The Iglesias Cover-Up, Again

by emptywheel

Most people who linked to Isikoff's latest did so to note that Jack Goldsmith will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, has already planned a hearing next month featuring the first public testimony of former Office of Legal Counsel chief Jack Goldsmith. A one-time administration stalwart, he became convinced that Gonzales and other administration officials were breaking the law in eavesdropping on conversations of U.S. residents without judicial warrants, according to multiple former department officials.

Well, I'm glad it only took Isikoff two months to get around to the "who what why when where" details of this story.

But I'm interested in a different detail. Isikoff relies on one named source--David Iglesias--and two unnamed sources in his story. The first of those had this to say:

The investigation (headed by the department’s respected inspector general, Glenn Fine) has already turned up new documents and e-mails about the purge that have not been made public and that are inconsistent with previous Justice Department statements, according to a key witness who was recently interviewed by the investigators and was shown the material. (The witness asked not to be publicly identified while the probe is ongoing.)

Not that Iglesias would be a "key witness" or anything. Wait a minute ...

Already, the House Judiciary Committee has revealed abundant evidence that there was a concerted cover-up of the reasons for Iglesias' firing. Emails released earlier this month only added to the evidence. If I'm wild-arsed-guessing correctly that Iglesias is both Isikoff's named--and unnamed--source, it suggests there is still more documentary evidence that the White House and DOJ worked together to hide the real reasons for Iglesias' firing.

One more detail. Isikoff reaffirms--and this article supports--the fact that there is an ongoing Senate Ethics investigation into Domenici's actions. Domenici sure seemed like he was happy that Gonzales had resigned.

Domenici was more tempered in his response. “The resignation of Alberto Gonzales had become inevitable,” he said in a statement Monday. “His situation was a distraction to the Department of Justice and its attempt to carry out its important duties.”

Domenici added that he looked forward to reviewing Bush’s as-yet unnamed nominee to replace Gonzales “carefully and objectively.”

Then again, he has played dumb about his own involvement in this issue before. Lucky for Domenici that he and Bush had another opportunity to coordinate their stories on Monday, huh?

Update: To some questions about Glenn Fine, DOJ's Inspector General. Fine was picked to be IG under Clinton, not Bush. Fine objected when Gonzales tried to shunt the internal investigation into the firings into Office of Professional Responsibility--and made sure that IG participated in the investigation. And he raised the issue of the problems in his jurisdiction himself, so presumably he is rather intent on ensuring there can be independent investigations of DOJ.

Comments

[JohnJ]

This is getting interesting! It reminds me of that puzzle where you have to match members of one column to the other.
Which resignation is gong to be matched with which investigation?
My take is that it usually turns out to be something currently off our radar; something we never expected.
Here's to hope.

[dude]

I recall Iglesias was asking for an investigation of his wrongful firing from an "independent" agency within DOJ (????) run by a Mr. Fine. (I can't get the picture of Larry Fine, 3rd of the Three Stooges out of my mind---sorry). I also recall that depending on the findings of that investigation, a suit might go forward. And I recall the WaPo reported if the finding substantiated Iglesias' allegations, bith the SJC would have a better shot at convincing Paul Clement, acting DOJ official, to rule on the matter of subpoenas served on folks like Harriet Miers, et al. But Clement is up for consideration as replacing Gonzales among others. That suggests to me this Mr. FIne's relationship to all the players is very, very important and I don't know anything about him.

So now I read your article, and all these players and actions go into a swirl.

Iglesias has a lot of trust in (or really indisputable evidence against) his beloved DOJ. He appears to be doing the right thing at his peril to me. Can you kind of simplify the story for me?

[emptywheel]

dude

I added a few details on Fine in an update.

[bmaz]

EW - Without proof, or at least better evidence, we can only speculate here about the dual nature of Iglesias as to sourcing for Isikoff. However, for what it is worth, I agree with you. I have felt for some time now that Iglesias has been a busy boy behind the scenes; serving as a conduit into and out of DOJ and generally churning the waters. This is also consistent with his earlier "confidence" that the internal investigation regarding his complaint was going to move; which inferred to me that he was going to make sure of it and had the capacity to do so. He seemed very determined. Good for him; if I were him, I would be on a seek and destroy mission too.

[marksb]

Well. Independent internal investigations of DOJ. There's a positive thought to start another work day. Not only very interesting, EW, but perhaps this sheds a bit more light to the sudden departure of both Rove and Gonzo, as well as Chimpy's petulant anger? Maybe the substance is about to hit the rotating blades, or at least some light shining into this den of cockroaches.

[emptywheel]

bmaz

Yup, just a WAG, as noted. Though naming a source elsewhere in the article (Iglesias is named in the following sentence) is fairly standard practice).

I should have emphasized the importance of still-unreleased emails, though, which are curious in any case, not least because some of the remaining KNOWN emails are ones that just beat up on Senators.

[dude]

Here is something else dating to Nov 2006

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-27-domestic-spying_x.htm

I take it this might have something to do with Goldsmith. (If you have already covered this and I was too thick-headed to understand, soory).

[Jodi]

I'm sorry, but I have to say it sounds like another non-story that will go nowhere that starts out with everyone all a fluster, and then dies out like all the others in the past.

[Mauimom]

Why does that toad Isikoff get this story? Surely there are many more reporters who could do a better job with it, and this will just help his "reputation" as a "good reporter."

Crap, they only way it could only be worse if Iglesias had given the story to Richard Wolffe.

[Neil]

I'm sorry, but I have to say it sounds like another non-story that will go nowhere that starts out with everyone all a fluster, and then dies out like all the others in the past.
Posted by: Jodi | August 29, 2007 at 14:09

Don't stop apologizing for yourself or BushCo. Sure, you're right but only because our country is full of cynical and ignorant auhtoritarians who willingly trade their four freedoms, their privacy, their democracy, and their collective wealth in return for very little. It's not because BushCo's conduct is ethical or even law-abidding, it's because of people like you and many more who accept it.

[kennethU]

Truthout repored like a month ago after interviewing iglesias about his tesimony before an ethics committee (house?) And they also interviewed iglesias about what he learned from the IG. This isikoff material is old news.

[emptywheel]

Maybe, kennethU. But seeing has how we have gotten new materials on these issues in the last month, it's possible OIG has, too.