dagblog - Comments for "The Spitzer Sex Sting: A few More Questions" http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/spitzer-sex-sting-few-more-questions-3874 Comments for "The Spitzer Sex Sting: A few More Questions" en The argument is that this is http://dagblog.com/comment/19846#comment-19846 <a id="comment-19846"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/spitzer-sex-sting-few-more-questions-3874">The Spitzer Sex Sting: A few More Questions</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The argument is that this is not a political pursuit of Spitzer because they were following other (incorrect) suspicions when they found the crime. Well, when they found the crime they found a whole list of other 'criminals'. And just what is being done to prosecute those people whose crimes were also accidentally discovered?</p> <p>Justice does not appear to be blind.</p></div></div></div> Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:47:27 +0000 AJM comment 19846 at http://dagblog.com In light of the scandalous http://dagblog.com/comment/19845#comment-19845 <a id="comment-19845"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/spitzer-sex-sting-few-more-questions-3874">The Spitzer Sex Sting: A few More Questions</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In light of the scandalous Don Siegelman case, there's no doubt that Democrats in Congress should push for details hard (or at least harder than their usual powderpuff methods).</p></div></div></div> Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:06:20 +0000 Desidero comment 19845 at http://dagblog.com