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.