> 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 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:176747 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
