Well, here’s a question….
If a sharp legal mind, the kind of mind that was portrayed on the silver screen in A Few Good Men, answers a question one way under oath in front of Congress, and answers a question another way when asked by a reporter, does that constitute perjury?
I’m just kind of wondering. You see, I’m not a lawyer, but from a layman’s perspective, it sure seems that David Iglesias’ well-rehearsed and dramatically delivered testimony before Congress might now come back to bite him. In case you missed, it the first time, here is the re-run of the relevant part:
Go ahead, play it again. It’s pretty clear isn’t it? Mr. Iglesias said he felt pressured after receiving a call from Senator Domenici. So, maybe Mr. Iglesias can explain this response in a recent interview with his old work buddy and fellow attorney, Jim Scarantino, for the Alibi. First, we have this admission from David Iglesias:
Could [Senator Domenici’s] phone call to me [concerning the timing of charges in the court house corruption investigation] constitute a criminal offense? I’m not sure. I suspect ethics charges are more likely than criminal charges as I doubt he called me to interfere with the courthouse cases. Having me removed for not prosecuting voter fraud cases or [not] prosecuting cases fast enough probably does not constitute obstruction of justice.
That’s followed up by this whopper of a confession:
Domenici and [U.S. Rep. Heather] Wilson never directly pressured me to take action—it was the New Mexico GOP.
Whoa, hold the presses! Domenici and Wilson never directly pressured him? Well, then how does he explain his sworn testimony before Senator Schumer? David Iglesias clearly stated, “I felt pressured to get these matters moving.” He said it regarding Senator Pete Domenici, and Iglesias said it again when asked about a call from Congresswoman Heather Wilson:
Hmm, I wonder if this might negatively impact that book deal?