These days, the WashPost columnist thinks it's a bad idea to investigate any law-breaking that might have gone on during the Bush years, that it's best to look forward, not in the past:
I understand the reluctance to open a wide-ranging probe of past practices. It seems to me we are better off focusing on cleaning up the policies and practices for the future than trying to settle scores for past actions.
In doing so, Broder signs off on the beloved Beltway narrative that it's nuts to hold former administrations accountable for their actions, that only zealots want to drag out those kind of partisan witch hunts. Except that digging through the archives I can't find any examples from 2001 when Broder tsk-tsked the endless congressional investigations that were launched by a Republican Congress to investigate the last-minute Clinton pardons and gifts received.
In 2001, it made perfect sense to hold exiting administrations accountable. Today, the notion seems cuckoo.