Yes, I know. But the question is: Was Delay's indictment enough to convince you, personally, that he was probably guilty? And if so, is Rove's NON-indictment, enough to convince you that he is probably NOT guilty?
On 6/13/06, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > indictment != guilty > !indictment != !guilty > > no indictment only means that there's not enough evidence to pursue a case > - it's not indicative of guilt nor innocence. > > --- On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:41 PM, G Money scribed: --- > > > > Let me make sure i got this straight: > > > > Tom Delay: indictment = guilty > > Carl Rove: !indictment != !guilty. > > > > Hmm...mathematically speaking, that doesn't make much sense..... > > > > > > On 6/13/06, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> !indictment != !guilty > >> > >> --- On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:29 PM, Sam scribed: --- > >>> > >>> Any comments GG? Anybody? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209084 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
