Politics and justice

My new theory is that President Bush really does hear the voice of God directly. Unfortunately, he's also dyslexic. So when God says what God is always saying -- that politics must be shaped by justice -- Bush gets this mixed up and decides that the Department of Justice must be shaped by politics.

So the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for not allowing partisan politics to determine their priorities may have been the result of Bush trying to obey God's will. (It's just a theory.)

The A-list bloggers have been all over this story -- actually, that's an understatement, Josh Marshall & Co. took the lead on this story. So if you're looking for the details, or for a summary overview, or for interpretive commentary, you should probably head on over there.

But for what it's worth, I've a few comments to add to the mix.

1. The spin-move of choice for many of Bush's defenders is to argue that President Clinton did the same thing when he took office, replacing many Justice Department officials with all new people simply because the new people were Democrats. The truth is actually even worse -- Clinton did this throughout the executive branch. He brought in an entirely new Cabinet replacing every single incumbent for purely partisan reasons. This went to the highest level: Clinton even had the audacity to replace the president himself! In time of war. (The war on drugs, but still ...)

Of course, once Clinton got into office, his administration never did anything like what the Bush administration just pulled. For a well-sourced and detailed rebuttal of the "Clinton did it too" spin effort, please turn to Jim Macdonald at Making Light.

2. "Citizen journalism" is a big buzz-word for newspaper bigwigs desperate to adapt to the new world of "new media" (see for example). As with most buzz-words, the people who use the term aren't really sure what they mean by it. In practice, "citizen journalism" tends to mean things like urging online readers to tag their Flickr photos to display on the paper's Web site and collecting reader-contributed photos for things like photo galleries of the latest snowstorm.

That's nice as far as it goes, I suppose, but it doesn't go very far. If journalism were mainly about the local-TV-news agenda of crime/weather/traffic then there would be no need for the First Amendment.

But the work Josh Marshall and his muckraking irregulars have done on this story provides a model for something that actually deserves the term "citizen journalism" -- that actually lives up to the meaning and responsibility of both of those words. Take a look at this effort: "TPM Needs YOU to Comb Through Thousands of Pages." Paul Kiel writes:

Josh and I were just discussing how in the world we are ever going to make our way through 3,000 pages when it hit us: we don't have to. Our readers can help.

So here's what we're going to do. This comment thread will be our HQ for sorting through tonight's document dump.

And to make it efficient and comprehensible, we'll have a system. ...

This is simple and brilliant. The document dump has long been an effective means for burying a scandal under piles of paper, drowning reporters with a deluge of details. It's a way to "tell the truth, the whole truth" but not "nothing but the truth." Full disclosure of the needle along with full disclosure of the haystack. The TPM Muckrakers may have found a way to neutralize this tactic -- a way to sort through the haystack quickly enough that the details can be reported on before they're dismissed as "old news."

3. For the most part, this story is being covered as a national story, a Beltway politics story. But this is also a local story or, rather, 93 separate local stories. That's how many U.S. attorneys there are, based in district offices throughout the country.

Every one of those U.S. attorneys apparently has been evaluated by White House and Justice officials using explicitly partisan political criteria.

Eight U.S. attorneys have been replaced on the suspicion that they were not "loyal Bushies." They did not allow partisan politics to set their agendas -- either they were regarded as insufficiently zealous in going after Democratic corruption, or overly zealous in prosecuting Republican corruption.

The other 85 U.S. attorneys apparently may have been retained because they are loyal Bushies -- because they did allow partisan politics to set their agendas, because they were sufficiently zealous in going after Democrats while not prosecuting Republicans. Those eight firings, in other words, have cast suspicion on every U.S. attorney who wasn't fired.

The U.S. attorney in the district where I work may still have his job only because he has brought high-profile indictments against two Democratic county officials suspected of corruption. Those officials are accused of partisan dirty tricks (and bipartisan dirty tricks -- their alleged cronyism crossed party lines) and of handing out punishments and rewards solely on the basis of political loyalty. As a result, everyone who worked with or for them is now tainted by the suspicion that they may have been complicit in their alleged schemes.

And now, thanks to the Bush administration's unprecedented political interference with the duties of U.S. attorneys, the man prosecuting these county officials finds himself similarly tainted by suspicion.

It seems to me there's enough smoke surrounding these county officials that it's reasonable to let a jury determine whether or not there's a fire. Thus I believe this U.S. attorney has simply been following the evidence and doing his job. But his bosses at the Department of Justice and the White House have just made that job much more difficult. They have opened the door for defense attorneys to argue that their clients are only being prosecuted because of their political affiliation, to argue that the U.S. attorney was desperate to keep his job by demonstrating that he is a "loyal Bushie." And they will have evidence to support these claims. The defense could very well call, as its first witnesses, Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove.

That's why this is so serious. Making partisan loyalty the litmus test for the continued employment of federal prosecutors undermines those prosecutors' ability to function and to be perceived as functioning in an unbiased manner. It corrupts the process -- its legitimacy and its perceived legitimacy. The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales will not fully correct this disastrous corruption, but it's a necessary first step.

Comments

[Davis X. Machina]

The document dump has long been an effective means for burying a scandal under piles of paper, drowning reporters with a deluge of details.

"Create two, three, many I.F. Stones!"

[Joshua]

Well said, Fred. This administration has been tainting absolutely everything it touches, and hardworking US Attorneys are only the latest group to be hurt. It's going to be years before anybody trusts the US government again, for anything.

Sometimes, i wonder maybe that's healthy. Every time the government earns the trust and goodwill of the world and the American people, somebody like Bush comes along and abuses that trust. Maybe it's better for everyone -- including the citizens of the United States -- if that door doesn't get opened in the first place.

[cjmr's husband]

Personally, I preferred it when I didn't trust the government because they were simply incompetent.

/took me four tries to spell incompetent right.

[Fhydra]

I like TPM's idea. It will cut down on so much unecessary crap if it's done right. However the comment thread is structured so even if there's a lot of useful information, it will quickly become redundant with people not checking up on each other.

[Rosina]

I have been confused. The papers have quoted the Republican slant that "Clinton threw out and replaced 93 Attorneys". The implication is that Bush never replaced any Attorneys before this. But, if Clinton replaced 'Republican' Attorneys with 'Democrat' attorneys, Bush must have replaced them when he became president. Either that, or Clinton's Attorneys were very impartial, since all but eight have been passed as loyal Bushies.

So - is Clinton unusual in housecleaning on taking office and replacing the 93 US Attorneys? Or did both Bushes do the same? How many fewer Attorneys did GW replace in 2001, and if there were survivors, was this because of political conversion, or because Clinton's appointees put justice above party? Why do the Republicans keep mentioning Clinton and the 93 US Attorneys?

I have however worked out that clean-sweeping at the start is the US way of doing it - but doing it in the middle with trumped up claims of poor performance and rapidly growing claims of political interference is a Bad Thing

[Jeff]

Rosina:
The difference is that until the (so-called) Patriot Act took place, all US Attorneys had to be confirmed by the Senate. The Miserable Worm (Arlen Spector) had a clerk insert a provision into the renewal of the Act that took away that right of the Senate.

Thus, the "house-cleaning" appointments of Bush I, Bush II and Clinton were all run through the Senate. This purge was not.

[Dave]

TPM has actually been using that style of collaborative compilation for some time now. I don't read it as regularly as I did a while ago, I just don't have the time, but I remember a couple instances of them asking readers to e-mail a specific, single purpose address or comment on a particular thread to help compile timelines of events and statements (particularly as the full spin of the lead in to the war in Iraq emerged, etc.) or, more recently, to acquire and compile stated positions on hot topic issues for every member of Congress, etc. It's been remarkably effective and, if implemented well on the TPM side, should be extremely efficient. Even if they have to check everything they get for accuracy and duplication, it's still vastly faster and more effective than three guys trying to go out and find all that information on their own. This latest is just an extension, and a brilliant one, of the concept. Good for them.

[Mugg]

Fred, I must admit that after I read this post I called my gran and thanked her for keeping the family in canada, instead of the states. the whole business of mixing the political and judicial areas of life is sinister to me.

[Steve]

Why do the Republicans keep mentioning Clinton and the 93 US Attorneys?

To deflect attention from their dirty deeds. They don't mention that virtually every president does this at the beginning of their term, just like Fred points out, they get to hire their own cabinet. (Plus, when someone critiques Bush, instead of defending his actions (because they're regularly indefensible), often the response is "oh yeah, well Clinton did such-and-such!")*

But doing it mid-term, selectively, when one of the attorneys is in the midst of a massive investigation of Republican corruption, and others were replaced for not going after Democrats on bogus charges...well, that is using the law to advance your parties interest.

For a good summary of why this is important, read this:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013251.php

* And such-an-such might be similar to the aciton in question, or something else completely different that they perceive as bad. I'll never forget the first time this happened to me...I'd heard people talk about this phenomenon, but took it with a grain of salt. Until one day I critiqued something Bush did via e-mail with a former college professor of mine who had become my friend. He wrote back this blistering e-mail with a retort like, "oh yeah, you think we'd be better off under Clinton!" It made no sense, I never mentioned Clinton. This guy is now a Dean at the college I graduated from...a very smart guy...but a deep seated hatred of Bill Clinton that colors his judgment. And this deep seated hatred permeates conservatives. But the funny thing is, if they believe Clinton is evil and Bush is godly, there common retort of "oh yeah, well Clinton did it too" kinda belittles Bush, don't ya think?

[Steve]

to acquire and compile stated positions on hot topic issues for every member of Congress, etc.

Yeah, their grassroots work on getting stated positions from members of Congress on overhauling social security after the 2004 elections really shed light on how poorly supported the Presidents plan was. Democracy in action.

[the opoponax]

"My new theory is that President Bush really does hear the voice of God directly. Unfortunately, he's also dyslexic. So when God says what God is always saying -- that politics must be shaped by justice -- Bush gets this mixed up and decides that the Department of Justice must be shaped by politics."

*bah-dum-bump* Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be here all week!

[Blackadder]

Steve, if someone asks me if I think we'd be better off with Clinton as President, I say, "Absolutely." Darned 22nd Amendment...

[Richard Hershberger]

"It's going to be years before anybody trusts the US government again, for anything."

The sad thing is, this isn't true. I know people who sincerely believe that anything this administration does must be for the good of the country. This isn't any sort of considered stand on governmental authority: to these people Clinton doing the same thing would be for some evil purpose. It is pure hero worship, and a yearning for authoritarianism. I have gradually come to realize how strong this desire for authoritarianism is in some people. I don't understand why this is, but it sheds light on various periods of history.

[bulbul]

My new theory is that President Bush really does hear the voice of God directly. Unfortunately, he's also dyslexic.
That would be true if God's commands arrive by fax or email. Dyslexia involves reading and writing.
If Bush actually hears God, then he has something else, probably dysphasia.
Or he just don't understand English. God knows we've seen enough evidence of that.

[Swan]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10315.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10322.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

[Make That 85%]

Or he just don't understand English.

I thought God spoke Hebrew?

[Jeff]

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals?

Most media outlets are owned by mega-corps, which have a vested interest in keeping the Repugs (or cowed dems) in power. Thus, all the lies about Al Gore 6+ years ago, and complete inanity since. Even NPR has become nothing but a voice in the Echo Chamber.

[Michèle]

Bulbul:
> Or he just don't understand English.

Make that 85%:
> I thought God spoke Hebrew?

Didn't you know that God speaks in nothing but 100% King James English?? Why *everybody* knows that that's the Blessed Tongue in which He imparted His Word to Moses and the other Saints who followed.

[Jesurgislac]

Bulbul: That would be true if God's commands arrive by fax or email.

They arrive by stones carved in letters of light right through the stone. We discussed this in an earlier thread.

[Jon H]

To be fair, the idea of putting blog readers to the task of combing a document dump is not original to TPM.

Remember the big Iraqi unexamined Iraq intel dump a while back? Which later bit the Bushies on the ass when it turned out there was potentially sensitive information in there?

That was supposedly an opportunity for the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders to prove their mettle and find the missing WMD. Alas, the Keyboarders didn't know how to read Arabic, so there wasn't much to be accomplished by a Westerner.

[mcc]

Didn't you know that God speaks in nothing but 100% King James English??

Unfortunately, though, remember, in order to understand what He really means by the King James English He is speaking, you have to write down everything he said, cut it up and rearrange all the pieces, and then randomly insert bits of Daniel.

[Jesurgislac]

and then randomly insert bits of Daniel.

The bits the lions spat out?

[Eh Nonymous]

Good post, Fred, but one argument you made was both interesting and a bit broad.

Yes, there's some reasonable doubt now cast on the un-fired USA's. But, honestly, do you think anyone will argue that the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who was rated "not distinguished" by the in-house review (presumably because he distinguished himself in a terrorist case, and.. oh, hell w/ parentheses:

has provided leadership and played a personal role in many significant investigations involving terrorism financing, public corruption, corporate fraud, and violent crime, including narcotics and gang prosecutions.

In Chicago, Mr. Fitzgerald has supervised the continuing public corruption investigation known as Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998, and which resulted in the convictions of approximately 73 defendants, including more than 30 public employees and officials. Since January 2004, he has overseen an investigation of the City of Chicago's Hired Truck Program in which three dozen defendants have been charged, including approximately 20 current or former city employees, and two dozen defendants have been convicted. Mr. Fitzgerald has also committed himself personally to the implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods as part of a concerted effort with the Chicago Police Department and other state and federal law enforcement agencies to reduce gun violence.

And more, much more.

...really think there's dirt on him? Maybe here in Philly, but not for the attorneys who were too GOOD to touch. Too much integrity. Too much limelight. Too much fear of what would happen if they were to yank him for partisan reasons out of the blue.

[Ursula L]

In defense, perhaps, of the remaining attorneys, it is possible that some of them were in areas where a situation that would trigger Bush's loyalty test hasn't come up (yet.) No leading Republicans doing legally shady things to be protected, and no Democrats in close races to be undermined.

Some of the more liberal Republicans may not be "worthy" of Bush's protection, in his mind. Some may not be at a level of corruption where you need to corrupt the local AG to protect them. A Democrat in a very strongly Democratic area may not be worth going after - as with the NY State Comptroller in the last election, where everyone voted for the Democrat anyways, knowing he'd be forced to resign and replaced with another Democrat, rather than voting for a Republican to get him out. Sending an AG after a Democrat for political reasons wouldn't be worth it for them, here.

Corruption doesn't have to be universal to be controlling. A handful of corrupt AGs in key areas can do what Bush thinks is needed, while the others can be left alone. Less likely to get negative attention that way. This probably wouldn't have been noticed if it hadn't been eight in such a relatively short time, rather than, say, one or two retiring "for personal reasons."

[grenadine]

re: "bits of Daniel"

eeeewwwwww.

[VJB]

dog dammit!

[Thomas]

Add attorney-gate to the reasons to impeach everyone in this administration. This gov't constantly violates our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Impeach them all, spare no one.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

[rowandoll]

So, thomas...Do you just troll sites shilling for a vanity press publication?

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

This is odd. Swan sounds very much on topic here, but that exact same post appeared on Making Light about an hour earlier in a bereavement thread, for heaven's sake. It was quite rightly disemvowelled.

Must be comment spam. Even comment spam is on-topic twice a day.

[Rosina]

Thank you to those who tried to answer the "93 attorneys fired by Clinton" question. Clearly this is another of those misleading (or downright lying) statements that the are repeated until people's sense of reality changes. The WMD/Saddam as supporter of Al Qaeda statements, and 'evolution is just a theory' are clear examples. These should be jumped on every time they are used or eventually they will become 'facts' in the public consciousness.

[Matt McIrvin]

Sometimes, i wonder maybe that's healthy. Every time the government earns the trust and goodwill of the world and the American people, somebody like Bush comes along and abuses that trust. Maybe it's better for everyone -- including the citizens of the United States -- if that door doesn't get opened in the first place.

There's a problem with this: the Republicans have run for many years as the "less government" party, so when a Republican government does things to make people mistrust it, they can turn right around and cite that as proof that you should vote against big government, that is, vote Republican. You can see this logic operating in some "well, the Democrats would be even worse" arguments.

A few years ago I wondered if this could be continued indefinitely: can you still position yourself as the opposition party when you control everything? I think it was some commenter on Mark Schmitt's site who pointed out that the Soviet Communists used a line similar to that for decades. But right now it does seem to be breaking down for the US Republicans.

[Jesurgislac]

A few years ago I wondered if this could be continued indefinitely: can you still position yourself as the opposition party when you control everything?

If you also control the media, of course you can...

[Geds]

rowandoll:

Whenever you see somebody pimping America Deceived it seems to be comment spam. They did it under the name "Kent B" on one of the Slacktivist posts last week, too and Fred was kind enough to disemvowell it. But those comment spam things pop up all over the internet.

[Michèle]

Rosina:
> 'evolution is just a theory' are clear examples. These should be jumped on every time they are used or eventually they will become 'facts' in the public consciousness.

Exactly. When people say to me 'evolution is just a theory', I reply with 'so is gravity'.

[X (Alexela)]

disemvowel = rmvng th vwls...

I'm assuming that this is not LITERALLY what is being referred to in this situation?

Actually, speaking of things Clinton would do, there's an old Onion headline: "Clinton deploys vowels to Bosnia" (with associated picture of a map with places like "Krvjga")

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

But, Mr. X, didn't you follow the link? "Rmvng th vwls" is exactly what is literally being referred to. Disemvowelling is a long-standing troll-control technique at Making Light. There's even a Wiki page describing it.