[RDangerfield]

One question has not yet been answered. When Mary Jo White stepped down earlier this year as prosecutor, why didn't Bush have her successor indict Torricelli if he was this guilty? Why indict Traficant and not Torricelli? Seems a little strange. Traficant had certainly given more to the Republicans in votes, especially for Hastert. And, at one time, Hastert was courting Traficant to change parties, even gave him some pork barrel projects. Torricelli has never been an ally of Bush, but they passed on indicting him. Very curious situation.
--Raoul

[mlocher]

i agree with your assessment. the only thing i can figure out is that torricelli was an embarrassment to clinton. he put the administration in an awful spot when he invited himself to sensitive meetings with both n and s korea. if you embarrass clinton, you cannot be all bad...

on the other hand, when you are winning the approval ratings by doing something constructive (defending the united states) that was left undone, why go after a past president and his unethical lackeys to score political points. you don't need them and besides, the country's resources can be better deployed elsewhere protecting people.

not that i necessarily agree with moral judgements that would have to be made to get this far; this is merely my analysis.