My how times have changed

A recent story has an unspoken sidebar that shows how the political fortunes of the once-soaring Shrub gang have come crashing back to Earth.

It's one you're surely aware of: the "damning" report by DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine that FBI agents

sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data.

In short, FBI agents repeatedly broke the law, illegally obtained personal information, and failed to keep Congress informed as required. Okay, that probably didn't surprise you. But the follow-up might have:

First, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller "apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions." They said such behavior would "not be tolerated" and is "unacceptable." And the next day, the Shrub-in-Chief himself "pledged to put an end" to the abuses.

And how long ago would it have been when this kind of thing would have been shrugged off? "Hey, we're fighting a War on Terror^{(c)(reg.)(pat.pend.)} here! Why are you taking the terrorists' side?" How long ago would it have been greeted with a few grumbles from the usual quarters like the ACLU, while such as Rep. Pete Hoekstra, senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, who said the audit shows "a major failure by Justice to uphold the law," maintained a discrete silence?

How long ago would it have seemed absurd to think of the New York Times editorially calling for Gonzales to be fired - and then being echoed by Sen. Chuck Schumer calling for his resignation? How long ago would it have been laughable for Josh Marshall to wonder who will be the first GOPper to say Mouthpiece Al should go?

Times have indeed changed. Maybe not a lot, but they have changed. Okay, yeah, the hope meter - possibly the irrational hope meter - is up couple of notches. Sue me.

Footnote Number Ein: Getting back to the report, despite the fact that the report concluded that

"[w]e believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities,"

Fine still provided the usual cover in placing most of the blame on "shoddy record-keeping and human error." However, the report also said that an amazing, not to say disturbing,

22% of the cases it investigated contained one or more possible unreported or unidentified violations,

which seems to me to be a hell of a lot of "human error." For a comparison, what do you think the wingers would be saying if some survey found a 22% error rate in some program to provide aid to the poor? Despite that, the auditors

were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.

But just how was "criminal misconduct" defined here? How strictly (or broadly) was "lack of criminal intent" defined? What about an agent who kept themselves ignorant of the law's limitations? What about one who just didn't care, who had no intent to break the law but just didn't think about it one way or the other? What about an agent who knowingly broke the law but insists it was done because otherwise the "bad guys get away?" Would any of those constitute criminal misconduct in the auditors' collective mind?

Consider that the agency used so-called "exigent letters" which were only to be used in emergency situations and have little, if any justification in law.

In at least 700 cases, these letters were sent to three telephone companies to get billing records and subscriber information, the audit found.

Those letters claimed they were issued in connection with a subpoena request already submitted to the US Attorney, which would "process and serve them formally." But that, apparently, was a lie: In its survey, the auditors could not confirm

one instance in which a subpoena had been submitted to any United States Attorney’s Office before the exigent letter was sent to the telephone companies.

It's pretty damn hard to maintain there was nothing "intentional" here in light of information like that.

So yeah, some things have changed. Others have not.

If you want to read it, the unclassified Inspector General's report can be found at this link in .pdf format.

Footnote Number Zwei: Something else that hasn't changed is the "Me but Not Me" gambit.

"But the question should and must be asked: How could this happen? Who is accountable?" Mueller said. "And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable."

Mueller said he had not been asked to resign, nor had he discussed doing so with other officials. He said employees would probably face disciplinary actions, not criminal charges, following an internal investigation of how the violations occurred.

So just like all the officials before him who bravely have taken the "responsibility" (but never the "blame"), he bravely says he is "accountable." But nothing is going to happen to him and it is others who will be punished. Such is "accountability" among the powerful.