To: sinkspur
Uh, that referral was made two years ago.""
No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February. And why would the passage of time from February to now change the nature of the evidence that they saw?
To: churchillbuff
And why would the passage of time from February to now change the nature of the evidence that they saw? Uh, lots of folks testified who hadn't testified then.
If the evidence was so rock solid, why has Fitzgerald STILL not indicted anybody?
23 posted on
10/22/2005 7:45:00 PM PDT by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: churchillbuff
"No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February."
The word "grave" does not appear in that opinion.
So much for your credibility. Sheesh.
25 posted on
10/22/2005 7:46:02 PM PDT by
Sam Hill
To: churchillbuff; sinkspur
No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February. And why would the passage of time from February to now change the nature of the evidence that they saw? FEBRUARY 2005 was when Fitz sought phone records of NY Times reporter Phillip Shenon in the probe of a leak by a government employee about a planned raid on the offices of the Global Relief Foundation.
51 posted on
10/22/2005 8:30:59 PM PDT by
piasa
(Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
To: churchillbuff
No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime Perhaps the crime is treason committed against a sitiing President during a time of war?
104 posted on
10/23/2005 10:11:36 AM PDT by
ez
(Extremism, like all else, should be applied in moderation.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson