The Latest Email Dump: Growing Evidence of an Iglesias Cover-Up

/in /by

DOJ dumped another stash of emails while I was at YKos. Unlike the other late-in-the-scandal email dumps, this one doesn’t consist primarily of emails listed on Kyle Sampson’s list of withheld emails. These are new, previously unidentified emails. That’s not surprising, necessarily, since this dump comes from the Deputy Attorney General’s office, not the Attorney General’s office (where Sampson worked). I’m curious though why this dump came when it did, since other document dumps appeared to be tied to the testimony of individuals (that is, they released the Monica-related emails before she testified, and the Miers/Taylor emails before they were scheduled to testify). In this case, the dump may be related to Paul McNulty’s departure.

But I think it much more likely (since half of these emails pertain to Will Moschella, and not McNulty) that these emails are a response to HJC’s interim report on the USA scandal, specifically regarding allegations relating to David Iglesias’ firing.

HJC’s Allegations of an Iglesias Firing Cover-Up

As I wrote when the report came out, the most incendiary allegation in the report is that DOJ conspired to keep the reasons behind David Iglesias’ firing secret. It included Gonzales in this claim, but also asserted that Will Moschella and Paul McNulty may have specifically tried to cover up the actions from fall 2006 that resulted in Iglesias’ firing. The report specifically alleged that Moschella and McNulty downplayed the import of an October 2006 call from Senator Domenici.

The Committee also has concern about the statements made by Mr. McNultyand Mr. Moschella to the Senate and House Judiciary Committeesregarding the firing of David Iglesias. Neither official testified thatthe firing may have been based in whole or in part on a call receivedby Mr. McNulty from Senator Domenici in October 2006, even though Mr.McNulty stated during his subsequent interview with the Committee thatsuch a call from Senator Domenici was at least important to hisdecision 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 theissue of the call from Sen. Domenici had come up during a preparationsession in advance of Mr. McNulty’s briefing to members of the SenateJudiciary Committee in early February 2007, and that Mr. McNultydirected her to omit the reference from the materials she was draftingfor him to use.

Even while Gonzales misrepresented the purpose behind some spring 2006 calls:

  1. Anonymous says:

    I think you are right that it is relation to the interim report which, despite being a tad long and rambling, contained some fairly juicy stuff. Also, some concurrent statements made by Iglesias on MSNBC and CNN.

  5. litigatormom says:

    Good analysis, as always. At this point, any public statement that states â€We never did that for X reasons†should probably be viewed presumsptively as an admission that they did that for Y and Z reasons.

  6. Katie Jensen says:

    Man, I’ve been in withdrawal. Good think Yearly kos is â€yearlyâ€. Thanks E.W. I am hopelessly addicted to your detail filled analysis. Thank you.

  7. Katie Jensen says:

    That should be good thing…not good think. Although, your posts are always good for a good think.

  8. Sojourner says:

    I, too, have missed your posts and analysis! I am sure YKOS was a good thing, but I have been starved for information… I think that I have lost 20 lbs just pacing back and forth

    Hope you feel better!

  9. MikeSZ says:

    Wow. Thanks for the analysis. But will anyone do anything about this information that indicates the coordinated cover-up of the political firings?

    After all, Pelosi’s organization(?) is close to as politically incompetent as the hacktacular and confused bushies are at actual governance. If the HJC determines that there was a coordinated effort to hide WH direction to fire politically uncompliant USAs then the House leadership must WORK to make sure that all members understand this outrage and vote accordingly. I have so little faith that it will be sent to the floor; there will be a failure to catapult the propaganda; then the vote is lost in the chaos that is Dem house leadership.

  11. james says:

    Thanks Marcy…I printed out your analysis so I can go over it with other things relating to this.

    I’ve got so many folders lying around with interconnected things. Time to start an index sheet.

    Feel better

  12. Anonymous says:

    â€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.â€

    A maybe invalid point, but was he Senior plitical advisor Karl Rove, or was he Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove at that particular moment…

    Interesting, the Tale of Two Turdblossoms…

    If you were to split Karl into his two administrative halves, the Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of the Political Office, and put them in separate offices, every time they got together to strategize, it would be a violation of the hatch act, (albeit, interpreted narrowly.â€

    So, basically, that would make Rove a walking Hatch Act violation, all in one body.

    I wonder if it ever hurts?

  14. Neil Sagan says:

    EW, the talking point stalker. Once again, EW demonstrates how talking points cut both ways: They can obscure the truth and at the same time, they can lead you to it. EW, you do this better in your sleep than I do at peak performance. Thank you. You’re the best.

  15. Anonymous says:

    JEP

    No, that is an interesting point, since as Deputy COS he’d fall in a different place in the list of people who could contact DOJ. They would argue that the conversations related to personnel in any case, meaning anyone could have that conversation. But since we know they were talking about one particular case (plus the non-filing of fraud cases)…

  16. Anonymous says:

    It arguably could affect the applicability and/or strength of an executive privilege claim as well.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Do they just pick whichever title protects Rove the most in any given situation?

    And was Domenici calling Rove for political reasons or administrative reasons, if Rove went into politicalmode and pushed Iglesias’ name on to Goodling and Sampson, THEN went to the President on Domenici’s behalf, he put the political cart before the presidential horse, in terms of any executive privelege claims…

  18. Anonymous says:

    and on that same train of thought, if he went to Bush first, then tossed Iglesias’ name at Goodling and Sampson, that implicates Bush…

    So, in order to claim executive privilege, he would have to expose Bush’s role in the attorney firings?

    And his only other option is the political route and then he’s screwed without his executive privelege?

    Rove might just leave Bush between Iraq and a hard place…

    Or am I simplifying, or missing an option here?

  19. Anonymous says:

    JEP the only thing you are missing here is a Congress that actually gives a damn about upholding their oath of office. Other than that â€little†factor, I think you have a pretty decent bead on things in general…

  20. Anonymous says:

    OK so you think that the law violations will get the Bushco crimes punished by the facts. It seems to me Impeachment might. This is â€Above the Law†politicos in action Rove does the Hip Hop Dance challenging you and declares checkmate and runs out the clock with the cooperation of the sissies in congress.
    Pelosi and Reid do not have the political will for a no holds barred rumble. Take off the comity gloves and fight for our rights or take a hike in 2008. You have to talk to them using their own language. They are partand parcel of the same crookery or they would go after then effectively. Pontificate all you want but IMPEACH.

  21. William Ockham says:

    Here’s something to consider about those emails. They were all originally printed out in March 2006 (3/9, 3/12, 3/13). The cover letter accompanying this dump says that they weren’t supplied before because they related to efforts to respond to media and Congressional inquiries and that DOJ is supplying them now because on July 5, the HJC staff showed a â€particularized†need for these documents.

    It is interesting to me that the HJC hasn’t published the McNulty and Moschella privilege logs where these documents are identified.

  22. MarkH says:

    â€the Tale of Two Turdblossomsâ€

    Ha! LOL

    It looks like their number one priority is to insulate Dubya from being seen as directly hands-on involved in anything, so if push comes to shove they’d probably dump Domenici in a heartbeat.

    Thus, we should build the case against Domenici with the tie-in to the White House and Rove.

    It builds our case for over-politicization of DoJ by the WH while also building a political case against Domenici…just in case someone wants to run against him. BTW, when is he up for re-election? Isn’t he about old enough to ’spend more time with his family’?

  23. BlueStateRedhead says:

    Wm Ockham. The coffee is still brewing so the mind is not. please therefore someone remind me. when Dominici wants to spend that time with his family, isn’t it heather wilson who is going to make that possible as his heir apparent? and if I remember correctly, can EW make something hair-raising for Heather of her calls?