Things that never get old: Investigating Bush

Jonathan Stein is worried that Congressional Democrats will take too many cues from their post-partisan president and drop all of their inquiries into Bush administration malfeasance:

I side with Congress on this. There is enough evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration may have broken the law and violated the Constitution — investigations, with subpoena power, are the only way to know for sure. No one is suggesting that Congress grill Department of Education bureaucrats about the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Democrats on the Hill aim to examine our torture and detention policies, the wiretapping of American citizens, and the improper firing of US Attorneys — areas where legal experts have already suggested the Bush Administration crossed lines.

In one sense, this isn't exactly true. Subpoena power is important, but when Obama takes over, his administration will be able to reveal a lot of the information Congress has been seeking by fiat, and inasmuch as the point of these investigations is discovery, Obama might prove to be a game changer.

At the same time, Bush officials will be leaving office by the droves in the coming weeks, and many of them will want to talk. They might shine some light on the scandals we already know about, but they also might reveal any number of other scandals we don't already know about and who knows! Maybe Congressional leaders will find themselves so overwhelmed by scandals that they'll have to ignore some.

I agree with Jonathan in spirit, though--particularly on certain issues. The U.S. Attorney scandal, for instance, gave way to a different scandal, when Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten flouted congressional subpoenas. Because of their impudence, they were held in contempt of Congress, and, ultimately, a district court judge found that the White House's claims of executive privilege did not allow the duo to refuse to appear before the subpoenaing committee: Miers had to claim executive privilege in person, and Bolten had to describe the contents of the documents he was refusing to hand over to John Conyers. But, of course, the White House appealed the ruling, successfully ran out the clock, and now the subpoenas will expire. If the Democrats want to set precedent in court and put Miers in a position of saying something damning--even if accidentally--they'll have to reissue the subpoenas next year.