To: tear gas
That’s silly. Since you cannot prove a crime, it must be only because the evidence was destroyed.
27 posted on
11/30/2007 6:19:53 PM PST by
Perdogg
(Elections have consequences.)
To: Perdogg
Well, you know - no controlling legal authority.
30 posted on
11/30/2007 6:27:09 PM PST by
TitansAFC
("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
To: Perdogg
LOL. It isn't MY job to prove a crime. It may be, though, that there will now evidence for people who do prosecute crimes back there. It reminds me a lot of the Duke Cunningham mess. I recall him also saying that no one would be able to prove he was engaged in criminal misconduct.
And, beyond that, I think you're making a mistake if you think the American people are going to be impressed by a candidate's claim that this clear abuse of his position must be excused unless he is first convicted of a crime. I think Rudy's candidacy is effectively over.
And that's the way God wants it.
31 posted on
11/30/2007 6:27:12 PM PST by
tear gas
(Because of the 22nd Amendment, we are losing President. Bush. Can we afford to lose him now?)
To: Perdogg
Hard to find out anything when Giuliani stole his mayoral records and put them under lock and key, against all tradition.
I wonder what he’s hiding in there?
57 posted on
11/30/2007 8:19:32 PM PST by
Politicalmom
(Huckabee is the GOP's Jimmy Carter. Are you ready for the plundering of your pocketbook?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson