Skip to comments.
****CONDIT NAILED!**** Prosecutors Set to Indict on Obstructing Police Investigation
Nat'l Enquirer World Exclusive ^
| June 19, 2002 Issue
| Mile Walker-Executive Editor
Posted on 06/07/2002 7:17:46 AM PDT by codebreaker
Prosecutors are set to indict the congressman on charges that he has tried to stymie the investigation into Chandra's disappearance and death, sources close to the investigation have revealed.
What's more the sources say several pieces of evidence have convinced investigators that Condit is linked to Chandra's murder.
The issue that goes on sale Friday reveals what happened when Condit appeared before a Federal Grand Jury.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: California
KEYWORDS: chicks; condidit; cops; keyevidence; nailed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: Biblebelter
An excellent observation!
21
posted on
06/07/2002 7:36:50 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Biblebelter
To: AmishDude
I think if they indict him for obstruction, they've given up on the murder charge. Not Necessarily. Indicting him for any crime can open up the door to more investigation of him and staff. Don't take the Enquirer so lightly either. Didn't you see 'Real Men.'?
To: lavaroise
Con dit, hmmm, you're right, never thought of that.
"Condidit" in Latin is the past tense of "condit." Condit is over.
To: codebreaker
I'd like to see another source.
25
posted on
06/07/2002 7:41:37 AM PDT
by
Rita289
To: Rita289
The next source will probably be the Washington Post or the NY Times.
To: aristeides
Let's just hope an indictment will get him off the intelligence committee.
27
posted on
06/07/2002 7:43:16 AM PDT
by
ClancyJ
To: codebreaker
You know, you're probably right.
28
posted on
06/07/2002 7:43:37 AM PDT
by
Rita289
To: codebreaker
Whenever the Enquirer or the Globe dwelve into political reporting, it is usually fairly accurate. You mentioned Ro[d]ger Clinton & JJ, but another example is the toe sucker Dick Morris. It was the Globe who outed him.
To: ClancyJ
I think this will apply enormous pressure to condits staff to fess up what they know. And do not diss the Inquirer and the Globe,,they do get it right sometime.
To: Types_with_Fist
Didn't you see 'Real Men.'? What a great movie. Youfos. I love that term.
31
posted on
06/07/2002 7:47:51 AM PDT
by
abner
To: cajungirl
I know the Enquirer and others get it right some and glad they do. At least they stir the pot.
It is hard to protect this country when we have so many in our own government that are not worthy of the honor due to their lives or their backers. People like McKinney who is backed by terrorists and Condit who is involved in all forms of seediness are not people that are trustworthy. If they do the things they are doing - they would also sell the U.S. out for their personal gain. Get them out of the government.
32
posted on
06/07/2002 7:50:07 AM PDT
by
ClancyJ
Comment #33 Removed by Moderator
To: Types_with_Fist
"Real Men"??? Sorry, must have missed that one.
You have an excellent point about a new investigation starting up, but if he's indicted -- on anything -- he gets all kinds of rights that he didn't have before.
I still think if this is true, it indicates that they're giving up.
To: AmishDude
I still think if this is true, it indicates that they're giving up. Well, like you probably do, I hope you are mistaken.
To: Types_with_Fist
Yes, I hope I'm mistaken also. I hope the article is true and the obstruction indictment is just the foot in the door to get that last bit of info to get him on murder.
To: ClancyJ
Amen to that, if he is indicted is that enough to throw him off the intelligence committee?
To: codebreaker
How many times did we hear during the Clinton years that Hillary was going to be indicted? That Bill Clinton was going to be named as an "unindicted co-conspirator"? That Dan Burton was going to blow up the Vince Foster investigation?
The rule in Washington DC is that "no one pays". So I won't believe that Condit will be indicted until he actually is indicted.
38
posted on
06/07/2002 8:02:48 AM PDT
by
Kermit
To: AmishDude
Indicting him for obstruction sounds like the perfect plan here. They can now proceed to question him in depth and possibly get their hands on various records he's refused to turn over.
And more importantly, I don't think prosecutors would be required to share their evidence on the murder itself with his team -- just the evidence supporting the obstruction charge.
To: ClancyJ
And this wouldn't be the first time the Tabs get the goods from what is happening in the Grand Jury room.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson