March 28, 2024 / by 

 

The Iglesias Cover-Up, Again

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 ahearing next month featuring the first public testimony of formerOffice of Legal Counsel chief Jack Goldsmith. A one-time administrationstalwart, he became convinced that Gonzales and other administrationofficials were breaking the law in eavesdropping on conversations ofU.S. residents without judicial warrants, according to multiple formerdepartment 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 inspectorgeneral, Glenn Fine) has already turned up new documents and e-mailsabout the purge that have not been made public and that areinconsistent with previous Justice Department statements, according toa key witness who was recently interviewed by the investigators and wasshown the material. (The witness asked not to be publicly identifiedwhile 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 ofAlberto Gonzales had become inevitable,” he said in a statement Monday.“His situation was a distraction to the Department of Justice and itsattempt to carry out its important duties.”

Domeniciadded that he looked forward to reviewing Bush’s as-yet unnamed nomineeto 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?


Schlozman’s Not Done

In my rush to leave town on Thursday, I missed this letter Pat Leahy sent to Brad Schlozman about his missing homework:

Dear Mr. Schlozman:

According to news reports, you have confirmed that you resigned last week from the Department of Justice. Yet, the Judiciary Committee is still waiting for your responses to written questions from Committee Members following your June 5 testimony at the Committee’s hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?-Part V." These responses were due June 28, nearly two months ago.

In addition, during your appearance before the Committee, you testified about your preparation for the hearing, the unprecedented U.S. attorney replacements, the use of partisan considerations in career hiring, and your role as the interim U.S, Attorney and while at the Civil Rights Division in pressing certain cases in connection with recent elections. Your answers to questions made clear the importance of certain emails and other documents the Committee has still not received from the Department of Justice.

Your answers and these documents are especially important after you appeared to mislead the Committee and the public about your decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy. Despite testifying at least nine times at the hearing that you were directed to file this suit by the Public Integrity section, you sent a letter a week after the hearing that you were not, in fact, directed to do so, I asked you repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.

The Committee has authorized subpoenas, which I have not issued, for the information you have failed to provide. Please send your written responses to the Committee, including any and all requested documents, no later than August 28, to avoid any further action to compel them. [my emphasis]

That new due date would be (checks calendar) today. Otherwise we get new subpoenas for emails and questions from DOJ–and it’ll be hard for Schlozman to invoke privilege when he has already answered many of these questions.

And given the language Leahy is using, referring to using prosecutions to affect elections, it’s clear he’s thinking of criminal Hatch Act violations.


The Political Rehabilitation of Ari Fleischer

Say, has anyone noticed how omnipresent Ari Fleischer has been, of late? Obviously, the big news is his pimping for a $15 million propaganda campaign in favor of death and destruction.

"For those who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry iscoming," said former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who isa founding board member of the group.

But Ari is also, all of a sudden, a seemingly acceptable source of the party line for the beltway media. He’s on Fox News accusing Congress of politicizing DOJ. And he’s dealing that line to the NYT, too.

“This is a reflection of the fact that the Democrats are on theoffensive and have more power than they used to,” Mr. Fleischer saidMonday, referring to Mr. Gonzales’s announcement. “The presidentdoesn’t have a lot of armor left, and the fact that they were able toforce him out is a chink in whatever armor he has left.”

Ari Fleischer has returned from his political exile in the harsh climes of Pound Ridge, NY, it seems (full disclosure: as a teenager, I was about 5 years behind Ari in the Pound Ridge schools).

Does anyone else find the timing interesting? Not so long ago, Ari was flacking for sports figures, apparently unable or uninterested in getting work in DC. But here he is, less than two months after Scooter Libby’s get out of jail free card, with $15 million of Republican money in his pocket to spend.

Two things may explain the timing. First, Tony Snow is getting ready to bolt the White House. And these uncertain times demand a professional liar, not rank amateurs like Scottie McClellan or Dana Perino. And
face it, Ari Fleischer remains one of the great liars of this Administration full of experienced (if not convincing) liars.

But the timing almost certainly has to do with the damage Ari didn’t do in return for immunity in the CIA Leak case. Sure, Ari did some damage to Libby. But when Fitzgerald bought his pig in a poke, it seemed like he expected–and may have gotten–damaging information on someone else. Ari’s lunch date with Libby was just gravy on the immunized testimony. And now that that other person is out of danger, all of a sudden Ari can rejoin his party as a fully functional member of the propaganda corps.

What most amazes me, though, is that it is as if some bureau somewhere sent out a memo alerting the press–somehow they all discovered at the same time that Ari has been rehabilitated by the party.

Update: Ah geez. Here’s Ari on the Today Show expounding on Larry Craig’s unusual bathroom habits.


Wilkes’ Creditors Don’t Get to See His Financial Statements, Either

Remember how federal prosecutors were denied the ability to review Brent Wilkes’ affidavit showing he was indigent? Well, ChrisC sent along news of a civil magistrate case in which one of Wilkes’ creditors appears to be trying to force Wilkes to reveal where his assets are–also to no avail.

The unopposed motion to compel filed by plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc., as
assignee of Union Bank, is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff cites In re Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1151-1152, that a blanket refusal is unacceptable, and the burden is on the party invoking the privilege to show the testimony could tend to incriminate him or her. However, plaintiff answered some questions, and refused others so this is not a blanket refusal. A review of the indictment against Brent R. Wilkes shows that all the companies were allegedly used as shell corporations to conceal Wilke’s financial interest and the role in CIA contracts and to launder money from CIA contracts. (P’s Ex. 1.) The second indictment involved defendant with another defendant and references secreting funds and conspiracy. Accordingly, there is a direct link between the questions and assets involved and the refusal to answer based upon the Fifth Amendment rights.

The deposition shows that Wilkes answered general questions, but none dealing with his finances, including whether his children are holding any property of defendant’s. Plaintiff should proceed with less intrusive means of finding assets, including DMV records, real property records, UCC filings, subpoenas to banks, and review of court records regarding lawsuits.

It appears that Wilkes is shielding his assets by invoking the Fifth Amendment, claiming that since his assets are the basis of his charged crime, he does not have to explain anything more about them. Or something like that.

I’m guessing that Union Bank will avail itself of the other methods suggested by the judge to see if there’s any assets they can get out of Wilkes and his family. Though I wonder whether they ought to be looking with his family, or in another country…?


Did Chertoff EVER Use the DHS privacy review process?

Before we crown Michael Chertoff Attorney General, I recommend we pull him before some oversight committee and ask him if he ever used Department of Homeland Security’s Privacy Office to review planned domestic surveillance activities before they’re used to collect data on American citizens. CSM reports that DHS is suspending a massive data-mining program because it has already started using live data without ever putting the program through a privacy review.

From late 2004 until mid-2006, a little-known data-mining computersystem developed by the US Department of Homeland Security to huntterrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and biological weapons siftedthrough Americans’ personal data with little regard for federal privacylaws.

Now the $42 million cutting-edge system, designed to process trillions of pieces of data, has been halted and could be canceled pending data-privacy reviews, according to a newly released report to Congress by the DHS’s own internal watchdog.

[snip]

It failed to incorporate federal privacy laws into its system design.From its earliest days, the system’s pilot programs used "live data,including personally identifiable information, from multiple sources inattempts to identify potential terrorist activity," but without takingsteps required by federal law and DHS’s own internal guidelines to keepthat data from being misused, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)said in a June report to Congress, which was made public Aug. 13.

[snip]

DHS’s delay in addressing data privacy appears to be due to confusion and miscommunication about privacy requirements by ADVISE program managers and DHS’s privacy office, amid the rush to get a system running, the OIG says.

Forexample, ADVISE program managers told OIG investigators they didn’trealize privacy assessments were required for a system still indevelopment. At that stage, the system was just a processing toolwithout data, they argued – a view agreed to by the DHS privacy office.

Indeed, the privacy office mentions the ADVISEsystem only once, in a footnote, in its mandatory report last summer toCongress on data-mining activities. Until the "ADVISE tool" had dataattached to it, it was not a data-mining program needing privacyreview, the office reported.

Unknown to the privacy office, the ADVISE pilot programs had been operational and using personal data for about 18 months before the privacy office made that report to Congress, the OIG found.

And in a letter to Michael Chertoff complaining that he hadn’t been informed of DHS’ plans to use military spy satellites to monitor the US, Congressman Bennie Thompson noted that Chertoff had never subjected the satellite plan to a privacy review.


Random Thoughts on AGAG’s Demise

Just some random thoughts on AGAG’s resignation.

AGAG and Kim

There have been a number of people connecting Gonzales’ resignation with Rove’s (Cenk Uygur’s take and Sidney Blumenthal’s). I am much much more interested in the timing of DOJ Civil Rights Division head Wan Kim’s resignation. Here’s the chronology:

The week of August 13: Bradley Schlozman resigns 

August 23: Wan Kim resigns, apparently giving all of six day’s notice

August 24: Gonzales first offers his resignation to Bush

According to this NYT story,the whole Gonzales thing was rushed and sudden, and it all took placestarting the day after Kim was reported to have resigned.

A senior administration official said today that Mr. Gonzales, whowas in Washington, had called the president in Crawford, Tex., onFriday to offer his resignation. The president rebuffed the offer, butsaid the two should talk face to face on Sunday.

Mr. Gonzales andhis wife flew to Texas, and over lunch on Sunday the president acceptedthe resignation with regret, the official said.

On Saturday nightMr. Gonzales was contacted by his press spokesman to ask how thedepartment should respond to inquiries from reporters about rumors ofhis resignation, and he told the spokesman to deny the reports.

WhiteHouse spokesmen also insisted on Sunday that they did not believe thatMr. Gonzales was planning to resign. Aides to senior members of theSenate Judiciary Committee said over the weekend that they had receivedno suggestion from the administration that Mr. Gonzales intended toresign.

As late as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales himself wasdenying through his spokesman that he was quitting. The spokesman,Brian Roehrkasse, said Sunday that he telephoned the attorney generalabout the reports of his imminent resignation “and he said it wasn’ttrue — so I don’t know what more I can say.” [my emphasis]

Now, granted, unlike Kim, Gonzales gave three week’s notice. But the IG investigation of the Civil Rights Division is one (of several) that clearly has merit. And the politicization of the Civil Rights Division is one that was reported to have been ordered from on high. Is it possible that Gonzales was unwilling to further perjure himself to protect those who had politicized justice in this country?

All of which is not to say that Gonzales’ resignation was unrelated to Rove’s. But from the descriptions, it sounds like Gonzales’ wife had a major influence in his decision to resign. And something seems to have triggered her influence just in the last week.


A Tale of Two Resignations

If you compare Bush’s comments on Rove’s resignation with his comments on Gonzales’ resignation, it sure seems like Rove left on Bush’s terms, whereas Gonzales left on his own terms. Here’s how Bush announced the departure of the man who had made his entire political career.

Karl Rove is moving on down the road.  I’ve been talkingto Karl for a while about his desire to spend more time with Darby andAndrew.  This is a family that has made enormous sacrifices not only forour beloved state of Texas, but for a country we both love.

We’ve been friends for a long time, and we’re still going to be friends.I would call Karl Rove a dear friend.  We’ve known each other asyoungsters interested in serving our state.  We worked together so wecould be in a position to serve this country.  And so I thank my friend.

That’s it. No expression of regret. No celebration of Rove’s accomplishments. Just an emphasis that he and Rove would continue to be friends, as if Rove had been weeping on Bush’s shoulder all night because Bush told Rove he had a new girlfriend. "Let’s just be friends, Karl."

By contrast, Bush hails Gonzales’ career with four paragraphs of tribute. Further, Bush admits that he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince Gonzales to stay.

This morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalesannounced that he will leave the Department of Justice, after two and ahalf years of service to the department.  Al Gonzales is a man ofintegrity, decency and principle.  And I have reluctantly accepted hisresignation, with great appreciation for the service that he hasprovided for our country.

And Bush’s angry words made it crystal clear why Gonzales resigned.


I Should Go Away More Often

Do you think if I had stayed away a week, Cheney would have resigned too?

I’ll have some more comments once I clean the long road trip stink out of my hair.


Going Fishing!

Mr. emptywheel and I are headed to DC so McCaffrey the MilleniaLab can attend a very important Furrin’ Policy Summit with Kobe, Katy, and Lucy (oh, and so we can go to a wedding or some such rot). The emptywheel pack is going to play around in the mud together for a couple of days on the way back. And mr. emptywheel has requested (well, demanded, and who can blame him!?!?!?) that I leave my Toobz behind. So aside from the possibility of some puppy porn while we’re in DC, don’t expect to hear from me (and I mean it, this time) until next Tuesday.

Have a great weekend!!


The End of the Month

Via TPMM, the Director of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has resigned.

Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’sCivil Rights Division, today announced his resignation, effective atthe end of this month. President Bush nominated Mr. Kim to the positionon June 16, 2005, and the Senate unanimously confirmed his appointmenton November 4, 2005. Mr. Kim, whose career in the Department of Justicehas spanned more than a decade, started in the Department of JusticeHonors Program as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division, and laterserved as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. [my emphasis]

Um, today is August 23. The "end of the month," August 31, is approximately 6 business days away.

Where I come from in the business world, when a top executive quits with less than a month’s notice, he’s trying to hide something, usually the imminent collapse of his business unit. When a top executive quits with less than two week’s notice, that thing he’s hiding may involve legal repercussions.

Mr. Kim is getting out of Dodge in an awfully big hurry.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1161/