Obama and Investigations

Much of the left blogisphere is abuzz with questions on how the Obama administration will be dealing with the criminal activities of the Bush administration and whether, or not, there will be investigations. The latest from Matt Yglesias, for example, is here. The general consensus, based on Obama's comments, seems to be that he is tyring to avoid any such investigations to keep from upsetting the political climate. I am not so sure.

Keep in mind that he is frequently discussing his admiration for, and desire to emulate, Lincoln. When Lincoln came into office he was not remotely voicing the fire breathers determination to take action against the Southern Radicals, nor evan after secession to attack them directly. However, it is equally clear that when pressed, he was hardly one to let attacks on the Constitution go by unopposed.

I expect Obama to take a similar course. He will come into Washington, as he is, not promissing to cleanse the Captial of wrong doing, or to take a vengefull tact against past wrongdoing. However, there is plenty of indication that investigations will be coming. Investigations lead, I'm quite glad to say, by Congress. I fully expect Obama to pursue the results of those investigations as vigorously as Lincoln pursued rebellion. He doesn't intend to take on the attack, but will pursue those who do. Contrary to the insistance of the right wing, this is by far and away the better course for the US Government.

I cannot say for sure that this is what will transpire. Perhaps Obama will turn out to be too soft on past abuses. But it is certainly not clear, or even likely, at this point, that that will be so.

Some Progress

While the White House continues to stonewall on the NSA wiretapping issue and the firing of the USAs, Rep. Henry Waxman has succeded in striking a deal on his efforts to investigate how the Executive Branch (and Dick Cheney) have been handling classified information. Recall that the whole "fourth branch of government" came to a fore, in part, over Dick Cheney's refusal to comply with an executive order on handling classified information. It seems that there have been even larger problems with how the White House handles classified information.

The heads of the office[White House Security Office or WHSO], just-departed director James Knodell and deputy Ken Greeson, took no action when presented with charges that aides to President Bush and Vice President Cheney left classified documents strewn throughout hotel rooms and across their desks, and they themselves took cellphones and Blackberries into secure facilities in violation of protocol.

Waxman's House Government Oversight Committee has been pursuing this issue for some time now, with little cooperation from the White House. The committee had gotten to the point where unless they got access to interview current and former White House officials who could speak to the alleged pattern of abuse, the committee would issue subpoenas. Apparently Fielding and Waxman have agreed on terms for the interviews. Interestingly

The White House has consented to "transcribed interviews" with Alan Swendimen, director of the Office of Administration; Mark Frownfelter, an ex-security officer; and former WHSO head Jeff Thompson.

So for this investigation the White House will agree to transcription of the interviews. The perjury trap question isn't relevant here. Why? Why then are they opposed to even transcripts for the interviews with Harriet Miers and with Sara Taylor? What is it that makes these two so much more likely to commit perjury if they have their comments transcribed.

Libby Verdict

Of course by now everyone is aware that 'Scooter' Libby was convicted on four of the five counts against him. No news there, but I was reading Mark Kleiman just now and it struck me that the consequences of this verdict may be a great deal greater than has been so far supposed.

The Congressional investigation is now getting underway on the firing of the US Attorneys. Several people have already testified and more people, and people higher up, are being brought to Congress for questioning. While this administration has been well known to date for stonewalling and obstructing any type of oversight or investigation, the Libby verdict can be expected to have some effect. The people, such as Harriet Miers, going up to testify before Congress will be somewhat less willing to shade the truth and obstruct while under oath, having just seen their friend and colleague be convicted in a federal trial of perjury and obstruction of justice. I think we can expect a bit more openness and honesty than would otherwise be the case.

Return to Oversight

Oversight being absolutely essential to having good government, this is a good thing. Read the article linked below:

Democrats Aim to Save Inquiry on Work in Iraq - New York Times

It does an excellent job laying out the Democrats' likely approach to investigations. It looks to be thorough and sober. This will be good.

powered by performancing firefox