now there's an alternate universe heard from. My common sense is screaming that if I don't have time to do abortion I probably dont have time to do this with you, but I can't help asking: Cooper was not being truthful? huh? Also, please explain how Cooper calling Rove means that Rove was not trying to smear Wilson. I also think you misunderstand the reactions here. I personally think he is guilty because he has done a lot of this sort of thing, so this one might as well have his signature on it. But even if he weren't he is such a sleaze that there is pleasure in seeing that arrogance squashed. Kinda like Marion Barry -- it was a bad bust, if literally correct, but it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Dana On 10/11/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you missed the point. > We knew about the e-mail a day or two after Cooper testified. It > supported what Rove was saying all along and proved Cooper was not > being truthful or was forgetful. Meaning the fact that you are so sure > he's guilty is pure partisanship. Besides wasn't the charge that the > Administration was out to smear Wilson, yet it was Cooper that called > Rove and asked about Niger. > > > On 10/11/05, Gruss Gott wrote: > > > > Of course that always applies *legally*. However remember that our > > system is built such that "better 100 guilty men go free, than one > > innocent man be denied freedom." > > > > In practicality many guilty people go free: OJ, Jeff Skilling, etc. > > This is because the bar to convict is so high. But implicit in their > > freedom is that they might actually be guilty. The public has a right > > to weigh in there. > > > > As a member of the public I feel very comfortable in saying that > > either Rove, Libbey, or both are guilty of outing a CIA officer with a > > protective cover. > > > > However the law says that to punish them for that crime, certain > > standards must be met; standards the Whitehouse clearly knows and had > > at least 12 hours they gave themselves to protect against. > > > > Because the bar is so high, there's been a new trend with prosecutors > > really starting in the 1920s: don't get them for their crimes, get > > them for the cover up and/or associated crimes. People like Al Capone > > and Martha Stewart have been jailed using this method. > > > > All that being said, what we know for a fact is that the Whitehouse > > does not have it's facts straight regarding this case. That means, at > > a minimum, there's a cover up by at least one person within the > > Whitehouse. > > > > Why would Rove coverup his actions if he weren't guilty? And if he > > weren't fearing a cover-up conviction why would he volunteer to > > re-appear before the prosecutor, someone appointed by his man? > > > > He's guilty. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:176795 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
