You’ve doubtless read that the AP reported that New Mexico governor, noted baseball fabulist, and failed Commerce Secretary nominee Bill Richardson’s pending indictment on corruption charges was was “killed in Washington” by the DOJ. And that that’s, uh, unusual.

Now comes this:

[U.S. Attorney] Gregory Fouratt… [sent a] letter… to notify Richardson and his political donor, a company called CDR, that the “United States will not seek to bring charges.” But the letter goes on to say that CDR and its officers “made substantial contributions to Governor Richardson’s political organization during the time that the company sought financial work” with the state government and “pressure from the governor’s office resulted in the corruption of the procurement process so that CDR would be awarded such work.” The notification letter “is not to be interpreted as an exoneration of any party’s conduct.”

Former DOJ hand Hans von Spakowsky continues:

This is a very unusual letter… [I]f you take a more cynical and jaundiced view, especially given the apparent political nature of many decisions in the Holder DOJ, the content of this letter supposedly clearing Richardson provides evidence that the AP story was correct and it was not the decision of the U.S. Attorney to dismiss this case.

Which means that the DOJ’s normal MO under the its Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses procedures was not followed. (See Spakowsky here.)

The Œc. Vol. knows a little about New Mexico politics, and like that of many remote states—compounded by one-party rule (there have been only two Republican governors since 1971, though Gary Johnson was reëlected twice)—there’s a long and sordid history of corruption in the state.*

So had this case been quashed in New Mexico, there would have been shoulders shrugged, disgusted winks made, grumblings about calling in the Federales, but ultimately no one would have been surprised if it’d come to nothing. What is surprising is that those self-same Federales, outfitted with the latest-and-greatest rules for insulating prosecutions from politics, seem to have had their case stopped as quickly as an ambitious, connected junior Chicago d.a. getting a “lay off” call from his chinaman.

The lesson here, kiddos, is not just that you should be more than slighly ticked that federal prosecutors appear to have been muzzled from going after a buddy of the president, not just that you should be contemptuous of media that fail to take interest in what could constitute a major scandal, but that any time politics are involved, decisions aren’t going to be made fairly. Political decisions are made for political reasons. And those who get the breaks are the well-connected and the wealthy who can lobby the politicians who control resources, regulations, and in this case, the officials intended to be independent of political control.

Give the government a car company or the entire health-care industry, and you’ll see the same thing, only it might be your family getting crushed by a semi in your mandated-cardboard Green vehicle and then having insufficient trauma coverage at the local hospital to keep you alive. On the other hand, you’ll go to your grave knowing your emissions were low (less time in Purgatory!) and that you’ve been martyred to the cause of the State (All Praise Its Omniscience).

*Confidential note to Cousin Juris J. Doctor: that S.O.B. knew what was going on with the Coogler murder…

Confucius, Œc. Vol.

Don’t ask impertinent questions like that jackass Adept Lu.