http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37939.html
Bill Clinton’s picture is again a fixture on cable news.
Republicans are sternly demanding a special prosecutor.
And legal commentators are bickering over the finer points of federal criminal statutes on bribery and graft.
It feels like 1997 — but it’s 2010. And Barack Obama can’t be happy.
The White House’s confirmation Friday that it enlisted former President Bill Clinton in an effort to get Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary has sent the regular players in Washington’s scandal industry to their battle stations — to pick over the very sort of insider special dealing that Obama had promised to make a thing of the past.
“That’s not the image he wants to project right now with all the things that are going on,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written at length on the Clinton-era scandals.
The thing that makes this guaranteed to dominate the political scene is that there is enough to justify an investigation but not enough, yet, to prove any criminal act. (Of course, gathering such proof IS the reason to HAVE an investigation.) The thing that makes this guaranteed to produce little is that the Obama-controlled DOJ will have to appoint any special investigator, and you KNOW Obama won't let that happen.
Which is sort of why the independent counsel law was passed in the first place, wasn't it? To allow for criminal investigations in cases involving people who could block "normal" investigations?
There is sufficient evidence to investigate what happened, whether or not the final conclusion is for or against criminal charges. That such an investigation will not happen should be a crime in and of itself. For if the system of justice is prevented from working at the highest levels of our government, it loses legitimacy at ALL levels of our government.

0 comments:
Post a Comment