On 7/4/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the thing I find fascinating about this thread is that people who > spend a lot of time yelling about what the law does not require in > ohter context seem to feel that the principle of the jury as finders > of fact is insufficent when they do not like the outcome.
That's genius, all this time I thought OJ actually did it, but how can a jury possibly be wrong or misled? > By the way,Hatton, thank you for your answer earlier. In order to > actually decide what I think though I'd have to go look at exactly > what she said under oath. The snippet you posted seems to be saying > "my husband might be able to do this. Or not, if you don't like the > idea." Not exactly a formal recommendation. Read it again, it's all there. > But life is too short to argue about this, especially since Plame is > irrelevant to Libby really, as Gruss points out. It's entirely about Plame, how can she be irrelevant? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJW Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:237799 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
