Does the term "accessory after the fact"...

...mean anything to Joe Lieberman? Ring any bells in that lawyerly mind of yours, Joe?

In this Boston Globe article (online at Boston.com) dated March 26, 2006, Senator Lieberman acknowledges the fact that President Bush has broken the law with the NSA wiretapping scandal, yet he refuses to pursue any action against the perpetrator (or is that "perpe-traitor"?)

"As I read the law I think the president's tapping or surveillance without a warrant was wrong," Lieberman said on "Face the State" on WFSB-TV. "It was outside the law."

Bugging buddies
At what point does the inaction to prevent or seek prosecution for a crime by a legislator become criminal malfeasance? I thought Lieberman was a lawyer; aren't there ANY ethics rules that members of the Bar must adhere to?

So, that's just fine, the good Senator doesn't want to pursue any sort of legal challenge to the President's obvious lawbreaking (and Lieberman had just admitted it that's what it was). How about at least voting to censure the man you think broke the law?

"My own opinion...is that it would be an unproductive use of our time," Lieberman said.

Aaargh! Can you believe this is the same frickin' guy who almost popped a blood vessel in his head while wagging a finger and petulantly chiding President Clinton for his dalliances! THAT was obviously a big goddamned deal to Joe...

But using the NSA for domestic spying in direct opposition to FISA laws that are clearly on the books?

Eh, not so much.