Ring fencing
by digby
Dday has an important new post explaining that while there is still ample reason to be skeptical of the new financial fraud task force, there is a possibility that New York AG Eric Schneiderman may not have blindly walked into a trap or sold out --- apparently, there is room in the agreement for him to push the investigation in a positive direction. And according to dday's sources, Schneidermann has promised to ostentatiously walk out if it turns out that the administration is trying to "ring-fence" him. (Read his whole post for the full run down of how this could play out.)
Schneidermann has generally been known to be a rare savvy, but principled, politician so it's at least possible that he will be able to navigate these waters successfully. It's an election year, this is a volatile issue in some very important states, and Schneiderman signaling that he will be happy to walk away if that's what it takes is a very big threat.
Look, it is hard for me to believe this notion that Schneiderman, after everything, was angling for big wet kiss from the administration. None of that tracks with dday's reporting which says that the deal wasn't coming together at all as recently as last week-end and once Iowa AG Tom Miller publicly pulled the deal it was all over for the moment. The politics suggest to me that while the administration may indeed be trying to "ring-fence" Schneidermann, the real purpose is the glaringly obvious: to cover for their failure to settle this. (Isn't the truism in DC that when you can't get something done, form a commission?)The power in that scenario lies exactly where it did before the task force was announced --- with the state AGs, who as far as I can tell are more empowered not less. (See Kamala Harris'statement below.) I'm willing to suspend judgment for a while to see if that means Schneidermann is actually a corrupt chameleon who's taken progressives for a wild ride through his entire career in order to sell himself to the highest bidder or whether he believes he can affect this from his perch on the task force.
I don't see this as a sky is falling sort of thing just yet. There are very good reasons to be skeptical and you'd have to be a fool to buy into the premise at face value. But there are worse things than temporarily tabling a bad deal. And there actually are politicians in the world whose self-serving ambitions are dependent upon being perceived as crusaders rather than players. Everything I know of Schneiderman suggests that the former is the path he's chosen.
I guess, for me, it comes down to this: I don't think the administration is nearly as slick as people think and I don't believe that in an election year like this one they will go out of their way to make enemies of their political allies. Everything suggests that they are trying to make at least a rhetorical pivot to a populist(ish) campaign to face the out-of-touch fop*, Mitt Romney. It is what it appears to be: plastering lipstick on this pig of a negotiation and pretending they have a path to a cheap settlement in order to keep both the banks and the people on the hook through the election. They are not working with a strong hand.
And because of that, what dday says here is very true:
I...can see some path where this task force is not harmful and, in an absolute best case, helpful in bringing accountability and justice. The key for Schneiderman is to maintain his independence. A lot of people walk into Washington thinking they can outsmart people and work on their own terms. It doesn’t always work out. The grassroots will be a powerful spur in this. They need to not spike the ball in the end zone and continue to do what they have been doing, forcing the White House into uncomfortable positions and blowing up an insufficient settlement.
I suppose people may differ on how to do help Schneiderman maintain his independence. My feeling is that he should be given the benefit of the doubt at this point. Some people believe that the only thing that ever motivates human beings is pain, delivered constantly and without mercy, so maybe he's better "spurred" by being called a whore and a sell-out and abandoned by his progressive allies. We all have to follow our own instincts on that.
But regardless of where you fall on that point, dday's admonition to keep pushing is absolutely correct. Even if activists eventually vote for the president, they can cause huge headaches for the campaign in an election year, particularly in individual states. This is when they have maximum leverage and they should use it.
*h/t to greg sargent
.