Chuck Todd’s Law

[babylonsister]

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/17/chuck-todds-law/#more-41895

Chuck Todd’s Law
By: emptywheel Friday July 17, 2009 7:11 am


Aside from MSNBC's squeamishness about blow jobs (but not about torture or the murder of teenagers or slobbering racism), here's why, according to Chuck Todd, we cannot have an investigation of the crimes Dick Cheney committed.

1. "I have a couple of roles as a journalist. Of course, number one is to hold government officials accountable, but also report on what they're trying to do, what the motivations are behind what they're trying to do, why they're doing certain things"

2. "This issue, whenever you see the words Cheney and intelligence pop up, and when I use the phrase 'cable catnip', it is when something becomes, when something becomes, whether the two polarized parts of our political society, are very entrenched in their views on this, and believe the other side is completely irrational on it. And so, that's, whenever you have an issue like that, that's what I describe as 'cable catnip'. Because it becomes something that is easy to put on television, because you can find a left versus right, which is something that cable embraces to a fault"

3. "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, {prosecution} is the ideal way to handle this ... if you could guarantee me that we could keep this debate off of television"

4. "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"

That is, we can't hold Dick Cheney accountable for his crimes because the media--including Todd himself--is incapable of reporting the story as anything but a partisan story (in spite of the fact that--Glenn points out--there is bipartisan support for a torture prosecution), which guarantees that any investigation would turn into a show trial.

But it's even stupider than that. Todd says we shouldn't investigate the past administration because if we do the rest of the world might think we're a banana republic (as if decorum and not rule of law is the example the US wants to set for the rest of the world). For Todd, it's enough that we punish Administrations through the ballot box--but of course, we didn't punish Bush in 2004 after he started an illegal war, and by the time 2008 rolled around, Bush was term-limited and Cheney was not on the ballot, so we have not, in fact, punished the criminals at the ballot box.

In addition, Todd repeatedly says this is an ideological question, because it is not black and white whether Cheney and his torturers broke the law, in spite of:

* The psychologist/interrogator/contractor quoted in the OLC opinion admitting he exceeded John Yoo's guidelines

* The OLC memo's descrption of CIA HQ ordering up another round of waterboarding for Abu Zubayah when that violated the OLC memo's clear prohibition on waterboarding when the detainee was compliant

* The near-daily White House authorization of torture before John Yoo crafted a memo saying it was legal

These guys broke even the perversion of law they themselves instituted, so there's no question of ideology. To say nothing of the fact that St. Reagan's DOJ found waterboarding to be illegal and Republicans like Phillip Zelikow are among those demanding an investigation.

Which is Chuck Todd, noted journalist's, real problem: he's not aware of the facts. At a time when (as Glenn points out) Nora Dannehy continues to investigate the US Attorney firings, Chuck Todd declares that firing those US Attorneys was "perfectly legal." He apparently doesn't know--or won't report--the many pieces of evidence that show the Bushies violated the law, and so can conclude that any investigation would be "cable catnip," and so can claim that because the media won't do its homework we can't ask DOJ to investigate either.

In other words, we can't hold Dick Cheney accountable for his crimes because the beltway media can't help themselves but turn any investigation of crimes into a political trial.

[redqueen]

1. Love it.

K&R

[valerief]

2. Todd is such RW ass. nt

[leftofthedial]

3. If there is a bigger lump of wasted flesh than Upchuck Todd in cable news,

it's Andrea Mitchell.

[seafan]

4. Chuck Todd should join David Gregory on the dance circuit.

Todd is frightened to death of having to report on an investigation into Dick Cheney's lawlessness.




Run these bastards out of town on a rail. Every last stinking one of these cowards.


David Gregory: WHERE was public opinion??? (in the run-up to the Iraq invasion), May 28, 2008

[gratuitous]

5. See, we can't prosecute crimes, because it's cable catnip

I see it all so clearly now. Thank you Chuck Todd! See, we have two polarized parts to this "controversy": Rightfully enraged citizens who have seen a lawless administration trample on the Constitution that it swore to preserve, protect and defend; and on the other side, the criminals who would find it personally, professionally and politically inconvenient to be held accountable for their crimes. See?

So, you see, it would just degenerate into cable catnip as the media would be unable to resist painting this as anything more than a partisan political sideshow, see, even though that's not what it would be about at all. See? The media couldn't possibly wade through the competing self-serving claims of the criminals and the reasonable demand of an overwhelming majority of the public to hold the criminals accountable. See?

See?

Chuck is soooo good at explaining these things. :crazy:

[elehhhhna]

6. funny. i read #1 as : It's up to ME to decide. I "report", I decide.

[grantcart]

7. Here is how to proceed without making it a show trial

The issue of having a non partisan inquiry is right, a partisan prosecution would be as bad as no prosecution at all.


Request a list from UK, Canada and Australia of prosecuters that are considered competent to handle the prosecution.


From that list have the Democrats select one, the Republicans select one and the two selected prosecutors select a third who will be the lead prosecutor and, if necessary, decide any key issues that are a tie vote between the two.


1) Establish guidelines that make it clear that the investigation will be complete, but not trivial.

2) Also establish some type of bar that will provide that, except in cases of aggregious behavior (like ordering clearly illegal actions) that testimony given truthfully will be exchanged for immunity.

3) Make it clear that there will be no immunity for perjury, at any level for any reason.


It is a legitimate question and there is always a solution.

[spanone]

8. well chuck, we either honor the Constitution or we don't....whaddya say?

i really don't think that is your choice, pal.

[truedelphi]

9. Glad this Todd guy was not around during the Watergate era. n/t

[librechik]

10. It's just another situation where the truth is liberal

and US reporters can't be seen as liberal.

They'd rather not report the news at all.

[felinetta]

11. I can't stand Chuck Todd.

[The Magistrate]

12. An Excellent Piece, Ma'am

Unfortunately, it is all too true....