I always thought Delay was a sleazeball...so I think my own personal bias led me to consider him guilty once the indictment came down.
My bias against Rove is that he seems to lack morals when it comes to personal attacks (like what you indicated against McCain), but I'm not sure that extends to actually breaking the law. So i guess the no indictment against Rove pretty much convinces me he's not guilty. Doesn't mean I have to like him, though. On 6/13/06, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There seems to be a bit of credible evidence against Delay. Fitzpatrick > did not indicate any type of concrete evidence against Rove. So, I guess I > feel that Delay is likely guilty but the jury is still out as it were on > Rove. Personally, even if Rove was not implicated in the Plame affair he's > a dirty bastard that always at least skirts the law and definitely has no > morals (refer to his treatment of McCain in 2000). > > --- On Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:54 PM, G Money scribed: --- > > > > 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? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209089 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
