|
By Josh Marshall
|
|
Posted: 09/07/07 07:09 PM [ET] |
Stan Brand, famed D.C. ethics investigation attorney, went on “The Today Show” a couple days ago to defend Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). No surprise there: Craig has hired Brand to defend him before the looming Senate Ethics Committee investigation, or if possible stop it entirely. But Brand made what seems — at least on first blush — to be a pretty good point: At no time in the Senate’s 200-year-plus history has the Senate disciplined one of its members for a misdemeanor or petty offense not connected to his official duties. In other words, according to Brand, the whole idea of an ethics investigation should be ruled out on its face.
I’m curious to hear more about whether Brand’s history is strictly accurate. But because of his expertise in this area and the central place he’s giving it in Craig’s defense, I strongly suspect that it is, at least narrowly speaking.
So why is there an ethics investigation, exactly? The answer seems clear, if on two levels. First, Craig’s Republican Senate colleagues want to engineer what amounts to a de facto expulsion from the Senate. That’s obvious enough. And second, he was trolling for gay sex in a public restroom. And in the GOP catechism that’s not just a felony but a capital offense.
Republicans want to hang Craig’s demise on the fact of the guilty plea. That, we’re told, is what separates him from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). Vitter has essentially admitted to using prostitutes — a considerably more serious crime. But because he never got busted, it’s OK. Another argument is that Vitter paid for sex as a member of House, not the Senate, so it’s beyond the Senate’s purview. But at this point the arguments become so feeble and ridiculous that they barely merit restatement.
Vitter is in the clear because his colleagues (and, they believe, their constituents) see his actions as transgressions in the context of acceptable needs for sexual fulfillment. Craig’s toast because they are (or believe their constituents will be) ashamed of who he is.
And what of the Republicans’ new zero-tolerance policy for scandal and wrongdoing?
Larry Craig gets tossed for a seedy attempted sexual encounter. What about Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)? No charges yet.
But the evidence now on the table suggests pretty clearly that Stevens and his son, former Alaska Senate President Ben Stevens, were running an influence-peddling and back-scratching racket that meets most of the criteria for bribery. A house renovation here, a sweetheart land deal there, a pile of “consultancy” kickbacks and pretty soon you’re talking real wrongdoing.
But unless I’m mistaken, there’s no ethics investigation of Stevens at all. And which matters more? Craig’s bathroom antics or Stevens’s wholesale (and perhaps retail, too) corruption?
And while we’re on the subject, what about Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)? He played a key and still too-little-examined role in degrading the independence and integrity of the U.S. justice system. And the case is quite germane to the subject at hand, since he did so by playing on his power as a senator. I guess we’ve got a nominal ethics investigation in that case. But I’m happy to take bets on whether anything will ever come of that.
I’m not saying trying to have sex in a public bathroom is no big deal. Whether the sex is straight or gay, it is disrespectful at a minimum to those trying to use the facilities for what the arresting officer called their “intended purpose,” and even deeply damaging if minors are present in the facility. But let’s not kid ourselves about the policy on display here. It’s zero tolerance.
But not for “wrongdoing.” It’s much more specific than that.
Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com . His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
.
|
