Reply #120: Well written -- another suspect motivation is a special election to elect a Repub

[D-Lee]

The point in the post is well taken.

What is pointed out is that an experienced prosecutor went well beyond accepted limits on prosecutorial comment on a pending case. So, given that odd behavior, what could be the motivation?

The clearest consequence is instant derailment of the Ill. Gov. (a Democrat).

The post inquires what might have motivated that end. Bank of America is a possible source of pressure. There could also be a desire to change the method of filling the vacant Senatorial seat to prevent a Democrat being appointed to it -- which would happen if one could build up enthusiasm for revising the "seat filling" option to require a special election, which would give a Republican a shot at it (especially with the background of a Democratic scandal).

The post opens up the debate about the motivation behind the odd prosecutorial behavior, which certainly raises the spectre of an inability to secure a fair trial. The post is well documented by an authoritative opinion on prosecturial press announcements, which gives strong support to the central contention that someone should look beyond mere appearances.

And, by the way, what WAS the basis for the wiretap? It sounds like the tap started before the Senate seat became vacant ... So, was the wire tap just to troll for incriminating information of any sort? Was this a happy accident or a witch hunt? On the Chicago Tribune thing, there were already witnesses and no need for a wire tap is what it sounds like.

As to the conduct, the charge can only be an attempt, since the actions did not come to fruition.

More facts will and should become known, which is the point of the post.

Nice job!