Comments on: Seal Versus Seal Versus Unemployment

By: Dave Hardy

Dave Hardy — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:13:31 +0000

Sure. All a prosecutor needs for an indictment is probable cause, variously defined as including “strong suspicion.” And he can use hearsay, etc. Just one person who could say that someone else told them that they knew Rove broke the law. Or at least did something that would make you strongly suspicious that he did so. And of course the defense attorney is not invited to put on his case, or allowed to rebut the evidence.

The saying that you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to may be overstating it, but not by too much.

By: The Anchoress » The Sour Grapes Round-up

The Anchoress » The Sour Grapes Round-up — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:55:52 +0000

[...] Somehow I think just typing that line made some leftist’s head explode. Sorry. I’m not out to hurt anyone! The Blue Crab does seem to think, though, that an able prosecutor should be able to get a grand jury indictment on anyone if he has credible stuff to present to it. Ouch. That sounds like common sense, doesn’t it? Byron York has more, and Decision ‘08 has reactions from the left. [...]

By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Rove Will NOT Be Indicted

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Rove Will NOT Be Indicted — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:30:23 +0000

[...] Blue Crab Boulevard [...]

By: The Moderate Voice

The Moderate Voice — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:42:25 +0000

No Charges For Rove Means He Focuses Full Attention On Political Role…

A lot of the news and weblog assumptions of the past few months have been swept away with news that White House political guru Karl Rove will not be indicted in the Plamegate case — a case that many reports had suggested had distracted Rove from …