Posted on 04/09/2007 10:50:41 AM PDT by SmithL
A controversial study by two college professors is rekindling old suspicions that federal prosecutors are targeting Democrats in public corruption investigations.
The yet-unpublished study posted on the Internet accuses President Bush's Justice Department of "political profiling,'' contending that it has investigated four times as many Democrats as Republicans since Bush took office in 2001.
Roundly criticized for its methodology and findings, the study nonetheless is fueling debate in Internet chat rooms and local political grapevines following the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for alleged political purposes.
The study's "profiling" claim also has found support among critics of federal probes such as Operation Tennessee Waltz, an FBI sting that triggered corruption charges against 12 current and former officials here.
Nine of the Waltz defendants are Democrats, including former state senator John Ford, whose federal bribery trial starts today with jury selection.
"It's absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is running around running these stings,'' said Donald C. Shields, who co-authored the study he characterized as ongoing.
The Bush Justice Department's Democratic bias is greatest at the local level, Shields claims, reporting that Democrats comprise nearly 85 percent of 299 officials elected in non-congressional and non-statewide races who have been investigated for corruption.
"They're doing it at the local level because that's where they can get away with it,'' said Shields, a professor emeritus in the Communication Department at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
The claims by Shields and co-author John F. Cragan, professor emeritus of communication at Illinois State University, have met wide criticism.
Cragan and Shields compiled data by typing phrases like "federal grand jury investigation'' into Google and other Internet search engines. That yielded numbers of news stories and press releases regarding investigations and indictments nationwide.
"It doesn't pass the laugh test,'' Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said of the study. "It's not in any way a scientific or even a journalistic effort in terms of what might be the reality.''
Federal prosecutors are trained to not consider political affiliation, Sierra said. Other safeguards, including central review in Washington of all investigations of elected officials, help keep the system pure, he said.
Acknowledging some missteps, Shields and Cragan, both longtime Democrats, stand by their findings, saying they went with the best available data because the Justice Department won't release details on the race or political affiliation of the people it prosecutes for official corruption.
"They argue they don't keep it by race and they don't keep it by political party,'' Shields said. "You and I would be perfectly happy if they'd release that data.''
A defendant's race is part of the standard identification markers kept by law enforcement agencies, yet recent requests by The Commercial Appeal for a racial breakdown of corruption defendants got the same response -- the Justice Department said it didn't have the data.
The newspaper sought that information in response to a growing perception among some in Memphis that the federal government has been targeting black officials. Last year's bribery trial of former state senator Roscoe Dixon met protests by activists carrying placards reading, "Tennessee Waltz is a Government Conspiracy against Black Democrats.''
Conceding that the FBI likely keeps racial details, Sierra said racial data are not something the Justice Department assembles for its legally required annual corruption prosecution reports to Congress. Racial or party affiliation score-keeping would only taint the Justice Department's role, he said.
Still, allegations of bias have gained steam in the wake of congressional hearings into allegations that politics played roles in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Critics assert that those prosecutors were fired because they prosecuted Republicans and failed to prosecute Democrats.
Among the strongest examples, former U.S. Atty. David Iglesias of New Mexico says he was fired for resisting pressure from Republican lawmakers before last fall's elections to rush indictments of an alleged kickback scheme involving Democrats. Two Republican lawmakers have acknowledged calling Iglesias, but said they didn't pressure him.
"You can't ignore the context of what's going on in Washington as we speak,'' said Rhodes College political science professor Marcus Pohlmann, who has been critical of the Waltz prosecutions and says political motives remain an open question.
"The firing of the eight U.S. attorneys certainly creates a context for that discussion that wasn't there a few months ago. So one has to wonder to what degree there is politics involved in the decisions as to who to sting.''
Others like state Sen. Jim Kyle, D-Memphis, however, don't see race or politics as much of a factor in the federal probes as is the changing dynamics of urban politics. In the late 1970s at least eight top local officials in Shelby County were under federal indictment -- all of them white. Now, black Democrats hold many of the local offices.
"Look at who's running urban communities,'' Kyle said. "It's not a function of race. It's not a function of party.''
So, it’s Bush’s fault that corrupt Democrats are being caught?
this is so seriously stupid it should be a crime to waste the ink
I dare say that more Republicans have either been run out of the Congress, or gone to JAIL than Dems.
Why is Wm. Jefferson, Mollohan, DiFi, John Murtha’s brother...all of them are still doing their THANG.
Don’t forget Sandy Berger..and the Clintons!!
The NEWEST installment in “lets take down Bush”.
Also, from city pages; "But there are questions about the claims regarding the other three Democrats who made the professors' list—U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, former St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. None was ever prosecuted by the U.S. attorney. Further, from the publicly available information upon which the professors relied, there is no definitive indication that any of the three were under investigation."
If you're trying to uncover a "steaming pile", go to where it stinks the most.
Never let facts get in the way of opinion. The authors of the study are much like global warming crowd, they start with the desired outcome, and then use ‘scientific’ methods to prove their point. Pretty funny stuff, I would never have guessed inner city pols were corrupt. I always thought it was ‘the man’ who was keeping em down.
I think the Dems used that first and they sure as hell know what they are talking ABOUT.
Generally speaking Democrats are known for accusing Repubs for precisely that which the Democrats do, and consider such as acceptable ROE.
ie; Hillary’s VRWC as an effort to cloak the highly visible VLWC.
Good grief, they are grasping at anything.
This is absolutely no there there.
It’s like a feeding frenzy.
Please.
The president isn’t partisan enough to mandate such activity at Justice or at any other federal agency.
I wish it were otherwise.
There is no "science" in this study. One can conclude that the author is a Democrat who wants corrupt Democrats to get a free ride from the justice system. Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
And they are apparently afraid to investigate Hillary.
But in the meantime, they convicted Duke Cunningham. They ran Mark Foley out. They popped Bob Ney. They ended the career of Don Sherwood by leaking an investigation prior to election day (illegally). They ran out Curt Weldon by enforcing a search warrant on his home BEFORE the election while going after his daughter.
If you stripped the name of the President from the equation, you'd have to think that we had a Dimocrat in office for the last 6 years if you are just looking at public corruptions prosecutions.
Don’t they know that only republicans are allowed to be sent to jail??
Geez .. didn’t they get the memo from the DBM ???
Bingo. The President is NOT a partisan. I wish he were too. The guy thinks about the GOP only about two months every other year and then quickly forgets about it.
From the article:
“The study’s “profiling” claim also has found support among critics of federal probes such as Operation Tennessee Waltz, an FBI sting that triggered corruption charges against 12 current and former officials here......”Nine of the Waltz defendants are Democrats, including former state senator John Ford, whose federal bribery trial starts today with jury selection.”
So, did the “study” include GOP members indicted in recent years in Illinois by Patrick Fitzgerald - the “prosecutor” who is the darling of the media? Or, how about the leaked witch hunts executed in NY and Penn against Jeanine Piro and relatives of Curt Wedlon, just before the Nov/2006 elections?
It’s Bush’s fault that corrupt Democrats are being investigated. This is racist, homophobic, and politically motivated. Only Republicans should be investigated.
Debunking here — http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/partisanship/more_debunking_of_the_political_profiling_study
They are both long time Dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.