Skip to main content

Why Would 60 Minutes Want to Screw Up a DOJ Investigation?

For all its faults, I’ve generally regarded 60 Minutes as real journalism, practiced by real journalists. Even so, their political coverage of late has been irksome — with too much both-siderist nonsense delivered none too subtly. The lead story on the March 21 show, however, went beyond both-siderist, to what I hope I’m misconstruing as subversive.

The thirteen-minute segment featured an interview with former Associate Deputy Attorney General Michael R. Sherwin, a career prosecutor who until leaving office two days before, was in charge of DOJ’s investigation into the Capitol insurrection.

It was a jaw-dropping interview, at least to a non-lawyer. For thirteen minutes, Sherwin took us through the investigation in startling detail, pointing out some of the rioters in the Capitol photos, outlining the kinds of charges they might face, and generally getting viewers salivating over the prospect of righteous restitution.

But to anyone in the legal profession, the interview set off alarm bells. I should’ve heard them myself, because anybody who’s ever watched Law & Order knows that prosecutors never ever talk to the press about ongoing investigations.

Yet there was Sherwin, openly speculating about conspiracy and sedition charges for some of the more extreme Capitol rioters. He prominently mentioned the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and maybe even Trump himself as future recipients of those charges. I was duly excited, until Rachel Maddow set me straight the next night.

She told us that the judge in one of those developing cases had gone ballistic, publicly admonishing Sherwin and 60 Minutes in no uncertain terms. He was rightly concerned that speaking out in public like that could compromise these cases, and unfairly prejudice a jury.

And sure enough, lawyers for a bunch of those defendants started filing motions — to release, to dismiss, to reduce bail, etc. — the minute Sherwin went off the air.

So who is this guy, and what is it we’re smelling?

Let’s start with the simple fact that Michael Sherwin was appointed by Bill Barr. He was one of those prosecutors Barr installed at the top levels of DOJ, essentially to undermine it. The story was hot at the time, how Barr was bending the DOJ to his will — which is to say Trump’s will — and seriously pissing off career prosecutors in the process, prompting some of them to resign. By the time Barr himself resigned, DOJ was a hot mess, though we still only know the outlines of the vandalism.

But Sherwin was left as interim U.S. Attorney for D.C, which meant that on January 6, the whole Capitol riot fell to him to investigate and run with. Apparently, he did a reasonable job under the circumstances — I’ve heard no criticism of his performance in that regard. He’s now back home in Florida, but he remains a U.S. Attorney.

Regardless, there can be no innocent explanation for a career U.S. prosecutor deliberately speaking to the media about an ongoing investigation. Much less one that’s a high-profile matter of intense national interest. He can’t say he didn’t know better.

So what’s going on? Did he go on 60 Minutes to deliberately try to taint these investigations? If so, why? Is he doing it on his own? Is someone working him or playing him?

If thugs like the Proud Boys are each facing twenty-plus years in prison on conspiracy or sedition charges — which they appear to be — wouldn’t they be eager for a plea deal? Wouldn’t they have every incentive to flip on some higher-ups? Wouldn’t they want to dangle names like Roger Stone and the Flynn brothers? How about Josh Hawley? Or Ted Cruz? Or any number of Trump stooges in Congress and the White House? We don’t know these guys were involved, but there’s been no shortage of speculation.

So just think how thrilled they would all be to see charges dropped before any rioters start singing to prosecutors. Think how they might benefit from seeing those cases compromised. And what better way to compromise them than to talk about it on 60 Minutes?

Shortly after the story ran, DOJ announced an investigation into Sherwin’s actions. But if your mind is as dirty as mine, you’re thinking that even this smells of pre-planned chicanery, raising as it does the visibility of the cases.

If Trump taught us anything, it’s the value of media coverage, no matter how perverse or cynical. He also taught us the value of doing these things out in the open. Why skulk in a corner when you can be brazen about it, when you can go on 60 Minutes and openly get a federal judge apoplectic? Sounds Trumpish to me.

So while I won’t be giving Sherwin any benefits of any doubts from here on, I’m also disturbed at 60 Minutes’ behavior.

They surely knew better. This was not gotcha journalism. Sherwin willingly sat down with Scott Pelley and flagrantly violated a well-established policy of his own department. The CBS lawyers surely knew there were ethical, if not legal, concerns. But they green-lighted it anyway — a story featuring a Bill Barr appointee openly violating known DOJ policies — just so they could give viewers a titillating vision of sedition charges against numbskulls. And that’s the most charitable explanation.

Because they knowingly threw a monkey wrench into a slew of ongoing investigations. With potentially massive consequences. Why?

Yes, it made a good story, but it was hardly a ratings bonanza. Could CBS want these investigations compromised? Could it want future juries prejudiced and heinous cases dismissed on a technicality?

As a news organization, CBS has vast protections under the First Amendment, as well they should. But it gives them tremendous license, with almost no oversight. Neither the public nor the government has any credible recourse to prevent a story like this.

Which is where integrity and responsibility are supposed to kick in. If the Proud Boys skate because you can’t find a juror who hasn’t heard of their case, isn’t that — at the very least — a serious violation of journalistic standards? Shouldn’t we expect better from a supposedly trusted news source?

Of course, the damage is already done, and CBS will never have to explain its actions, apologize for them, or in any way be held accountable.

Meanwhile, nobody who saw that interview can now un-see it. Including potential jurors.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...
11 comments
Read more

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...
1 comment
Read more

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...
Post a Comment
Read more