Reply #170: scandal vs. influence

[wli]

The fact info about their corruption is leaking like crazy is already a sign of a "rebellion" against them. What we can't do with PR the FBI et al are doing by exposing their corruption. This reduces their influence, and by so doing opens them up to further prosecution.

It's a matter of degree. If a president were seen murdering someone on national TV no one would bother waiting for an impeachment to incarcerate him. Now downgrade the crime from murder to treason, and the evidence from live TV to other incontrovertible evidence, and we more or less get the sort of affair we're seeing. The number of remaining supporters is inversely proportional to the quality of the body of evidence and the number of scandals. This, of course, assumes the judiciary isn't complicit in the affair. If it is, we're in extralegal territory and things get "ugly" like a banana republic.

All this only underscores the point that the government is neither for nor by the people, and we have absolutely no control of it. Bush is not being removed because he's corrupt or insane or immoral, but rather because he's incompetent, failing to serve the interests of his masters, and threatening to mire what was once a nicely profitable center for money laundering, narcotrafficking, and bid rigging in a currency crisis.