It is clear that the Left feels the need to make things up about the Right to try and get ahead...
Where are all the charges for Rove? If he did anything wrong there would be some sort of charges...even if he might have maybe done something kind of wrong there would have been charges...fact is he didn't...
What about DeLay? Here is what my favorite woman said about that: (leaving name out for now so maybe some Lefties actually read it)
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week, which came as a surprise to people who think it's normal for a prosecutor to have to empanel six grand juries in order to get an indictment on simple fund-raising violations. Mr. Earle will presumably assemble a seventh grand jury as soon as he locates someone in the county who hasn't served on a previous one.
It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means he concluded that — even if the jury finds everything Ronnie Earle alleges to be true — no crime was committed.
To repeat what you might already have heard in third grade: In America, the validity of criminal charges is determined by the trier of fact after a trial. A judge is not authorized to dismiss a criminal indictment handed up by a grand jury just because the prosecutor is a political hack.
This is true even if the prosecutor had to spend three years and empanel six grand juries to get an indictment.
It is true even if the same prosecutor also indicted Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison days after she was elected to the U.S. Senate, but after spending a year holding press conferences in which he called Hutchinson a criminal, still had no evidence and folded his hand.
So now and forevermore, Earle claims his case against Hutchison was watertight, but because the judge ruled against him, he was prevented from presenting his "evidence" to the jury. Remember that when liberals call Bill O'Reilly a "liar" because he won a Polk award, but one time he got confused and called it a Peabody award.
It is actually sad that the Left gets political points for simply making things up....
Thursday, December 08, 2005
What happened to all this corruption?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
If you want to talk about made up charges, read about all the "scandals" of the previous administration.
You demonstrate that you have scant knowledge of the legal system. It is quite common for a judge to dismiss charges prior to a jury hearing the evidence. That's why there is a process of pre-trial motions in which the defense attempts to present case law and evidence that will mitigate the prosecution's evidence. Sometimes the defense wins, sometimes it loses. Sometimes the judge decides to throw out cases on a technicality. Sometimes those charges are reinstated on appeal.
I don't know what you heard in your third grade law class, but while the jury is most often the trier of fact, the judge determines whether the charges meet legal requirements, definitions and precedent and whether the evidence to be presented
is sufficient to even convene a jury.
It happens in thousands of courtrooms every day.
Have you not read or heard that the special prosecutor is still interviewing witnesses about the CIA leak case. That he is now meeting for hours with the next grand jury. That he has been meeting with Rove's lawyer day after day.
Just as Libby is innocent until proven guilty, Rove is not off the hook until the special prosecutor has finished his investigation and cleared Rove.
So be patient.
Dude, the entire Texas legal system is a joke. It just appears that Democrat Texans are just as corrupt as Republican ones. Go ahead...ask me why.
Damn, I always forget. Yeah, they dropped one charge out of three on the guy. Thats not really a commanding show of confidence. Also, the only reason they dropped the charge was because they found out that the charge would have been ex post facto. Of course, they made the law because of DeLay's shady dealings with corporations.
I know what woman you are talking about and I posted a comment about her recent speech, and the reaction to it. She is one of my favorites too.
"Just as Libby is innocent until proven guilty, Rove is not off the hook until the special prosecutor has finished his investigation and cleared Rove." ???
Jim, read the statement you wrote. Cleared Rove of what? He's not charged with anything. It's the press and lefty pundits pointing fingers. Fitz is investigating the circumstances surrounding the possible outing of an CIA operative (bogus, of course IMHO). Just ask Woodward...
Liberals are the worst when it comes to twisting language to suit them. Jim, you're one the lefties I know, who should know better.
Join reality, EH. Rove is clearly suspected of something, otherwise he wouldn't have testified at least 4 times before the grand jury, Matt Cooper wouldn't have been forced to testify about his conversations with Rove, and Rove's lawyer wouldn't be meeting with Fitzgerald and staff day after day.
Doesn't mean Rove is guilty, but he is certainly under investigation by the Justice Department. When and if Fitzgerald's investigation has determined that Rove has committed no crime, I'm sure he will clear Rove of wrong-doing.
I'm pretty sure "clearing" somebody of suspicion or charges is common parlance. So don't accuse me of "twisting language" because you don't understand it.
And the fact that Woodward may have been told about Plame before others doesn't somehow PROVE that no crime was committed.
Who said Rove was suspected of anything except the liberal press? You said, "Just as Libby is innocent until proven guilty, Rove is not off the hook until the special prosecutor has finished his investigation and cleared Rove." That's having both ways, Jim. Rove IS innocent until guilty just like Libby - which you just said. But you then said Rove wasn't off the hook until Fitz cleared him. Cleared him of what? You are insinuating that Rove is guilty. He isn't accused of anything.
I understand the language all to clearly when it comes from liberals. The Woodward timeline blows Fitz's press conference story right out the water. His case is in trouble. The rest is wishful thinking on your part.
For Jim... suggested reading.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/
columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007658
"Why make a federal case out of it? Two reasons emerge. The first is if Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Karl Rove for violating this law, Mr. Rove likely would resign and the Bush presidency would be significantly damaged. The alternative explanation is that the press is merely pursuing a possible violation of federal law and any damage to the presidency is therefore the self-inflicted wound of Ms. Plame's outer. If it is the former, then the conservative paranoia about the press isn't paranoia. If the latter, then the Beltway press has lost its mind; they are making the practice of journalism more litigious for all the rest of us."- WSJ
EH,
Are you clueless or just over-dosing on kool-aid? I'm not insuating Rove is guilty at all. I'm stating that he is under suspicion.
NY Times 12/2/05: Lawyers in the case have said that Mr. Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, remains in legal jeopardy because his initial statements to investigators and to the grand jury were not accurate.
What does "legal jeopardy" mean to you? Since the feds don't talk, the only "lawyers in the case" cited would have to be Rove's.
I suppose you mean well and all Jim, but honestly.....isn't that stick crammed a little too far up your backside for comfort?
It wouldn't hurt to loosen that tie a bit, wrinkle the shirt, and toss back a couple of strong drinks from time to time....What DO you DO for a living that makes you such a stuffed shirt?
Excuse me please... Game. So sorry if this is improper. I've just been wondering about that for a while now:Z
That's it?
Well, I'm impressed.
Jim, It's just that the stuffed shirt mentality comes through so strong in your writings...to the point where it overrides your intended messages........zzzzzzzzzz
Post a Comment