posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:16 PM
I hadn't thought of that. It seems a bit of a stretch, a possiblity, but not likely.
That would be one heck of a connection, though, wouldn't it? What if that was the reason this provision was inserted in the PAct, to give the
government an out when dealing with wildcat investigative appointees like Ms. Lam that bring attention to sensitive, potentially embarrassing, even
compromising activities engaged in by our elected officials. Is the PAct a shield for national security purposes, or for national criminal activity?
It could work either way.
What if Ms. Lam did come upon information in the course of her investigation of Cunningham that led to discovery of other, more grievous incidents of
malfeasance, such as you have mentioned, interestedalways? Wouldn't the government want a tool such as this secret provision of the PAct to
quietly remove her from her position and squelch her investigation?
I said when I broke the Cunningham story here on ATSNN he was just the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the halls of the powerful, and it has given
me no pleasure to see the headlines of the past year prove me right again and again. The truth though the heavens may fall.
Is this story linked to the Wanta Trillions? Do they even exist? It wouldn't surprise me anymore if the answer to both questions was yes.
What is for sure to me is the system needs people like Ms. Lam to keep it in check, and we need more people like her looking out for us in this day of
the PAct and runaway government excess in all its rampant forms.
She shouldn't be terminated. She should be promoted.