A few months ago I asked the question "Why are federal authorities following the AZ Attorney General?" After all, he was accused of coordinating with donors in his 2010 campaign. Not only is that a civil violation, but it's in the past. Not only is the alleged violation civil and over, but it's a phone call/email case. Why would the FBI have a tail on the Attorney General?
Anyone who knows the history of the FBI in the bad old days would understand that following the administrations perceived enemies to see if they did anything embarrassing was standard practice. Horne has been mocked for baseball caps and girlfriends since the FBI released its report about him taping a car in a parking garage. The media for its part has risen to the bait and never asked the fundamental question. Why would the FBI follow the Arizona Attorney General and leak embarrassing stuff about him?
The editorial writers for the Republic finally got around to that question.
But it also raises serious questions about the FBI that no one has answered.
Why, for example, were federal agents so eager to report something that, although salacious and titillating, had no connection whatsoever to the allegations of campaign-finance violations?
And, for that matter, why was the FBI conducting a full-blown investigation of a campaign-finance violation in the first place?
In an age in which the news is rife with allegations of partisan abuses of political enemies, those questions remain relevant.
And, as of yet, unanswered.