What about the prosecutors who succumbed to political pressure?

The common thread among the fired U.S. Attorneys is the fact that they resisted efforts to politicize their offices. GOP officials wanted them to “play ball,” they didn’t, so they were purged. Josh Marshall noted a couple of days ago that this raises another disconcerting question: how many of Bush’s federal prosecutors were willing to play ball? In other words, how many U.S. Attorneys’ offices were effectively politicized?

It’s a point [tag]Paul Krugman[/tag] takes up in his column today.

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.

Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.

In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power.

The irony is the existing facts of this scandal already point to serious misconduct — including possible crimes — but we’ve barely begun to consider what the Bush gang successfully got the other U.S. Attorneys to do.

Consider this Christie example. Who’s willing to give the White House and the U.S. Attorney’s office the benefit of the doubt? As Josh Marshall asked, “Given what we know now, does anyone think the Iglesias and McKay cases are the only ones” to have been pressured to bring charges against a Democrat?

The New Jersey GOP wanted to paint Menendez as corrupt. The local U.S. Attorney launches an investigation based on flimsy accusations, shortly before the election. The campaign ends, Menendez wins, and, wouldn’t you know it, all of a sudden the investigation effectively ends.

How convenient.

Indeed, Krugman goes on to note that “statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.”

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”

I hesitate to over-dramatize this, but 30 years ago, Nixon used the criminal justice process to target political enemies — and it was included in his articles of impeachment. If there’s any evidence that the Bush White House did the same thing….

“If there’s any evidence that the Bush White House did the same thing…”

“10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats”

Enough said. Impeach

  • Josh Marshall noted a couple of days ago that this raises another disconcerting question: how many of Bush’s federal prosecutors were willing to play ball? In other words, how many U.S. Attorneys’ offices were effectively politicized?

    Yeah, that’s the first thing I thought of when I heard about the story, and the kind of thing that’s usually the first thing I think of when I read stories like this. What upsets me is that I feel a lot of other people don’t think like that- that they sort of assume that the purged prosecutors we’ve heard of are all there is to the story, instead of assuming that there’s probably more to the story than we’ve heard of, and that it’s not as likely that there really is no more to tell.

    The New Jersey GOP wanted to paint Menendez as corrupt. The local U.S. Attorney launches an investigation based on flimsy accusations, shortly before the election. The campaign ends, Menendez wins, and, wouldn’t you know it, all of a sudden the investigation effectively ends.

    That’s screwed up if he’s not corrupt, but now everyone thinks he’s maybe a little corrupt, at the least.

  • I would be VERY surprised if they weren’t using this tool to win elections. It’s practically foolproof, and it would be very hard to prove that there was a conspiracy, even if a few individual cases could be proven (also a tough task).

    I can hear them now, actually using their own scandal as an offensive weapon: “hey, maybe there are more corrupt Democrats, which would explain why there’s more investigations of Democrats. Look at William Jefferson!”. Of course this doesn’t explain the number of investigations dropped after each election, which is the smoking gun IMO.

    I would really like to see the same statistical analysis of numerous administrations, to see if Democrat justice departments went after Republicans right before elections (and then dropped the investigation) and a comparison of the two parties on this issue.

    A nice graph might help Americans see the pattern. If that can’t be provided, this issue will be lost in the smoke and muddy water of local politics.

  • One more question of course would be the number of corrupt Republicans who may have been tipped off about legal procedings which were forming against them.

    I’m sure that’s not unimaginable at this point either.

    Dems should be putting out feelers to see if anyone in the justice department has dirt to share.

  • “I hesitate to over-dramatize this……..” – Mr. CB

    Hard to over-dramatize the continuum of corruption that stretches from Nixon to Shruby. The worms and termites have dug in deeper. The foundation has become more rotten. ShrubCo has been effective in the worst way but they are just this cycles purveyors of destruction. They have almost run their course, but the underlying desire to reshape this country in a more corporate, militaristic and authoritarian mold lives on. And those forces must conclude that much progress was made during the acid reign of ShrubCo. He and his fellow toxic termites have served their purpose well.

  • I certainly think there’s been a political tilt to prosecutions, but as far as Fumo goes, face it, he’s the ultimate “I can do whatever I want, go ahead and try and stop me” local pol.

    I’m willing to believe up to half of the 137 counts are prosecutorial overreach, but dude, that still leaves almost 70 that are good solid hits.

    The biggest mistake we can make in making this “they made it political” argument is to try and protect local Dems who quite possibly *are* corrupt.

    Let’s throw our bad apples overboard and let’s be careful automatically impugning every US Attorney — the guy here in Philly seems to be a straight arrow.

  • When you see one cockroach, how many are there? Makes ya wonder what they’ve gotten away with. JMM puts it very well:

    …At each step along the way in this scandal, hints of wrongdoing were casually dismissed by Justice Department and White House officials, much as they have been in similar cases over recent years. But getting people up on the Hill under oath quickly changed the story, tangling administration officials up in a series of misstatements and contradictions. That’s oversight and checks and balances in action. Maybe if there’d been any of it in recent years the folks at Justice and the White House would have known not to even try something so brazen.

    http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/in-firings-wake-dems-on-duty-2007-03-08.html

    “That’s oversight and checks and balances in action”

    Why do checks and balances hate America?

  • “The politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power.”

    That expresses what this whole fiasco is about. Pure and Simple. Abuse. Of. Power.

  • Speaking of Philadelphia, US Attorney Patrick Meehan (and Republican Party hack) tried to get Mayor John Street (D) in 2003 when Street was up for re-election. The Feds bugged the mayor’s office, but the Philadelphia Police found the bug, and thus prevent the Feds from interfering with the local election with a scandal.

    Why was this important? Because Philadelphia and its Democratic “machine” help delivered Pennsylvania’s electoral (college) votes in 2000–and again in 2004–to the Democratic candidate for president (not Bush). If a Republican had become mayor of Philadelphia, Rove’s goal of voter suppression to win Pennsylvania for Bush would have mimicked what happened to Kerry in Ohio.

  • zmulls,

    US Attorney Meehan isn’t so much a straight arrow, as Fumo is blatantly corrupt.

  • Not particularly “on point” specifically, but this quote from Gingrich in his confession to Mullah Dobson does strike me as illustrative of the whole problem with Republicans:

    Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton’s infidelity.

    “The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,” the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton’s 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. “I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.”

    The nice thing is, here we have Newt Gingrich of all people laying out exactly what the standards should be in the further investigation of George W. Bush’s crimes against America.

  • Let’s whittle this down further. Let’s filter out actual indictments and convictions. Taking down corrupt officials is always a good thing, regardless of political party.

    Here in NC, Ag. Sec. Meg Scott Phipps (daughter and granddaughter of former governors) and Speaker of the House Jim Black have been convicted. My hat is off to the federal and state people who got them.

    My guess is that after you take out the proven criminals, we’ll see that almost all of the other “investigations” in recent years were witchhunts or fishing expeditions against Democrats.

    Bush, Cheney and Gonzales should resign. Otherwise, it’s congress’ duty to impeach the bastards regardless of poltical fallout.

  • If there’s any evidence that the Bush White House did the same thing….

    … you can probably successfully bet that the Democrats will be too cowardly to follow up.

  • Great point, Tom… and entirely too logical, consistent and subtle for anyone in the press to pick up on. Of course, it would help if the nudniks at the DNC were better at forcing the point into the discourse.

  • “Of the 375 cases… ”

    Perhaps this was what Karl was referring to when he said he had “THE math?”

  • In Donald Shields and John Cragan’s study Democrats were shown to be seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny. And the impression we have is that Republicans were many times more likely to be convicted. Do we have figures on this?

  • Comments are closed.