I’ve been meaning to point out a little hypocrisy among the Republican faithful. You see, the Republicans are celebrating Alberto Gonzales’ recent call to crack down on federal convicts. They want to reverse the SCOTUS decision that allows judges to treat sentencing guidelines as a suggestion, and return to the era of required minimum sentencing. And they think this is a good campaign issue.

The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decisionby pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly allcriminals.

[snip]

In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General AlbertoGonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentencesagainst federal convicts — and not let judges consider such penalties"merely a suggestion."

Such an overhaul, in part, "willstrengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety andsecurity of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, deliveredthree days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violentcrime during 2006.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this Republican party talking about making this a campaign issue … it’s the same Republican party led by people threatening retribution because Scooter Libby, federal convict, might have to go to jail, right? And the same Republican party that thinks Steven Griles, also a federal convict, should get to do community service–for non-profits he set up–rather than jail time?

Call me crazy, but I suspect there are going to be more Republicans begging for those "merely a suggestion" guidelines between now and November 2008. With the leaders of the party solidly behind them.

In spite of signing a plea agreement for the charge of obstructing a Senate investigation, Steve Griles is trying to get his already light 10 month sentence reduced to three months of home confinement and community service on two non-profits Griles set up himself (in a scandal, of course, in which non-profits have routinely been used to launder money). The government is not so crazy about that deal, as they explain that Griles’ lies materially affected the Senates investigation into Abramoff.

The United States submits that had defendant Griles not lied and withheld material information, the Senate Committee would not have credited the defendant’s testimony in precipitously concluding its investigation into Abramoff’ s alleged influence and access within DOl. Rather, the Senate Committee would have dug deeper and probed further and likely would have discovered the truth about the extent of Abramoff’s access to the second highest-ranking official within DOl.

The government’s response explains why they recommended such a light sentence for Griles: put simply, they haven’t figured out how Griles benefited from helping Abramoff yet.

Given the seriousness of defendant Griles’ criminal conduct, and theconsequences that flowed directly therefrom, we deem it necessary tonote the single reason why the United States agreed to recommend anon-binding "split sentence" of ten (10) months imprisonment. Simplyput, to date, the United States has uncovered no evidence thatdefendant Griles personally accepted any money or gifts from Abramoff.That said, had we discovered otherwise, the charge(s) and thesentencing recommendation would not have been so limited.

The government basically suggests the judge cannot justify a lower sentence (though of course guidelines are not mandatory), because Griles refused to cooperate.

Defendant Griles has declined the United States’ invitation tocooperate in this ongoing criminal investigation, precluding him fromreceiving a substantial assistance departure under U.S .S .G. § 5K1.1.We have thus reached the proverbial floor of the applicable advisorySentencing Guideline range and there is no basis in fact or in law todig into the basement.

When I grow up I aspire to write as well as Bill Moyers:

We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset ofWashington’s ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people whotook us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraqgrows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one oftheir own from going to jail.

It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice PresidentCheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jailfor perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. ScooterLibby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracyby lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructingjustice.

Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in highplaces—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes oftruth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote thechief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found himguilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense,lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by noneother than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threwthe book at Libby.

You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, sointense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded thejudge’s chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took tothe airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”

Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…ofpersonal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusionto browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order tojustify the invasion.

“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and atireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—thevery same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weaponsof mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linkingSaddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-timePentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraqwould be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter topraise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivatedhis friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqiswould “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its ownreconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently aspresident of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism tohis girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.

Bill Moyers gets it. Why don’t the beltway Heathers?

I’d like to point out something about TPMM’s story on the two complaints (and do read the complaints–they’re infuriating) submitted to DOJ’s IG on Brad Schlozman.

It’s unclear if the Department’s inspector general ever pursued theallegations from the December, 2005 letter at the time. But the officecertainly is now. In a letter to the judiciary committee chairmen lastmonth, Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility counselMarshall Jarrett announcedthat their joint probe into the U.S. attorney firings had been expandedto include hiring practices in the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman has been accused of recruiting Republicans for career spots and then asking them to scrub mentions of their GOP bona fides from their resumes.

As I pointed out yesterday, it’s unclear how enthusiastically the IG is pursuing the multiple incidents of politicization in DOJ’s midst. They are now investigating Gonzales’ apparent witness tampering. They are now investigating Schlozman’s blatant discrimination. But were they? Did they?

To the credit of the IG, it intervened when Gonzales attempted to pawn the whole self-investigation off onto the OPR. But how aggressively would it have pursued these issues without the intervention of Chuck Rosenberg? And how aggressively is it pursuing them now that Rosenberg is no longer acting Chief of Staff?

It’ll be instructive to learn what IG did in 2005 when they first received these complaints. Because it’ll either reassure us that IG can carry out such an investigation diligently, or it’ll provide the final proof (as if we needed it) that DOJ can’t investigate itself.