I know but I'd assume (ack - I hate assuming <g>) that Sam wanted to indicate that Rove was vindicated and ergo not guilty. I'm just saying that no indictment means that there was not enough evidence to proceed. Rove could still be as guilty as sin or as pure as the driven snow (cough).
--- On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:47 PM, Nick McClure scribed: --- > > But it could also be construed to meaning that he didn't do anything > illegal. > > Just like an indictment doesn't always mean that somebody is guilty. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209079 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
