Your question merits serious debate. But if your intention is to put some Senator or Representative in the position of having to choose between blatant evasiveness vs. defending the indefensible, I think you'll need to find a more concrete way to ask it, something that will resonate with the wider audience. Instead of "how much profit is too much," (if I may paraphrase you slightly,) how about: "does the CEO of an insurance company that denies legitimate claims to sick people deserve to pull down eleven million a year and fly around in a private jet?"

Better yet, name names. Identify the poster children for greed and corruption in private health care and wave their mug shots at every news event, rally, and town hall meeting. Publish pictures of their homes, their toys, follow them around like paparazzi. Give America a good look at the lifestyles of the rich and infamous. Isn't it time we stopped fixating on scapegoats and "bogeymen" and refocused our attention on the real culprits?

---s

BTW, Greenwald is always on my "must read" list.

---s

The decision not to pursue these cases doesn't preclude going after those who exceeded their "orders." This is the opening Holder needs. I think that at some point, the Justice Department is going to have to address the legality of those orders directly.

---s

The "bad result" that worries me most is for justice to be not merely foiled, but grossly perverted. In my darker moments, I can imagine the perps actually being exonerated. The AG isn't nearly as insulated as we might like to believe. If he's widely perceived to be overreaching, or loses the support of the President in general---it seems tepid, at best, on this particular issue---the potential for meddling increases. Congress can impede a large investigation with the power of the purse strings, grants of immunity, and all manner of other mischief. Who knows what the landscape will look like after midterm elections? And let's not forget that the Supreme Court, which is likely to become involved multiple times along the way, may not be the friendliest venue right now.

I hope that people do keep up the pressure to expand this investigation. In fact, I'd argue it's a moral imperative. At the same time, I remain impressed by Eric Holder's thoughtfulness and integrity. I recognize the difficult tightrope he's attempting to walk, and I'm willing to give him sufficient time to tighten the noose.

---s

On the other hand, I'm thankful Democrats don't resort to the sort of tactics we remember at rallies for Bush 2004: no unscripted questions, loyalty oaths for attendees, secret service agents pressed to squelch any hint of dissent. Yes, these things really did happen.

That Democratic forums strive to remain open and fair, even when sorely tested, speaks well of our guiding principles. I don't think this point is made often or forcefully enough.

---s