Dr. Donald Shields was interviewed by ePluribus Media regarding the DOJ political profiling study.
ePMedia: Many of your critics say your sample is seriously flawed. Is that possible?
DS: I think it is important to note that there is no claim by the DOJor the critics that the study's presented cases are significantly wrong; nor any
DOJ or critics attempt to offer the real numbers (if they are different from ours). Indeed, the DOJ claims both that they do not keep such statistics andthat they've investigated lots of Republicans.
ePMedia: Are we to accept the DOJ's explanation?
DS: The DOJ asserts the presumption of not being political. We used to believe that. Now, however, we offer evidence that they are very much political (only in 1 in 10,000 replications could those disproportions have occurred by chance), and in so doing, we overcome the presumption of innocence on the part of the DOJ. They must now offer evidence if they hope to carry the burden of rebuttal.
In March, former US Attorney, Tom Heffelfinger told MPR he didn't feel any political pressure in his role. This week, he told Cathy Wurzer that he's frustrated because he's finding out that he may have been on a list to be fired. How is he finding out? Leaks to the press -- which is/was the apparent MO with the political profiling cases.
A recent Strib article points out that there may have been a list of 12 US Attorneys and that was paired down to 8. What happened to the four (possbily including Hefflefinger)?
The four who escaped dismissal came from states considered political battlegrounds in the last presidential election: Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.