It's Justice, After All

I for one hope the Dems get to the rock bottom of US Attorney-gate. Allegations are that the Justice Department might have been infected with -- oh no! -- politics, which might have influenced decision-making about who should serve in what office and what they should do. If the Dems are on track, we may discover that US Attorneys sometimes hear from their appointers (at whose pleasure they serve) about legal work programs and priorities. Of course, this will be just shocking news when it breaks, though you won't be surprised to learn that only Republicans ever engage in this kind of activity. No way would Dems ever be so political, I am sure.

Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.

Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.

And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?