With apologies to Chris Rock, the problem with the Fitzgerald investigation is simple: liberals are too happy, conservatives are too mad.
Liberals are thrilled that the Bush administration is under the gun, to the point of celebrating the expected indictments that the special prosecutor may issue as soon as next week as "Fitzmas". The phrase "Grab the popcorn" is also making the rounds.
Meanwhile, conservatives like Jeffrey Bell and William Kristol are issuing disingenuous defenses of potentially illegal acts as an attempt to "criminalize" conservatism.
But the whole point is this: we don't know if anyone broke the law. Just because Ken Starr leaked everything that came through his office doesn't mean that we have a complete picture of the Fitzgerald investigation. Liberals are celebrating prematurely; likewise, conservatives are denouncing the investigation way too soon. That's why I don't write much about this subject. We just don't know anything -- it's all speculation, hearsay, and leaks.
As Matthew Yglesias wrote on Tuesday in responding to Jacob Weisberg:
Evidence hasn't emerged because Patrick Fitzgerald hasn't made any charges public or revealed what evidence he may or may not have to support those charges. It would convenient for us in the commentariat if he'd been running a sloppy investigation full of grand jury leaks giving us more juicy nuggets to chew over, but the Ken Starr precedent aside that's not what prosecutors are supposed to do. If Fitzgerald's charges, when they emerge, prove to be trumped-up, overblown, or unsupported by the evidence then naturally it would make sense to start condemning him. But concluding that his case is bogus before we see his evidence because we haven't seen his evidence would be bizarre.
The opposite also applies. Concluding that the case is legitimate and worth prosecuting just because Fitzgerald continues to gather testimony is also bizarre. Let's not jump the gun here.
Comments