They
I’m thrilled by the news that Democrats intend to call Jack Goldsmith to testify on the domestic wiretap program.
Congressional Democrats plan to step up the heat in coming weeks,pressing for Justice memos and other documents. They also plan to calla potentially crucial witness: Jack L. Goldsmith, the former chief ofJustice’s Office of Legal Counsel. It was Goldsmith who wrote a keyopinion concluding the eavesdropping program was illegal.
But do you suppose that Mikey Isikoff might have bothered to follow those "who, what, why, when, where" rules of journalism and told us precisely who "they" are?
After all, "they" (SSCI) also had plans to call an equally critical witness, John Ashcroft, a while back. And that seems to have fizzled into extended negotiations with DOJ over his testimony. And "they" (HPSCI) actually did interview Ashcroft, to little fanfare, though the cryptic comments from Reyes and Holt don’t enlighten us at all on the program [update hat tip Staar]. Meanwhile, "they" (HJC) called the critical witness James Comey and plum forgot to ask him about the dispute over the domestic wiretap program. If "they" (SJC, preferably without giving the White House and DOJ an opportunity to say no, as seems to have happened with Comey) manage to get Goldsmith before them, great.
But the phrase "Congressional Democrats" is none too helpful in communicating whether this is something to get excited over or not.
I understood that Ashcroft actually HAD testified, albeit privately…did this never happen?
This link states that Ashcroft testified privately on Thursday June 21, 2007.
And one other link from WaPo
In the wake of all the publicity about the â€hospital room show-down,†I recalled the fact that the NYT had the story of the NSA spying BEFORE the 2004 election, but choose to sit on it until after the election.
This morning I wrote a letter to the Public Editor [i.e., ombudsman] @ the NYT and requested that he revisit this little episode in his paper’s past.
I suggested that had the story been reported “in real time,†the hospital room confrontation — which occurred in March 2004 — might have come to light, and additional inquiry/facts might have flowed from it.
It just really frosts me to see the NYT reporting on the â€current†story, without mentioning their own culpability in getting us to where we are now.
Thanks Staar: I’ve added it into the post.
That HPSCI briefing didn’t do us much good, though, did it. Here’s Russ Holt on what Ashcroft said:
Yeah, it was ’handled’ very, very quietly. I recall alot of ’distracting’ news that Thursday and Friday the 22…no surprise there.
I wonder what Leahy et al know from his testimony that we don’t…and I am still mystified as to the reason why they have not asked Mrs. Ashcroft to meet with them.
hmmmm.
From TPMmuckraker’s the daily muck today:
Via War and Piece: The Senate Judiciary is planning to listen to the testimony of another former Justice Department official. Jack Goldsmith, former chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, will make an appearance in the upcoming weeks. Odds are Goldsmith won’t be Gonzales’ biggest fan; while at the Department, he wrote the opinion that challenged the legality of the NSA eavesdropping program in 2004. (Newsweek)
Nevermind, War and piece just quotes the â€they†that the post is about and TPMmuckraker doesn’t source the Senate Judiciary bit. Sorry for any premature hurrays that may still be dashed.
Taechen
Sure, TPMM says that. But warandpiece and Newsweek, on which this is all based, don’t say that.
emptywheel
following the example of a departed Defense Secretary, you might say:
You go to the Committee Hearings with the Congress you have, not the Congress you might want to have!
Jodi, that comment made sense. You feelin’ alright?
LOL – Okay, jodi. That was funny.