Comments (48)

ReggaeBass wrote on May 3, 2007 3:34 PM:

The Bushies are sooo caught. They were trying to use Justice install their permanant republican majority. It is a damn good thing we won the 06 elections or we may have seen the downfall of democrasy and the rule of law in this country. That said these bastards are SOOOOO caught.

ReggaeBass wrote on May 3, 2007 3:35 PM:

The Bushies are sooo caught. They were trying to use Justice install their permanant republican majority. It is a damn good thing we won the 06 elections or we may have seen the downfall of democrasy and the rule of law in this country. That said these bastards are SOOOOO caught.

Nuncamas21 wrote on May 3, 2007 3:37 PM:

If the entire universe of these cases is 379, I don't understand why Leahy is specifically not asking for data district by district. That information should be helpful in the investigation of the USA firings so that the Committee can tell which USAs were pushing the most political agendas. I just don't get why he didn't ask for more.

Adam wrote on May 3, 2007 3:37 PM:

One thing I'm curious about -- I'm vaguely aware that the conservative talking point on the professors' study is that the skew reflects the reality of party affiliation in large cities. The theory is that most corruption cases are local and they naturally happen more often in big cities, where the incentives and opportunities for malfeasance are higher. Big city politicians tend to be Democrats. Hence the skew.

My question: does the original study control for this in any way? It would seem to be a very obvious question to ask, so maybe it is already addressed?

workaday joe wrote on May 3, 2007 3:42 PM:

I'm not positive these numbers (even if they are actually provided) will prove that much. I think the real question is what level of malfeasance warrants a DOJ investigation and how the investigation was actually carried out. The Abramoff dust-up alone will probably pad the Repub numbers enough to obscure any differences. Besides, the Repubs, being in the majority, had many many more opportunities for ethics violations than Dems.

If the numbers are even close, that would signal to me that DOJ was going after Dems inappropriately, but impartiality would dictate that you interpret the numbers otherwise.

phil james wrote on May 3, 2007 3:42 PM:

Depends on what DoJ decides to count. They may have an equal number of preliminary or some such "investigation" type which they will count, as opposed to the actual serious investigations reported in the professors study. If it can be fudged, it will.

Mark Richards wrote on May 3, 2007 3:44 PM:

The only thing missing in the letter is a demand date. "Prompt attention" just doesn't do.

As a date is not specified, the "Justice" department can send this one to the shredder and just forget about it.

Jim wrote on May 3, 2007 3:44 PM:

The analysis should also indicate the year and calendar quarter. If the creeping corruption of ethics was occuring at Justice, then the number of biased cases against Democrats would creep upward from 2000 to 2006

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 3:45 PM:

Both God and the devil are in the details. Thank you Sen. Leahy. Now, let's see what the IG comes up with and how long it takes him.

Bearpaw wrote on May 3, 2007 3:50 PM:

Cue Repub echo chamber: "Dems are just more corrupt, that's all."

poetry wrote on May 3, 2007 3:51 PM:

For Nuncamas21, who asked: "If the entire universe of these cases is 379, I don't understand why Leahy is specifically not asking for data district by district," here's a link for information you might find interesting...

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/Table%203%20Only%20Local%20Investigated.pdf

Gandhi wrote on May 3, 2007 3:52 PM:

Watch.

They will claim that they do not keep track of party affiliation.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 3, 2007 3:54 PM:

Nuncamas21

Although district information would be useful in identifying which US Attorneys were engaging in suspect investigations, providing that information would compromise the confidentiality of legitimate investigations. Leahy and Whitehouse made the appropriate request. A gross imbalance in the overall ratios will invalidate the claim of impartiality by the Department of Injustice.

Chip wrote on May 3, 2007 3:55 PM:

We have our math. They have "THE" math. So what does it matter, they'll just hold the ball to the buzzer.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 3:58 PM:

You'd think that Republicans would tend to be favored in Corruption investigations. They had majorities in Congress. They had control over the pace and passage of legislation. With their hands on the lever the had more to offer.

The Democrats were systematically shut out. They were defunded by the K Street Project, in addition to the shifting balance of power, as well as major funders natural orientation towards Republicans.

When they went after Rostenkowski they had to be content with his pulling a postage scam for low tens of thousands of dollars.

Your money wouldn't buy too much recently if you put it on Democrats.

So I'd look for a natural balance of like 2:1 for corruption. Too far a skew from that and it would seem like someone's thumb has been on the scales of justice.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 3:58 PM:

The data does need to be analyzed by district and other criteria, Senator. It's the exceptionalism that counts.

A corruption prosecution involving a Democratic target in NYC would be like finding hay in a hay stack. Just as prosecuting a Republican in the last Congress would have been more statistically probable. There were more of them, they controlled key budgets and decision making posts, there were far greater Republican than Democratic lobbyists on K Street with money to spread around, etc.

Prosecuting a low-level Democrat, but no Republicans at all in a heavily Republican-controlled district would at least be cause for further inquiry. The reverse would be, too.

If the AG asserted that his 100,000 plus DOJ staff investigatged AND prosecuted corruption cases without regard to party affiliation, then assuredly he has the statistics to back up that claim. He wouldn't make such a sweeping statement without due inquiry. There must be a way to get at the appropriate comparative data without divulging matters appropriately kept confidential.

On the other hand, if no data is readily available, it would be worth asking whether it was because it was lost on the RNC servers, not kept under new or longstanding rules, or what. Come on, Alberto, you're running a battleship, not padddling a kayak. What's the scoop?

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 4:06 PM:

They should also include any investigations started right before elections and then die right after elections.

i.e. Senator Menendez investigation that died right after the election.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 4:06 PM:

You write today re, Steven Biskpuic -

"it's certainly possible that the corruption prosecution did get Biskupic off the list even though he didn't know he was any jeopardy and the prosecution was brought in good faith."

As a Wisconsin attorney, I am somewhat inclined to agree with that.

However, I can't help but question whether Biskupic was influenced - subconsciously or consciously - by the right-wing talk radio hysteria here over how corrupt the governor allegedly is. And it would be worth looking to see how that talk radio hysteria relates to the Republican party plans to try to move Wisconsin into the "red state" category.

ALSO - Biskupic has said that republicans as well as democrats were the targets of his investigations. It is hard to come up with the names of any repubs who are. I think we do need that info - on him as well as the other AGs - to look at. Again, there is this huge focus on "Milwaukee" corruption (read: large, Democratic, minority community) - and none that is evident on the white republican suburbs. Are we saying those are all squeaky clean? or is Biskupic just assuming that's the case, you know, white middle class people don't do this stuff?

jth wrote on May 3, 2007 4:07 PM:

Off hand, this doesn't seem the most effective measure of the politicization of the DOJ. It seems the corruption was put into effect as policy- sorting applicants, stacking new hires, pursuing technically non-denominational investigations into voter fraud (for the good of all, no?), and lawfully firing people disrupting the President's pleasure.

Given their place on the food chain, my guess is there will be (slightly) more Republicans that faced investigation. Of course, this has only to do with where the GOP was in the K Street, et al food chain. So in effect, the Administration, or rather Gonzolites, we'll be able to say, "See, told you. We are fair and balanced."

Is Leahy off the mark? Barking up the wrong tree? I say focus on getting those deleted emails. They have the potential to prove the direct connection between the GOP initiatives and its actors in the DOJ. That, plus they might show evidence of someone attempting to intentionally hide or destroy them as evidence, adding many more years of sentencing to the pot.

And then maybe, just maybe, we can let Carol Lam's investigations go their distance.

PDX Dem wrote on May 3, 2007 4:08 PM:

What kind of numbers do you get, I wonder, if you analyze public corruption cases during the Clinton administration? Since the study of the Bush years appeared, I have been waiting for someone to crunch the numbers for a Democratic administration for comparison, but no one has, to my knowledge.

TheraP wrote on May 3, 2007 4:10 PM:

Now that we're straying into "my" territory - please:

data = plural

datum = singular.

Thus, the data "are" and so forth.

I'm learning legal terms. So let's get folks to use the term "data" correctly - along with the correct verbal agreement.

Thanks!

It's a small thing. But we, who have been forced to do research all the way to the Ph.D., appreciate that those statistics courses had to mean something!

Sorry to be a nit-picker here.

KenS wrote on May 3, 2007 4:12 PM:

The breakdown of investigations by party is meaningless in the absence of any breakdown in the distribution of corruption. If one party has more corruption or more opportunities for corruption, then a fair process would inevitably nab more people from that party.

To see if Democrats are being unfairly targeted, you need to look at the outcomes of the investigations. If Democrats are eventually cleared at a higher rate than Republicans, then this would suggest that the DOJ has a lower threshold for pursuing Democrats.

Jeremius wrote on May 3, 2007 4:13 PM:

Hey ReggaeBass, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high on that. Don't forget that the firings that caused them to get caught occurred in December AFTER the elections. So, it seems like the 06 elections didn't do much to stop their plans.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

Revealing wrongdoing by this administration cures nothing. There have to be consequences.

If Congress can't demand resignations or horse trade for them, or get a debilitated DOJ to file charges, or impeach anybody because they haven't the votes to convict, it must at least keep their investigations open through the next election.

Otherwise, the Republicans can publcly claim they did nothing wrong, and privately claim they got away with it, adding to Karl's luster.

Consequently, this won't be over until well into the next administration. It's important to set expectations accordingly or this will all be for naught.

TheraP wrote on May 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

Once we get all the figures, and honestly I think Leahy has done a great job of asking for them to be put into categories such as opening the case, grand jury, conviction, etc. - then the statistics people can get to work.

It's that simple.

We don't want THEIR statistics. We want the raw numbers. And we'll get EXPERTS to do THE math.

code word: doubt

And there is no doubt in my mind that they will convict themselves with their own numbers.

PolRichard wrote on May 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

--The info should be broken down by USA district
--Wonder if AbuGonzo will put the ACORN prosecutions down as Democratic?!

Englischlehrer wrote on May 3, 2007 4:23 PM:

keep up the good fight ya'll, I'm cheering you on from germany!

Nit-Picker wrote on May 3, 2007 4:34 PM:

TheraP... you are right! Using "data" in the singular IS a small thing! This is true especially since data has come to be synonymous with "information" in colloquial use.

P.S. Nobody "forced" you to do research all the way to a Ph.D. Maybe you're just bragging. Anyway, at least I wasn't forced to. I kinda liked it.

Kentucky Tomahawk wrote on May 3, 2007 4:38 PM:

A good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't already know the answer too.

Paul Barrett wrote on May 3, 2007 4:47 PM:

While a good step forward, I think there needs to be two additional considerations in analyzing this data that may be lost in a general count of cases.

1. What is the number of investigations of Dems vs. republicans in the battle ground states / districts listed in the Powerpoint given to Federal employees by Rove's staff.

2. What is the breakdown of cases by party in the election cycle vs. non-election cycle time-frames. A case brought in December after an election is not as critical as a case brought in mid-october.

One thing to keep in mind is that one of the Republican's talking points was that corruption is a two party problem. Was the Justice department used to create case to support that talking point?

Not sure why I ask that as a question - we know that it was.

adam wrote on May 3, 2007 4:49 PM:

I would be interested to see a similar study done for each Administration from Nixon through Bush II. I suspect it would be enlightening to compare and contrast Clinton/Bush, Bush 42/Bush 43, and see where Reagan and Carter fit in. I suspect that Nixon and George W would have some parallels.

TheraP wrote on May 3, 2007 4:50 PM:

Nit-picker:

You're right. No one forced me. I confess that I forced myself. I liked it too.

And yes, one of the best profs I ever had was a statistics prof.

But it's the nits being picked that will get us out of this mess. It will take every possible degree earned to find all the degrees of crime that have been committed here.

C 92 wrote on May 3, 2007 4:54 PM:

The prosecution of 4 ACORN organizers for forged voter registrations sticks in my mind and resonates.

What about the 2006 Santorum campaign's use of canvassers/forgers for the Green Party in a similar capacity? Santorum's personal staff were even involved.

Were those transgressions ever investigated by the US Attorney's Office?

RandyR wrote on May 3, 2007 5:00 PM:

I saw some research that said that the Democrats were investigated at a ratio of 7 to more than the Republicans. If it's anything close to that it will be difficult to fiddle the numbers.

Here in Missouri we have seen where investigations of the Republican Governor were dropped and those like ACORN were persued. Also it seems as though investigations were conducted against Democrats who might have gone on to higher office until they were investigated. I think they would go after anyone who could run against Kit Bond. And "I'm sorry" doesn't fix your career.

Steve5117 wrote on May 3, 2007 5:00 PM:

TheraP and Nit-picker are getting close...

I envision a database of Bush appointees with various fields that can be numerically represented for statistical analysis.

I for one would like to know the coorelation between different variables...

mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 5:00 PM:

As an aside, there are days when I could use some TheraP. As for "data is", I stands corrected, except that the rule seems more honored in the breach, especially on this side of the Atlantic.

Most academic and professional style guides, which I grew up with, refer to data as a plural noun and, hence, requires the use of "are". The Economist Style Guide says so. But the OED, heftier than the Economist, gives "data is" as correct usage in American English, as do several American dictionaries. Even the OED expects "is" to prevail in English English, presumably even if valour's better part remains discretion.

Usage in English statute law has already become transatlantic. The UK Data Protection Act commonly uses "is".

Some American professions stongly argue for "is", especially in IT, because English is not Latin and because usage has transformed "data" in any case, for the same reason that your hair color is/are/may be blonde. The link below, if it prints, has a good selection of comments and excellent links. If not, google.com or google.co.uk will pull up more threads than you want to read.

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/data-is-singular

mbbsdphil wrote on May 3, 2007 5:12 PM:

My, I should proof my work better, but I think I made the point despite my typos. In any case, I think TheraP is absolutely correct that the smallest data may well be what clinches a story, an investigation, a conviction or an election.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Addington certainly think so. The first several years of this administration, if even the janitor was off message, he was shipped off to Siberia. There is no federal employee too lowly to harass, none too highly-placed to manipulate into being fired for insubordination, no rule too small to rewrite in the dead of night, and none too large to lie about.

We need the data. We need Congress to get it. We need them to keep on getting it until we get the full story. No doubt, there are many stories that Mr. Rove would not want fully disclosed, starting with his own income and career.

LabDancer wrote on May 3, 2007 5:18 PM:

"If the numbers are even close, that would signal to me that DOJ was going after Dems inappropriately, but impartiality would dictate that you interpret the numbers otherwise.
Posted by: workaday joe"

Right ON, workaday joe!

We need a little OBJECTIVITY here! Let's all get our microscopes & Drudge-0-meters out & take a hard look at those wimpy numbers from those two Ivory Tower defeatocrats:

"... 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study. - "The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors."

Oh yeah? So, you smartypants diddlehead pipe-smoking morones, what were the odds of O.J. not being the killer? Right! One in a couple BILLION!

Compared to that one in TEN THOUSAND looks like ... like ... like room for a full blown CONSPIRACY THEORY!

I mean, according to Ron Suskind's "One Per Cent Solution", the Bush-Cheney position is that if you can't eliminate the possibility that a country, say Togo, or the Maldives or Lichtenstein, might get it in their heads to think a little on taking on the US at some future date, sending us a "message" if you will, and then say one of those Togoans, ro Maldivers, or Lichtensteinish ends up visiting his Uncle Schmoe & Aunt Agonis in Sioux Falls and buying a PowerBall ticket and then WINNING a half a billion and then like a good little heathen giving all of it to the government of Togo [or Maldives, who has a NAVY for crying out loud] [or Lichtenstein, who always seem to be flying around the world to the latest ski lodge - right] which then tops it up another couple of bill and gives it all to somebody like A.Q. Khan to build the Togoans [or Maldiviates, or Lichspittles, whatever] a BOMB suitable for sticking in a hollowed-out fertility carving and FedEx'es it to Rush Limbaugh c/o Limbo USA, well then, we'll all be real sorry.

I'm with you joe! Lock'n'load, boys - we're going after regime change in Togo! [I'll meet up with y'all right after I get that boil removed.]

One in ten thousand? That's just lefty math for "too close to call"!

And joe? Like you, I just hope those folks on the Congressional committees will see all this with our kind of objectivity, and leave our President alone to do all those things of national importance he has to do - like bomb Togo, or the Maldives, or Lichtenstein, or Iran.

tmartinsmith wrote on May 3, 2007 5:22 PM:

here's the 64K Question.......what percentage of the corruption cases against republicans were being handled by USA's who ultimately made the firing list?

wanderindiana wrote on May 3, 2007 5:49 PM:

ePluribus Media recently did a follow up interview with Dr. Donald Shields, who continues to work on the DoJ political corruption investigations study. You can read it here:

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/20070425_donald_shields_interview.html

Or, click on my name for a direct link to the article.

TheraP wrote on May 3, 2007 8:33 PM:

Concession here.

I will give up any further effort to address whether we refer to data as singular or plural.

But I will not give up, along with mbbsdphil, my insistence that ALL the data be forthcoming.

The data. The whole data. And nothing but the data.

The nit-pickers want the data.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 8:37 PM:

Steve 5117

I picture a lovely multiple regression. That would make for a very interesting picture of the data with regard to many variables.

Jake Bryan wrote on May 3, 2007 8:42 PM:

One breakdown of the numbers that they could legitimately have asked for, and which would help to clarify some things, would be a breakdown by the level of the targeted party: local (municipal and county), state, or federal.

Another question that won't be answered at all by these numbers is how many cases there have been where the feds could have prosecuted but left the dirty work (and expense) to state or local prosecutors.

Bugboy wrote on May 3, 2007 9:58 PM:

The righty talking point doesn't wash; if you look at most of these corruption cases, it's pitiful amounts they get busted for: couple hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there.

A few years in office doing that and you are pretty well set, along with all your connections you've made. That works in rural AND urban settings.

Code word is hope as in then you hope you don't get caught.

Anonymous wrote on May 3, 2007 10:32 PM:

Just watched John McKay's interview on KCTS. He comes across well. Lasted about 15 minutes and covered the firing pretty completely. He revealed that he thought Elsen was trying to make a deal to get him to keep quiet about the firing. That the AG would not mention problems with him in testimony the next day if he maintained his silence. He felt call was threatening and he made notes about the call immediately after and has retained those notes. Couple of other quotes from the interview: "People don’t appear to be telling much of the truth about why they (the 8 USAs) were fired.
AGs lack of memory is meant to protect others."

George Bullock, Tulsa wrote on May 4, 2007 5:00 PM:

I saw the original publication of this study back in February. As appalled as I was simply fascinated at the brilliance of the strategy. The authors of the study lay it out beautifully: Attack the Democrats at the local level. By doing so, you hit them where you can do the most damage. Hitting there does damage to both fund raising and candidate recruitment and development. And, you get the added benefit of flying completely under the radar of the national press, the only group that would have the resources to connect the dots and investigate the matter deeply.

As soon as I read the study, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper, wondering out loud why this information was out there and seemingly ignored. Right after Coburn came out and asked for Gonzo's resignation, I e-nmailed him the information.

The first poster nailed it. These guys are soooo caught. And I am enjoying every minute of it.

phil james wrote on May 4, 2007 5:19 PM:

mdbsphil says:
If the AG asserted that his 100,000 plus DOJ staff investigatged AND prosecuted corruption cases without regard to party affiliation, then assuredly he has the statistics to back up that claim. He wouldn't make such a sweeping statement without due inquiry. There must be a way to get at the appropriate comparative data without divulging matters appropriately kept confidential.

Disagree. The AG would make any sweeping statement he thought would serve his purpose. In fact, that's just what he did in his previous testimony. Despite the fact that the testimony was proven false and baseless within hours. In fact, that's about all the AG has given apart from "I don't recall".

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:42 PM:

Help: I have a concern with the assumption: "public corruption investigations are ___highly confidential___, and need to be kept that way."

Concern: If the investigations are "highly confidential", why did the White House Staff know about the results? They shuld not have known about them . . .

A. Who provided the results of the US Attorney prelimianry investigations to the White House?

B. How did "confidential" US attorney investigation retsults/progress get to Members of Congress?

Suspicion: NSA has intercepted confidential investigation DOJ information from the US attorneys; and has been providing the information to the White House, RNC, and RNC Members of Congress.

Questions: A. Which contractors working for NSA know about the NSA intercepts which provide DOJ-investigation-status to the White House, RNC, and Members of Congress?

B. Which overseas NSA allies-contractors -- possibly working with the NSA contractors at home -- know about the domestic surveillance to keep track of the US Attorney investigations?

TEST: What if the US Attorneys agreed to test this theory and develop a bogus line of investigations against the RNC to see if the NSA does intercept this, and leak it to the White House. How can it be shown that US Attorney investigations -- when the reuslts are fabricated by the US Attorney, as a ruse -- are leaked to the RNC?

Security code: "Nation" as in, "One Nation under the rule of law, right. . . ?"