To: Darkwolf377
Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.
I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th.
I don't hold much hope of the Republicans stand up against this one either.
35 posted on
07/09/2007 1:42:13 AM PDT by
Tut
To: Tut
I don't hold much hope of the Republicans stand up against this one either.Can't dispute you there.
The last election certainly did nothing to weaken the RINOs.
36 posted on
07/09/2007 1:43:15 AM PDT by
Darkwolf377
(Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
To: Tut; Darkwolf377
I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th. Wouldn't it be interesting, if Fitz will ask for and/or get an immunity from prosecution for false testimony, similar to the way Valerie Plame got immunized for her testimony to Congress / Waxman committee. That may be an ultimate goal of this Congressional "investigations", besides creating yet another hypocritical media storm, to inoculate the perpetrators of a real crime - witchhunt and persecution of and attempted coup against the White House and OVP - from potential investigation and prosecution.
42 posted on
07/09/2007 2:05:11 AM PDT by
CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson