Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.
What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)
Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.
What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.
|
Watergate was clearly a crime. The only question was how many were involved in the conspiracy.
I do not think cover ups should be charged as crimes. It’s an adversarial system. That’s just a preemptive defense (self-help as it were, or ought to be). If Johnny Law doesn’t like cover-ups, he should work harder to prove the underlying crime. Letting him charge obstruction is bullshit. It turns the playing field impossibly in his favor.
I do stand for waving the black flag, as Mencken said. It’s soulless to root for Elliot Ness. (And no one ever got laid well taking that angle). Even friends in law enforcement have that pirate streak. (They trade out and do defense work as soon as they get the pension.)
It’s bizarre for one in your business to value the rule of archaic laws designed to protect commercial guilds and an adversarial system that doesn’t allow a fair or honest fight.
