Do you mean the guy who decided not to indict Democrats for there courthouse kickback scheme because of the election?
On 3/13/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ummm maybe because there is nothing there to investigate? I did voter > registration in the last election. THe instructions for homeless people were > to get the address where they can receive mail. > > I see your point, but raise you this -- a woman who was in a very tight race, > hot and cold running attack ads, saturation coverage, that she eventually won > by maybe a couple hundred votes only, called a US attorney to know why he > wasn't investigating her opponent over a bogus issue. > > The key is the bogus issue, and the phone call. Don't get me wrong, there's > stuff to investigate in New Mexico and maybe Patricia Madrid could have done > it better, but voter fraud is not on the list. > > Also, I get a sick little feeling when I hear that Gonzales' staff was > "excited" to find out that the Patriot Act removed the requirement for > Congressional approval of new appointees. Sure they drafted that up in a > couple days. And look how convenient it is when > > >The prosecutions were about voter fraud, I'd like to know why they > >wouldn't investigate that personally. > > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2 Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:230047 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
