For months, this page has charted the unprecedented ideological antics of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. Our ongoing “Bailey Tally“ has tracked his crass politicization of his authority, his refusal to carry out his actual duties while inserting himself into issues where he has no standing, and his shameless, bottomless zeal to misuse his office for political purposes.
But don’t take our word for it. Read for yourself the judgment of U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta in issuing a preliminary injunction halting a ludicrous investigation that Bailey launched last year against Media Matters, the national media watchdog organization.
People are also reading…
“The court does not discard lightly the presumption of regularity generally afforded to prosecutorial decision-making,†the Washington, D.C.-based judge wrote in an opinion released last week.
But, after quoting case law holding that “‘the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends,’†Mehta concludes: “That apparently is what has occurred here.â€
Our only quibble would be with the word “apparently.â€
The issue began last November with a rant by Elon Musk on X (formerly Twitter), the social media platform he owns. The mega-billionaire was furious at Media Matters for exposing how antisemitic propaganda is sometimes displayed next to major advertisers on X.
Former presidential adviser Stephen Miller (best known for creating Donald Trump’s damnable policy of separating migrant children and babies from their families at the southern border) chimed in with: “Fraud is both a civil and criminal violation,†and noted: “There are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys General.â€
With the issue thus presented in blatantly ideological partisan terms, Bailey answered that his office was investigating the matter. To which the world’s richest individual responded: “Great!â€
What followed was a typically surreal Bailey legal contortion in which he tried to build a case that the reporting by Media Matters — which was both factually accurate and utterly irrelevant to any legal issue regarding the state of Missouri or its residents — constituted fraud worthy of official action by his office.
Media Matters sued, alleging that Bailey was engaging in retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Judge Mehta last week agreed, granting the organization’s motion for preliminary injunction to shut down Bailey’s probe.
²Ñ±ð³ó³Ù²¹â€™s delivers a devastating judgment about Bailey’s misuse of his authority for political purposes.
“First, (Bailey’s) public statements are direct evidence of retaliatory intent,†wrote Mehta. He noted Miller’s plainly partisan framing of a potential lawsuit against Media Matters (“There are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys Generalâ€).
“Only hours later,†Mehta wrote, “Defendant Bailey took up Miller’s call, responding ‘[m]y team is looking into this matter,’ …
“From that point forward,†Mehta continued, “Defendant consistently characterized Media Matters in ideological terms,†referring to the organization as “radicals†and “progressive tyrants.â€
In early June, “Defendant Bailey said out loud the true purpose of his investigation†during an online interview with Donald Trump Jr., wrote Mehta. “Revealingly, Defendant Bailey expressly tied the investigation to the upcoming election … (saying) ‘This investigation is really critical … especially as we move into an election cycle in 2024.’â€
As Mehta noted in his opinion, Bailey continued parading his brazenly political intent days later on a podcast, alleging that Media Matters is a “radical progressive advocacy group†that seeks “to silence conservative voices.â€
“Although tough talk is not foreign to the law enforcement arena, such overt political messaging is atypical,†wrote Mehta. This and other evidence, he wrote, constitute “proof that retaliation for protected expression was likely (Bailey’s) true motive for investigating Media Matters.â€
²Ñ±ð³ó³Ù²¹â€™s ruling is the latest in a series of legal defeats for Missouri’s official lawyer — a record that spotlights not only his misuse of authority but also his basic legal competence.
The Missouri Supreme Court last year stopped Bailey’s attempt to sabotage Missouri’s pending abortion-rights referendum by claiming powers he doesn’t have. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked his effort to delay the sentencing of Donald Trump in his hush-money criminal conviction in New York.
In that case, as with the Media Matters probe, Bailey used his tax-funded office to try and wriggle his way into a national culture-war controversy that had no logical reason for involvement by a Missouri official. Did he miss class the day his law school covered the topic of legal standing?
Judge ²Ñ±ð³ó³Ù²¹â€™s ruling last week notes that, in addition to Bailey’s obvious political intent in violating the free-speech rights of Media Matters, the whole topic had “no apparent connection to Missouri.â€
As we’ve argued many times, this kind of abuse of the legal system is standard operating procedure for Bailey. But having it called out in a written court opinion deserves special attention from Missouri voters who will decide in November whether to keep him in office.