{{featured_button_text}}

Imagine a rumor starts that Nancy Pelosi is running a whorehouse from her basement. Nancy denies it but out of nowhere a "dossier" appears.

It is a handwritten spiral notebook that references "persons A, B, C and “Person of interest P" engaging and negotiating payment for a variety of illegal acts. Nancy denies everything, but the notebook spawns an investigation.

Nancy's staff, friends and associates are pulled in and questioned. One business associate has something shady in his taxes. An audit and indictment on income tax fraud result. The press reports "Pelosi associate indicted, investigators follow the money!"

Nancy's nephew gets indicted for two counts of fishing without a license. The press reports, "Pelosi family member indicted in prostitution investigation."

It continues until 30 friends, family and associates have been indicted. No reporting on the relevance of the indictments, “Unnamed sources" ... "close to the investigation"... “arrest imminent” salt the news. Nancy's confiscated Walgreens prescriptions yield a headline, "Drug connection identified by prostitution investigators. "

Nancy has several times said, "I am not a madam, this is crazy." She, in frustration, questioned the integrity of those who pursue the story. The  media muse, "Pelosi attempts to kill investigation -- obstruction?"

After two years of arrests and indictments, the results come out. Pelosi never had whores in her basement. The summary has one paragraph that exonerates Nancy then complains "Nancy brought pressure to kill the investigation.”

The question remains, should we prosecute someone who dislikes an investigation that in the end was baseless?

Bill Bloom,

LeClaire, Iowa

9
5
0
0
1

Load comments