Sam, lighten up. I don't remember much about DeLorean. I was (kinda) kidding
about Rove. That's why I started the next sentence with "seriously." No, it
is not acceptable to lock innocent people up. However, Rove is not innocent
even if he didn't do this one, which I don't believe for a minute.
Da
> Sam wrote:
> What if it's Scooter? It's so hard to believe someone that say's it's
> definitely this guy OR it might definitely be this other guy.
>
Very true, it could be. But then that's my point. Rove (or anyone
smart) would *never* go back to a Grand Jury, especially with the
warning, unle
On 10/11/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > None of the many witness were givin immunity.
> >
>
> The U.S. attorney's manual requires that prosecutors not bring
> witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future
> criminal charges unless the witnesses are
On 10/11/05, Dana wrote:
> ah, it's not acceptable, doesn't mean that certain people don't *deserve*
> it. Seriously though, Barry was guilty, no question, I just decry using an
> ex to get to him.
When you say Barry was guilty do you also agree DeLorean was guilty?
Yes he's guilty of trying to ch
> Sam wrote:
> None of the many witness were givin immunity.
>
The U.S. attorney's manual requires that prosecutors not bring
witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future
criminal charges unless the witnesses are notified in advance that
their testimony can be used against th
On 10/11/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > But let's pretend it makes sense, name one of the many witness that were
> > promised
> > immunity for their testimony?
> >
>
> It's quite customary for volunteer witnesses to be given a guarantee
> of immunity in exchange for their testimony. In fact, it's usua
ah, it's not acceptable, doesn't mean that certain people don't *deserve*
it. Seriously though, Barry was guilty, no question, I just decry using an
ex to get to him. This is somewhat different. Rove is guilty, there is no
prosecutorial malfeasance, and even if he weren't it couldn't happen to
> Ken wrote:
> Rove will be not be proven guilty anymore than OJ or Al Capone were proven
> guilty.
>
Capone spent time in jail and so did Martha Stewart. I don't believe
she was even close to being convicted for insider trading, but that
didn't stop her from being convicted of obstruction of ju
> Sam wrote:
>
> But let's pretend it makes sense, name one of the many witness that were
> promised
> immunity for their testimony?
>
It's quite customary for volunteer witnesses to be given a guarantee
of immunity in exchange for their testimony. In fact, it's usually
assumed. No volunteer wh
Hard to argue with that knid of mindset.
On 10/11/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
> Rove will be not be proven guilty anymore than OJ or Al Capone were proven
> guilty.
>
> Unfortunately Tax laws don't play into murder , or outing CIA operatives.
>
~~
On 10/11/05, Dana wrote:
> Cooper was not being truthful? huh?
> Also, please explain how Cooper calling Rove means that Rove was not trying
> to smear Wilson.
Rove said Cooper called about welfare reform and Cooper denied it. The
e-mail backed up Rove. If Rove said he didn't fall for the Niger
Rove will be not be proven guilty anymore than OJ or Al Capone were proven
guilty.
Unfortunately Tax laws don't play into murder , or outing CIA operatives.
Confidentiality Notice: This message including any
attachments is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confident
On 10/11/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> I'm sure Rove is guilty for a few specific reasons:
>
> 1.) The Whitehouse originally said Rove had nothing to do with it.
> That turned out not to be true by the Whitehouse's own admission.
We're looking for Novak's source. Are you saying Cooper is Novak's source
> Sam wrote:
> Meaning the fact that you are so sure
> he's guilty is pure partisanship.
I'm sure Rove is guilty for a few specific reasons:
1.) The Whitehouse originally said Rove had nothing to do with it.
That turned out not to be true by the Whitehouse's own admission.
2.) #1 proves that ei
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 tryi
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 t
> Matthew wrote:
> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here?
>
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 Skil
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here?
Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:50 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: CIA Leak: Karl Rove and the Case of the Missing E-mail
> Larry wrote:
>
> Larry wrote:
> I wonder if they're going to be televising the perp walk.
>
Any indictment will be hard to make. Mr. Fitzgerald may be able to
get an obstruction of justice or perjury, but anything else looks
tough.
What's perfectly clear is that Rove and/or Libbey are guilty. If they
weren't
I wonder if they're going to be televising the perp walk.
larry
On 10/10/05, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oct. 17, 2005 issue - The White House's handling of a potentially crucial
> e-mail sent by senior aide Karl Rove two years ago set off a chain of events
> that has led special
20 matches
Mail list logo
