Scott Horton draws one conclusion from the ABC allegations:

If anything, this helps make the case for an independent commission. Congressional inquiries are in fact subject to manipulation by the leadership. A commission would have the resources and time to get to the bottom of the question. And yes, what the Congressional leaders were told, and exactly what they did when presented with such information, is a critical point of inquiry. The Congressional leaders do need to be held to account for their inaction. Also, the current classified briefing process needs some careful review. Why are staff who have security clearances excluded? How can the restrictions imposed on Congressional leaders about discussing briefings be reconciled with the Constitutional role of Congress? The system failed over the last eight years. We need to ascertain exactly how it failed in order to prevent future incidents.

Jon Rauch makes a sober, reasonable case against legal prosecutions here. I think it's a serious engagement with the problem, even though I think Jon still under-estimates the scale and scope of the lawlessness - though not as much as he once did (for which I am as grateful as I am unsurprised - Jon is as honest an intellectual broker as you'll find in this town). I certainly am persuaded that a rush to prosecute would be imprudent. Which is why, like Horton, I support an independent commission with money and time to cool emotions and gather facts. Among those facts should be a chance for the last president to explain where he was coming from. Then we should make a calm decision on the legal consequences.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.