Image via Wikipedia

Former US Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias, is featured in the most recent Esquire Magazine’s Best and Brightest 2009 issue.

The article retraces the now-historical (or at least will-be-at-any-moment-historical) role Iglesias played in dismantling George W Bush’s Department of Justice, a national scandal that reverberated long and hard in New Mexico (one could easily argue that New Mexico has an entirely Democratic US congressional delegation as a result).

The article also mines newer territory in greater depth than has been done elsewhere, namely Iglesias’ current role as a prosecutor against terrorists at Gitmo. The story explores the juxtaposition of Iglesias as a darling of liberals, for his role in taking on Bush’s administration, versus his identity as a prosecutor in the tangled political and legal web of Guantanámo.  It is, the article points out, an ambiguous situation in which Iglesias finds himself, but then, he says in the article, he’s used to it: “I’ve been living in a state of ambiguity for the last three years, so this is nothing new.”

It’s an interesting article, and worth a read, both for the contextualization of Iglesias’ current job, as well as for the interesting parallels the author finds between Iglesias’ personal journey and that of the larger nation. And, of course since it’s Esquire, there’s the literary writing to pull it along. Although, I have to say, it would never have occurred to me to compare Iglesias to Rambo. Hey—read it if you want to know why.

It’s never been entirely clear to me if Tom Cruise’s character in A Few Good Men was really based on former US Attorney David Iglesias (a US naval reservist), or if that’s just urban legend. But a documentary currently in production, InJustice, is most certainly based on Iglesias’ story his wrongful termination by the Department of Justice and the huge scandal it caused.
No word on when the documentary will be finished and released (I’ve got an e-mail into the producer), but for now, here’s the trailer:

He’ll be prosecuting Gitmo detainees for Obama (KRQE via TPMMuckraker):

The blog over at Harper’s Magazine has a rebuttal to that tortured Wall Street Journal editorial the other day, which argued that the CDR hubbub had vindicated the Bush administration’s decision to fire U.S. Attorneys who didn’t kowtow to its political agenda, like New Mexico’s own David Iglesias.

The reasoning is apparently something like this: there is corruption in New Mexico state government. President Bush was right to fire David Iglesias, a Republican, for failing to go after it. But this demonstrates a failure to appreciate even the most basic facts surrounding the scandal.

The mag’s Scott Horton asked Iglesias what he thought of the editorial. The former U.S. Attorney said:

The Wall Street Journal’s nonsensical editorial tries to argue about matters no longer in controversy. The official DOJ investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings established conclusively that the firings were “fundamentally flawed.” Every reason given for my ouster was reviewed and rejected by the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, who characterized the proferred reasons as “disingenous after the fact rationalizations.” If this editorial represents the logical reasoning ability of the board, I have profound doubt as to their ability to understand the utter sanctity of a prosecutor’s independence and integrity.

“Reading the Journal’s editorial, you get the distinct feeling that its author doesn’t read the news reports in his own paper, or any newspaper, for that matter,” Horton writes. Ouch.

Today’s New York Times has the best context piece written so far on the nationwide bid-rigging investigation that’s snared up a campaign contributor to Gov. Bill Richardson, CDR Financial Products, and stalled Richardson’s hopes of working in the Obama administration.

Here’s the heart of the scandal reduced to a quote:

Christopher Taylor, who retired in 2007 as executive director of the [IRS] Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, said the evidence amassed so far included tape-recorded phone calls, in which the independent specialists who are supposed to help local governments pick their bankers could be heard telling bankers: “We want you to bid on this deal, but you’re not going to get it — you’re going to get the next one. We want you to submit a sloppy bid.”

The feds’ investigation suggests another level of corruption: That Richardson’s team, in turn, rigged the selection of those supposedly “independent specialists,” steering business to firms like CDR that contributed to Richardson’s campaigns. Of course, there’s been no charge to that effect, so far.

Meanwhile, some key players — in particular, Richardson’s friend Mike Stratton, whose firm lobbied the New Mexico Finance Authority on behalf of CDR — continue to duck reporters’ calls.

When SFR reached his office yesterday, a secretary said that Stratton was traveling on “an open-ended ticket. Whenever his work is done, he’ll be back.”

We’re guessing that’ll be around the time this all blows over.

Another tidbit — in a story the other day, The New Mex’s Steve Terrell paraphrased former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias as “stressing he’s not involved in the investigation” into CDR and Richardson.

Reached by SFR, Iglesias clarifies that his comments to Terrell were “strictly about grand jury procedure — I’m not commenting on the investigation and how long it’s been going on.”

Well, we know it must’ve started before November, 2006, when the feds raided CDR’s offices in Beverly Hills. If this were an entirely politically motivated investigation, you’d think the timing of those raids would’ve been a little better.