It's the establishment press that stands most stalwart against investigations. They believe, as Richard Cohen so memorably put it when railing against the Lewis Libby conviction, that "it is often best to keep the lights off." Few things explain better what has happened to our political class than the fact that (with some important exceptions) it is establishment journalists who are the most aggressive opponents of investigations of high-level government lawbreaking. Trying to prevent investigations of their friends, colleagues and bosses in political power is one of the few times they're willing so explicitly to turn themselves into advocates, as Chuck Todd did here.I missed getting back around to this story until today, but Chuck Todd did indeed go on Greenwald's radio show later to discuss the issue. I respect Chuck Todd for doing that, but Greenwald tore him a new one anyway (emphasis mine):
CT: The political conversation is this: What message does that send if we have this political trial, and how do you know this won't turn into a political trial? In fact, we know it's going to turn into a political trial. I'll take that back - we don't know whether it's going to turn into a political trial. That is the experience of how these things have worked in the past, that end up getting turned into a political trial. And then....Stop and think about this. Chuck Todd is worried about the political damage of actually investigating administration officials. Glenn Greenwald is worried about the legal damage of not investigating administration officials. That's the microcosm of the entire argument. Which choice will do the least harm to America in the long run?
GG: What do you mean by that? What is a political trial?
CT: Let's take this a step further. I want to ask you - I do respect your legal mind on this - what happens when there is a - 'cause one of the reasonings that I hear about going through with these prosecutions is that you need to send a message to the world, and to the future administrations, that this is not the way that the American government should conduct itself.
If you have this trial, and there is, inevitably, some appeals and some, where we have a back-and-forth, where there is some sort of, where it becomes a legal debate about whether so-and-so can go on trial, or not go on trial, what was allowed - they were, they thought that they were following the law, that they, you know, what message does that end up sending? Does that end up harming us down the road? Do you worry about that, if it's not a clean cut as it feels to you right now?
GG: I don't know what you mean. Here's what I think about this: here's how our system of government is supposed to work. We have laws that are enacted by the United States Congress, by the American people through their Congress, that say that if you do certain things -- if you do X, Y, and Z -- those are crimes. We have laws in place that say that anyone who engages in torture, or who authorizes torture, is committing a felony.
If people do that, and the prosecutor concludes that there's evidence to suggest that they've done it, there's one of two things to do. You either apply the rule of law to those government officials, the way that American citizens have the law applied to them when they commit crimes, or you announce a policy, the way that I think you were suggesting on this show -- and I think the transcript's pretty clear that you weren't only talking about what the Obama White House thinks, but you were describing this as being your view; that's certainly how both Mika Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan understood what you were saying --
But leave that aside. The other alternative is to say that when government officials break the law, because we're afraid of political controversy, or disharmony, we're not going to apply the rule of law to them. And what I don't understand is, if that's the route that you take, why would future presidents ever feel compelled to obey the law if they know that there's going to be this great media voice saying that it's too political, too controversial to prosecute them? Why would any political official ever abide by the law?
CT: But you're assuming a black and white. I mean, the whole point of those OLC memos was showing that they were getting a set of, that the interrogators were potentially getting legal advice to, and in fact what the Bush administration was trying to do, was trying to find a legal way. They were trying to find a legal way, they were trying whatever, which is, of course, my - as a non-lawyer - my frustration with the law sometimes - is that the law isn't clear cut. And instead, what do lawyers get paid to do? They get paid, in many ways, to find a legal way around to do something, to prove that some way is legal and to stretch what the law --
GG: But that's not the role of Justice Department lawyers to stretch the law. The president is not the client of the Justice Department lawyers --
CT: I understand that that's--
GG: They're not there for that purpose, and if they're doing that, then they're bastardizing their duties. They're distorting the law, they're not applying the law.
Double G, being a legal expert, says that violating rule of law harms America more. Chuck Todd, being political news director for a major TV network, says the political damage to the country is the larger problem.
But notice Todd's framing of the argument. Everything legal must be run through a political lens, because in Chuck Todd's world, everything is political. Chuck Todd's job is in fact to discuss and deal with the people and the issues in the political arena. Chuck Todd believes people who want to see Bush officials investigated are only doing it for political reasons. Todd cannot bring himself to believe that there is even the possibility that there could be valid legal reasons, because to Chuck Todd, all legal reasons are simply applied political ones.
His remark that "And instead, what do lawyers get paid to do? They get paid, in many ways, to find a legal way around to do something, to prove that some way is legal" reveals everything you need to know about Chuck Todd's feelings about what this is. To him, the law is what politicians say it is. "Laywers are there to find ways to make things legal." Left unspoken is the addition "when they are illegal now." That is what Chuck Todd believes laywers do, manipulate the interpretation of the law for political reasons. That is Chuck Todd's reality of the purpose of law, and it is the Village reality as well: Political reality shapes law.
We are not a nation of laws to the Village. We are a nation of political reality that shapes law.
But what really strikes me is that Todd is afraid that investigating the Bush administration sets a terrible precedent, that is, a sitting President attacking a former President's administration is an abuse of political power subverting the law for political purposes. What Todd fails to realize is that by not investigating torture, his fears of setting a terrible precedent of abusing the law for political purposes has already come to pass, and that he is trying to aid and abet it.
If Chuck Todd is running for Village Chief of the Obama era, he had a hell of a job interview for it last week.
Posts
1 comment:
"We are not a nation of laws to the Village. We are a nation of political reality that shapes law."
Excellently put!
Post a Comment