The David Iglesias Cover-Up

by emptywheel

Amid the excitement of contempt charges and more lies from Gonzales and Mueller's exposure of those lies, the House Judiciary Committee released a report detailing what the USA Purge investigation has found to date. I'll do a more comprehensive review of what's in it and what's not. The most incendiary thing in there (although it's not presented as such, yet) is the implication that DOJ conducted a seemingly coordinated cover-up of the reasons for David Iglesias' firing.

You'll recall that the first reasons given for his firing was that he was an "absentee landlord," because his reserve service and other duties took him away from the office so much that his First Assistant USA was doing his job. Later, stories of complaints from New Mexico Republicans came out--but those complaints were usually placed early in the process--in 2005. Slowly, the news of calls from Heather Wilson and Senator Domenici came out. But most of the document dumps--particularly as they pertained contacts with Alberto Gonzales--focused on those earlier contacts.

The report suggests that this focus on earlier calls may have been deliberate deception.

Other statements of concern [with regards to inaccuracy] by the Attorney General include his testimony regarding calls received from Senator Domenici in late 2005 and early 2006. The Attorney General testified that, in those calls, the Senator criticized the performance of David Iglesias, which was useful testimony for hte Administration because it suggested that Senator Domenici had concerns about Mr. Iglesias well before the controversy surrounding the 2006 election. But Department documents and testimony of other witnesses strongly indicate that the calls actually concerned the Senator's request that more resources be provided to Mr. Iglesias' district. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella, for example, was present during each of these calls and testified that he understood them all to be focused on the Senator's concern that more resources be provided to Mr. Iglesias. Mr. Moschella further testified that the Attorney General never relayed to him that the calls were critical of Mr. Iglesias. Supporting Mr. Moschella's recollections of the calls, the email scheduling of one of these calls states, "Senator Domenici would like to talk to the AG regarding his concerns about staffing shortages in the U.S. Attorney's office (District of NM). And in fact, in response to the Senator's concern, new prosecutorial resources were provided to Mr. Iglesias in July 2006. (14)

But Gonzales is not the only one the report suggests may have lied. It argues that Paul McNulty and Will Moschella may have lied too.

The Committee also has concern about the statements made by Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees regarding the firing of David Iglesias. Neither official testified that the firing may have been based in whole or in part on a call received by Mr. McNulty from Senator Domenici in October 2006, even though Mr. McNulty stated during his subsequent interview with the Committee that such a call from Senator Domenici was at least important to his decision not to object to Mr. Iglesias' presence on the firing list. Furthermore, the omission of that information may have been deliberate. Monica Goodling stated in her testimony before the Committee that the issue of the call from Sen. Domenici had come up during a preparation session in advance of Mr. McNulty's briefing to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February 2007, and that Mr. McNulty directed her to omit the reference from the materials she was drafting for him to use. (16)

And meanwhile, the report explains where that absentee landlord claim--the original reason offered for Iglesias' firing--came from.

David Margolis has explained that the issue of Mr. Iglesias being a so-called "absentee landlord" arose after Iglesias already had been fired when, during an interview to be considered to replace Iglesias, the First Assistant explained that he had been delegated substantial authority and so was well-prepared to succeed Mr. Iglesias. Furthermore, the First Assistant told Committee investigators that Mr. Iglesias did not overdelegate and was an excellent U.S. Attorney.

Put it all together, and it provides the outlines of DOJ's concerted efforts to draw attention away from the interventions of Domenici and Wilson just weeks before Iglesias was fired.

I'm not ashamed. I'll link to this story again! This might be why they tried so hard to draw attention away from the election-related issues:

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.

In other words, I find it curious that the one area where DOJ seems to have made the most concerted effort to draw attention away from events is the one area where--this story alleges at least--Bush was directly involved.

As far as I could tell from one reading, the report doesn't link to this story. Maybe they have reason to disbelieve it. Or maybe they didn't link to it for tactical reasons: elsewhere the report relies on White House claims that Bush was not involved at all to support an argument that the invocation of executive privilege is completely inappropriate.

In any case, it sure looks like HJC is honing in on the stories surrounding Iglesias' firing. [And for the record, seeing this argument laid out as it is makes me much more comfortable with the subpoena of Turdblossom.]

Comments

[Katie Jensen]

Oh good. I needed good news this morning. C-span was sickening this morning. "The cia is sabatoging this great president". Ugh. Can't wait to get the official word on how Turdblossom plans to respond. The turds are definetly floating to the top these days.

[Mauimom]

Thanks, thanks, thanks for this Marcy.

Minor typo: DOJ conducted a seemingly coordinate cover-up. Should be "coordinated."

[emptywheel]

Oh thanks, Mauimom. I'm sure there are others. mr. emptywheel took all the coffee this morning and left me with just tea, so my fingers, at least, are running a little slow.

[oldtree]

You are a true reporter, a true journalist in the finest traditions in history. You lay out the facts, and you explain when it is your opinion or if a conclusion or potential link is based on another story, which you refer to. No nonsense, and we are all damn lucky that reality can still be found.
many thanks

[William Ockham]

Everybody needs to check out footnote 223 of that report. Congrats, Marcy!

[J. Thomason]

Now we are getting somewhere. I have been impatient this week but it is beginning to appear the the wheels of justice are grinding finely. And as a New Mexican I find this story and the revelations it contains particularly gratifying to my sense of the fundamental wisdom of our Constitutional process.

[BillE]

To reiterate, thanks EW for this stuff.

Do you think they are trying to play magician with the Gonzo. Look here while we pull a rabbit (Bush) out of a hat.

The tactics involved in shooting holes in the bogus privilege claim is comforting. I was thinking that the HJC were kind of lost on what to do. That they didn't get the enormity of the hubris they are facing.

[my too sense]

From a story and following the links from dKos diarist commonscribe about an upcoming PBS NOW story on voter caging sounds like an angry fired USA, Mr. David Iglesias, has some insightful commentary about Turblossom and the gang (Miers, Taylor). Perhaps he has provided or has friends in high places (isn't there one individual he said he felt he trusted that would get to the bottom of why he was fired still up in the ranks) who have provided the useful information and/or emails to the HJC or SJC that may help explain the subpoena of kkKarl?

[J. Thomason]

I have been resisting making comments about pookahs for about 36 hours now. But if the operative discretionary choice in comparison is between Gollum and Harvey. Well the former stands for me.

[grayslady]

How about footnote 35, referencing an archived article at Talking Points Memo, as well? The excellent blog researching is making a difference in Washington.

[Marie Roget]

Thanks for including the link to the HJC report, EW. I notice there's nothing in the report on the allegations that Bogden of Nevada & Charlton of Arizona were forced to resign because of investigations into Repub corruption. No solid evidence before HJC on that yet? Truthout.org has an interview in which Charlton indicated that a chronology of the AZ Renzi & Kolbe investigations would point to his termination for pursuing those cases...

[orionATL]

oldtree has it exactly right.

a fine reporter - diligent, productive, intelligent, and with a strong moral code informing each article.

[emptywheel]

WO, I wasn't going to mention that...

There's also one to Balkin, as well. Not bad, us bloggers.

[J. Thomason]

I am thinkin you are doin good EW.

[emptywheel]

Marie

There is actually a reference--though not a strong focus--to the Renzi investigation. But I think, as Charlton suggested in that interview, it's not entirely clear now, but will be once the (presumed) indictment comes down.

[Mauimom]

Marcy, I've sent a link to this diary around to all my "political pals," referencing it as a concise summary of a major element of the USAs' case. I concur with the comments above: you're a GREAT reporter and do exactly what good reporters should be doing in these times -- digging and explaning. [Are you listening, David Shuster? You're on a good path, but you should check back in for tutorials occasionally.]

Re Mr. EW and the coffee: that's what drinking Coca-Cola @ 8 am is for. I spent my "formative years" in the South, and always loved the "Dr. Pepper at 10, 2, and 4 each day" slogan. Hmm, wonder how much caffine it's got???

[Neil]

[T]he one area where DOJ seems to have made the most concerted effort to draw attention away from events is the one area where--this story alleges at least--Bush was directly involved. - EW

EW is doing her part to give the MSM a reason to be interested in covering Bush's involevment in the US Attorney purge.

Yesterday, Christy linked to a video that does a damn good job of explaining what's at stake in the US Attorney purge:

It's not about whether the president has the authority to replace US Attorneys at will, it's about voting rights, influencing elections with timely indictments and firing prosecutors whose investigations are dangerously close to elected Republican Congressmen and friends of POTUS and OVP. Christy's Post.

[Marie Roget]

Thanks for the reply. I'm in L.A. but have a lot of family & friends in Phoenix AZ, mostly Repubs BTW. Might be a tremendous surprise to whoever put Paul Charlton on the firing list to know that an awful lot of AZ folks think so highly of his abilities as their USA they want him back.

Or maybe they wouldn't give a care...

[J. Thomason]

Right Neil. The right of political appointment is not a carte blanche to corrupt justice and the electoral system.

[tekel]

I think there was a post here a few days ago about the tide starting to turn... is this just another example of changing momentum, or is this report enough, on its own, to support perjury charges?

I find it very interesting that things seem to be accellerating. Within hours after Gonzo's latest round of testimony on Wednesday, his testimony had already been contradicted by Bob Mueller and by documents with Bill Frist's name on them. In February, Gonzo's lies withstood scrutiny for at least a week at a time. Now they don't even last a day- he can barely get the answer out of his mouth before Leahy is calling him a liar.

Where do we go from here, if not on to impeachment? There is nothing else left.

[bmaz]

As to the Renzi investigation, it is my understanding from the scuttlebutt on the ground here that the investigation is still ongoing and that there could be an indictment before end of the year, maybe much sooner. He has vacillated on whether he is running for reelection; don't know what his current statement is. However, and this is fairly telling, he has $20,000 or less in his campaign account and has spent $25,000 in legal fees in the last three months.

[bmaz]

Marie Roget - You and the others might also be interested to know that Paul Charlton was also named Prosecutor of the Year in Arizona and the vote wasn't even close.

[emptywheel]

bmaz

Do you have a link for that? THat makes two: Lam got an award from the SD Bar Association.

I wonder if Bogden and Iglesias got awards, too?

[Marie Roget]

Found a link listing Charlton's prosecutor award among others given out by the AZ State Bar Assoc. this yr. Scroll down about 1/3:

http://www.azbar.org/NewsCenter/newsreleases.cfm

[Neil]

Have a look back at MSM coverage of the US Attorney story and see if you can identify the WH's talking points...

Report: Rove was urged to oust U.S. attorney
N.M. GOP chief says he complained about prosecutor, was told 'he's gone'
MSNBC, March 11, 07

Allen Weh said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove, asking that he be removed, and followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.

“Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?” Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event.

“He’s gone,” Rove said, according to Weh.

“I probably said something close to ’Hallelujah,”’ said Weh.

The GOP party leader made clear his dissatisfaction with Iglesias stemmed in part from his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.

The Justice Department has said the dismissal of Iglesias and seven other U.S. attorneys was a personnel matter. White House involvement, Justice said, was limited to approving a list of replacements after the Justice Department made the decision to fire the eight.

The McClatchy story quoted Weh as saying he does not know whether Rove was involved in the firing of Iglesias or merely had been advised of the decision when the two talked at the White House.

“There’s nothing we’ve done that’s wrong,” Weh told the papers. “It wasn’t that Iglesias wasn’t looking out for Republicans. He just wasn’t doing his job, period.” link

Do you think the SJC will question Weh to see if he'll stick his neck out for Rove?

[Woodhall Hollow]

Thank you so much for all your digging EW--I don't know where so many of us would be without it.

I just spent an hour reading that report. It is interesting and encouraging to see references to the behind the scenes interviews which seem to have going on almost non-stop. We can safely assume something similar has been going on, on the Senate side. There is obviously a lot more afoot here than meets the eye. Which is encouraging.

I wonder if there has been any follow-up on getting Fitz up to testify?

[bmaz]

Marie Roget - Thanks! I emailed a couple of things to EW, but neither one was the piece I had remembered seeing it in. It was the monthly bar magazine here and I realized it the second I saw the link you posted. Beautiful!

[nofortunateson]

The 15 minute interview jason Leopold did on camera with David Iglesias is still the most dramatic and insightful of anything out there no matter what your opinion is of leopold. Everyone should watch it if for no other reason than to see how pissed Iglesias is and how he thinks there is a smoking gun that will lead to Rove

[nofortunateson]

The 15 minute interview jason Leopold did on camera with David Iglesias is still the most dramatic and insightful of anything out there no matter what your opinion is of leopold. Everyone should watch it if for no other reason than to see how pissed Iglesias is and how he thinks there is a smoking gun that will lead to Rove

[Marie Roget]

My pleasure, bmaz.

[greenhouse]

no fortune cookie son pimpin for leopold agin.

[nofortunateson]

Call it what you will. Pimpin whoring whatever. Do you deny that there isn't valuable information in that interview? Are you so closed minded as to ignore what Iglesias says himself simply because of the messenger? Are you that hardheaded? In the big picture does it really matter that leopold conducted the interview? Do you think people deserve second, third, fourth chances? More importantly why do you care? Its been more than one year since the rove story and there has been plenty of good work from the reporter since then. Move on.

[BlueStateRedhead]

join in the general huzzah to EW. better than coffee at any time of day.
now, did I miss a link to jason Leopold on camera with David Iglesias? a date /source would help.

[orionATL]

the irishman takes the coffee

and leaves the tea for the american?

the world turned upside down.

[greenhouse]

Hey cookie write me a letter. Yer barkin up the wrong tree here if your seeking to be exonerated or affirmation. Leopold shot his load a long time ago and exposed himself for the true creep he is now get back on those meds but quick.

[nofortunateson]

Yeah that's why four ex us attorneys and joe wilson homself sat down with leopold for an interview. Ok Greenhouse whatever you say.

Loser

[nofortunateson]

Leopold/truthout interview with iglesias here

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053007J.shtml

The charlton interview is also interesting as is the one with john mckay

[greenhouse]

COOKie, um... pathetic. I feel fer you bro. Better now?

[randiego]

fortunate, got a link? I for one would like to see it.

[Sharon]

NOW show (linked earlier by other commenter here) has interview with Iglesias and there's a web-extended interview transcript here:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/david-iglesias.html

He's pissed.

[nofortunateson]

Here's the link ran

http://www.truthout.org/
docs_2006/053007J.shtml