Posted on 11/16/2005 8:36:28 PM PST by new yorker 77
sweet.
Heh Fritz, how about looking into that trip of Senator Rockerfeller, (D) WV? I'm not an expert on the law, but surely you are.
"strikes me as the kind of guy who would rather play hopscotch with a prison rapist than... "
LOL! I'm stealing that line from you.
company man
The world will hear the creatures at DU screaming all the way in China.
Chris Matthews will hang himself off the Tappan Zee Bridge.
Yeah those Justice Department rules..are they the same ones used at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the FBI agent shooting the kid in the face while he ws trying to undo his seatbelt?
"Hillary Administration"??? The first thing is will there still be a volunteer military force? They might have to revert to a draft.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
Thanks for heads up. Surely we shall see details in the coming days.
I will believe it when I see it.
It's a $4 toll.
The sweet irony in this is that Woodward, the sainted journalist of Watergate fame, may derail the Dem's try at creating another Watergate scandal.
Karma!!
Levin's on this???
Done deal, then.
I hope it gets thrown out. I cannot express how much fun it would be to toss this back into the face of one of my socialist co-workers.
Or at least to sit back and watch him pi$$ all over himself. ("It's a cover up...Bush has cronies at Justice...blah, blah")
9-11.233 Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts' supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department's policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.
Could this be the rule they are referring to?
That's Ted Wells, and he is damn good.
I posted what I heard.
Type in 75% in the search part of news/activism here on freerepublic.
Scroll down to the John Fund/Batchelor show on Harriet Meirs.
Read the posts mocking my post which was two weeks before her withdrawal.
FYI means FYI.
Somewhere, Dick Nixon's got a big sh!t-eating grin on his face.
I love freerepublic.
Thank you Tex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.