Random thought while contemplating the Kyle Sampson resignation....

One of the reasons that Repugs are so willing to commit any and all actions at the behest of their bosses (or on their own, if perceived to benefit their bosses) is that there are no consequences to their actions. If they are caught, they are usually not prosecuted; if they are prosecuted, they usually get off with a slap on the wrist (Ney got what? 28 months?) Either way, once they are out, they are always, always, always given some sinecure somewhere in the con/neocon pantheon of corporate/think tank job machine, lie low for a few years (checking under rocks for likely new-hires?), and then re-emerge as elder statesmen (the name Eliot Abrams ring a bell?).

The lib side of the equation is obviously the more moral side, here. We tend to abandon and then shun our miscreants, and I can't think of a single lib/Dem version of Poindexter, Abrams, et al. Jimmy Carter didn't violate any laws, he only was unsuccessful, and blessed with the miserable timing to be President during the energy crisis AND the hostage crisis. And yet, it took almost two decades for him to re-enter the public domain. The ink was hardly dry on Nixon's pardon before he was a best-selling author and foreign policy gadfly.

What does all this mean? I have no real idea, just hit by the difference between the way the two sides handle their refuse. Does anyone doubt that Sampson will land at some major, white-glove law firm, either in DC or some other power center, and resume his legal career without a hitch? Or, in the absurd assumption that he's actually prosecuted for something, disbarred, and sent to jail, that within days of his release from Club Fed, that he won't suddenly become a 'Senior Fellow' at AEI or some other sump of diseased thinking?