"If there is no indictment this will go away." says Howard Finemann. It seems that the new meme in the media is that it is impossible to know if an actual crime has been commited if no one is indicted. Chris Mathews agrees (of course).
Gosh! who could imagine Mr. Mathews taking the politically pragmatic position on this. "Wrong" says I and Clarence Page.
There was a crime commited here we know that. The press just wants to pretend that A) there will be no indictments and B) that if there are no indictments no crime has commited.
Surprisingly Finemann and Mathews think someone will be indicted.
I'm beginning to think that the press has an allergy towards covering exceptional events as exceptional events. What I mean by that is that the press seems to feel a need to "normalize" events within the framework of "just politics." At least Page is showing a little bit of cynicism towards the justice process in Washington.
Wake up guys...
Covering the SCOTUS nomination many of Mathew's "regulars" seem to believe a non-judge to be the supreme court nominee. Great, just what we need a partisan who is not even a legal expert.
Oh BTW I've so far counted only one "this issue is too complex for the average American to understand" re Rove - thank you Katy Kay Kathy (or whatever your name is).
I thought of that because I think I understand better than several supreme court justices what the Constitution means. Granted I haven't spent my life reading obfuscating legal opinions on the constitution's "preservation of tradition in regards to sexual relations" clause. Far be it for me to dispute those who assert that liberals "invent rights," but I think I have a pretty good handle the ninth amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
Kind of stream of conscience, but that's all I have.