It seems an opinion-consensus is forming rather quickly around an Independent Counsel

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-20-09 01:07 PM
Original message

It seems an opinion-consensus is forming rather quickly around an Independent Counsel

Edited on Mon Apr-20-09 01:35 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter

It has the benefits of being:

1) the proper move in our system of law (The DoJ cannot credibly investigate the DoJ and any torture investigation will involve the DoJ. Though the cast has changed it's still the DoJ.)

2) the right political move (Insulating the administration from any subsequent decision-making role, maximizing public trust in the process and minimizing the efficacy of wing-nut reaction.)

3) the move likeliest to bag any big fish (The administration would be less inclined to prosecute anyone big if they have to "own" the prosecution. An IC, on the other hand, has a built in bias in favor of prosecution because investigations that don't result in trials are perceived--improperly, but perceived nonetheless--as ineffective or a waste of time and money.)

NEWSWEEK says Holder is actively considering it. Others are probably against it. Obama is, presumably, in the middle.

It is "the thing." So everyone in the left-o-sphere is on the right track and roughly the same page. (Don't say "special prosecutor" though. That title doesn't exist anymore and it gives the other side a free stylistic non-substantive mode of dismissal. The ACLU went with 'independent prosecutor' which is a descriptive, rather than legal, term.)

I hope that, for the time being, all pressure from Op-Ed writers and such will be focused quite specifically on the independent counsel issue.

And I hope Congress keeps low-key for the time being. As long as a "truth commission" idea is out there it is liable to be seized upon as an alternative to straight-up rule of law action. It is vital that some Congressional investigation not gain currency as the "centrist" middle-path.

The objective is to get to the point where David Broder sees an IC as the vanilla option. David Broder is our national arbiter of vanilla-ism. (One could argue that if the left called for executions without trials that would make an IC seem more centrist but that level of over-thinking seldom works out in practice. Too many moving parts!)

And anything congressional is the worst way to keep an issue non-partisan. The pugs might actually WANT an ongoing grand-standing opportunity to sharpen their "Dems are commie rats" message, which is about all they have left. (Endless public testimony from wing-nut former intel people about how Obama is making us un-safe. Endless public testimony about how torture saved lives. etc.. Never underestimate the fluidity of Congressional show-trials. I made that mistake with Iran-Contra. It never crossed my mind Ollie North would come out of it a folk hero, but he was good on TV which is paramount in TV tribunals.)

If Congress wants to do something later, cool. But for the time being I hope all pressure (continues to) concentrate on the independent prosecutor option.