I have a friend who just moved to Wisconsin. I told her she is so lucky -- despite the snow, despite the cold, despite the relatively sparse population where they are now living, despite the cabin fever in the winter -- she is so lucky, because she has Russ Feingold as her Senator. She agreed.
How few politicians we have on a national level who are as consistently principled as Russ Feingold. So committed to fairness, justice. And truth. Principles before personalities. He has not caved to the charm of the ever-charming President Obama. He is taking that rare step, at least among the current crop of corrupt politicians in Congress, of continuing to pursue the principle, continuing to question, continuing to demand the Constitution be respected and the law be enforced.
What a shame that President Obama selected Eric Holder to be Attorney General. I don't know much about him, but what I hear just keeps getting worse. The DOJ is seemingly on the wrong side of every issue. Starting with their refusal to prosecute anyone, or conduct investigations, relating to war crimes, torture, murder by the Bush-Cheney administration, and refusal to investigate and prosecute the criminals on Wall Street who have looted and plundered our country. What Justice?
How fitting then that the esteemed Senator Feingold and the lackluster Attorney General Holder should come face to face last week on television, for the whole nation to see. My, Eric, you come across looking just like -- a BushMan! Arrogant, condescending, evasive, dishonest, sleazy. Contemptuous.
Does this AG believe, just like all the string of sleazy AGs from the Bush crowd believed, that they are above the law, that the president can do what he wants and the AG reports only to him, the law and the constitution be damned? This guy Holder looks like a BB shot into a steel barrel full of vegetable oil: he jumps, he bolts, he skids, he slides, he evades, he's back and forth and up and down, he's sleazy. And he refuses to answer the simple question, for which a simple answer is readily available. It could have been Cheney sitting there answering the question.
Question: You agree, don't you, that the warrantless wiretaps used by the Bush administration were illegal?
Answer: Well, it depends on what the meaning of "used" is, or what you mean by Bush, or whether you mean "used" like some think of that word, or in some other fashion. I mean it just depends. It's hard to say. It's confusing. Illegal? Is that what you asked? Well, who can say? I mean illegal -- that's a pretty big word, isn't it? Whose law? Your law? Somebody else's law? What law? Does it really matter, anyway? Can't we just look forward, not spend our time looking backwards. Can't we all just get along. Illegal? Is that the question? Well, I'm sure some might say it was unwise, or perhaps unknown, or uncertain, or undercover, or underling. But illegal?
What a sleazy con man this guy Holder appears to be.
Yes Eric, that was the question: do you agree the wiretaps were illegal? Because if you do, then why haven't you done anything to prosecute the Bush-Cheney people who have violated our rights? When should we expect your indictment to be filed, and who do you anticipate naming as a defendant. How about answering those questions, or are these simple constitutional issues just way beyond your legal understanding, as the chief law enforcement officer of the land? Remember the 4th Amendment? No warrant no wiretap. Remember that one? Do you agree with Bush-Cheney that the Constitution is toilet paper, and you as the AG exist mostly to cover up and avoid and deceive and allow the wealthy and powerful to break the law and get away with it? That's my own personal expanded version of the question. I'm not nearly as polite as Senator Feingold.
Oh yeah: here's the answer. YES. YES THE WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL. YES THEY WERE A VIOLATION OF LAWS -- LOTS OF LAWS AND A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT'S THE ANSWER. NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. ENFORCE THE LAW. INDICT THE CRIMINALS. DO YOUR JOB.
No comments:
Post a Comment