In a post on Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall demonstrates a common pathology of scandal debate:

It is not too much to say that everything that has come out of Alberto Gonzales’ mouth on this issue has been a lie…

And the president is fine with all of this. Fine with the fact that the Attorney General has not only repeatedly lied to the public but has also been exposed as repeatedly lying to the public. He’s fine with at least two US Attorneys being fired for not giving in to pressure to file bogus charges to help Republican candidates.

Of course he’s fine with it. Because it comes from him. None of this is about Alberto Gonzales. This is about the president and the White House, which is where this entire plan was hatched. Gonzales was just following orders, executing the president’s plans. This is about this president and this White House, which … let’s be honest, everyone on both sides of the aisle already knows.

What evidence is there that “the entire plan” was “hatched” by the President and the White House or that Gonzales was following the President’s “orders” and “plans”? This speculation may turn out to be true, but it’s irresponsible to state it as fact at this point. (Am I missing some key piece of evidence here?)

There’s reason to worry. During the Clinton years, we repeatedly saw scandal investigations in which the administration’s dissembling or lack of full disclosure was taken as proof that there was an underlying bad act. Similarly, Republicans frequently asserted without proof that all administrative problems or corruption were the result of centrally directed conspiracies.

Marshall — and Congressional Democrats — would be wise to avoid falling into these traps.