"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F9687505B92fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:cDX6f.1833$Y61.1337@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8BF809ED90fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:rkQ6f.2375$Lv.790@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8522A4A2ECfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Stuart" <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote in
news:1130041561.787672.142010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the
evidence, and they are the ones that count, not you and
Delay's invisible laws and facts. I guess you'll just
have to deal with justice hitting Delay just like it
hits everyone else.

Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At
least one of the grand jury members is quoted as saying
that he was influenced by adverse publicity in the media
before the grand jury was even convened.

Which shows how conservatives tend to be like
creationists, hanging their beliefs on the slimmest of
evidence while ignoring the big picture.

The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of
wasn't even a crime.

In which case, it will be thrown out of court, no trial and
Delay Exonerated.

Now, if that doesn't happen, will you conceed that Delay is
being accused of actual crimes?

Yes or No, Fred

No. I will concede if he goes to trial and is convicted.

Please forgive me if I doubt your word. If he goes to trial in
Austin, I think you'll complain that the judge is biased against
your hero. If he's convicted, I think you'll complain that the
jury was biased.

How'd I do?

Pathetically.

I hope we'll see.

Now it's your turn.
If the whole DeLay thing gets thrown out of court, will you:
a. declare it all a whitewash

Probably be an appeals court involved. If I can read the judgment
on appeal, I certainly won't do a.

b. accept the fact that DeLay was innocent

Nope. I can accept the fact that the state was unable to make
its case, though.

c. complain that the judge was biased

c. is unlikely, but I'll have to read the opinion.

And in a similar case, if Fitzgerald doesn't bring an indictment, or
indicts Wilson and Plame for leaking secrets, will you:
a. declare Fitz a "partisan"

a. is unlikely. Fitzgerald has a sterling reputation, and he's not
likely to issue a report on the matter. So I'll likely have no basis
to call Fitzgerald a partisan.

(Have Wilson or Plame been called before the grand jury or informed
that they're the subjects of the inquiry?)

b. condemn Wilson and Plame as manipulators

Plame doesn't seem to be much of an actor in this drama.
Wilson is a manipulator. But that has nothing to do with the leak.

c. make ridiculous hyperbolic accusations about Rove

In this case, there are three possible accusations against Rove:
1) he revealed the name of an undercover operative, 2) he
misused classified information, 3) he made perjurious statements
or took obstructive action.

Any, none, or all of those accusations might be substantiated.
Not one of them is in the least outlandish, along the lines, say,
of accusing Clinton of participating in the murders of 40 people
in Arkansas.

Does that answer your questions?

Deadrat

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

<snip>