Back in May, Brendan Nyhan used historical and statistical analysis to presciently conclude that for the hitherto untainted Obama White House, "the first Obama scandal is likely to arrive sooner than most people think." Now, the dual imbroglios over the $535 million loan lost to bankrupt Solyndra and the ATF's ill-conceived "Fast and Furious" gun-walking operation have Republicans targeting the President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder.

While the twin dust ups, each with roots in the Bush Administration, may ultimately reveal only bureaucratic bungling, poor judgment and taxpayer investments gone bad, Republicans are salivating at the prospect of manufacturing scandals just in time for President Obama's reelection. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa called the Solyndra case "salacious" and "a story of political interference" on behalf of "people giving to President Obama's campaign." Meanwhile, as House Republicans called for a special prosecutor to investigate Fast and Furious, grandstanding Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu declared, "I believe that this is a much larger scandal than what took place in Watergate."

Perception often trumps reality when it comes to presidential scandals. Of course, if the accusations are actually true, the political damage will (and should) be worse. Worse, but not necessarily fatal.

Just ask those masters of scandal survival from the Bush White House.

Here are just some of the Republican scandal management tips for President Obama:

It's the "Criminalization of Politics." Ever since President George H.W. Bush first used it during the Iran/Contra scandal, Republicans and their conservative amen corner have routinely brushed off charges of their own corruption and lawlessness by accusing their opponents of "criminalizing politics." From Iran-Contra, Plamegate and Tom Delay to the U.S. attorneys purge and the Bush regime of detainee torture, Republicans survived their endless scandals by instead successfully politicizing crime.

Sadly, Attorney General Eric Holder is already quite familiar with the GOP's tried and untrue "criminalization of politics" sound bite. During his confirmation hearings in January 2009, Holder reassured Republican Senators the Obama administration would not prosecute the architects of the Bush detainee torture program:

"I think President-elect Obama has said it well. We don't want to criminalize policy differences that might exist between the outgoing administration and the administration that is about to take over. We certainly don't want to do that."

Four Words: "I Don't Recall Remembering." In a letter to Congress this week, Attorney General Holder pointed out that "I now understand some senior officials within the Department were aware at the time there was an operation called Fast and Furious although they were not advised of the unacceptable operational tactics being used in it." Then in words only a Republican could love, Holder explained how he remained unaware of the program's details until this summer:

"My testimony was truthful and accurate and I have been consistent on this point throughout. I have no recollection of knowing about Fast and Furious prior to the public controversy about it."

If the "no recollection" formula sounds familiar, it should. Then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perfected it to the point of comedy during hearings about the Bush administration's politically-motivated prosecutors purge. Gonzales, who almost surely lied to Congress at least three times about the NSA domestic surveillance program, the Bush torture program as well as the U.S. attorneys scandal, reached new heights of selective amnesia in April 2007. As Dana Milbank recalled:

Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase "I don't recall" and its variants ("I have no recollection," "I have no memory") 64 times. Along the way, his answer became so routine that a Marine in the crowd put down his poster protesting the Iraq war and replaced it with a running "I don't recall" tally.

If he finds himself in a pinch during his next appearance before Congress, Eric Holder can always quote Alberto Gonzales:

"Senator, that I don't recall remembering."

Continue reading »

While Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has deemed the Sestak no-pay-for-no-play non-scandal an "illegal quid pro quo" and "Obama's Watergate," the overwhelming consensus of legal opinion had concluded otherwise. While Bush White House ethics officer Richard Painter told his fellow Republicans to "move on," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers announced, "There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."

But for over a generation, it has been the Republicans and their conservative amen corner who have tried to brush off charges of their own corruption and lawlessness as "criminalizing politics." And from Iran-Contra, Plamegate and Tom Delay to the U.S. attorneys purge to detainee torture, Republicans survived their endless scandals by instead successfully politicizing crime.

Ironically, it was President Bush's father who introduced the criminalization of politics defense into the Republican strategic lexicon. In justifying his Iran-Contra pardons, President George H.W. Bush used the talking point that would come to define the discourse of his son's 21st century water carriers. Much like his son's defenders, Bush 41 sought to recast rampant Republican White House criminality as mere political disagreement:

Mr. Bush said today that the Walsh prosecution reflected "a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences."

The "criminalizing politics" canard has been part of the Republican scandal survival kit ever since.

Take, for example, the imbroglio surrounding the politically motivated firings of U.S attorneys in 2006. On PBS Newhour in May 2007, Republican California Congressman Dan Lundgren was only too happy to offer the criminalization of politics ruse for Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales alike. Just moments after acknowledging Goodling's admission of violating civil rules and Hatch Act prohibitions ("she did admit that she made mistakes in that regard"), Lundgren returned the script:

"Let me just say this -- and I think it's an important point -- there is too much of a tendency in this environment to try and criminalize political disputes. That's been the effort here. They have found no basis for criminality, so the suggestion is now a vote of no confidence. Who knows what is next?"

But it was Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) who beat Lundgren to the punch, defending Goodling in the opening moments of her testimony. Pence, who famously compared his March 2007 visit to a Baghdad market to shopping in his home state of Indiana, trotted out the tired GOP talking point for her:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (760)

PLAYS: (973)

Embed

I'm not sure what irritated me more about this segment of Fox News Sunday: Chris Wallace being a complete jerk to Kirsten Powers or William Kristol arguing for respect for the rule of law.

Would that be the same Kristol who thinks reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists is wrong because they can get "lawyered up"? Or maybe it's the same Bill Kristol who was totally ok with warrantless wiretaps? Or maybe it's the guy who was outraged -- OUTRAGED -- that lawbreaker Scooter Libby did not receive a full pardon and pass for his breakage of that hallowed rule?

Of course, even the New York Times said he lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism. I'd argue that solid opinion journalism requires, at its core, intellectual honesty, something we shouldn't expect from a man who sold Sarah Palin to the Republican Party.

But in Bill Kristol's mind, the rule of law applies to immigrants, but not citizens. Got it.

DOWNLOADS: (1812)

PLAYS: (8162)

Embed

There really wasn't a lot of substance to Alan Grayson's appearance on Hardball yesterday, but it is always pretty delightful to watch Grayson in action anyway. He just says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may.

The end got a little over the top, in fact:

Matthews: Dick Cheney—and that‘s how you pronounce his name—was out last night in black tie, along with his—well, his felon former chief of staff, who I think took the bullet for him in that whole matter, perjury and obstruction of justice.

And he wasn‘t out robbing gas stations. His behavior was right there in the office under Cheney‘s leadership. Anyway, the prosecutor in that case said there was a cloud over Cheney‘s head. The—the prosecutor obviously brought the justice to that guy Scooter Libby. He got convicted of a number of counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The president even held his nose and would not pardon these guys, wouldn‘t pardon Scooter Libby. Here‘s this guy, with all his inglorious background, out trashing the president of the United States for dithering.

Your response?

GRAYSON: Well, my response is—and, by the way, I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he‘s talking.

But—but my response is this. He's just angry because the president doesn't shoot old men in the face. Oh, by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?

MATTHEWS: Oh, God. We have got to keep a level here.

Even if this kind of talk horrifies you, the fact that it's coming from a Democrat is actually a relief for those of us who've watched the party perfect its Village-approved Harvey Milquetoast routine the past couple of decades.

It's one of the traits that has really harmed the Democratic brand over that time, because it's led people to believe that they don't really have the courage of their convictions, that they won't stand up and fight for anything, that they don't really believe in anything.

Alan Grayson leaves no such impression. Even if other Democrats go fleeing in horror, he's doing them -- and us -- a real service.

I didn't need the CJR to do a report on the CNBCs of our media to tell me what results they found on the coverage of the financial collapse, but it's good so see it in print.

Bruce Watson:

Columbia Journalism Review this month took the first steps toward transforming the ghost stories and urban legends of America's current recession into the formalized analysis of history. In "The List," a table of 727 stories from the business media, CJR tracks the history of the recession's coverage from its first rumbles and murmurs in 2000 to the cataclysms of 2007. In the process, the publication explores whether the media did, in fact, do everything that it could to protect its readers.

In its final analysis, the answer seems to be a resounding "no."...read on

Are you shocked? I found this report over at Digby's place so I'll let her explain what this means:

In all the navel gazing about the future of journalism, it seems to me that one of the most important is consideration of the cracking of the insider culture. The media's failures of the past decade can be at least partially explained by its insular nature and class based identification with those they cover. (As James Wolcott so pithily illustrated with his description of Judy Miller and Scooter Libby "buttering each others' toast" at the St. Regis.)

Good journalism requires something that is in short supply among many establishment journalists: a healthy skepticism toward power, money, celebrity and elite opinion. Unfortunately, all too many elite journalists swim in the same social and professional pool as the people they cover. I thought it was bad in politics, but when you watch the financial media it's almost dizzyingly cozy and self-reinforcing.

Continue reading »

Facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees over her myriad ethics woes, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced she may launch a legal defense fund. Decrying "the political blood sport" including the "the politically motivated Troopergate probe" which have engulfed her over the past year, Palin may turn to supporters to pay off the half-million dollar debt she has incurred. Luckily, there's already a proven model for bankrolling the legal fights of Republican wrongdoers. As Scooter Libby showed, it's as easy as 1-2-3.

The first step, of course, is to tap into the deep pockets of well-heeled Republican faithful. On the day of his Plamegate indictment, former Cheney chief-of-staff Libby received a check, courtesy of former U.S. ambassador Richard Carlson. He was just one of the GOP who's who backing Libby, a conservative all-star list featuring Mary Matalin, Barbara Comstock, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Alan Simpson and many more. Having already launched her obligatory political action committee (SarahPAC) to endear her to Republican candidates nationwide, Sarah Palin is well on her way to asking right-wingers nationwide to pay back the favor. (Of course, one would think her rumored multimillion dollar book deal would be sufficient to cover her costs.)

Second, Palin should follow Scooter Libby's lead in securing the allegiance of a prominent member of the media to plead her case. For Libby, this faithful mouthpiece was failed CNN and MSNBC host Tucker Carlson. From Libby's indictment and conviction through the commutation (but not full pardon) by President Bush, Carlson declared Scooter's innocence while savaging prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. (At no time, of course, did Tucker inform viewers that his father Richard was a key adviser to the Libby legal defense fund.)

Happily, it appears Palin can cross this item off her to do list as well. As ThinkProgress noted earlier this week, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren has made a cottage industry of fawning interviews with the Alaska Governor. That Van Susteren's husband Joan Coale also happens to be the man "guiding Palin's political image in Washington" (if not actually a paid adviser) is yet another serendipity.

The third and final step in mounting a successful and lucrative right-wing legal defense is to recruit a Republican presidential contender to your cause. For Scooter Libby, that role was played by former Tennessee Senator and TV star Fred Thompson. Another member of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, Thompson spoke publicly on Libby's behalf, including his May 12, 2007 tear-jerker:

"After years of sacrifice and service to his country, he sits at home with his wife and two children awaiting a prison sentence. His name is Scooter Libby."

Here, too, Palin already has a check mark: herself.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

Daily News:

In the waning days of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney launched a last-ditch campaign to persuade his boss to pardon Lewis (Scooter) Libby - and was furious when President George W. Bush wouldn't budge.

Sources close to Cheney told the Daily News the former vice president repeatedly pressed Bush to pardon Libby, arguing his ex-chief of staff and longtime alter ego deserved a full exoneration - even though Bush had already kept Libby out of jail by commuting his 30-month prison sentence.

"He tried to make it happen right up until the very end," one Cheney associate said.

The craziest thing of all is that, despite a conviction by his peers on four felony counts, Dick Cheney still doesn't believe he did anything wrong. Stunning indeed. Perrspectives has more...

Update: And whenever you talk about these guys, another story about the DOJ firings comes out.

The Big Stone Wall: Nine Bush-Era Officials Refused To Cooperate With DOJ Probes

Wow. What parallel universe does Dick Cheney reside in? "A serious miscarriage of justice"? Are you kidding me?!

Weekly Standard:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney disagreed publicly with his boss just four times in the eight years they served together. Yesterday, however, on the first day after the official end of the Bush administration, Cheney disagreed with George W. Bush once more.

Asked for his reaction to Bush's decision Cheney said: "Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honorable men I've ever known. He's been an outstanding public servant throughout his career. He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush's decision."

When President Bush issued holiday pardons for 19 miscreants past and present on Tuesday, former Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby wasn't among them. But with the two year campaign by right-wing pundits, GOP politicos and even Republican White House hopefuls now reaching a crescendo, Libby may yet get his slate wiped clean by the outgoing President. And to be sure, nothing in George W. Bush's past statements would suggest the Plamegate felon won't get the same Weinberger treatment the President's father offered the Iran-Contra crowd this week 16 years ago.

The drumbeat to save Scooter started anew on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. While Libby was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the retaliatory outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, the Journal portrayed the criminal as martyr and the President's July 2007 commutation of Libby's sentence as a "half measure." Bush, the WSJ argued, should undo the "injustice inflicted" on Libby:

The judgment by a Washington, D.C. jury was more a verdict on the Bush Administration than it was about the confusing facts of Mr. Libby's alleged deceit. The Plame affair was a proxy for the larger political dispute over Iraq, and Mr. Libby became the Beltway sacrifice. By trumpeting his guilt, critics were able to impugn Mr. Bush's policies by insisting the President had "lied us into war"...

...In this dark episode, an honest man became the fall guy in a larger political war over the war. Mr. Libby deserved better -- and Mr. Bush owes it to Mr. Libby, and to future occupants of the White House, to give him a full pardon.

Writing in U.S. News, reliable Republican mouthpiece Michael Barone regurgitated the Journal's dishonest plea to rehabilitate Libby from the taint of his own law-breaking.

Continue reading »

Murray Waas has uncovered a major piece of evidence tying Vice President Dick Cheney to the efforts to attack Joe Wilson by exposing his wife as a CIA operative:

Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.

Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.

Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative. But the investigators came away from their interview with Cheney believing that he had not given them a plausible explanation as to how he could focus attention on Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s trip without her CIA status also possibly publicly exposed. At the time, Plame was a covert CIA officer involved in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and Cheney’s office played a central role in exposing her and nullifying much of her work.

Cheney revised the talking points on July 8, 2003– the very same day that his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and told Miller that Plame was a CIA officer and that Plame had also played a central role in sending her husband on his CIA sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger.

Go read it all. Cheney may believe he got off the hook in the Plame affair, but it may not be over yet.