russert_tim_216×288.jpgUPDATE:  Crooks and Liars has the clip of Meet the Press up from this segment.  You can watch it here.

On today’s edition of Meet The Press, Tim Russert had some questions for his roundtable panel (E. J. Dionne, Gene Robinson, Byron York and Kate O’Beirne) about the Libby case.  And the questions?  Well, they consisted of whether O’Beirne agreed with the Novak article on the political efficacy of pardoning Libby and cutting AG Gonzales loose.  What O’Beirne thought the political advantages of such a pardon for Libby might be for the Bush Administration’s poll numbers.  And whether York felt that a pardon would be forthcoming.

For the record, O’Bierne said that pardoning Libby might be useful for Bush’s poll numbers from Libby’s family and friends…and that he could use all the help he could get at the moment.  And York says that the Bush Administration was caught flat-footed with Judge Walton’s decision last week to enforce the law as it is written, as opposed to cutting Scooter a special break to allow him out of jail pending appeal.  Neither of them seemed particularly pleased with the Bushies at the moment.

What pissed me off this morning is this:  O’Beirne and York are clearly partisan writers, both working for the conservative National Review.  I’ve met Byron a few times and I think it is safe to say that he considers himself not only conservative, but also that he has vested a lot of interest in pushing the Libby end of the case whenever possible in media appearances and in his columns.  I don’t know O’Beirne, but the words “partisan hackery, whatever the cost to the facts” come to mind every time she is mentioned, for good reason.  

Dionne writes left of center for the most part, but works as a political writer for the WaPo, but has also done quite a bit of straight journalism pieces, so I’m not certain it is fair to characterize him as anything but a left-leaning journalist, as opposed to York and O’Beirne who not only write right-of-center, but actively work for their causes.  I have met Gene Robinson and he is a superb journalist in a lot of areas, especially with regard to racial inequality and poverty issues in the District, a wonderful writer, and fairly centrist on a lot of issues, although not perfect.  (Just ask Somerby, although compared to the rest of Fred Hiatt’s stable, Robinson is as close to a voice of reason in the far-too-neoconman wilderness as you often get…but I digress.)

And so, again, on Meet the Press, we have this faux balance.

But, putting that aside, irritating though it is, it was the Russert (a) failure to once again detail his own personal involvement in the Libby case but instead act like there was nothing there whatsoever that could possibly compromise both his reporting and his need to steer us away from asking questions about it, and (b) failure to ask any meaningful questions about what this case means in terms of the rule of law being upheld; the application of the law being done fairly, across the board by the judge regardless of Libby’s status; or even ask any question on the subject at all from Dionne or Robinson during that topic. 

This is a teaching moment for the American public – the highest ranking government official to be convicted of multiple felonies in years, is treated to the same consideration as any other criminal defendant at a time when our justice system is under susbtantial scrutiny for political skewing by the Bush Administration…and Russert completely blows it.  Again.

For some thought provoking work on the case, try reading John Dean’s latest on the DC Circuit, political considerations and the potential for recusals and other factors that may be in play for a Libby appeal.  This dovetails nicely with my piece from earlier in the week, and Dean has some great political insights that are well worth some thought. 

And, in case you missed, it, Dean had an earlier article regarding the Libby pardon lobby that is also worth some reading time.  Especially in conjunction with this letter that a number of former intel professionals sent to the RNC about Republican presidential candidates disrespecting the rule of law.  Sidney Blumenthal hit a lot of these points earlier, but they are worth repeating until Russert bothers to read them and actually think about them a little bit.

No wonder Cheney’s office thought of Meet the Press as “our best forum.”  Hello, Sunday morning, it’s Meet The Compromised.  Next time, either do the work on the whole case and ask something beyond simplistic questions, or let someone else do it.

On a day when AG Gonzales is pushing mandatory minimums for defendants under the sentencing guidelines in federal felony convictions, wouldn’t it have been a point of journalistic preparation to ask, even hypothetically, if Gonzales and the Bush Administration meant that for Scooter Libby as well?  Hmmmm?  (H/T to RevDeb for the link, and to realworld and scarecrow for coming up with this question the same time I did after seeing it.)  As Bruce Fein quoted earlier, former Justice Louis Brandeis had this absolutely right:

Nothing is as dangerous to the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as a belief among high-ranking officials that they are above the law and may lie or connive with impunity. Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis sermonized in Olmstead v. United States (1928): “In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it invites everyman to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

If Russert isn’t going to ask the hard questions on accountability and governmental hypocrisy, then it is time someone else hosted the show, isn’t it?

Related posts:

  1. Bush Officials Compromised Renzi Investigation for Political Gain
  2. Meet the Press STILL Lets Guests “Control the Message”
  3. New White House Counsel Bob Bauer and Scooter Libby Justice
  4. The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
  5. The Bush Fairy Tale on the Libby Pardon