Peter_Puget Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 free as a bird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I can only imagine the joy you must be feeling right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Our little poster boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Notice that they didn't say he wasn't guilty, just that he wasn't going to be charged. I haven't heard any explanation as to why they weren't going to charge him, which seems odd. Can you say "I've cut a deal and, oh by the way, you can't say anything about it because of national security issues". Blarg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Where's the beef? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Where's the beef? Â Its good old fashioned American entrepreneurialism. It runs throughout our culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Notice that they didn't say he wasn't guilty, just that he wasn't going to be charged. I am no lawyer, but I am pretty sure that folks are presumed innocent until proven guilty. My (limited) understanding of the legal process so far was only to decide whether to press charges against Rove or not: not to proclaim his innocence or guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Notice that they didn't say he wasn't guilty, just that he wasn't going to be charged. I haven't heard any explanation as to why they weren't going to charge him, which seems odd. Can you say "I've cut a deal and, oh by the way, you can't say anything about it because of national security issues". Blarg. Â I believe grand jury deliberations are always kept secret. Sorry Foraker, no conspiracy this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Given that we are talking about Karl Rove, I think a conspiracy can pretty much be assumed. Dirty tricks and conspiracy, rather than absence thereof, are more consistent with his past conduct, no? Â Raise your hand if you think Rove had nothing to do with outing Valerie Plame as payback for Joseph Wilson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Where's the beef? Â ...Given all this, it seems almost unfathomable that Democratic Party leaders would be insisting, as have Rep. Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, that there would be no impeachment hearings in Congress if Democrats were to succeed in winning back Congress this November.... Â My God! Nancy Pelosi is a Republican!?!? Great reporting, and about what I've come to expect from the print rags. Â Foraker, I'm not really sure what your post has to do with the 'outing' of a CIA agent, or Carl Rove, for that matter! Your shocking revelation once again demonstrates the desperation of those on the left who regularly practice lobbing grenades in the vain hope that someday....just maybe....one will hit its mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Given that we are talking about Karl Rove, I think a conspiracy can pretty much be assumed. Dirty tricks and conspiracy, rather than absence thereof, are more consistent with his past conduct, no?  Like Arch said, "Innocent until proven guilty". Have you lost faith in the judiciary too? It really doesn't take a whole lot of evidence to get an indictment. Must not have been much to the charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Fairweather, maybe no conspiracy I'll grant you. Still, given the high profile nature of the case you'd think more would be forthcoming than 'well, no, not today' if for no other reason than to silence rumors. Besides, it's not like we don't live in a world of politicians and lawyers, all of whom like like "face time" on national TV.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 If it were you, and the evidence against you was not strong enough to bring up charges, would you think it was fair to have everyone examine unsubstanciated shit brought against you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 All that I'm saying is I thought it odd that *somebody* didn't say more. Given how much people in DC like to 'press the face', what's so hard to understand about that? It's not like I'm a contestant in the Obfuscation Olympics here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 "Innocent until proven guilty" unless you are an "enemy combatant" in which case you are guilty until proven innocent and you will never be given a chance to prove it.... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 "Innocent until proven guilty" unless you are an "enemy combatant" in which case you are guilty until proven innocent and you will never be given a chance to prove it.... right? why do You Hate Freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hello Fairweather and Archy: we are talking about a political figure with a long and well known background, and not some poor schmoe accused of a misdemeanor. Do you really think the lack of an indictment "proves" Rove didn't help orchestrate an outing of Plame to punish Wilson or that it should end any speculation that he did so? Which is more likely here: that he did or did not? You don't have to worry about jeopardizing his right to a fair trial here because, either way, he isn't going to get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 If it were you, and the evidence against you was not strong enough to bring up charges, would you think it was fair to have everyone examine unsubstanciated shit brought against you? Â no charges != unsubstantiated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 you're assuming he's guilty just as others are assuming he's not. everyone is saying the same thing - except one side is a little less focused on the negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 ...an outing of Plame to punish Wilson... Â Last night on Charlie Rose, Armitage said he didn't think this was the ostensible reason behind the leak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hello Fairweather and Archy: we are talking about a political figure with a long and well known background, and not some poor schmoe accused of a misdemeanor. Do you really think the lack of an indictment "proves" Rove didn't help orchestrate an outing of Plame to punish Wilson or that it should end any speculation that he did so? Which is more likely here: that he did or did not? You don't have to worry about jeopardizing his right to a fair trial here because, either way, he isn't going to get one. No, I do not think that the lack of an indictment "proves" innocence or guilt. Let me reiterate: My (limited) understanding of the legal process so far was only to decide whether to press charges against Rove or not: not to proclaim his innocence or guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Fair enough, Archy. Â We will continue to be forced to speculate because the unprecedented level of secrecy, spin and manipulation of the press employed by this Administration gives us scant little "factual" information to go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 So, the free press isn't doing their job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hello Fairweather and Archy: we are talking about a political figure with a long and well known background, and not some poor schmoe accused of a misdemeanor. Do you really think the lack of an indictment "proves" Rove didn't help orchestrate an outing of Plame to punish Wilson or that it should end any speculation that he did so? Which is more likely here: that he did or did not? You don't have to worry about jeopardizing his right to a fair trial here because, either way, he isn't going to get one. Â The burden of proof lies where? I was simply responding to a post (Foraker's) that claimed grand jury secrecy laws amounted to yet another alleged conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.