I think Todd is right. But not for the reason he thinks. It will be dangerous to do that, because 1) most Americans seem ambivalent with torture (as long as it's done to brown muslims) leading to 2) The rightwingers may very well rise up in armed insurrection against lefties if that happens and many of us would be killed.

How much faith in the Authoritarian or southern-friend law enforce to protect liberals in that kind of situation do you have?

That said, I think we should do it and I think we can prepare for a violent revolt by rightwingers in that event. If nothing else it will give us a chance to cleanse the body-politic of it's worst elements if they rise up.

Political football is fine as long as liberals play tag and conservatives play tackle.

We really need you to keep blogging.

Hilzoy, please don't stop blogging.

Journalists like Todd function under the same model as Microsoft - it's more important to get product out fast than to get it out good.

Remember, Chuck Todd is a political reporter who sees everything through an extremely cynical lens focused entirely on partisan power struggles. There's no point in expecting him to hold powerful people accountable, because it would undermine his professional status. (He's not alone in that regard, either.)

So once again we learn that, for the Villagers, lying about a blowjob is a worse offense than torturing and killing people.

Todd is an excellent political and statistical analyst. He is not a lawyer nor a legal analyst nor a seer. If the USA cannot stand the turmoil caused by trials of high-ranking political criminals then we do not deserve a democracy. Nancy Pelosi ruined one chance for accountability when she eliminated impeachment as an option. If there were ever a case demanding impeachment, it was the Bush administration's criminality. Now we have one last chance to re-elevate the rule of law in America to its proper place. Think of the message that would send to our citizens and the rest of the world. Chuck Todd's evaluation of the matter is missing too many facts and facets. For too long journalism and American politics has been held hostage to the politics of right wing ideologues. It is time to climb back into Todd's 30,000 foot clouds where the air is purer and dreams are realized.

Haven't yet read the transcript...

...but I wonder what Todd thinks of the "show trial" impeachment of Bill Clinton?

it is well that Todd, his ilk and his way of believing was not a functional part of the media from Summer of 1972 to August 1974 -- watergate -- when the Executive Branch and the President knowingly broke the law, like they did under Bush.

Imagine what would have happened back then if we believe, like Todd, that Government is made up of men rather than laws.

WHY would the investigation of these crimes become a political spectacle? Todd knows the answer, but he's loathe to admit it. Because the Fox News right-wing media ilk would MAKE IT a spectacle. They'll holler about bias, partisanship, persecution, retribution for Clinton, retribution for Florida in 2000, everything but what it really is - an investigation of war crimes. Is short, a f*cking WATB tantrum writ large on America. I'm taking what's yours. Try to stop me, me and all my friends will burn your house to the ground. When the police come, we'll say it's your fault for ot giving me what's rightfully yours. Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt...much.

F*ck them.

Chuck Todd is saying that it's his job to make it a spectacle.

And what, as Glenn asks, is wrong with "nightly debate about whether our government committed crimes" -

That would divert us from Michael Jackson.

It seems to me the first requirement for a journalist is to try to think in terms of the area of scholarship they are trying to describe or explain. If you talk about football, you would look like a fool if you argued that some of the rules are not that important, or worse talked about how many innings are in the football game.

But many journalists don't feel any need to actually develop any understanding by seeking out experts. They just recycle opinions that they have heard, which might sound logical. Over the years the "logical" opinions build up like plaque, clogging any rational stream of thought.

Over an hour and no posts from Al. Is he ok?

I strongly disagree that Chuck Todd is one of the better political reporters out there. He was the best numbers guy on TV back during the campaign. He did a great job analyzing and predicting the votes for NBC -- not Nate Silver great, but still great. That's why he got promoted.

But now he is in way over his head. It seems clear to me that the reason he is constantly repeating talking points is not that he's protecting his access, as Greenwald claims, but because he doesn't know what he's talking about so all he is capable of doing is mindlessly repeating what he is told.

This is the Peter Principle in action -- Todd has finally risen to his level of incompetence. He should be put back into his box until the next election, perhaps doing reports on opinion polls or something.

Why Shouldn't We ...

try to make it "a perfect world"?

If prosecuting government officials who have perpetrated the worst of all crimes would help to "perfect" the world we live in, I say go for it!

And who, in their right minds, would dare to be opposed?

"Does anyone think that we should simply have given those officers or Marion Barry a pass?"

I'm pretty sure there's lots of people who think we should have given those officers *or* Marion Barry a pass. But I doubt there's anyone who thinks we should have given those officers *and* Marion Barry a pass.

Most of us know we don't live in a perfect world. That doesn't mean we should take the paths that might lead there, when given the opportunity.

What about the highly touted and aggressively marketed concept of "moral hazard." Don't you think there should be some accounability or risk repeat behaviour in the future.

As a matter of fact now is the future. Remember Iran Contra and all the illegal subrosa activities of the 80's. This is merely deja vous all over again. We need someone to be held responsible, and I don't mean a low ranking military prison guard.

Who is Chuck Todd? A reporter or a pundit? This term "journalist" seems sort of vague. If Todd's a reporter, his attitude makes me uncomfortable, same as when a member of the armed forces is openly partisan in uniform.

If I understand Todd's logic correctly, the Nurenberg trials should not have been held. After all, exposing all the details about the Nazi crimes would did not serve any real purpose other than revenge by the victors

If I understand Todd's logic correctly, the Nurenberg trials should not have been held. After all, exposing all the details about the Nazi crimes would did not serve any real purpose other than revenge by the victors

Hilzoy,

I'm not familiar with Todd's work, but it seems to me that you and Greenwald have both misunderstood Todd's use of the phrase 'cable catnip', and you, *after* he clarified his position on the linked podcast.

As Todd explained early in the podcast, he used the phrase from the viewpoint of the Obama administration to describe the administration's reasons for not pursuing the investigation. He said, very clearly, that the adm's should be worried about the divisive effects of such action.

FIRST, he did NOT use the phrase to diminish the extent of Bush's crimes. If I heard correctly, it was Buchanan that interpreted his remark in that way.

SECOND, he WAS NOT making a value judgement on whether the case merits investigation.

What he actually said, and what you appear to have missed, was that it would be politically difficult for Obama to lead a government investigation into the war crimes given the polarization that would result. Todd said again and again that he was trying to stay a-political and analytical about the matter in making these statements, and I think he did a fine job.

Where Todd's analysis floundered, in my opinion, was at the end of the interview where he seems confused as to how we're to approach our political ideals through a messier political reality.

-JK

(PS. hope you decide to come back to political journalism again, Hilzoy! I've enjoyed your thoughtful mini-essays here on the WM)

As usual, points I was going to make were already made (and better than I would have), this time by JM-NYC @ 5:57 and slappy magoo @ 6:12.
Dispiriting and encouraging at the same time.
We need to take back at least some of the mass media, or create our own. Real, systemic, lasting change will never happen until we've done so.

@ Cycledoc, 7:18: Both excellent points. The Dem's continue to get played, because the Dem's continually allow themselves to get played. I don't know how much to ascribe to their utter lack of spine/gut/heart/whatever-body-parts, and how much to the likelihood that they're at least 1/2 in the tank for the same corporate powers for whom the Publicans are entirely immersed; either way, far too many of them are worse than useless.
Did want to point out a typo you mighta missed, though: it's "deja vu" ("already seen"), not the "deja vous" (which would mean "already you") that got entered (I know you knew that; I just can't help myself -- it's a disease, sorry).

If I understand Todd's logic correctly, the Nurenberg trials should not have been held. After all, exposing all the details about the Nazi crimes would did not serve any real purpose other than revenge by the victors

As for politicized legal cass, Jones v. Clinton was nothing more than a political ploy. Betcha Todd never opined that case was "cable catnip" or a dangerous political football. These guys are such hypocrites there is no taking them seriously.

The success of the Watergate trials was that the judge who drew the short straw to adjudicate the original crime of burglary was an excellent judge, looking at only the breaking of the law. That judge was John J. Sirica, a very admirable man. I recommend any of you who are too young to know and understand Watergate to read Judge Sirica's book, "To Set the Record Straight." That would be the main ingredient for an apolitical trial of the Bush/Cheney crimes. As someone stated above, the difference between now and then is the very bad journalism that exists now and Fox News, which would distort the truth as it has done during its whole existence. There are some Americans who watch nothing but Fox News and penetrating their brains with the truth seems to be impossible. I believe a fair and impartial investigation of these crimes could occur with the right people involved. How to get the right people involved is another matter. Exposing the crimes of Watergate did improve our country. If we do not expose and punish the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration, America cannot go forward and thrive and become an even better country.

david g sees what i see: were chuck todd's attitude the norm in 1972-74, nixon would never have been impeached.

it's shocking, really, and the kind of thing that increasingly makes me fantasize about being warren buffett wealthy, buying one of the networks, and firing everyone in the news department and starting over with an intent to inform and not to create well-paid after-dinner speakers.

Todd is NOT one of the better TV 'journalists' out there... and he loses that distinction by a wide margin. Maybe he's the 'best' at a major TV network but a hack is still a hack.

Listening to Greenwald's interview with Todd reinforced my perception of talking heads residing somewhere south of the lower asymptote with respect to intelligence vs. chatter.

The dugan couldn't string together a coherent defense of his statements with 24 hours prep time.

So what you all are saying is that we should also prosecute Barack? I mean, he is following all the Bush policies regarding detainment, war fighting, killing brown people with unmanned drones and more right? Are you saying that Obama is as big a criminal as Bush? Cuz he is. Let the trials commence!

So what you all are saying is that we should also prosecute Barack?

You have trouble with reading comprehension, I take it?

I mean, he is following all the Bush policies

Not even close, sorry.

Are you saying that Obama is as big a criminal as Bush?

Why no, we're not, mostly because it's not true.

Cuz he is. Let the trials commence!

Bring it on. I have absolutely no objection.

I can remember starting in the late 1980's, telling my friends that the biggest single danger to the American democratic experiment was the collapse of the integrity of the fourth estate. Nothing which has happened since has changed my mind. I know that our obsession with the circus is a causative factor, but fails to explain why reporters as a group are so lazy and timid. This latter effect, I believe, stems directly from the takeover of the news media by corporations.

Most of what this post has to say is valid, and I also applaud Messrs. Greenwald and Todd for engaging in this discussion. The original problem, however, wasn't whether Mr. Todd's opinions were wrong, but that they were presented as reportage, not opinion. It is the breakdown of a clear distinction between the two (or, in my more cynical moments, the result of our holding on to the fantasy that such a thing as objective journalism exists) that was at the root of this encounter.

What Todd's ambivalence against investingations and prosecutions reflects is the Washington Consensus -- the corruption of our democracy, really -- that politics in Washington has become just like any other business. And like any other business, the Washington governing elite -- both Democrat and Republican -- would rather police themselves than be accountable to some outside regulator or authority, in this case the Rule of Law.

No one would object if Bush or Cheney was prosecuted for some straighforward violation of the criminal code -- say shooting someone in the face or driving drunk. But the idea that Bush or Cheney would be sent to jail for violations of US law connected with the performance of their duties -- such as lying to the public in order to start a war or torturing prisoners -- makes the entire Inside the Beltway Class extremely nervous. That is because what they see before them is a reality in which elites are no longer in control -- in which their behavior is checked and modified by something we call Rule of Law.

Now, never mind the fact that the entire 2,000 political history of western civilization has involved precisely this attempt by the larger public to put the chains of law around the discretion and arbitrariness of ruling elites, whether it has been the Magna Carta in which English nobles controlled the behavior of King John, or the US Constitution in which upper class American colonials voluntarily agreed to be held accountable to the larger masses in exchange for being allowed to rule.

When Todd speaks about the "politicalization" of the law, what he is reflecting is the fear among our Inside the Beltway crowd that our political system really will take the law seriously and hold members of the governing class accountable -- with the threat of real jail time -- if they violate the public's trust and break the law they've sworn to uphold in the performance of their duties.

Knowing each other as they do, what the governing class fear in such an approach is that prosecution of one administration would be met with reprisals from that same party once they got control of the government, leading to the endless cycle of political violence they have in banana republics where transfers of power are never peaceful. But if that's what the elites are afraid of -- if Rule of Law no longer controls how this nation is governed and how we conduct our politics and public business -- then it is better that we find it out now because it means our democracy is in far worse shape than we think.

A "show trial" is exactly the remedy called for, to dissuade future leaders from following in Bush's footsteps. In fact, a show trial followed by a long "show imprisonment" would be just about ideal.

And thanks for all the posts, Hilzoy.

2 points

1) Todd does, however, have enough integrity and courage to debat Greenwald. That's a whole lot of integrity and courage, since Greenwald is a genius who very very strongly disapproves of Todd's cable circus argument.

2) good thing that you are anonymous. I have so far been a law abiding citizen (I am not discussing silly laws concerning the smoking of marijuana and maybe even hashish once or twice). However, my respect for the law is fairly feeble compared to my addiction to the brilliant commentary of Hilzoy (was going to put "... 'it's not black or white" on twitter as the quote of the day until I got to your last sentence).

I don't know who you are are where you live, so it wouldn't matter even if I couldn't resist the temptation to us criminal means to attempt to force you to blog (http://thepoorman.net/2009/07/14/perhaps-we-could-blackmail-her/). Thanks for protecting me from temptation.

But you're not really quitting are you ? Just a vacation from blogging right ? Even if you think your leaving, you'll be back right ?

Please. I'm fairly sure that can live without your blog, but I really don't want to find out.

[Pardon me for making my presence felt - but I just accidentally deleted a comment in a sweep of link spam and I was unable to un-delete it - but I did snag the text with no style attributes or breaks before it disappeared forever. My apologies to the readers and especially to Alexander. If he reposts it, I will remove the text that follows. --Mod]

Regrettably, Hilzoy, some of the points you've made in this post betray huge gaps in your knowledge of how the legal system in this country operates. You write: "Second, the idea that we should not prosecute politicians who break the law is just one more example of the idea that people with power should be able to live by different rules. When someone borrows an ordinary person's car and, unbeknownst to her, uses it to sell drugs, sending her to jail is "being tough on crime"; when a government official abuses his office, even hinting at prosecution is just "cable catnip" and a sign that you're a member of "the hard left". This idea is odious, and it's antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for. People with power and privilege have a lot of advantages already" In fact, you are right that the decision to not prosecute high level officials for breaking the law is one more example of the idea that people with power should live by different rules. It also reflects centuries old legal precedent under the doctrine of official or qualified immunity. You see, rather than necessarily highlighting an increasingly entrenched political elite that lives by different rules in all facets of life, official immunity has for some time existed to protect government officials' actions when it is not "clearly established law" that they are transgressing. Your facile attempt to make a connection between the example of the crime of larceny and actions taken by public officials in the course of their official duties is absurd on any number of levels.