Prosecutor Purge, Sort Of Like Anna Nicole Smith…

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Thanks to Salon, we didn’t miss the Republican Senator from Oklahoma Tom Coburn comparing the media coverage of the U.S. Attorneys case to that of Anna Nicole Smith during last Thursday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which the senate voted to subpoena Karl Rove and several other WH officials implicated in the purge:

“[I]f you’re sitting out in the middle of this country and this [prosecutor purge] becomes the topic du jour…like Anna Nicole Smith for the last two months, which has sickened the American public but that’s what the press has run with because it makes for a nice dirty story, what are we doing to our country?”

Granted, media coverage of Washington scandals or any scandal for that matter can get out of control, but comparing the media’s obsession with the death of a former Playboy bunny to that of its coverage of blatant executive power abuse is a stretch.

Coburn’s comment comes in the wake of this ever-thickening plot. Last Thursday night, more documents were released to Congress containing pertinent information about the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys last year. One email, McClatchy reports, puts AG Alberto Gonzales at a meeting about firings on November 27, 2006 (only ten days before seven of the eight USAs were told to resign). This potentially contradicts what Gonzales has been saying; that although he takes full responsibility for “any mistakes” that occurred within his department, he was not aware of the details of the firings and that his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson was heading up that “process.”

Sampson has voluntarily agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday. But, Politico reports that friends of Sampson claim the former chief of staff is “not gunning for anybody” and “does not plan to deliver bombshells.” “Sampson will contend there was no underlying sin, just a botched response.” I’m fairly certain though, as TPMmuckraker points out as well, this “Gee, shucks, we just weren’t ready with a response” routine is not going to fly with Chairman Patrick Leahy, and committee members Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. Should be interesting. Stay tuned.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest