Republicans have a particular penchant for finding faults in opponents that they are guilty of themselves. And, anyone that's not on their side is an opponent, consistent with their black/white world view which I, for one, would appreciate if they actually adhered to. But, that's another matter.

Another characteristic we've identified in Republican accusations is that, in addition to revealing their own weaknesses or flaws, the charges are typically false. False charges are particularly useful as a distraction since they are almost impossible to refute--i.e. false charges make for a good offense, putting the opponent on the defensive and tying him up in knots. Unless and until, of course, like the fakery of the killdeer, the distraction is exposed.

That's the issue of the moment in a couple of rather novel prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice, which resulted in criminal convictions and terms in prison for a number of politically prominent persons, reputed to have run afoul of the Republican Rove machine. The first target was Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, who was convicted of bribery in 2006. The other is a Mississippi lawyer, Paul Minor, who'd earned the enmity of some major corporations through a number of well-publicized tort actions.

Minor, like Siegelman, was charged and convicted of bribing public officials, although, as one of the judges hearing his appeal noted, there hadn't been a quid pro quo.

Judge Catharina Haynes ...: “All right. But you agree that there has to be some kind of agreement, OK; I’m going to give you money, and you’re going to rule in my favor on X in some way,” Haynes said. “What is your contention of what that agreement was? Because neither of these two cases (used to convict the defendants) that we have been presented were pending in front of those judges at that time as I understand it....And one of them wasn’t even a judge yet.”

“The agreement,” Collery affirmed, “was you will take this money and in some future case you will rule dishonestly for me.”

In other words, Paul Minor was accused and ultimately convicted of making, and a couple of judicial candidates, Walter W. Teel and John H. Whitfield, were accused of accepting, what I would call "anticipatory bribes." Which, when you come right down to it, is what happens all the time when political candidates accept campaign contributions from organizations, such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in the expectation that, once they are elected, they will vote the party line, even if the legislation is contrary to the interests of the people who elected them.

If the Justice Department rendition of events is accurate, then, except for the timing, there does seem to be a valid basis for the charges against Minor--

The jury heard evidence that, in November 1998, Minor guaranteed a $25,000 line of credit for Teel at a Biloxi bank while Teel was a candidate for a judgeship in chancery court of Harrison County. The line of credit purported to be for campaign expenses. After Teel was elected, Minor, in an effort to conceal the fact that he was paying off the loan himself, used cash and an intermediary to disguise the true source of the loan payments. Thereafter, then-Judge Teel was assigned to a civil case in chancery court in which Minor's firm represented a local bank in a bad faith declination of coverage suit against the bank's insurance provider. The case was to be tried without a jury. In 2001, as the case proceeded, Teel made favorable rulings for Minor's client on issues of discovery and summary judgment.

The Don Siegelman case, on the other hand, in which a contribution to a fund to promote a public issue was supposed to have prompted the donor's re-appointment to a board of directors on which he'd previously served, seems really far-fetched--imputing that a person is precluded from donating both his money and his time to serving the community.

Both Minor and Siegelman were actually charged with "honest services mail fraud." Since theft or fraud is usually considered a state crime, it seems reasonable to conclude that the linkage to the postal service was motivated by a desire to make it a federal case, which the Department of Justice could prosecute. But, while the rationale provided in the press release is certainly one I can agree with,

"The American people expect and demand a system of justice that is free of corruption. We will prosecute those who attempt to buy or sell positions of high public trust for their own financial benefit."

the supposed financial benefit, even in the Minor case, is hard to find--much harder, for example, than the benefit Richard Bruce Cheney derived from the no-bid contracts delivered to the Haliburton Corporation, the guarantor of his pension income. Of course, neither Cheney nor our Congressional representatives are part of the "system of justice." But, shouldn't the standards be the same for all public officials?

"Honest services fraud" or "theft of services," are exactly the charges I've been looking for, even if their initial outing on behalf of the citizens of Mississippi and Alabama were inappropriately motivated by a desire to remove some inconvenient players from the political arena. Republicans are useful that way. Driven by intent (some pundits call them idealists), they routinely come up with novel stratagems to achieve what they want. And in this instance, the identification of public corruption with citizens being deprived of the honest services of their elected representatives, in all branches of government, seems indisputable, especially if, as is so often the case, a corporation (an artificial person) registered in a distant state or even a foreign nation, can lay claim, with a well-placed monetary contribution, to a legislator's services and contravene the interests of the citizens who elected him.

Is it too much to hope that the potential of a theft of services charge might actually provide the basis for concluding that monetary contributions to candidates for public office should be restricted to persons (citizens) who are qualified to vote in their election? What a novel idea is that? And how's that for an unintended consequence? Republicans would be hoist on their own petard.