Despite Rep. Wilson's assertion that she "stay[s] on white side of gray," Matthews did not ask about DOJ report
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Ted Stevens' conviction for lying on his Senate financial disclosure forms, Chris Matthews asked Rep. Heather Wilson, "Does it bother you personally that one of your colleagues looks like a crook?" However, after Wilson responded, in part, that "in my office and in my service, you know, I tell everyone that works with me, we stay on the white side of gray," Matthews did not ask Wilson about a Justice Department report that called for further investigation of actions Wilson and others allegedly took surrounding the firing of a former New Mexico U.S. Attorney. The report stated that the alleged conduct of Wilson and others in the case "may have been criminal."
On the October 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) about Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) conviction on seven felony counts for lying on his Senate financial disclosure forms, saying, "Does it bother you personally that one of your colleagues looks like a crook?" However, after Wilson responded, in part, that "in my office and in my service, you know, I tell everyone that works with me, we stay on the white side of gray," Matthews did not ask Wilson about a September 29 Justice Department report that called for further investigation of actions Wilson and others allegedly took surrounding the firing of former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. As Media Matters for America has noted, the report stated that the actions of Wilson and others may have constituted an "attempt[] to pressure Iglesias to accelerate his charging decision in [a] ... case or to initiate voter fraud investigations to affect the outcome of the" 2006 election and that this "conduct may have been criminal."
The report, by the Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, stated:
[W]e believe a full investigation is necessary to determine whether other federal criminal statutes were violated with regard to the removal of Iglesias. For example, Iglesias and others have alleged that he was removed in retaliation for his failure to accelerate the indictment of a public corruption case and his alleged failure to initiate voter fraud investigations. Iglesias said that Representative Wilson, who was running for reelection in a close race, called him before the 2006 election and asked him about delays in public corruption cases being handled by his office, apparently referring to the courthouse case. In addition, Iglesias believed that Senator [Pete] Domenici [R-NM] attempted to pressure him to indict the courthouse case before the election in order to benefit Wilson, and when Iglesias declined to do so Domenici engineered his removal. The evidence we have developed so far shows that Wilson and Domenici in fact called Iglesias shortly before the election, and that the substance of the calls led Iglesias to believe he was being pressured to indict the courthouse case before the upcoming election. Moreover, New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists contacted Iglesias, the Department, and the White House to complain about Iglesias's handling of voter fraud investigations and public corruption cases.
It is possible that those seeking Iglesias's removal did so simply because they believed he was not competently prosecuting worthwhile cases. However, if they attempted to pressure Iglesias to accelerate his charging decision in the courthouse case or to initiate voter fraud investigations to affect the outcome of the upcoming election, their conduct may have been criminal. The obstruction of justice statute makes it a crime for any person who "corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). While we found no case charging a violation of the obstruction of justice statute involving an effort to accelerate a criminal prosecution for partisan political purposes, we believe that pressuring a prosecutor to indict a case more quickly to affect the outcome of an upcoming election could be a corrupt attempt to influence the prosecution in violation of the obstruction of justice statute. The same reasoning could apply to pressuring a prosecutor to take partisan political considerations into account in his charging decisions in voter fraud matters.
The report stated of Wilson's actions:
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, Representative Wilson e-mailed a newspaper article about public corruption prosecutions in other states to her Chief of Staff, her campaign manager, another campaign aide, and Domenici's Chief of Staff [Steven] Bell with the message, "FBI or those close to them are talking about public corruption cases ongoing in other states."
[...]
According to Wilson, her e-mail to Bell was not intended as a reference to Iglesias. However, the next day, October 16, 2006, Wilson telephoned Iglesias to ask about delays in public corruption matters being handled by his office. Wilson told us that a day or two before the call, a constituent had complained to her that Iglesias was intentionally delaying public corruption prosecutions in the district."
[...]
Wilson refused to identify the constituent to us and would not provide any information that would allow us to assess the constituent's bias, motives, or credibility. She simply asserted that the constituent was a reliable source whom she believed to be knowledgeable about the matter."
The report added, "According to Wilson, she told Iglesias in her telephone call that she heard he was intentionally delaying corruption cases." The report further stated that when Iglesias said the allegation that he was intentionally delaying cases was "not true," "Wilson said she closed the conversation by stating that she would take him at his word." In a later section, the report stated that "[a]n interview of that person [the constituent] could potentially provide evidence regarding Wilson's intent in calling Iglesias and complaining to others about him."
According to the report, Iglesias said he was asked to resign on December 7, 2006.
From the October 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: You know, congresswoman, I want to go back to something I started with, this big news tonight of the corruption convictions on seven felonies, charges, against Senator Stevens, the ranking Republican, the senior Republican in the U.S. Senate right now. What does it feel like to be a member of Congress who's about to retire? I was just talking to a senator who's about to retire after 30 years of the cleanest possible record. Does it bother you personally that one of your colleagues looks like a crook?
WILSON: Sure it does. And I -- you know, there's part of me that says, you know, you're judged by the company that you keep. But if good, honest people don't choose to step forward and serve in public life, then who are we gonna be governed by? So, you choose to try to -- in my office and in my service, you know, I tell everyone that works with me, we stay on the white side of gray. We try to do the right thing for the right reason. And then you're judged by your constituents on your record of having done so. But I think that what Senator Stevens did put a stain on the United States Senate, both Democrats and Republicans.
MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you. You can't match that. I'm not gonna let you respond to that Congressman Wexler, because nobody can beat that. Thank you very much.
Wilson (openly weeping on the house floor) - "Janet Jackson exposed herself!"
Hopefully November brings the end to her reign of error.
She's already a lame duck - lost her primary in March. This is probably why she's willing to keep going on Hardball and parroting stupid talking points - girlfriend needs a job.
Chris Matthews chirrped:
"Does it bother you personally that one of your colleagues looks like a crook?"
Now see, there is a wee bit of propaganda here.
He looks like a crook ?
A couple of days ago, that statement might have been accurate, but today, it is just a lie.
Now this is something that Chris Matthews is EXPERT at.
He does this sort of thing all the time.
The answer is, in the form the accurate question :
"Does it bother you personally that one of your colleagues IS a crook?"
He IS after all, a convicted felon. Now you can be a crook without the felony conviction. Small time hustlers are crooks, but as long as their graft doesnt pass a certain threshold, they are misdomeanor crooks.
Yep, Stevens IS a crook, and a felony conviction is PROOF.
It bothers me personally that Chris Matthews looks like a TV journalist, but he does not act like one.
Have you ever watched Heather Wilson? I think she was made by the same manufacturer as Cindy McCain...except Wilson is the no-frills, utilitarian model.
Hiya, Irony, haven't seen you around here much lately. Have you seen this bit from The Onion?
I'm going along with the theory that Cindy is an Alien from "V" (the TV series from the '80's). Maybe Heather is, too...
On which "white side of grey" does Representative Wilson stay? Bright white? Dental white? Off White? Palin probably has dibs on arctic white. Of course, opening the aperture wide or leaving the shutter open would allow a grey scale sensor to turn everything white - perhaps that's what she means by staying on the "white side".
If Obama wins, I hope the new Justice Department looks closely at the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and other nefarious activities of the Bush Toadies. My guess is that it will be like turning over a piece of rotting wood.
"A piece of rotting wood" bearing Heather Wilson's fingerprints.