If no one is above the law, then neither are the theater kids and their placards.

Watching the proceedings without commentary doesn't make them any less of a performance. (How many times can a person reserve a turn before choosing to speak?) Using available options to go around a block to get information necessary to bolster a case just might be worth the time spent. (How did it go, that passing a bill thing to find out what's in it?) At a guess, it might yield results that look considerably less partisan than the farce that happened earlier. But that delay was somehow more unpalatable than the one being used now.


Rereading the transcript with a less-heated eye (their or they're?) doesn't provide tones of voice, and while I'm reasonably familiar with the voice of one of the speakers, I'm not as well versed with the other's. There's enough doubt there about the inference of pressure in this reading, and if the sale mentioned occurred without the favor being provided, then it looks like they were dealt with as two separate issues rather than one being conditional to the other, pressure or not.


Bottom line is, neither an appeal to emotion or a reading of available information has changed my mind on the wrongness of this trial, and has only increased my salt intake when it comes to media coverage.



Featured Posts
Recent Posts