Popular blogger Glenn Greenwald interviewed NBC's political news director, Chuck Todd, yesterday. (Transcript here) The topic of discussion was why the Bush administration should or should not be investigated for numerous crimes….and what role the media should play in the debate.
I must hand it to Chuck Todd for braving such an interview. Todd is basically a good guy. His view of things is skewed, not because he is some neo-con cheerleader or dishonest broker….but because he is a member of Washington's elite Village.
What Chuck Todd said in the interview should help folks understand why it is that today's media does what it does. Let's look at a couple of examples….the topic is investigating and/or prosecuting the crimes of the Bush administration.
Greenwald…."we're just talking about having a standard prosecutor investigate to determine if crimes were committed. Why isn't that perfectly appropriate when accusations of this kind are made?"
Todd…."Nobody is saying it's not appropriate legally, but there is a political side. You can't sit here and take away the political conversation and pretend it doesn't exist in this, and pretend that it isn't a part of 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."
Two things here. I'm not sure what Chuck Todd is talking about when he talks about a "political trial", but that's his main objection to investigating Bush administration officials. Secondly, Todd believes that investigating past administration officials for crimes sends the wrong "message" to somebody.
Here's Todd expanding on his "message" objection….
"Is it healthy for our reputation around the world – and this I think is that we have TO do what other countries do more often than not, so-called democracies that struggle with their democracy, and sit there and always PUT the previous administration on trial – you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward?"
If the U.S. holds it's leaders accountable to the rule of law by investigating obvious crimes, Chuck Todd reasons that our nation would be imitating what "so-called democracies"…"do more often than not." That is…"always" putting "previous administration(s) on trial." And if the U.S. pursues investigations of the Bush administration, our country will "start having retributions."
Honestly…..I have no idea what Todd is talking about. I don't.
When a nation holds it's leaders or former leaders accountable for their actions according to the rule of law…..the "message" conveyed is that the nation is SERIOUS about the rule of law. The "message" the U.S. has been conveying thus far is that we are NOT serious about the rule of law when that rule of law has been broken by our highest leaders. The "message" we're sending right now is the same "message" we receive from typical rogue-leader countries……laws are for the little people, but don't have to be obeyed by the leaders. So far, that's the "message" other countries are getting from the U.S.
Ultimately, Chuck Todd's Village justification for not investigating Bush-regime crimes is what he calls the "political reality."
"I don't believe I'm endorsing a system of lawlessness; I'm trying to put in the reality that as much that there is a legal black and white here, there is a political reality that clouds this, and you know it does too."
"….in a perfect world – Glenn, in a perfect world, yes. And if you could also guarantee me, that this wouldn't become a show trial, and wouldn't be put, and created so that we had nightly debates about it, that is the ideal way to handle this."
The Village rules start off now with the premise that avoiding messy, argumentative, polarizing investigations and "show trials" of American leaders takes precedent over holding our leaders accountable to the rule of law. "From 30,000 feet", or "in a perfect world", sure, the U.S. should follow the rule of law, according to Chuck Todd, but the "nightly debates" that would happen on the teevee if the Bush administration is investigated, makes investigating those crimes prohibitive.
I know it's kind of, you know, astonishing,….but that's what Chuck Todd said.
A brief summary: Because appropriate and legal investigations into Bush administration crimes will become "politicized", with ugly "nightly debates" on the teevee, …….holding American political leaders accountable to the law, just like any other U.S. citizen, is something that should not be considered. Maybe in a perfect world, but not in the world of the Village.
There's much more in the Todd interview….well worth reading in it's entirety.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Based on the comment section, apparently it isn't worth the reading.
It always kills me when someone like Rev sets himself up as some great political thinker, then uses a line like "I'm not sure what Chuck Todd is talking about when he talks about a "political trial".
Oh Rev, you're so deep.
The rev is only as deep as the manure that his deft mine allows him to intellectualize.
I always enjoy hearing from my most ardent fans. Strengthens my self-esteem….don't ya' know.
I have never "set myself up as some great political thinker."
However, unless I missed it……I didn't see any explanation offered up explaining what a "political trial", you know,…..was. Not surprising, I guess….Chuck Todd couldn't explain it either. Chuck only knew that it was a very, very bad thing that must be avoided at all costs.
Intellectual depth, I find, is best witnessed in clear, factual answers to clearly defined topics or questions.
If Greenwald is incorrect, and/or Chuck Todd correct, and I simply have no clue because of the "manure" all up inside my head,…….perhaps a conservative intellectual (some consider that an oxymoron) could enlighten me. Always willing to learn.
….i'll give it my best shot,…
You see, politicians are technically allowed to murder, lie, rob the country blind, heading it toward 3rd world status at a whim with no repercussion.
Subverting the Constitution, Geneva conventions, bill of rights, and best of all using signing statements to circumvent any laws they may need to navigate over during their tenure is all part of the job.
Now why would anyone wish to 'throw a stick in the spokes' like a political trial when theres a job to finish?
Why indeed.
Sadly, G-mann, I think you're right.
Rev,
Chuck Todd is one of those people about whom I wonder how they got their jobs. But he is an archetype for the Village. A basically decent guy who thinks in terms about the horserace instead of principals, history or effect on the future.
"Always willing to learn"
Somehow, I doubt that.
Rev Redpants…..I don't think a conservative intellectual would enlighten you since a conservative intellectual would hold the same view of Chuck Todd as you do. I would think that what you would be looking for is a republican apologist.
I thought that's what a conservative intellectual was, walter,….a republican apologist.
Chuck Todd and conservatives want the same thing. No investigations. Too messy. Too political. Right?
pdt….I know you might find this hard to believe, but I learn new stuff daily.
You and I often disagree on conservative and/or liberal policies or ideals, but I'm sure that you learn new stuff every day too, just like everyone does.
It's distilling what we learn that's important.
Rev,
You claim not to know what Todd means by a "political trial." C'mon now, I don't believe you. You're smarter than that. Did you think what happened to Bill Clinton was politically motivated ? Yes, I do too.
Further, a current White House administration isn't too bright if they go after alleged lawbreaking by the previous administration. I can't think of even one administration that has done that, because they know they will be next. Most, if not all of our past presidents could be convicted of some type of crime or another if we unleashed the political dogs on them. What comes easily to mind, from 1960 forward – JFK, LBJ, and Nixon would all be imprisoned for fighting an illegal war in Vietnam that was never authorized by Congress. Nixon for Watergate. Reagan for Iran-Contra. Clinton for a multitude of things, including perjury, Whitewater, Filegate, etc. Dubya for whatever you think he's guilty of. Even Obama for continuing many of those Bush policies you hate.
If political vengeance was the motivator, we'd have an awful lot of presidents in prison. That's what Chuck Todd was talking about.
In America there are millions of people in prison for breaking the law. Maybe those imprisoned should have simply pled that "political motivation" put them in prison, not their law brealing.
You, and Chuck Todd, think that those who hold high office are immune to the rule of law. You, and Chuck Todd, believe that holding high officials to account for law breaking is only "political vengeance."
That's how proponents of banana republics would respond.
How do you know how banana republics would respond if you can't wrap your brain around the concept of a "political trial"?
With your definition….all trials are political trials, and therefore, none should go forward.
If the conservatives lived by their principles, they would have led the fight in holding our officials accountable to the laws they swore to uphold. As successive administrations gave a pass to their predecessors, it emboldened our officials to commit even bigger crimes than before.
What's my definition? How can you comprehend my definition if you can't comprehend what a political trial is?
Trials happen….call me crazy….because laws are broken.
So if there is something called a "political trial"…..to me, it would involve violations of law…otherwise it wouldn't be a trial. It would be something else.
When there is a trial, you know, because a law has been broken…..politics can enter the fray outside of the trial. Is that what you're talking about?
Because if it is….then we couldn't have any more trials for law violations….because inevitably politics might enter into the fray ABOUT the trial.
frank is spot on…..conservatives used to be for law and order. Strictly for upholding the letter of the law. Not anymore.
Cheney/Bush will never be investigated and held accountable for their law violations….and as frank suggests…..that will only guarantee more executive branch lawbreaking in the future. But I guess conservatives don't care about that.
So, never heard of a Kangaroo Court?
Btw, you know you're reaching when it takes a long diatribe to answer a simple question… try again:
How does my definition mean that all trials are political trials?
All trials are not political trials. The Rev knows this. He's just trying to blow smoke for cover. That's also the reason the Rev avoided my question about whether the prosecution of Bill Clinton was politically motivated. The Rev knows there was a political aspect to it. Normally he would jump to agree with me about that, but in this context it hinders his argument, so he remains silent.
Let's take Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls from suspected terrorists as an example. Liberals think that was a violation of the law, and Bush should be imprisoned. But conservatives think Bush was trying to keep the country safe following the worst terrorist attack ever on this country, so they understand the President is responsible for national defense and public safety, and he wanted to prevent another attack. They don't want to see a President go to jail for trying to defend the country. They want the President to keep the country safe, so they don't get their panties in a bunch over it like liberals do. The liberals only want to see Bush, their enemy, prosecuted. The actual issue at hand is actually a grey area, legally speaking. That's the environment that sparks a political trial.
If Bush went on trial for that, it would divide the country along political and ideological lines. It would be a political trial, and it would be very damaging, very divisive, and not very helpful, except maybe for various partisan power seekers.
It would also slow down Obama's Database Project, which is the real reason it won't happen.
" Liberals think that was a violation of the law, and Bush should be imprisoned. But conservatives think Bush was trying to keep the country safe following the worst terrorist attack ever on this country, so they understand the President is responsible for national defense and public safety, and he wanted to prevent another attack. They don't want to see a President go to jail for trying to defend the country. They want the President to keep the country safe, so they don't get their panties in a bunch over it like liberals do."
Translation: Conservatives believe, at least in certain circumstances (Long War), that a president is above all law. Anything done, if it is said that it is to protect the country, is legal….anything.
That's what King is saying.
Conservatives used to be for law and order…..now they're only for law and order when it comes to minorities, and poor whites.
larry d.,
Please do tell about "Obama's Database Project". Sounds a lot like the Total Information Awareness project from the Bush administration. Could it be another of Bush's policies that suddenly looked good to Obama?
Mr. King,
I have just as much disrespect for Bill Clinton as anyone, but of course it was political. There was a huge, well financed industry that grew up around his political destruction. There dreams came true in Ms. Lewinsky.
When was Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international calls? Was that when they created a parallel switch room in SF to track all phone and internet traffic? Because the part that "liberals think was a violation of the law" was domestic wiretapping forbidden under the existing FISA statute. The FISA judges that Bush illegally bypassed rarely rejected authorization, and didn't even have to be notified until four days after wiretapping began. As such, the only impediment provided by the FISA judges was that they would provide a record of who were wiretapped and why.
If conservatives still believe that Bush's actions were for public safety and not for the cynical implementation of a set of illegal policies to achieve a world hegemony, I am speechless at the naivete.
If conservatives are so ruled by their fears that they will allow their leaders to ignore Constitutional guarantees and laws, what principles do they stand for? If you can stop Goldwater from spinning in his grave, ask for directions to Ben Franklin, have him explain his dictum about those who would trade liberty for security.
There is no doubt that holding the Bush administration accountable would be a spectacle. Watergate was a spectacle, but without the congresssional investigation, the public would have never learned of the corruption of their government. LBJ's Tonkin Gulf begat Nixon's sabotage of the Paris Peace talks in 1968, which after a Watergate inspired lull, begat the Reagan campaign's sabotage of Carter's efforts at freeing the hostages, which begat Iran-Contra, which begat GW Bush's various crimes. I have no doubts that others can find crimes that other presidents committed. But, my point here is that with the exception of Nixon and Watergate, no one has been held for these crimes. It has become obvious that the law has lost its deterrent effect. Each president's crimes have escalated in nature. If we don't hold Bush accountable, who will we?
Excellent, frank.
I might have to use this one occasionally….
"If you can stop Goldwater from spinning in his grave, ask for directions to Ben Franklin, have him explain his dictum about those who would trade liberty for security."
It seems that fear of "spectacle" trumps fidelity to law.