Ah, those Sunday morning news shows where political talking heads say the darndest things! Perhaps celebrating a bit much the night before, Senator Charles Schumer, (D—NY, Harvard University,BA; Harvard University Law School, JD) New York's junior, other senator, greeted the new year on Sunday, January 1, 2006 stated the darndest, most revealing thing.
"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait until the investigation occurs to decide what happened," Schumer sputtered as he complained about Republican "distractions."
Was he explaining the differences by referring to his staffers as noble whistleblowers for illegally obtaining the credit report of Maryland's lieutenant governor to be used for an undoubtedly noble cause? Or perhaps he meant the New York Times was a noble whistleblower for nobly leaking information about the National Security Agency conducting warrantless eavesdropping?
And in contrast are felons those people of another political party who do the warrantless eavesdropping while trying to protect the American people from another 9/11——or worse?
Yes, by all means, let us wait for the very thorough investigations to decide what happens——to decide, to clarify, who are the felons and who are the whistleblowers. Maybe then the differences should be understood by all——even Harvard trained lawyers.
Ethel C. Fenig 1 02 06
Share
