Good catch, Glenn, on Litt's intelligence clients. The bogusness of Litt's (and Broder's and Sunstein's) views notwithstanding, it will be interesting to learn whether Litt does have some professional interest in any potential investigations.

As guilty as I believe Bush to be for long list of "crimes" and shortcomings as president, moving towards achieving more pressing goals like the restoration of the economy and consumer confidence should be prioritized. We are in a near state of emergency at the moment as a country and all of our energy needs to be focused on remedying it.

Evan

http://www.beyondrace.com

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/11/10/15723/324

I'd Treat DC as a Crime Scene

by BooMan
Mon Nov 10th, 2008 at 01:57:23 AM EST

I want to be clear that I do not expect, or even want, Barack Obama to govern as I would govern. However, if I were president-elect, I would be planning quite an operation on inauguration day. As soon as I was sworn in, I would demand that Robert Mueller submit his resignation. Then I would instruct the FBI to lock down FBI Headquarters, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency offices, the executive suites at the CIA, the National Security Agency's offices, the National Intelligence Agency's offices, and management's offices at the Department of Justice. I would tell them to put yellow police tape around all of these buildings and offices, and I would treat each as a crime scene. I'd have them preserve evidence from every safe, every email cache, every hard-drive. And then I would prosecute every violation to the fullest extent of the law.

My number one priority would be exposing the truth about the anthrax attacks, the White House Iraq Group, and the mass firings of U.S. attorneys in the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections. But, I'm a hardass that has no interest in pretending continuity in government is preferable to justice and the rule of law. Obama has a more difficult road. Mueller is appointed to a term that doesn't end until 2010. I think Mueller should be in the docket. The last thing I think is acceptable is to have him continue on as head of the FBI, when I consider it the job of the FBI to investigate and imprison most of Washington's elite Establishment.

But I didn't get elected, and Washington covers its own ass. Don't let it get you too down.

- - BooMan

* * * * *

See also:

http://balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/crimescene.jpg

I think another aspect of this attitude comes from a misreading of the polling done on the impeachment of Clinton. The impeachment came at a huge price to the Republican party.

I agree that this is driving some of the thinking, but what huge price did it really come at? They kept their majority in the Congress, and got a total jerk elected to an 8 year term as president.

The other problem with this thinking is that it is "image is all" thinking, promulgated in spades by our media (the climax was Chris Matthews' book). Only an "image is all"(IIA) philosophy can equate one prosecution to another like that. The Clinton impeachment was an extreme case of "you're guilty, just as soon as I find a crime to use." The charges that would result from an investigation of the Bush administration would be anything but trivial. The IIA philosophy and the "conventional wisdom theory" just flunked out on a massive election in which the "likely voter models" were out the window. Any advisor spouting any version of these should be ignored, good governance and voter eternal vigilance are the new norm.

But our political establishment venerates "centrism" and "bi-partisanship" as the highest religious concepts

Simply not true. Centrism and bipartisanship are only important in our politics when Democrats come to power and they mean that Democrats should govern like Republicans. OTOH when Republicans are in control, ruling from the right, even the far right, and screwing the other side are OK. So in essence we always have government by Republicans and the right.

I do not think any president can be expected to investigate his predecessor. Not that I wouldn't like it to happen, but you do run into a glass houses situation.

That's why we are supposed to have a separation of powers. Congress should be able to investigate all this without worrying about future payback. Congress gets blamed for everything that goes wrong anyway. What do they have to lose? All Obama has to do is cough up the information, to obey subpoenas like a good citizen.

If Obama won't even do that, then we have a serious problem. To be honest, I'm a little worried about Obama. He's got this "I've got to save the world" thing going, and people like that, no matter how well intentioned, tend not to sweat the small stuff, like the fine points of ethics. I think if Obama fails as a president, this will be the reason why.

Kudos to Glenn and the progressive blogosphere for keeping the pressure on Obama and the Democrats. The best arguments are the simplest ones, as is the argument that if laws were broken then those who broke laws need to be punished. And yes to use Obama's own words - the administration should be able to multitask.

Yet deep down inside I have a feeling that Obama and the Democrats do not have the spine for it. They have already demonstrated it time and again during the past two years. I just hope that after we progressives supported them this time they do not let us down.

Hello, Mr. Greenwald:

Ignoring for the moment your second update (which may, in fact, end up to be the most revealing part of your post)...

I think that Mr. Litt wasnt so much "announc[ing] that the rule of law does not apply to our highest political leaders". You (rightly, in my opinion) view these matters in terms of their lawfulness. I dont believe that framework ever occurred to Mr. Litt. I think he (and others such as Mr. Broder) view these matters as 100% political. They believe that these matters should not be investigated because such investigations would not be politically useful to the Democrats.

This perspective may come from the late 90s when the Republicans impeached President Clinton over an act that was, in fact, illegal, but generally fairly irrelevant. The impeachment of Clinton ended up doing little if any good for anyone - Republicans, Democrats, average Americans, etc.

Thus, their viewpoint is that investigations are annoyances to be avoided. However, as you well know, it is a preposterous mistake to equate the truly minor and inconsequential lawbreaking of Pres. Clinton's lying under oath about Monica Lewinsky to the enormously grave lawbreaking that has taken place under our current president. There are real consequences to Pres. Bush's misdeeds that go well beyond any political maneuvering.

I wish more people in the Beltway could understand this.