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

A Few F-Bombs, Which Seem Appropriate to the Current Situation

   As I’m not writing this week, I’m re-running my most profane piece, an exploration of FAFO, a term that has grown ever more pointed as time goes by. The piece goes back to February 2025, before the tariffs, before the Epstein scandal went nuclear, before the Iran War. Back then, things were looking quite bad indeed, especially for large parts of the MAGA base. And while, as the title says, these F-bombs were entirely appropriate then, they’ve only grown more so since.   I try not to write the word ‘fuck’ too often. This is not from any prudishness or discomfort — I use it regularly in everyday speech — but seeing it in writing quickly gets old and tired. I do use it occasionally for effect, but the effect is usually minimal. In this post, however, I can’t get around it. This one is about the ironic, unintended meanings of the redneck t-shirt slogan “Fuck Around and Find Out.” A masterpiece of trashy thought, trashily expressed, I can’t talk about...
Post a Comment
Read more

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes — And Your Nose, Throat, and Lungs, As Well

   Here in Michigan, we are a bit smug when it comes to climate change. We think of ourselves as unusually well positioned for the increasingly dire future we can see for the planet. Geography favors us. Hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires feel reassuringly remote. True, ice storms and other severe weather events are more frequent than they used to be, but compared to other parts of the country the climate here is relatively benign. Our confidence stems, first, from our northern location, where global warming has made our cold winters generally more comfortable than they once were, and where the summers only occasionally get higher than the mid-80s. But the real source of our confidence, or smugness if you like, comes from the four Great Lakes that surround us. We have, as a state, access to a full one-fifth of the world’s fresh water. In that sense, there’s no place like it in the world. And make no mistake, water is already a crisis in many parts of th...
1 comment
Read more

Move to the Center, My Ass

   This piece isn’t that old, but it bears repeating. It was written in the immediate aftermath of last year’s off-year elections, when Democrats made an unusually strong showing, which according to the legacy media was a sign of weakness. Now, as we enter the silly season leading up to November, that same media can be counted on to make the midterms seem like a contest between two legitimate entities. Already the stories feature Democrats hopelessly, and haplessly, locked in ideological struggles that threaten their ability to walk and chew gum, mostly because the Trumpian apocalypse story is getting old. If it seems like we’ve heard all this too many times before, I’m with you. And as you’ll see, I’ve even written about it.   In the run-up to last Tuesday’s election, it was hard to avoid the overpaid pundits repeating the oldest and laziest clichés in the pundit handbook: “Democrats need to move to the center.” “Democrats are out of touch with voters....
Post a Comment
Read more