You need to re-read my post. I was not suggesting that the right hand of the Tri-Lateral Commission (aka Republicans) was protecting the left hand of the Commission (aka Democrats). I was simply suggesting that there may have gentlemen's agreements about potential items of dirty laundry (some of them potentially "classified", some not) whicn would not be made part of the 9/11 Commission public hearings. For example, one could say that the Clinton Administration's refusal to destroy Osama Bin Laden when he was dead in the sight of our surveillance drones (a fact well known to everyone) could have put a stop to the plans for 9/11 and prevented the tragedy altogether. Certainly it is more "incriminating" of the Clinton Administration than the notorious National Security briefing titled "Al Qaeda Still Seeks to attack the US" is/was of the Bush Administration. Yet Clinton's repeated missed opportunities to bag/kill Bin Laden were not considered "germane" to the work of the flawed 9/11 Commission, while the afore-mentioned briefing was considered (by Democrats and the MSM) as prima facie evidence that the Bush Administration should have known that 9/11 was on the way.
I see your point and, you're right, it is not that conspiratorial. Still, I think it would be hard to establish, let alone to perpetuate, any such gentleman's agreement. Who would negotiate it, and then who would oversee compliance or point out infringements around the edges - if not more centrally, for instance by Clinton in his public statements? I suppose you could say that a "culture" of government predisposes incumbents in this direction, but I'm skeptical about this, too. Can you imagine what would happen if it were ever revealed that succeeding Administrations "negotiated" a deal not to reveal to the 9/11 Commission certain info on a tit-for-tat basis? That would be an impeachable offense, and in both directions!
No, I think that what is happening is that no one at all knows what's in the Able-Danger activity, including, as I said, the people centrally involved in these activities, and including Weldon as well. Right now, I think, we are in the early stages of what looks like a story that can break in any one of several directions, just as Watergate looked when Woodstein were revealing (wrongly) the results of Grand Jury proceedings - that, presumably, are confidential. It took months longer to figure out what Watergate was about. Even Deep Throat did not directly and specifically know where it would lead; he knew only what seemed to be wrong tracks. This is why he only told Woodward where he was likely going wrong, not where positively to head. Deep Throat didn't do the latter because he himself didn't know what the "right track" was. Able-Danger is another one of these case, but one that will break badly for Clinton irrespective of what turns out.
This is why this story is so important, as many on this site have been saying for weeks. But my point remains: there is no need to turn conspiratorial, the Able-Danger case is intriguing enough on its own merits. Plus conspiracy always sounds stupid (as DU illustrates perfectly not just weekly but literally daily).