Having some fun poking Big Brother?
CREW 1, FBI 0
This is fairly important. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that goes WAY out on a limb to pursue corruption and ethical problems in DC, has been vindicated in a big way. Here's the backstory. Prior to the Mark Foley scandal, CREW, which had copies of the scandalous emails, forwarded them to the FBI, which did nothing. When the scandal finally broke, the FBI first claimed that CREW had redacted the emails, and that the FBI sought further information from CREW to no avail.
The Inspector General today released a report showing that neither of these claims were true. Now, to give you a sense of how aggressive Melanie Sloan and Naomi Seligman are, they were accused of lying by the FBI during a really heated political campaign even as they were being smeared by the right for acting appropriately in the biggest political scandal of the year. That's pressure.
If only all progressive groups acted this way. I've had my disagreements with CREW. I think their strategy is too focused on ethical guidelines without looking at structural solutions, and I think they bend over backwards to go after Democrats, even when it's not entirely warranted. But standing up to the FBI is a big deal, and I don't know many progressive groups who could or would do this without turning into a puddle of equivocation and caving shortly thereafter.
UPDATE: I really like this comment from wingnut Dan Riehl:
They must be genuine moonbats at CREW to believe they are going to get into a he said, she said with the FBI and come away a winner.
| |
| Permalink :: 1 Comment :: Post a Comment |
| Re: CREW 1, FBI 0 (none / 0) "If only all progressive groups acted this way. I've had my disagreements with CREW. I think their strategy is too focused on ethical guidelines without looking at structural solutions, and I think they bend over backwards to go after Democrats, even when it's not entirely warranted." Is CREW a partisan organization or a non-partisan group funded by progressive institutes? How you answer this question will explain whether you think CREW was right in objecting to Murtha's election as Majority Leader (and, by extension, Pelosi's support of his campaign). If you think CREW was in the wrong, then they're no different than a left-wing mirror image of Judicial Watch. Recall that Melanie Sloan received a lot of heat from her donors for objecting to Murtha's campaign. |
| by DCDavid on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:46:43 PM EST |
The above found here
* * * *
Ending Legalized Bribery
You may have noticed a discussion of public financing on MyDD over the last few months. A system of public financing of elections iis set up and working in a few states - Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine. And while it's too soon to judge Connecticut, the system does work in Maine and Arizona. David Donnelly of the excellent group Public Campaign has come on to MyDD and blogged about the issue and answered questions about the efficacy of the systems currently in place, which is incidentally why federalism works. We can test things out in the states before scaling them.
Here's why I've been blogging about public financing. Tom Hamburger and Janet Hook of the LA Times have written an excellent article about the business lobby and the Democrats in Congress (if you like their work, send them nice email - tom.hamburger@latimes.com and janet.hook@latimes.com).
Click Here for more
* * * *
Click Here for http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/
posted by The_SRV at 6:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home