Menendez story: Is there a there there?

Can we all calm down on the “Menendez to face federal charges” story? It’s not that I would be sad if Sen. Bob Menendez were indicted. On the contrary. It is just that the sourcing on the reports leaves a lot to be desired.

Here is how CNN, who was first to report the story, put it:

People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors’ request to proceed with charges, CNN has learned exclusively. An announcement could come within weeks.

What exactly does this mean? Who are these “people briefed” and what exactly is the motivation for talking to CNN?

The rest of the press world has run with the story. The New York Times, for instance, followed up the CNN report with this:

The Justice Department expects to file corruption charges against Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, a law enforcement official said Friday, culminating an investigation that has dogged the senator for two years.

The Washington Post offered this:

The Department of Justice is planning to bring criminal corruption charges against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a U.S. official confirmed Friday, casting renewed attention on the question of whether the senator used his powers to improperly benefit a close ally and political donor.

And NJ.com offered this:

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez will face federal criminal corruption charges stemming from his actions on behalf of Dr. Salomon Melgen, CNN reported today, citing people briefed on the case.

An announcement could come within weeks, the news organization said.

Others — The Huffington Post (via Reuters), Politico,etc. — are offering variations of the same thing: “sources familiar with the inquiry.”

The news has caused a lot of people on both sides of the aisle to become giddy with anticipation.

I’m not looking to exonerate the senator, who learned the art of politics in rough-and-tumble Hudson County and who has been trailed by accusations of questionable activity for much of his time in the Senate. I think Tom Moran — who I have been critical of in the past — has this one right: You can’t ignore the history. If true, Moran says, the pressure will be on for Menendez to resign.

But we don’t know if it’s true and we won’t for a few weeks, if then. And that’s my point. W’eve been down this road before — with Menendez, with Christie, with Andrew Cuomo, with dozens of politicians. Until the indictment is announced, nothing is written in stone.

In the end, I think it boils down to the question I asked on Twitter earlier today:

CNN seems to think so. Is that good enough? We’ll just have to wait to find out.

Send me an e-mail.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

The wrong Homeland Security argument

Interesting piece at the Boston Review website that raises a basic question: Are we having the wrong argument about the Department of Homeland Security? As Tom Barry makes clear, the answer is yes.

The DHS is the “third largest federal department is hugely wasteful, unaccountable, unmanageable, and emblematic of governmental mission creep,” he writes. And yet,

President Obama has kept increasing the budget and expanding the reach of DHS—his most recent initiative is to increase the department’s role in cybersecurity through $6 billion in contracts with major military and intelligence contractors including Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton.

The logic of this is questionable at best, he says, given that there is a “disjuncture between the department’s core mission and its actual operations,” demonstrated by the current debate, which “has largely ignored the DHS counterterrorism mission” and has “revolved around the traditional divides over immigration policy.”

“This is unfortunate,” says Barry, because it has shifted focus away from the proper question, which is whether a Department of Homeland Security, in its current form, even makes sense

Send me an e-mail.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.