:22 PM:But this isn't just about a phone call from a Senator to a Prosecutor. What phone calls were made by that Senator to the Justice Dept. subsequently? Iglesias wasn't fired by a Senator, but by the Administration, by the Justice Department.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 6, 2007 7:37 PM:For Pete's sake,
Of course, Domenici does not what he is talking about . . . He is talking about the TRUTH.
glennpdx wrote on March 6, 2007 7:41 PM:"I asked him a timing question."
Mcboo wrote on March 6, 2007 8:18 PM:I ASKED HIM A TIMING QUESTION???? IS HE KIDDING?
It's hard to even fathom someone trying make a defense like that, if it is a defense. If the Senator just wanted information, any staffer could have called the U.S. attorney's office to ask.
But that's not what happened. This is a sitting U.S. Senator who personally called the U.S. prosecuting attorney to ask questions about a pending case with political implications. It's intimidation on its face. He didn't have to ask for a specific result, or make threats. The tone of the language or the voices is irrevelant. And everyone knows that...except Sen. Domenici..
Call me crazy but I get the image of a kid holding his finger a hair away from your face saying:
"I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
Perhaps the kid is indeed "not touching you" technically but that does not change the fact that he's asking to get decked. It really sounds like Sen. Domenici is taunting us here. His statements are dripping with condescension as he parses what he said while being conveniently hyper-literal. The threat is there, not spoken but clearly implied.
rp wrote on March 6, 2007 9:03 PM:Old Pete's been in the politics business long enough to know how to deliver a threat and get a message across without spelling it out. It is not just that we are being lied to, but that they either don't care if we know or think we are so stupid we can't figure it out. If add the on-going diaster in Iraq to all the other messes, the Libby conviction, the Coulter hate speech being cheered, the pathetic opportunism of the three Republican front runners, the fact that conservatives like Mayor Rudy becasue he is vindictive, the Walter Reed disaster and this -- and that is only part of the whole mess, and you've got a bunch of people so morally and intellectually bankrupt that they just need to be beaten at the next election not only for our good, but to save the Republican party from going completely facist.
vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 6, 2007 9:05 PM:Ol Pete, the Godfather of the GOP in New Mexico, doesn't know what Iglesias is talking about?
boot the bum wrote on March 6, 2007 9:32 PM:After Libby's conviction today, he better start learning what part of Lying don't you understand? Pete and a lot of others deserve to be put on the same obstructing justice train as Libby.
The following transcript comes from the near future, the forthcoming re-re-non-denial-denial from Pete Domenici (R-NM).
" As Iglesias confirmed in recent testimony, I in no way made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
I reassure you, in no way would I, the Office of the President GWBush, or the Republican party in any way expect political favors or a distortion of Justice for political gain.
To tell the truth, the mere suggestion is preposterous!
Frankly, I merely called him from my Senate office and asked him about the timing of the prosecution of a Democrat, a member of the political opposition, during tight elections, and in no way gave the impression it should be accelerated for political benefit to my party. I didn't even mention the election, so it's not as if I was in any way framing the question in context of the election.
Seriously, I can't imagine where Iglesias got that idea, frankly.
Our chat was much like chatting about the weather or baseball, not in any way inappropriate, whatsoever.
Mysteriously, Iglesias didn't want to discuss the matter with me, for some reason, which I in no way responded hostilely to, at all, as I (of course) had no expectations of him regarding this matter, because that would be inappropriate.
On a totally irrelevant side point, which I only mention in an offhand manner, because you may find it charming, at the time I happened to be practicing a social efficiency technique of not saying goodbye before depositing the phone handset in the cradle thereby concluding the conversation; which saves tremendous time from the work day, so as to better serve the people of NM.
In all honestly, I can't imagine why this might be misconstrued as anything but appropriate behavior, especially in lieu of his subsequent firing in part due to my political protestations to the DOJ, which I assure the good people of NM was entirely unrelated to this complete non-incident. Cross my heart.
Now, have I made myself completely clear? "
-Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
wpt wrote on March 6, 2007 9:59 PM:Comments to the press from the near future.
Is it any wonder that nothing was accomplished during the 109th Congress? The party in majority didn't know what anyone was talking about.
Pete is a leftover from that Congress.
KCinDC wrote on March 6, 2007 10:29 PM:Bye Pete...I hardly knew ya!
"When I said, 'Nice career you have there, Mr. Iglesias -- shame if something were to happen to it,', I was merely complimenting the man and wishing him well. I don't understand how it could have been interpreted otherwise."
Dr. Jeff wrote on March 7, 2007 9:26 AM:I listened to the C-span broadcast of the Senate hearings with the 4 US Attornies yesterday and have several observations. First, these four surely are magnificent individuals and the greatest of public servants. It was very impressive the breadth and scope of the work they do and the daily importance and gravity of their functioning and decisions. Secondly, except for one mention, the Senators down played that Carol Lam was responsible for and was in the process of expanding ongoing investigations of the worst curruption of high government officials on recent history. One would think that on the face of it that all the discussion that she was unresponsive to DOJ priorities would be seen as total obfuscation in the face of her successful prosecution of these crimes by public officials. Thirdly, I was saddened to hear that Mr. Inglesias had such an intimate relationship with Senator Domenici that he considered him a mentor and was close friends and had compagned with Congresswoman Wilson. His remarks were very poignent and even though, as the Republican Sentors eagerly pointed out, he did not follow DOJ ethics rules by reporting the contacts, it was easy to see why he was behaving as he did and how hugely upsetting it was to be leaned on in such a way. He acted with such honor and integrity he needs a metal. Finally, little has been said about Mr. Cummins' email and Senator Whitehouse's pointed questioning that in any legal context DOJ officials acted in a way that would technically be called obstruction of justice.
Dr. Jeff wrote on March 7, 2007 9:27 AM:I listened to the C-span broadcast of the Senate hearings with the 4 US Attornies yesterday and have several observations. First, these four surely are magnificent individuals and the greatest of public servants. It was very impressive the breadth and scope of the work they do and the daily importance and gravity of their functioning and decisions. Secondly, except for one mention, the Senators down played that Carol Lam was responsible for and was in the process of expanding ongoing investigations of the worst curruption of high government officials on recent history. One would think that on the face of it that all the discussion that she was unresponsive to DOJ priorities would be seen as total obfuscation in the face of her successful prosecution of these crimes by public officials. Thirdly, I was saddened to hear that Mr. Inglesias had such an intimate relationship with Senator Domenici that he considered him a mentor and was close friends and had compagned with Congresswoman Wilson. His remarks were very poignent and even though, as the Republican Sentors eagerly pointed out, he did not follow DOJ ethics rules by reporting the contacts, it was easy to see why he was behaving as he did and how hugely upsetting it was to be leaned on in such a way. He acted with such honor and integrity he needs a metal. Finally, little has been said about Mr. Cummins' email and Senator Whitehouse's pointed questioning that in any legal context DOJ officials acted in a way that would technically be called obstruction of justice.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 7, 2007 11:37 AM:Callin' a guy at home implies either "We know where family lives . . ." or "I'm stupid enough to think that calling you at home is on the down-low, but resourceful enough to be really dangerous."
dominicki wrote on March 7, 2007 12:32 PM:Domenici has the benefit of NOT testifying. He gets to get his message out through others (news media and other legislators).
Hey, Domenici! How about you testify too?
Jeff B. wrote on March 7, 2007 1:07 PM:Is it possible that we're actually missing the bigger story? As in, what about all the US Attorneys who did not get fired? What did they say (and what are they doing) to keep from getting fired?
We're just barely seeing the tip of the iceberg right now, folks.
Mcboo wrote on March 7, 2007 1:51 PM:Jeff B.
I've heard/read a few things suggesting something very similar here on TPM, what about those that kept their jobs?
The thing for me is that on the surface, if the excuse that they wanted some up and coming lackeys to get some face time on the job, I could maybe live with what's going on. Not happily mind you, that's too much politics and not enough law but I do know that it happens. The problem here is that this is a multi-fragranced kind of stink. Not only do the firings appear to be targeted at particular individuals in particular districts but in several cases they were handling sensitive cases. Add to that the completely inept manner in which the firings occurred with the inappropriate messages and calls and you have something truly foul going on and I only have so many outlets to plug in Glade air fresheners.
I have an idea. Let's take a look at all the people that this administration has "appointed" to positions and let's see how well they did their jobs or even better...how qualified they were to even HAVE the jobs. Let's see we could start with Katrina. Then we could go to the list of hacks hired to do things in Iraq they couldn't even spell. Why should we let them appoint ANYONE? They have gotten nothing right in the last 5+ years and that's not easy to do...I mean with the odds and all...
There are 2 unassailable truths about this administration: it lies and it is inept. Everything it says is a lie (at least in part) and everything it tries to do it botches so badly that if they weren't such big liars you'd actually feel sorry for them.
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:20 AM:Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night