Yes, I do spend my days in the office reading articles…

… and working myself into a state of moral outrage.

I know this time would be better spent answering the BPAL emails, but it’s a literal impossibility while I’m incarcerated in the theatre.

Is it just coincidence that offices were bugged and files seized, totally without charges, in two electorally important states?

It was only a few months ago that John Ashcroft was touring the country in defense of the Patriot Act, with many on the left and right openly criticizing him for treating it more like a new Brittany Spears album than a package of new government powers with the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

In two states, however, the increasing zealousness of some GOP-connected federal prosecutors—especially when it comes to opening investigations into prominent political officials of the opposing party—are leading many Democrats to fume that partisan political retribution through subpoena has become another weapon in the GOP attack arsenal.

In Pennsylvania and Georgia, Democrats are crying foul about “politically motivated investigations” and the questionable methods employed to conduct these investigations by two U.S. attorneys with strong Republican credentials. GOP officials from the local level to Washington, D.C. are saying this is hogwash invented by Democrats to try and smear their attackers. But on closer analysis, when one considers the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, a disturbing pattern does seem to emerge in these cases.

In both Pennsylvania and Georgia, private computers and personal records have been confiscated from Democratic elected officials before charges have been issued. In two of the cases, the timing has been suspiciously close to important elections with national implications. And the refusal of FBI officials to publicly comment on the nature of these investigations has only fueled the fire of those who claim that political character assassination is the only motive.

In Philadelphia, during a routine sweep of Mayor John Street’s office by the police, a listening device with numerous mini-microphones was found. The FBI, other than saying it was “not related to the contest for mayor,” refused to comment publicly on why they had planted this bug. The bureau subsequently confiscated Mayor Street’s Blackberry computer and have shown up at the offices of close associates, including a major fundraiser, to haul away personal materials.

Mayor Street’s campaign, contacted before their election victory on Nov. 5th, wasted no time in questioning the motives behind this probe. “We are openly speculating and questioning the timing of this discovery with the backdrop of the next presidential election,” campaign spokesman Frank Keel said, “and quite frankly wondering aloud could the Republican Party of George Bush, John Ashcroft, etc., have engineered an incident like this that would cast some doubt and questions on the current Democratic mayor at a critical time in the election.”

While Keel offered no proof to back up this charge, questions were raised by Street’s team because the U.S. attorney conducting this investigation, Patrick L. Meehan, managed Senate campaigns for Republican stalwarts Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, in 1992 and 1994, respectively, and owes his position to their influence. Keel stated emphatically that, “Patrick Meehan has a reputation as the most partisan prosecutor in the country.”

U.S. Attorney Meehan did not return calls to his office for comment.

Another political consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity, felt the same. In his view, “This prosecutor [Meehan] is the ultimate uber-Republican. He managed the Specter and Santorum races, and wants to help win this state for Bush.”

Katz’s campaign, however, flatly denied any political motive behind this investigation. Katz spokesperson, Nathan Raab, claimed that, “John Street’s cronies have tried to deflect attention away from his dismal record and make this an issue of black and white.”

The Bush political operation, for its part, has made it obvious that Pennsylvania is the electoral prize they lost in 2000 is where they would most like to turn things around. The executive director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, Clay F. Richards, made the point in a recent polling memo writing, “The president knows Pennsylvania is important. It seems like he’s come to Pennsylvania more times this year than he has gone home to Texas.”

Having already lost the governor’s seat to former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell in 2002, an upset win in Philadelphia, by far the largest population center in the state, would certainly be a useful second prize.

This may be why Rendell’s office also weighed in on the brewing controversy during the final weeks of the election, with his Press Secretary Kate Philips stating that, “it is important for the federal authorities to state publicly whether or not their investigation involves Mayor Street. He is in a hotly contested race right now, and the results could be swayed due to ambiguity.” This clarification of the investigation’s intended target, however, with the exception of a murky statement by the attorney’s office saying that Mayor Street was not the “subject” of the investigation (which lawyers explained could still mean that Street was being investigated), never occurred.

Meanwhile, many Democrats think the political nature of this investigation becomes even clearer when one examines the many similarities between the Philadelphia case and what has transpired in Georgia over the past year.

Savannah-based U.S. attorney Richard Thompson, who has investigated numerous high-profile Democrats, has some very strong attachments to the local GOP. He has run twice as a GOP candidate for the State House, was a former campaign manager for Republican Congressman Jack Kingston, donated $12,000 to various Republican office seekers since 1997, and received his appointment due to the influence of Congressman Kingston.

In the fall of 2002, less than a year into his tenure, and in the height of a political season, Thompson requested records to look into a closed state investigation into then-Gov. Roy Barnes and state Sen. Van Streat, both Democrats. Thompson’s investigations were later dropped due to a lack of sufficient evidence, but this did not satisfy Democrats, who pointed out that this was a blatant conflict of interest, as Thompson had given campaign contributions to both Van Streat and Barnes’ opponents, Tommie Williams and Sonny Perdue.

Perdue also used this investigation as the basis for a direct mail attack piece against Barnes, leading the Georgia Democratic Party to put out a release stating that, “the sole purpose of this ‘investigation’ appears to have been to get headlines for the Perdue Campaign.”

Thompson has also been conducting a high profile investigation of State House Speaker Terry Coleman. Thompson pursued Speaker Coleman for “inaccurate disclosure reports.” But when confronted with a similar kind of campaign finance violation involving whether state Sen. Bill Stephens, a Republican, repaid himself too much money from his campaign fund for personal loans, no similar inquiry has been forthcoming. Stephens was also the recipient of a financial contribution from U.S. attorney Thompson.

Calls to Barnes and Coleman seeking comment were not returned. In the past, however, both Coleman and Van Streat’s lawyers were not shy about calling these inquiries political in nature. Coleman’s Attorney, Jim Wiggins, made no bones about what he saw as a partisan investigation, saying, “in my opinion there is a political thing going on here. There is a political motive clearly.” Van Streat’s attorney filed a complaint with the Justice Department accusing Thompson of “unprofessional behavior.”

Attorney Thompson, for his part, says that “each and every investigation is handled by professional career law enforcement officers. Partisanship plays no part in our decision making process.”

Former state Sen. Charles Walker, however, might question this assertion. Walker, who lost his seat in 2002 by 85 votes, intends to run again in 2004, but has found this effort complicated by a Thompson-led investigation into his business.

The U.S. attorney raided Walker’s newspaper, the Augusta Focus, confiscating privileged records, such as sources, without publicly charging Walker with a crime. Thompson has also subpoenaed over 300 of Walker’s advertisers, business associates and clients and has shown up at his children’s places of business demanding private documents.

State Sen. Walker offered a damning assessment of this investigation as an affront to our basic liberties in this country: “In America we don’t use the criminal justice system to prosecute political objectives.”

Walker points to statements made by his former Republican colleagues as further proof that these investigations are politically motivated. Current Georgia Senate President Pro Tem, Eric Johnson, proclaimed, while holding up a newspaper and smirking, that the GOP would “let the media investigate the backgrounds” of prominent state Democrats, and “we’ll prosecute them.” Meanwhile, Republican State Senator Don Cheeks (a party-switcher after 2002), framed the whole prosecution politically, saying, “If he’s [Walker] not indicted and doesn’t serve time after all of this, he will be the king.”

One Republican operative I spoke with off the record who has worked for numerous elected officials in Georgia offered me his opinion that Coleman and Van Streat’s lawyers and state Sen. Walker make some valid points. He told me that Thompson has “known partisan interests,” and that it is the “worst kept secret in town that he wants to run for attorney general as a Republican.”

In light of the leak of a CIA agent’s name as a political tactic by the White House, the bullying and redistricting mid-session in Texas and other very similar stories of politically motivated, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the question many Democrats are asking themselves is what they will do in the face of what seems like an all-out assault intended to turn our country into a one-party state.

– – –

by Cliff Schecter, political columnist for United Press International