Even more interesting revelations from AG Gonzales that bring up even more interesting questions. Frank Rich also brings up some oddities about the timeline at the start of the investigation. Atrios reports:
I’m glad Frank Rich reminded the world of the absolutely unjustifiable delay the White House was granted allowing them to hold off on officially being required to maintain documents. It’s one tidbit of this case that I’d forgotten. NPR reported at the time:
- The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?
It’s another part of this scandal which should’ve raised more than a few eyebrows among the beltway kool kids, but they weren’t too concerned about it at the time.
APJ lets us know that we’ve learned something new - that Gonzales told Andy Card that night.
While we’re walking down memory lane, we must also remember that the documents were also vetted by Gonzales before they even got to the Justice Department.
All of this is building up a circumstantial case against the White House, at least as far as a cover up is concerned.
On a personal note, I’m reluctant to get to “rah-rah” about this case. It’s serious, I think, and the accusations are just as serious. If a White House staffer leaked a name of a CIA employee in an act of petty revenge, well, that goes to the heart of our government, doesn’t it? We’ve built a system (or believe we have, at least) that strives to keep personal favor out of government. Do your job to according to the law and to the best of your ability and our system succeeds, that’s the idea, right?
Cynicism mutes my default idealism, though. First, these people are senior enough that the law works weirdly. It’s like the laws of physics as you approach the speed of light… things get a little odd, and maybe you can outrun the law. So, even if there is something here, the chances of us knowing before 20 years go by is small. Second, the political aspect of this story makes me uncomfortable. I remember the Clinton years and I remember being deeply frustrated and annoyed that a partisan witch hunt got a President impeached. That millions of dollars were spent investigating a real estate deal that turned up nothing. That rather than shut down the investigation when it didn’t turn up anything, the special prosecutor decided to investigate a blowjob.
I also remember that it all seemed at least plausible at the time, especially to those inclined to distrust the President.
Well, I distrust Karl Rove and I distrust the White House. I don’t want to be sucked into an investigation that might be built up on the same false pretenses as the Clinton scandal. So, I’m being cautious and watching the news with interest.
It does seem that this investigation has proceeded with less partisan furor moving it along. The Democrats are surely fanning the flames, but they’re not pushing very hard. Also, the investigation seems a lot more focused and, quite frankly, a lot less like a witch hunt due to the relative silence from the prosecutor. Ken Starr’s investigation was a constant leak factory, as much a made-for-TV event as a real investigation. Fitzgerald’s investigation has been relatively quiet by any standard. So, I hold out some hope of it being clean.
So, I’m waiting and seeing. And hoping that does make a difference in 2006. 
Leave a Reply