I've been thinking the same thing.
Anyone who's worked in or even near the government knows its all about control... of everything, but of its own employees most of all. No government employee can do anything of significance without at least one or two higher levels of management knowing about it, sometimes more. The penalties are severe for doing so, and the penalties for making your chain of command look bad can be really nasty.
I think all this stuff is tied together in the West Wing, and if those ties become public at some point it will become a hurricane of scandal and perversity.
Anyone old enough to have lived through Watergate will remember the diagrams that Walter Cronkite and NBC Nightly News used to illustrate the interconnections between the different players, and how they all led to the Office of the President. Anyone who lived through those times will remember names like Donald Segretti, Alexander Butterfield, Maurice Stans, Gordon Strachan (pronounced "strong"), and many others. The MSM didn't say back then that "the whole thing is too complex for the average American to understand." Instead, the MSM lavished many broadcast minutes every evening to laying out the whole structure. They literally connected the dots, devoting seventy, eighty, ninety percent of their nightly bandwidth to explaining the scandal. Eventually the names of Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean were tied in, and the game was over.
Learned a little more today: the AP wiretaps involved “Al-Qaeda and Yemen”. So the question keeps coming up, “ Why didn’t the WH just ask AP for info?” What if the Yemen thing somehow was related to gun running in Libya and WH didn’t want to tip off AP . . . Just in case they might actually report???