Via Think Progress comes this Anniston Star interview with former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. And if you're not familiar with Siegelman's story, or more importantly perhaps, with why Siegelman's story ought to be considered one of the most shocking abuses of power ever perpetrated by the Bush "administration," please take a moment to catch up.
And if you don't want to do that, let Siegelman himself clue you in:
I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press.
It's much bigger than me because it's not just my case. This was not an isolated incident. This was a pernicious, political plan that was set in motion by Karl Rove to further his espoused dream of establishing a permanent Republican majority in this country, and what he left out was by any means necessary.
It is clear to me — and I think to those who have been investigating, and that's why they're so hot about this case — it is clear that Karl Rove abused his power and misused the Department of Justice as a political tool to win elections, and that is something that would happen in a police state. That is something that we might have read about in history books as happening in Russia, but it is not something that should be allowed to happen in the United States of America. And Congress, and I believe John Conyers, clearly sees this as a wrongful action against democracy in this country, and he wants to make a statement that is clear and unequivocal that this kind of abuse of power is not going to be tolerated under any administration whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration.
We have got to regain control over our system of justice, and it's got to be put back in order, and not allowed ever to be used in this manner again.
That's why I've been working not just on my legal appeal, but on an appeal to the United States Congress to keep digging in and fighting for the truth.
It's that last part that ought to have you worried, and for several very different, albeit related, reasons:
- The fact that we need to work hard to get "the United States Congress to keep digging in and fighting for the truth" means that the American public has, to this point, become so used to the idea of the politicization of the federal government that there's actually some question as to whether or not we'll ever be able to convince them that there's something fundamentally wrong with the idea of the White House sending federal prosecutors after political enemies. Republicans have, thus far, been pretty successful in selling the media and the public on the notion that rooting this sort of corruption out is "the criminalization of politics."
- The fact that we haven't already dug in and fought for the truth means that the job falls largely to the next Congress and the next administration. If it's McCain, obviously, you can pretty much forget about it (about which, see #3). But if it's Obama or Clinton, it's entirely possible the results will be the same, but with a different methodology. There's going to be tremendous pressure for the next president -- whether a Democrat or a Republican -- to "move on" from "the past," and set a forward-looking agenda. That's going to mean an undercurrent of pressure to "forgive and forget," all "for the good of the country" (about which, see the pardon of Richard M. Nixon). And that pressure may just as likely come from the left as from the right. The right, of course, will be looking to escape exposure and/or prosecution. The left, though, will have a strong claim to the need to focus on agenda items long neglected and which may fall victim to the kind of protracted political fight that "digging in" and "fighting for the truth" will likely require.
- The fact that what digging in and fighting there has been has not yet actually resulted in any actual accountability is a function of something we've been examining here for a very, very long time: the precarious state of the Congressional "subpoena power" against an executive branch determined to challenge its very existence.
Siegelman has a lot of faith in the determination of John Conyers to get to the bottom of this. But the fact of that matter is that so long as the president is as determined to avoid scrutiny as Congress is determined to avoid impeachment, Conyers is still going to find himself at a loss for tools capable of getting around the stonewalling. Because the simple truth is that if you "don't have the votes," you don't have either the power to compel testimony, or the ability to do anything about not getting it.
So that's another sense in which this episode will make Watergate look like child's play. In Watergate, there was -- at least at the end -- the sense that the system was going to work, and that the president's wrongdoing was going to be exposed. After all, the Congress had gotten its back up as an institution, and declared that there would be an accounting, no matter who had to go down for it.
We'll have no such luck with the 110th Congress. And in all likelihood, no such comeuppance for this president.
The Siegelman episode, and indeed almost all of the Bush "administration's" wrongdoing will make Watergate look like child's play if it's exposed. But whether it's exposed or not, the odds are that in the end, it will be treated as though that's just what it was.
Boys will be boys.