Agreed. That's the only reason this story has any teeth in the first place.
The Dems are trying to give the *appearance* of impropriety...knowing full
well that there really is nothing of substance to the story.

NOYB, are you old enough to remember when Nixon was on the griddle?

All of RMN's supporters, clear up until the very last day when Nixon finally
resigned, would lock arms and shout defiantly, "There's no proof President
Nixon lied! Show us the proof! It's a Democratic witch hunt! You have no
proof!"

Finally, Nixon resigned his office and all the supporters switched from
"There's no proof" to "Your guys have done worse than this in the past, you're
only singling out Nixon because he's a Republican." Apparently when Nixon
finally resigned, the issue of "proof" was rather evident.

Now we should consider whether every inquiry and investigation requires
absolute proof *before* it begins, or whether inquiry and investigation are
conducted to develop proof. It's ridiculous to say that inquiry and
investigation are inappropriate because there is no irrefutable proof.

The sector of the American public outraged over the public manipulation by the
Bush administration is hopping mad that there is
a substantial amount of evidence that this is probably so..Whether the matter
is ever tried before a body to judge whether a "legally defined" deception took
place, anybody able to remember back six or eight months in time can clearly
remember the speeches and publicly announced events that make up the chain of
events cited by the folks who are blowing the whislte on the manipulators.

Who ever told you guys that being the majority party would be easy? :-)