Rhode Island bad-boy U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy's nose is growing....
In a statement on its Web site, the Capitol Police said it was investigating a traffic accident, but it gave no other details. A Capitol police spokesman was not available for further comment.
But the police union president Lou Cannon said Kennedy "appeared to be intoxicated and the officials were called to the scene at which time a determination was made to take him home...."
Well, if the police and officials did not believe Patrick Kennedy was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, why did they believe and make a decision that he needed to be driven home? Judging from photographs in the media, his car didn't appear to be damaged to the extent it could not be driven by a sober person---which is borne out by the fact that the capitol police ordered him to park his car and they would drive him home. They removed him from the scene and from any investigation, but let the car remain. What was the hurry?
The bad-boy son of Sen. Ted Kennedy said he "didn't ask for preferential treatment." But he didn't refuse that "preferential treatment" that benefitted him by superior officers' obstructing the investigation begun by rank-and-file officers---by preventing collection of evidence of alcohol or drugs use in connection with his automobile collision with a security barricade that was highly visible and by accommodating him and his condition with a free ride home.
Or was that just an over-all free ride? And, are law enforcement superior officers in Washington, D.C. and Chappaquidick just surrogate nannies for the uncontrollable Kennedy bad-boys?
Big question: If Patrick Kennedy was sober and otherwise unimpaired, why couldn't he just say "I'm fine, officers. I'll drive myself on home...? By the way, it's not legal to drive under the influence of drugs either---hence the "I was disoriented by prescription medication" alibi. And, it's an ethics violation in the Congress to miss-use Congressional imunity.
What if he had hit the police cruiser he barely missed---or someone else's vehicle? And, what if he had hit and injured or killed a person? Would he have been given preferential treatment then? And shielded from evidence collection and culpability---as he was in this accident?
Don't you believe, as I do, that U.S. Congress-members must be held to a high ethical and moral standard and must not receive treatment that places them above the law?