The dismissal of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in December 2006 followed extensive communication among lawyers and political aides in the White House who hashed over complaints about his work on public corruption cases against Democrats, according to newly released e-mails and transcripts of closed-door House testimony by former Bush counsel Harriet Miers and political chief Karl Rove.

A campaign to oust Iglesias intensified after state party officials and GOP members of the congressional delegation apparently concluded he was not pursuing the cases against Democrats in a way that would help then- Rep. Heather Wilson in a tight releection race, according to interviews and Bush White House e-mails released Tuesday by congressional investigators. The documents place the genesis of Iglesias’s dismissal earlier than previously known. [...]

The House focused most of its attention on Iglesias, a rising star in New Mexico who came to displease his political patrons. Miers told investigators that Rove called her in September 2006, “agitated” about the slow pace of public corruption cases against Democrats and weak efforts to pursue voter fraud cases in the state. In the call, Miers said that Rove had described Iglesias as a “serious problem” and said he wanted “something done” about it. Miers testified that she called then Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to pass along the concerns.

Also, The Post reports that the debilitating amnesia that afflicted former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales when he testified before Congress appears to be contagious.

In their testimony in June and July 2009, both Miers and Rove failed to recall key incidents , according to the transcripts. Miers said she could not recall events nearly 150 times in the course of her 10-hour deposition. Rove portrayed himself as receiving hundreds of e-mails a day, so that “asking me to remember replies is like asking me to remember a raindrop in a thunderstorm.”

“An article containing a false headline has been published by Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today regarding an issue with expansion of the National Labor Relations Board.

This article concerns two letters; one issued by ACU and another issued by a separate organization.

Mr. David Keene’s name was on a letter prepared by another organization.  This was a personal decision on his part and he was not representing ACU at the time.  No permission was given by ACU, and no logo was provided by ACU, to the organization who issued the letter in question.

ACU’s policy position on this issue has not changed and it will not change.

ACU’s positions on important policy issues have never been for sale.

ACU does not support moving businesses under the jurisdiction of the NLRB or expanding the federal government’s power, reach or authority under the NLRB.

In fact, as we pointed out last year when auto bailouts were first proposed, the actions of organized labor in Detroit helped lead to a downfall of America’s storied auto industry.  This is a clear example of what can happen when organized labor extends its fingers too far into American business.

In this regard, ACU stands with the policy that FedEx should not be placed under the NLRB.

This was ACU policy – before and after – any letters in question were drafted.

No contributions, to date, regarding this issue have been given or promised to ACU from any organization mentioned in the Politico article.

For the record.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million+, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and / or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

The ACU, of course, heads up the massive yearly Conservative Political Action Conference. Its ratings for members of Congress are repeated by conservative Republicans all the time — “I have a 99 percent lifetime rating from the ACU,” for example. This is a big, embarrassing deal.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

To recap, Coburn, an obstetrician and gynecologist who lives with Ensign in Washington, has said he counseled his colleague to end an extramarital relationship with a staffer. But the husband of the former mistress has claimed that Coburn also advised Ensign to pay millions of dollars to the unhappy couple so they could move away from Ensign’s hometown of Las Vegas.

The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed several petitions with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Department of Justice to probe the legality of severance payments that Ensign allegedly made. But Coburn has said that he won’t cooperate in any investigations, claiming that his counseling derived from his capacity as a medical doctor, which prevents him from having to testify in any probe that might follow.

The Washington Post’s Al Kamen today picked up on Coburn’s line of argument to offer the most clever line yet to emerge from the scandal. “If a guy can’t trust his OB-GYN,” Kamen writes, “who can he trust?”

“Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Senator Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Senator Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hamptons’ marriage,” Coburn spokesman John Hart said in a statement. “Had Senator Ensign followed Dr. Coburn’s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago.”

Hart told The Post that the husband’s claim that Coburn urged Ensign to pay restitution “is false.”

Thus likely endeth the Coburn chapter of this saga. The larger story here revolves around the separate charge that Ensign paid his mistress $25,000 in severance money as she was quitting her job in his campaign office. That payment didn’t show up on any campaign forms filed with the Federal Election Commission — a campaign finance violation that also happens to be a felony.

The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed an official complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee on that very point. Most such complaints are dismissed (lawmakers, after all, don’t really like policing themselves). This case, though, will be more difficult to dismiss as a triviality.

Stay tuned…

Gov. Mark Sanford left the Governor’s Mansion without a security escort, 38 times in 2008. In the first six months of this year, he left the mansion without security, 39 times.

Those trips are about one-third of the 195 trips Sanford made from the mansion, with or without security, over that 18-month period.

At this point the only thing keeping Sanford in his job is the politicking of local Republicans, who are not ready to push power into the hands of ambitious Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

“Adrian has checked in but we haven’t made any decisions,” Mr. Weisser said. “Obviously, there’s a lot to think about. We need to talk to the governor and his people. It’s just such an unusual situation. You don’t want to rush into any decision.”

You really don’t want to rush it. In nine months, who knows where Sanford will be? Serving out his term as governor, largely forgiven by voters? Living in disgrace in Argentina after an impeachment trial? Rebuilding his life as a pundit? Nonetheless, the book is no longer the pre-presidential campaign manifesto that Sentinel paid for.

The [New Mexico] Independent sought to view documents from the governor’s office from January through August 2006 that would have divulged with whom he had met in the months prior to the costly investment that benefited the son of the governor’s friend to the tune of millions of dollars.

But the governor’s office isn’t saying or allowing access to the documents. Its rationale: The governor’s calendars, datebooks and other documents that would shed light on his schedule are protected by executive privilege. [...]

The Independent’s goal was to see if Richardson had met with Marc Correra, the son of Anthony Correra, a Richardson friend, in the months prior to two state boards investing in $90 million with Vanderbilt Financial Trust. The state lost all $90 million in the investment. Correra is said to have been paid $2 million as a third-party marketer, a kind of middleman in the investment world.

In case you’ve forgotten, executive privilege is the legal principle that exists to ensure the quality of the advice some government officials (such as presidents or governors) receive by shielding advisers from being forced to testify about the advice they give. It was frequently cited by the Bush administration to prevent adviser Karl Rove and White House Counsel Harriet Miers from testifying before Congress on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Richardson, a former Clinton administration official and presidential candidate, is currently embroiled in a federal pay-to-play investigation.

You can stay up to date on all the happenings in the Land of Enchantment over at The New Mexico Independent.

According to a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office, there are two separate criminal cases. One involves public corruption and the other involves racketeering, armed robberies, arson and illegal gambling.

The announcement is set to come at 2 p.m. CDT. No mention if the cases involve federal, state or local officials. The AP is quick to point out that federal officials have been investigating all three.