Writing for Harpers, Scott Horton has covered the politicized DoJ like a cheap suit with a particular focus the remarkably partisan handling of the Siegelman case. For obvious reasons I support Horton 100% in his reporting, but this latest outrage leaves me feeling lukewarm. Although nobody should ignore when a former Bush Attorney General (Bush senior in this case) reviews a recent DoJ indictment and essentially declares it a partisan fraud, for me the parts don’t add up.
For one thing, I worked in and around local Pittsburgh politics long enough to know that the target in this case, coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, is probably guilty of many of the things that US Attorney Buchanan accused him of. 84 counts seems steep until you recall that Wecht has pushed his weight around the local Democratic machine since Oswald (presumably) shot JFK. Even in an entrenched party machine that falls slightly to the functional side of the Dalys Wecht’s brand of self-serving nepotism has stood out for decades. It wouldn’t surprise that many Pittsburghers if the straightest-shooting US Attorney in America (e.g., Fitz) handed Wecht more or less the same indictment.
Another non-trivial point – Thornburgh is currently a private attorney serving on Wecht’s defense team. Let’s wait for truly independent assessments, please.
demimondian
Has it struck anybody besides me that all of the cases where Democratic officials were allegedly targeted for their partisan sympathies revolve around Democrats who appear to happen to be guilty of the crimes alleged against them? Whether the cases are in Iowa, Pennsylvania, or somewhere else, it’s only the folks who got nailed and either have been, or appear to be on the road to being, convicted who complain about their particular cases.
On the one hand, that’s too bad, since the Wisconsin treasurer case (where she got off, in the end) or the ACORN case in Saint Louis appear to have been real abuses. Of the other hand, if my inference is sound, then I think we should be very proud of the USA’s nationwide who didn’t buckle under the strain, and showed a real level of quiet heroism in standing up to their abusive masters in D.C.
liberal
demimondian
But even if many of the Dems are guilty as charged, that doesn’t mean the process isn’t politicized.
How is that logically possible? If every Democrat is guilty as charged, but guilty Republicans are never indicted.
Of course, the real world can’t live up to this scenario, but clearly “given similar sets of circumstances, Democrats are more likely to be indicted, and if indicted more likely to be convicted” is quite possible and with the thugs(*)running the show, not unbelievable.
—
(*) Thugs, given that this administration doesn’t believe habeas corpus applies even to US citizens detained on US soil, despite explicit wording to the contrary in the Constitution.
Bob In Pacifica
Tim, do some reading about the JFK case, pulleeeeze.
During the months leading up to the assassination there were Lee Oswalds in two different places at once (New Orleans, Fort Worth). One Oswald couldn’t drive a car, the other one took out cars for test drives and had a Texas drivers license. One was almost six feet tall, the other was shorter. At one point there were three “Oswalds” at the same time, including the one in Mexico City which the CIA admitted was someone else impersonating Oswald. If Oswald was a nobody how come two people were impersonating him two months before the assassination, including one impersonating him going to the Cuban and Soviet embassies?
You don’t like Cyril Wecht, so be it. I don’t enough about his political life to comment. I do know that unless the criminal is a Democrat or a black athlete our Justice Dept. doesn’t seem very interested.
The problem with the official JFK assassination story doesn’t start and end with Wecht. The JFK assassination was the most important politcal event in the US since WWII, and not understanding what happened and who was responsible dooms us to the kind of government we’ve had ever since.
demimondian
Oh, God, Bob in Ozonia is off on his conspiracy theories again.
Give it up. You’re wrong. Most of the “evidence” you’ve talked about has been made up, and much of the rest is taken out of context. The simple and devastating fact that Kennedy’s head snapped *backwards* in the infamous video puts payed to all the bullshit you spew.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Another thing about Kennedy’s head snapping back in the Zapruder film; you will note that all the blood and brain matter spray forward. That’s characteristic of an exit wound, not an entry wound. The head shot did come from behind. Whether it was Oswald or not, whether there were other shooters or not, that’s still grist for debate. But the direction of the fatal shot is not.
demimondian
liberal:
Good point.
Unfortunately, except for the Louisiana case, these guys are all saying “I’m being prosecuted because I’m a Democrat!” not “Other guys weren’t prosecuted because they were Republicans!” Even in the Louisiana case, there’s no plausible basis for a claim of prosecutorial fraud, merely for possible — and maybe even probable — abuse of discretion. That is, in itself, a possible crime, and one which should be prosecuted, but it is not a defense.
Bob In Pacifica
demimondian Says:
“Oh, God, Bob in Ozonia is off on his conspiracy theories again.
“Give it up. You’re wrong. Most of the “evidence” you’ve talked about has been made up, and much of the rest is taken out of context. The simple and devastating fact that Kennedy’s head snapped backwards in the infamous video puts payed to all the bullshit you spew.”
Gee, if you read what I wrote I didn’t say anything about bullet directions or how many bullets or any of that. (Although his head snapping backwards would indicate he was shot from the front; and Oswald, whatever he was doing, was in back of the limo. Just to let you know.)
I stated that there were several Oswalds. Maybe you didn’t understand the importance of this, or you just REACTED before you digested what I wrote.
Try this, from the foreward to the 2003 edition of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH by Dick Russell. Carl Oglesby:
“In May 1992, CIA director Robert Gates told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA could not release certain elements of its large secret file on accused JFK assassin Le Harvey Oswald because to do so would compromise the security of its collection methods.
“Especially compromising, Gates held, would be the release of a secret 280-page report prepared in 1978 by the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. This document reported the discovery of solid evidence that Oswald was actually impersonated in the famous confrontations at the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate in Mexico City a month and a half before Dealey Plaza–scenes adduced by the Warren Commission to show that Oswald was a belligent radical looking for trouble.
“Clearly, if Oswald was impersonated in these episodes, then in the first place they no longer prove the least thing about him except that–point two–he was someone whose name the Mexico City mystery man chose to use, which may be something very interesting to learn about Oswald indeed. A key part of the Warren Commission theory of the crime would crumble, and the guardians of the official theory would have another sinister character to explain away.
“But in the third place and much more important, proof of politically motivated impersonations of Oswald so near the moment of the assassination would necessarily and resoundingly raise the question of what in the world was going on. Why might someone want to impersonate a ‘nobody’ and a ‘loner’ such as Oswald and go to such great lengths to establish Oswald’s name and a violent image of Oswald to Communist diplomats in Mexico City? Was Oswald not really a nobody?”
And Robert Gates is still with us. Still SERVING us.
And, of course, it goes beyond that. While the false Oswald was in Mexico City there was another one in Texas acting angry and saying at firing ranges how he’d like to shoot the president, and yet another one in New Orleans, handing out pamphlets for the “Fair Play For Cuba Committee” and other such public behavior to help create the legend of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Demi, you can continue to stick your fingers as far into your ears as you want, but the reality is that the people who brought you JFK’s assassination didn’t go away. It would behoove you and others to understand your history and stop being such a reactionary chump. Stop reacting and start looking at evidence from other than the government mouthpieces about the case.
I didn’t intent to hijack the thread. I agree with Tim’s central point, that the Don Siegelman case is not the one to hang your hat on when discussing the politicization of the Justice Department, unless your intent was to put the two Republicans who weren’t prosecuted behind bars. The Justice Department is a joke now, and I’m not sure how to return it back to functioning condition. There is certainly more to the Siegelman case than I know, so maybe there’s something else to find out.
Keep your mind open, Demi.
craigie
Tim, I don’t think you understand how this works yet. You are asking for fair and balanced. That’s all out the window. From now on, Republicans are always guilty, and Dems never are.
Them’s the rules that those elephants made, and I think we should honor them.
bud
You once again demonstrate your knowledge of WPa politics in your comments about Wecht. What I don’t understand is how you can continue to support that jackass in Johnstown. BDS overcomes all, I guess.
BTW, the comment about the “party machine that falls slightly to the functional side of the Dalys” is a masterpiece of understatement.
demimondian
Bob in Ozonia — you’re a crank, reading a crank’s books. A document which was never released is quoted as saying certain things — despite the fact that it’s never been released.
There is no reasonable evidence to call into question the obvious claim that a single sniper shooting from behind the motorcade killed John Kennedy and mortally wounded the Governor of Texas. (The Gov died twenty years after he was shot, of complications of the wound.) Give it up.
The Other Steve
Oh give me a break.
It was back and to the left.
Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Everybody knows that!
The Other Steve
Democrats are worse?
The Other Steve
The Washington case was about the USA saying “There’s no evidence” for going after supposed voting regularities. There seems to be a couple of those.(Arizona being another one)
Then you have Lam down in San Diego digging up Cunningham and finding dirt.
It’s kind of a broader pattern of politicization.
Grumpy Code Monkey
I’ll reiterate — the blood and brain matter fly forward and to the right from Kennedy’s head. That’s shown clearly in the Zapruder film. That’s an exit wound, not an entry wound. The head shot clearly comes from behind. His head snaps backwards for the same reason a gun recoils. The bullet imparts momentum to the contents of his skull, which then exit through the top right of the skull. Since momentum is conserved, the rest of the head snaps back and to the left.
The head shot did not come from the front. It came from behind.
I apologize for participating in the threadjack. It’s just this is one point I get frustrated with. That and naming every scandal, real or imagined, major or minor, something that ends with “-gate.”
Rick Taylor
This is off subject, but recent.
Via, Washington Monthly, a story about an Egyptian national who we got to confess to plotting 9/11. It turns out he was innocent, and we got him to confess by telling him the FBI would makes sure Egyption security made his family live in hell. So that’s how we coerce confessions, by threatening a man’s family; funny, I associated that with despotic regimes.
Well the good thing is (and what makes this different than if it really had happened in a despotic country) is the appeals court has found in his favor, and he may be able to recover damages.
Of course this is a problem with coerced confessions; you can never tell if they’re true. And there’s a story in the LA times
Of 14 accused Al Queada leaders whose cases have to be built back from scratch because their confessions were coerced.
Scott Horton
Thanks for the details concerning Thornburgh’s involvement in the coroner’s defense. This was not reported in the Post-Gazette story that I cited, and is certainly relevant information. However, it is important to consider the question of whether a prosecution is politically motivated on a separate track from whether the party charged is guilty or innocent of the charges brought. There are many crimes committed by political figures which are neither investigated nor prosecuted. The key is that the same standards be applied across the board to political figures, whether their name is followed by a D or R. From what I have seen of the operations of Ms. Buchanan’s office, it seems very clear that she was launched on a politically motivated vendetta. Whether Wecht is guilty of the crimes charged is another matter. Indeed, it may well be that Ms. Buchanan is guilty of a few crimes herself.
Kirk Spencer
Rick, I’ll trump your threadjack.
The 2d Court of Appeals issued a 44 page decision in the Higazy case. A few hours later, they take down the case and redact all but 7 pages “for security reasons”.
The bad news for the court is that How Appealing has the original PDF (44 page pdf file, you have been warned). What is redacted is the details and disgust at the threats. Oh, wait a minute. The Bad News for the court is that when a court representative asked How Appealing to remove the decision, Howard told them “No.” So the whole sordid mess is now uglier – and open.
Zifnab
Which is the same problem we’ll be having with Wecht and Rep. William Jefferson and Don Sieglmen and any number of other convicted Dems. Now, even if these guys did commit crimes, this blindingly corrupt DoJ casts every investigation and every conviction into doubt.
The Sieglmen case – which I’ve seen posted enough times that I probably don’t even need to link it – has been the most infamous in my mind.
That Siegelman alone took heat when both of Alabama’s Senators and a number of other Republicans and Democrats across the state were fingered in the bribery scandal reeks of political discrimination.
That shouldn’t, by any means, suggest Siegelman should walk. But it should mean the USA for the district should be run out on a rail.
Tim F.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for stopping by. I entirely agree with your general point, and I think that both you and Josh Marshall have done an excellent job of distinguishing between guilt/innocence and equal protection. Further, I have no doubt that Buchanan is doing everything she can to serve the party that put her there.
Two problems come to mind. (1) Buchanan may not have that many Republicans to investigate. In Pittsburgh where Democrats have a 5-to-1 party ID advantage, virtually every election is decided in the primary. Not only does the local GOP not have any power to abuse, but the few GOPers who make it tend to be remarkably straight shooters (i.e., Jim Roddey). Some Republicans in the suburbs could use a hard look but most lack the resources for the shenanigans that city Dems routinely pull off. Buchanan could subpoena after Luke Ravenstahl, our boy king of a mayor, and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. She could also look into the shady union contracting of our last mayor. For someone with a hardon for busting Democrats we’re a target rich environment.
(2) Cyril Wecht really does deserve an indictment, possibly more so than any other figure in local politics. While we’re not Chicago, that’s still saying something.
Obviously I don’t mean to say that Buchanan did not pervert justice, only that from my perspective the case has yet to be made.
Bob In Pacifica
demimondian Says:
“Bob in Ozonia—you’re a crank, reading a crank’s books. A document which was never released is quoted as saying certain things—despite the fact that it’s never been released.
“There is no reasonable evidence to call into question the obvious claim that a single sniper shooting from behind the motorcade killed John Kennedy and mortally wounded the Governor of Texas. (The Gov died twenty years after he was shot, of complications of the wound.) Give it up.”
It must be very frustrating for you to know that in spite of believing the bullshit you’ve been fed that most Americans, and most people around the world, aren’t joining you in song. Quite simply, it was a coup, there is plenty of evidence that government agencies lied about all sorts of aspects of the case, etc., etc. Most people who lived then know exactly what occurred, but you act like a Beltway commentator, unable to perceive anything beyond the universe you’ve been trained to see. You are the one who lives in a dream world, and your continued denial of the truth behind the JFK assassination will continue to leave you unable to analyze the world in which you are lost. Demi, you’re clueless about the world around you, a blind man walking through heavy traffic.
My point, simply, is that when someone makes a false statement about the JFK assassination, I correct it.
Bob In Pacifica
Demi: “[Oswald] mortally wounded the Governor of Texas. (The Gov died twenty years after he was shot, of complications of the wound.) Give it up.”
John Connally died thirty years after the assassination, from pulmonary fibrosis, which is an autoimmune disease. But I’d be interested in your theory of how bullet wounds in Connally’s wrist and thigh caused an autoimmune disease THIRTY years later.
Dreamworld, Demi.
The Other Steve
Up and to the left
Up and to the left
Up and to the left
Vlad
The One World Government is still upset with Wecht about that alien he autopsied a few years back.
Chuck
Tune in tonight for out interview with world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. Feel free to call in and talk to him on air. Check it out at 8 pm EST Wed. Dec. 5th at thirdrailradio.com.