home

Out of Control?

One ramification of prosecutions that are tainted by politics, like that of Don Siegelman, is that every Justice Department investigation of a Democratic politician is now viewed with suspicion. It doesn't help when federal law enforcement authorities use tactics like this:

Sue Schmitz, [an Alabama] state representative, was arrested in the bathroom of her home while she was taking an early morning shower.... She is awaiting trial on charges that she accepted more than $175,000 in college salary for work she didn't perform.

Not the kind of accusation that creates a great risk of flight. They couldn't call and make an appointment for her to turn herself in? No wonder Alabama state senator Pat Lindsey says: "There's some bitterness there toward the U.S. attorney's office and the Department of Justice."

A lengthy article in today's Press-Register asks: Are Prosecutors Out Of Control? [more ...]

There's no disputing that the feds are going after a lot of state and local officeholders these days. Since 2002, both the number of public corruption cases and the number of FBI agents devoted to such cases has increased by more than 50 percent.

Many of the investigations and prosecutions have been warranted. The question is whether they've been targeted at state and local officials who happen to be Democrats.

Given the vast discretion prosecutors maintain in picking their targets, they are subject to regular complaints that they are interfering with the political process and the normal operations of government.

Since corruption cases tend to be headline-grabbing, there's also reason to be concerned that U.S. Attorneys will pursue weak cases for their publicity value.

That sort of motivation was starkly on display in 2004, when e-mails leaked from the office of Thomas DiBiagio, then the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He demanded that his staff bring no fewer than three "front-page" corruption indictments by Election Day.

The linked article notes that federal prosecutors are better positioned than state and local prosecutors to pursue state and local political corruption. The article also notes that corruption is easy to find, although federal statutes authorizing prosecution for the theft of "honest services" are so vague that it's difficult to tell when a politician doing business as usual (appointing a campaign contributor to an oversight board, for instance) is violating the law. And the article notes that successful prosecution of actual corruption can persuade state and local governments to do a better job of policing ethics and cleaning up the political process.

All of that is true. In addition, it's better for the feds to pursue legitimate corruption cases that can cause enormous harm to public treasuries than it is to chase drug dealers. When the federal government indulges in questionable prosecutions like Siegelman's, however, and when federal prosecutors seem more inclined to go after Democrats than Republicans, the fear that prosecutors are out of control is reasonable.

Given the amount of corruption in the Bush administration, the FBI ought to be paying just as much or more attention to the national government. State and local corruption is comparatively small cheese compared to what's happened in Bushworld.

< Sunday Mid-Day Open Thread | I Am A Centrist Because . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Out of control... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail."

    The state is the hammer...Sue Schmitz is lucky she didn't have a flash grenade tossed in the shower with her.

    Though on the other hand its nice to see the beast feasting on some of their own for a change...when the feds and the states are battling, the less dogs they have to sick on us.


    There was considerable speculation (4.66 / 3) (#3)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    about Martha Stewart when she was prosecuted for insider trading.  I am not an expert on what consitutes a threshold for illegal activity, but there were a number of people who spoke out in public saying her case was very thin and would not have been prosecuted normally.  At the time she was believed to be very close to the Clintons and there was some blogoshpere speculation that it was that and plus she was a female, not well liked by many for her incredible sucess.

    Interesting factoids: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    She faces 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each mail fraud count, and 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each fraud count.

    Same linked article states she was released on $25,000 bond.

    I support (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    going after all crooked politicians what ever the party, state, local, or federal.  Maybe she will be housed in the next prison over from Duke Cunningham.

    Whoa there! Don't we wait to see if the evidence (none / 0) (#9)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    proves there was a crime?

    Just adding "if the alleged crimes are proven, maybe..." and then your suggestions for incarceration location?

    Parent

    From the article: (none / 0) (#10)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:09:53 PM EST
    Last week, prosecutors announced a plea deal made with fired college system Chancellor Roy Johnson, who agreed to plead guilty to 15 counts of bribery, money laundering, obstruction, conspiracy and witness tampering. Johnson admitted participating in six conspiracies with businessmen paying kickbacks for his help in obtaining system contracts.

    Johnson has agreed to help prosecutors in their investigation, and his help could be significant in the case against Schmitz. She said in an interview with The Birmingham News last year that she asked Johnson to help her find a college job. A special position was created for Schmitz in the college system's Community Intensive Training for Youth, or City, program.

    "I simply asked the chancellor for a job and he had an interview set up," she said last year.

    My recollections are that when this Schmitz story broke, it didn't seem to have much there there, but perhaps the chancellor's testitmony against has strengthened the case.


    Parent

    Small dictatorship in the Pacific (none / 0) (#4)
    by koshembos on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    The Bush instigated witch hunt taints all the cases the Justice Department has tackled since 2001. This includes convictions of actual criminals. The proper reaction to Justice Department crimes should an effort to at least disbar all the district attorneys that were involved including the last two Attorney  Generals.

    Bush's America has behaved like a small dictatorship  on a small island in the Pacific. We should behave as the continent we are and as a democracy we pretend to be. This implies putting the responsible parties on trial.

    District Attorneys are elected local (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:19:36 PM EST
    county prosecutors, not federal.  Also, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was prosecuted by U.S. Attorney for Southern District of California, after local newspaper reporters (San Diego Union Tribuen) uncovered evidence and published a series of articles about Cunningham's residential real estate deals.  

    Parent
    Is it worse than it used to be? (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:02:13 PM EST
    Or is it that we are simply more connected, more aware of what is going on? 20 years ago, or even 10,  you would probably never had heard about this woman. She would have been arrested, tried, and, probably, convicted without you knowing anything about her case, unless it somehow set precedent or turned into a national controversy. Abuse of power is as old as civilization, and Americans have never been exempt.

    I would love to see a study of this over the decades. I suspect that what we would find is that prosecutor's target political enemies and protect friends, and those enemies are often from other political parties. If we're seeing more Democrats prosecuted now it is because Republicans have taken over so many positions of power, especially in small towns and highly partisan cities where partisan behavior is less likely to be commented on.

    Look, crooked pols are not a rarity in (none / 0) (#7)
    by magnetics on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM EST
    either party -- but the Rethuglicans have taken graft and fraud to unprecedented levels -- Cheney's salary from Halliburton and all those no-bid contracts? Please....

    But I think it's quite clear what's happening now: the Rethug prosecuters (probably on  orders from above) are casting a wide net of deliberately weak indictments, as a form of self-immunization -- so that when when Democrats regain power, and start to go after some truly deserving malefactors, the 'thugs can scream "Politically motivated prosecutions! Politically motivated prosecutions."  

    They want that meme out there, along with another favorite right wing meme that both parties are equally corrupt.  They are not.  The 'thugs are far more corrupt than the Dems.

    How about the stink in the NYT over Rangel's cheap apartments in NY.  And nothing about Cheney's $alary?  Howzabout Bush's insider trading at Harkin -- that's about as old now as Whitewater was when Jeff Gerth hit the front pages with it.