[Diddle E. Squat]

You completely miss my point. To not expel Trafficant just because Moran, Torch, Corzine, et. al. haven't been prosecuted is akin to claiming that a auto theif shouldn't go to jail because there are still murderers and rapists on the loose.

Sorry, enforce justice here, and then try and bring to justice the other crooks. To not do so would only offer them a way to wiggle out of their judgement, if/when that time comes.

[jumpstartme]

It's also akin to Clinton's claim that they all do it, so can't we just move on?

[Utopia]

You completely miss my point. To not expel Trafficant just because Moran, Torch, Corzine, et. al. haven't been prosecuted is akin to claiming that a auto theif shouldn't go to jail because there are still murderers and rapists on the loose.

I got your point, and don't agree with it. Maybe you didn't get mine.

I guess I don't understand why Justice has to be selective. Yes, Traficant may have done all those terrible things, but why go after after such a little fish, now and let the bigger ones go? What's the point in being selective? How is Justice served by that? Is the moral of the story that only those with the super big crimes get off (Condit/ Torricelli / Clinton / Kennedy ...) and that if Traficant had done more bad things he'd be off now? Is Traficant's fault that he isn't bad enough?

No where is there any mention that this is the start of a Congressional clean-up, that once we can get Traficant, then we are now free to turn our thoughts to getting the others. DO you really honestly believe that once Traficant is gone there will be a moral outrage to go after Bill or Hillary's book deal, or Teddy's driving ...?