I hope Henry Hyde's kids dial in this post and pass it on to the shriveled up old fart.
The ever-important "Rule of Law" argument was in play with the "Hank" Hyde crowd during impeachment. Remember? Henry wanted to be sure the rule of law remained intact, because the president may have been fellated by someone other than his wife (and there may be bits of evidence that could be scattered about and discussed ad nauseum on cable news for months, thereby achieving the real goal of politically smearing Bill Clinton).
Now comes, presumably, a new defendant, Karl Rove.
Is the "Rule of Law" argument still important? What's more important here: exposing a man for lying about being blown by someone other than his wife, thereby embarrassing him and presumably spoiling any possible monumentally positive legacy he may leave behind? Or is it more important to see to it that those who would expose a career operative for the CIA -- for sheer political gain -- and lie about it to a federal grand jury, receive the penalty of the fullest extent of the law?
My links go to salon.com tonight for a good reason. For what you just spent for Friday night on the town, you could easily buy a year's subscription of Salon Premium content. Think about it.
(the nickel disclaimer: I'm not paid by salon and I don't represent anybody. It's really good stuff from a wide variety of great writers like Conason.)