And if Cheney goes down, Bush is exposed.

So explain to me how you’re going to prosecute that case without any witness to teh fact, and with Judy Miller not being fully forthcoming?

a) I didn’t do it!
b) Nobody saw me!
c) You can’t prove a thing!

It’s not transparency though. It’s cherry picking from thousands of hours of evidence.

I can see this kind of thing from several perspectives.

a) One rotten apple does not a career make.
b) One rotten apple is a crime and a crime is a crime.
c) One rotten apple wasn’t so rotten, it was taken out of context and misunderstood.
d) One rotten apple wasn’t even an apple and the prosecutor is just wrong.
e) One rotten apple is just normal and not a crime or different from what every other governor has done forever. Politically impeachable, but not criminal.

Politics doesn’t lend to simple answers in many cases — therefore it does pay to have few enemies who might land a punch on something trivial, but with big effects. However, if Blago had actually been trying to do something important he might get away with murder and still have enough friends to maintain his position.

Politics is indeed a strange thing.

In particular, it has been the case in such electoral years of the past that the financial classes which often have sway in the Federal Reserve precincts deem the American people in need of the iron hand of discipline, that they may be reminded who their daddy really is.

Does anyone remember at which of Clinton’s state of the union addresses Greenspan was noted as the special guest of First Lady Hillary Clinton, who as I recall had him in an armlock of some kind in the viewing stand? I like to think that it was one at the beginning of one of the electoral years.

And I should point out that this exuberance was in large part a product of Greenspan’s own easy credit policies at the Fed. By pumping cheap money into markets Greenspan underwrote both the dot com and then the housing bubbles. Maybe he should have toned down his own exuberance.

i’ve never tried to track this down, but one question that has been the bugging me is this – was the easy money either 1) a necessary response or 2) as possible response to clinton’s trade policies and the resulting downward pressure on manufactured goods (see race to the bottom)? iow, did “free trade” make the easy money possible without the kind of inflation one would have otherwise expected absent the “free trade” regime?

any thoughts on that?

In the interests of winning a case for his client, he’ll claim that a USAG is acting illegally. And that’s the message the media will carry.

All the more reason to thank you for clarifying here, and hope that your clarification reaches a wider readership and even a news show host.

The feds bugged a table in a diner where a bunch of judges used to eat most days. T’was f’ugly.

It’s not impossible