But you will never get there if you are not even willing to INVESTIGATE the matters. I realize that in some or many cases there won't be enough evidence to take it to trial ... but we will still learn the names of some people who acted like criminals that we currently don't know about. And in many cases, we will have enough evidence. The Riady Non-Refund is a good example. Clearly in that case SOMEONE broke the law and should be punished and BY LAW there must be a paper trail that would tell us WHO. Yet the Bush administration isn't even bothering to investigate. I find that deeply troubling because it suggests there is more going on here than meets the eye ... it suggests COLLUSION between the Republicans and the democRATS.
In a time when a Hillary Clinton can actually be elected senator, from any state whatsoever, and Al Gore can win the nationwide popular vote siccing the law on the Clintonistas would be exactly analogous to kicking a tar baby.
Only your opinion. My opinion is that it would be the nail in the coffin of Hillary and Gore's chances of reelection to ANY office ANYWHERE. Of course, if you are suggesting that some of the dirt on the democRATS might stick to Republicans, you might be right. There has to be SOME reason why Lott was so eager to dispose of the impeachment "garbage". I'd like to know what is is, wouldn't you?
In a better country no one would be caught dead voting for such riffraff, but until we are a lot closer to that ideal the prosecution of such politically potent people is a fool's errand.
Fine ... but what stops us from at least COMPLAINING to the people that we are going to vote for about this? At least then they would know what we really think, rather than thinking that we don't care if they ignore crimes. That message just might end up leading them to commit and coverup their own crimes ... if they thought it would improve their chances of staying in office and keeping their nice cushy jobs. We get the government we deserve.
No, I don't think that so much as that going after "Monicagate" obviously backfired because American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.Now if you are for changing that reality, I submit that your target is broadcast journalism. Broadcasting amplifies the influence of journalism, and broadcasting needs journalism to justify its own existence.
Broadcasting needs to justify its existence for the simple reason that it only exists by grace of the FCC and would face catastrophic results if the FCC went out of business. And in fact what the FCC does is to censor all but a select few who have licenses; anyone not wearing blinders would see that to be a violation of the First Amendment.
So we have the spectacle of assiduous immitation of the print press, and especially of the NY Times, by broadcast journalism. The con is that if they all agree then none of them must be "biased." That suppresses the truth in favor of herd journalism.