« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
U.S. Attorney Politicization Study Now Online
There have been a number of reader questions about the study highlighted in Paul Krugman's column today that shows the politicization of federal investigations during the Bush administration -- namely that federal investigations have targeted Democrats far more than Republicans.
The study, which we first reported a month ago, is now online in its full glory at ePluribus Media.
And because I know many readers are interested, here's a breakdown provided to me by the study's authors of the prosecutions by the offices of seven of the eight ousted prosecutors (click to enlarge):
Advertisement
Comments (12)
Skip wrote on March 9, 2007 2:50 PM:Wow.
These numbers take your breathe away. It's hard not to come away from the study without the impression that the Justice Department is as corrupt as it is partisan.
Bearpaw wrote on March 9, 2007 2:53 PM:Wouldn't it make sense to do results comparisons as well? That is, what proportion of investigations have resulted in (1) charges vs no charges, (2) out-of-court settlements, (3) guilty verdicts, and (4) verdicts other than guilty, broken down by party. That might nail the case home, over the predictable claims by wingers that "Dems are just more corrupt."
ThatsBad wrote on March 9, 2007 3:00 PM:Sorry, I would like to know more. The methodology is weak because there is no stratification or correlates with any known sources of corruption.
My guess is the 30% gap between office holding and corruption investigation is telling, but the poor quality statistical analysis provides little meaning. It is VERY important that pushing these issues forward rests on quality analysis.
Otherwise, we end up looking like fools.
EH wrote on March 9, 2007 3:42 PM:Well, the study was conducted by two retired professors. Are you willing to step up and improve the methodology?
JC wrote on March 9, 2007 4:45 PM:Somehow this didn't register the first time - probably not enough context, until the Paul Krugman piece.
Too bad, because you DID give us this study a month ago, and as such, I'm surprised that we didn't react then, since in my opinion, it's a very big deal.
Mike Liveright wrote on March 9, 2007 8:44 PM:I agree: It seems to me that there are somewhat more Dems than Reps, but ... except in Nevada, the numbers are so small that I would not draw much of a conclusion. Also I would want to see which were convicted.
On the other hand the Nevada result: 11 to 1 should be looked into. I would want to ask:
1) Were the 11 part of one case, or 11 different cases?
2) Is Nevada primely Government by Democrats, or not?
3) Were the people who were investigated convicted, or not.
So: I think the numbers are interesting, but I'd like to know more to be more convinced that there was biased political targeting of Democrats.
MLS wrote on March 9, 2007 8:57 PM:I would think Muckraker readers would have some serious questions about this list. Look at the list of federal/statewide investigations. Where are Gibbons, Goode, Calvert, Pombo? And are Clinton, Schumer, and Klobuchar really under investigation?
Anyway, if this reflects a DOJ conspiracy to help Republicans and hurt Democrats, the Iraq war strategy looks like a stroke of genius in comparison. Target the most powerful Republicans in the House and Senate, on the one hand, and a few hundred Democrats that nobody ever heard of at the county level, on the other. Brilliant.
ThatsBad wrote on March 9, 2007 11:38 PM:Sorry, EH, I have been away from the computer, working. There are plenty of retired professors (not to mention still employed ones) who shouldn't be let within the same country of a statistical software package. These data call for better analysis. Sure, if some one is willing to give me a grant of the right sort, I will be glad to do an appropriate analysis and I am qualified (and a professor who should NOT be banned from statistical software).
Dr.Dan wrote on March 11, 2007 10:31 PM:The information I was hoping for is the historical context. What was the ratio during the Clinton administration? Reagan/Bush? Carter? Frankly, I expect that this context will show that the current administration really IS the most corrupt in recent history, but without that context the case is weak.
Steve H. wrote on March 12, 2007 12:06 PM:I agree with Dr. Dan that some historical context would be useful.
Also, the numbers seem a little squirrely. For instance, Carol Lam is listed as having investigated/indicted only 2 Republicans, yet TPM is reporing that Lam was investigating far more deeply.
M.J. O'Brien wrote on March 13, 2007 12:47 AM:According to the study: Of 375 investigations or indictments of candidates and elected officials, only 17.8% involved Republicans. Either the process is rigged, as Paul Krugman (among others) of the NY Times charges, or Republicans are 5.6 times less likely to be corrupt than other politicians. I wonder which it is...
ohiomeister wrote on March 13, 2007 12:07 PM:No wonder Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) is upset. U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden was playing ball, judging from the chart!