...with respect to the Sandy Burglar case. What was the Justice Department thinking?

I would have expected this from Janet Reno's Justice Department, but why from Ashcroft and Gonzales' Justice Department?

Because this person in particular knows too many national security details to risk alienating.

Because this person in particular knows too many national security details to risk alienating.

So, you're saying that he should be let off lightly, on the hope that he thereby won't actually commit treason...?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Sandy got off lightly for the same reason he was able to commit the crime in the first place. The Democrats might get the White House the next time around, and no one wants antagonize a once-and-future bigwig. The real problem of this case was that he was able to "examine" these documents, turn off cameras, and leave without being searched.

The Democrats might get the White House the next time around, and no one wants antagonize a once-and-future bigwig.

Really? It seems to me that the best solution to that is making sure that he's not a "once-and-future bigwig," but merely a past bigwig, by pulling his clearance for life, which would have been perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.

It's interesting that Martha Stewart got a harsher penalty than Sandy did.

"So, you're saying that he should be let off lightly, on the hope that he thereby won't actually commit treason...?"

No, I'm saying that's my interpretation of what happened. And the logic of it as you rightly point out is infuriating.

There will be no next time for this clown - he's a political liability now and forever more.

There has to be an explaination for this incredible miscarrage of justice.

Let's speculate:
Sandy covered up things that made Clinton look bad, but he and his demo friends are aware of other things that make Bush I and Bush II look bad as well. The items I am speculating about probably included specific knowledge about terrorism that was not given significant weight prior to 9/11. While this is somewhat understandable in an intellectual way, it is not digestable politically. So both parties agree not to discuss it publically, as Sandy might do if handled harshly.

Rand: It may be the Ashcroft/Gonzalez Justice Department, but the majority of the prosecutors and lawyers are still Clinton appointments.

As a matter of fact, didn't Clinton clean out all the prosecutors when he took office? I seem to recall this was at least portrayed as an unusual step -- within his prerogative, but almost never done.

I sure don't recall hearing anything about Bush having done the same when he took office in 2001.