My question is the following. If in fact Claude Allen was not involved (i.e. it was Floyd, and Claude was a victim, which is the most likely way Floyd was involved) then why did Claude handle this by resigning abruptly and not explaining the situation to the White House staff? In that case, no matter what the fallout there might have been, it could not have been nearly as bad as what has hit the White House from being blindsided by the speculation and assumption that has occurred on front pages since the story broke. At the very least, the White House could have figured out how to handle the story better.
It is, of course, possible that Mr. Allen simply wished to shield his brother from the explosion of publicity. Prior instances of his assisting his less-fortunate twin, as well as being commendable, offer evidence that such a reaction would not be out of character. However, the manner in which he departed almost certainly guaranteed that national exposure to the story would occur, which would mean that if he (Claude) wasn't guilty, that fact as well would receive national attention when the actual details became available, as the fact that the White House didn't know what was going on would in itself be news.
I don't know. I don't agree with Mr. Allen, and I don't like his positions, but I have to say, it sounds like this was handled incredibly badly. I can't tell if that was because the situation forced it due to the pressure of events - but the whole 'he has a twin' speculation may or may not do him any favors, and if his twin really isn't involved, certainly does his twin - a man with his own problems, it appears - no favors at all. If Mr. Allen is the source of all his own troubles and resigned to cope with them without trying to bring anyone else into them - which would be a laudable impulse - then dragging his twin into them before any credible evidence linking him thus would be a disservice.
Posted by jbz at March 15, 2006 1:15 PM