The Continuing Double Standard For Democrats

Within hours of the New Yorker article outlining pretty horrific physical abuse and verbal and physical threats by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman against four women with whom he had relationships, Schneiderman resigned, putting out a statement saying, "In the last several hours, serious allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me. While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office's work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018."

Besides wondering about what it is about the state of New York that breeds such sexual creeps like Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneiderman, and, of course, Donald Trump, one might also dwell on the apparent double standard that exists between the two parties in regard to sexual allegations like this. Senator Al Franken ended up resigning after multiple credible sexual harassment allegations surfaced. And now Schneiderman has resigned within hours of this report. Democrats have shown themselves willing to hold their office-holders accountable in the this new era of #MeToo.

Contrast that, of course, with the Republican party where Eric Greitens still remains governor in Missouri after apparently binding and blindfolding a woman he was having an affair with, taking her picture, and then threatening to blackmail the woman with that picture. And, of course, there is the multiply-accused, self-admitted sexual assaulter, who pays off porn stars he has affairs with and may have used a cutout to pay for another woman's abortion and silence, who still remains our President without any serious objection from the Republican party.

Of course, this is a double standard that Democrats should be proud of as they are showing themselves as the only party willing to hold anyone accountable, even members of their own party. There are no important Democratic or liberal voice out there today who are defending Scheiderman or attempting to make feeble excuses for his behavior or why he should remain in office.

But I'd like to highlight another, probably more important current double standard that we are seeing play out once again as we head into the upcoming 2018 election. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mueller's investigation may have to "go dark" sometime this summer in order to comply with the DOJ's guidelines regarding interference in the electoral process. A 2012 memo from then Attorney General Eric Holder detailed those DOJ policies, warning "prosecutors to never time investigative steps or criminal charges 'for the purpose of affecting any election' or to give 'an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.'"

We all know how that worked for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, especially considering that the ongoing Russian investigation was kept under wraps. However, I think it can be reasonably argued that "going dark" will actually be giving an advantage to the Republican party in the upcoming fall election, perhaps even more so than how forging ahead with his investigation would help Democrats. Donald Trump is not on the ballot in the upcoming midterm elections and the American people already know the broad outlines of the investigation into possible Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. It is hard to imagine anything beyond absolutely slam dunk evidence of Trump's guilt that would change the impressions that the American people already have of the probe.

On the other hand, there is already ample evidence that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. Trump continually refuses to criticize Vladimir Putin and his administration has so far taken very few steps to prevent similar interference from occurring in this year's election. In fact, if you believe the bombshell dropped by Michael Avenatti tonight that a Putin-linked Russian oligarch funneled $500,000 to Cohen in the first few months of the Trump presidency, there is ample evidence that the Russians have been partially funding not only Trump himself but the Republican National Committee.

That raises the real possibility that not vigorously pursuing the Russian investigation could increase the chances for Russian interference on behalf of the Republicans, providing the very advantage the DOJ rules seek to avoid. The Mueller investigation involves much more that just your typical investigation of a federal official for criminal behavior in things like bribery or standard corruption. It involves an attack on our very electoral processes and refusing to pursue that in order to avoid the appearance of being partisan merely invites more partisan political interference. To take an analogy to its extreme conclusion, it would be like suspending a credible case of vote-buying by a politician before an election because you wanted to make sure you wanted to ensure a fair election. It simply makes no sense.

The Mueller investigation has been virtually leak-free. Virtually everything we know about his investigation has come from leaks from various witnesses or targets as well as Mueller's own legal filings. There is no reason to think that Mueller will not be able to continue in the same manner during this election season.

I would also note that there is a precedent for not "going dark" during the election season. Lawrence Walsh, the Iran-Contra prosecutor, indicted Casper Weinberger for making false statements to Congress when he said that he did not keep regular notes about his work at the Pentagon. Weinberger had earlier been indicted on four counts of perjury but the new indictment produced evidence that showed then-President Bush had been lying when he said he never knew that the weapons sales to Iran were part of an arms-for-hostages policy.

Many conservatives actually cited that case in the fall of 2016 when they were defending the last minute intervention by James Comey re-opening the Clinton email investigation. But, unlike the Comey intervention, which provided no concrete new information, only the possibility there might be some, Walsh's indictment merely added documentary evidence to what the public already knew about the Iran-Contra scandal. More importantly, unlike the Walsh investigation, the Mueller investigation involves the subversion of our electoral processes. Fairness actually dictates that the investigation continues to its inevitable conclusion even during the campaign.