Why Dan Pfeiffer Calls the Law "Irrelevant:" Because the White House Doesn't Want to Prosecute Its Minions

One of the biggest jokes in politics is when a corrupt administration starts talking exclusively about reforming policy.

When Al Gore took money from Chinese nuns who were pass-throughs for illegal donations from the Chinese government, what spin did he and his media allies employ? That The System needs to be reformed.

And what of Al Gore? Does Al Gore himself need to be held accountable?

Nay. Just The System.

From the Washington Post, note how Dan Pfeiffer strains to push the investigation away from anything resembling personal consequences for law-breakers:

�I can�t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant,� Pfefiffer said on ABC News�s �This Week With George Stephanopoulos.� �The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed to ensure it never happens again.�

Stephanopoulos replied: �You don�t really mean the law is irrelevant, do you?�

Pfeiffer responded: �What I mean is, whether it�s legal or illegal is not important to the fact that the conduct doesn�t matter. The Department of Justice has said that they�re looking into the legality of this. The president is not going to wait for that. We have to make sure it does not happen again, regardless of how that turns out.�

The law is "irrelevant." We do not need to talk about who broke what law, or who should be charged with what crime. All we need to do is change some policies and call it a day.

Is that the way an Administration which is alleged "outraged" speaks? Is this the language of an Administration which is determined to find out who's at fault?

No. It's the language of an Administration which doesn't want anyone prosecuted.

And why should that be? Why does Obama care about the legal jeopardy faced by a "low level employee"? He's got the YouTube filmmaker in jail; this is obviously not a man much concerned with the welfare of useful political scapegoats.

You can either throw a "policy" under the bus or you can throw a person under the bus.

There is one huge advantage to throwing a policy under the bus: Policies do not begin leaking to the media and then turn on their higher-ups when they're thrown under the bus.

People do. People will keep quiet... so long as you protect them from legal consequences. But when faced with such consequences, they tend to talk.

Policies do not.

Policies are the most useful scapegoat at all.

Obama's spokesman Dan Pfeiffer only wishes to discuss Severe Consequences which will befall a Policy. He only wants to talk about the future, not about punishing past misdeeds.

Why?

I know one thing: He's pursuing the Perfect Strategy if he wants people to stay shut-up and wants to keep people from sharing all they know.

I don't think this is an accident.

I think it's the plan.

And if it is the plan -- which it is -- why would Obama want to keep the investigation as small and limited as possible, if he really has no fear of what people might say were they to be charged with a crime?

posted by Ace at 01:03 PM

| Access Comments