SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Back on September 22, 2007, I reported on information I had received about a major campaign which had been launched by the Bush Justice Department to disrupt fundraising efforts by John Edwards’s presidential campaign—a project which antedated the 2004 presidential election and was marked by attorney general–level authorizations, and a vast redeployment of resources. It was, I am told, “a diversion of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to block tens of millions of campaign contributions to the enemy.” The “enemy” in this case, being, as usual, the Democratic Party. Dollar for dollar, not an investment of taxpayer money that the increasingly Democratic electorate is likely to find amusing. Hence the Justice Department’s attitude of keeping the whole program deep under wraps.
When I ran the story, I got a number of comments—some of them from folks at Justice—telling me that the report was “too narrow,” that the target was not just John Edwards, but also Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the G.O.P. campaign strategists who manipulate the wheels of justice seem to have concluded very early on that Hillary was the candidate to beat in 2008, and the anti-Hillary agitation efforts couldn’t begin early enough. Remember, Karl Rove and his deputies made the rounds of major government agencies—including Justice—in the run up to the 2006 election, telling Republican faithful what they could do in their own agencies to wound the Anti-Christ. It seems that the Justice Department had a special function in the G.O.P. election campaign: vote suppression, criminalization of major Democratic candidates, and defunding the party by launching attacks on campaign contributors.
Here’s a story from the Associated Press, one of several I have recently come across, that gives me cause to think I understated both the scope and targeting of the Justice Department’s major defund-the-Democrats program:
On the wall of Hsiao Yen Wang’s apartment, a cramped, 17th-floor public housing unit on the city’s Lower East Side, are photographs of her husband, David Guo, a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine. One photo stands out: Guo shaking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hand, a memento from a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser for the New York senator held in New York’s Chinatown last April.
Last week, Wang got another memento — a calling card from a Justice Department criminal investigator. The investigator asked Wang if she was coerced into giving money to the campaign and whether she knew of anybody else who may have been forced to contribute. In an interview with The Associated Press, Wang said she and her husband had given willingly and that she knew of no coercion. A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment on the inquiries.
“I want to see her become the first female U.S. president,” Wang, a hospital worker, said of Clinton as her daughter translated.
There is clearly evidence of a criminal conspiracy underfoot here: the use of the nation’s law-enforcement apparatus to manipulate the campaign funding operations of the political opposition. Maybe we can get some of these G-men asking questions up the food chain in order to nab the real criminals—namely the persons who authorized this abuse, and the involvement of Karl Rove and his elves in the process?
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”