What will you do if Fitzgerald decides not to indict?

[rudy23]

I want to see Rove nailed as bad as anyone on here, but what will you do if Fitz thinks against better judgement to indict?

Will you still sing the praises of his thoroughness, his meticulous nature, or his allegiance to truth?

I guess I'm setting myself up, just in case. I've seen so many people wriggle out of trouble in the last 6 years, nothing would surprise me.

I just hope everybody takes a reality check, and realizes in all the hoopla, that Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't work for the Democratic Party, and his goal is not to dismantle the neocon machine. I'm afraid of what will happen if Fitzgerald takes the overly cautious route, and decides it's unwise to proceed with indictments.

[Teaser]

1. I'll go to work, go home in the evening, spend time with

the wife and kid...

what I do every night.

Rove's being indicted would be a nice thing. And a right and good thing. But it matters not a whit to my well being.

[stop the bleeding]

2. isn't up to the GJ? meaning they can indict if they see enough

evidence?

I am asking cause I am not sure.:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

3. There's not much we can do except to be sad about it.

[bowens43]

4. You seem to be implying that you know more about the case

then he does. If he has the evidence he will seek an indictment. If he doesn't, he won't.

[SnoopDog]

5. Then I would say that Mr. Fitzgerald looked at the evidence and found ...

no reason to do so...

Gotta trust someone and he seems to have a honest track record...

[Warpy]

6. I've steeled myself for the possibility that this is damage control

all along and that Libby was thrown to the wolves to protect the two at the top. Although I'd like to see Rove out of commission for the duration of the campaign season and utterly disgraced in the long run, I know this may not be the case.

[MikeNearMcChord]

7. I think most people here do know

that Mr. Fitzgerald doesn't work for the Democratic Party, if it doesn't happen oh well, but I suspect there are more adults here, than at Free Republic when the Senate refused to impeach Clinton, and the Freepers wanted to put the capitol to torch.

[sharp_stick]

8. It would wreck my day but

I find no reason to not trust Fitzgerald, he seems to be pretty thorough and as a rarity in Washington, honest as well.

I'd be upset because I really want to see that prick Rove brought down hard but I'm sure there's some more mud on him somewhere, just gotta keep digging for it.

[Me.]

9. "if Fitz thinks against better judgement to indict"

And he would think against better judgement because....?

*shadow government*

[thereismore]

10. Nothing. I trust Fitzgerald's judgment. nt

[rudy23]

11. I'm basically just setting myself up not to be disappointed

I trust Fitzgerald, too. If he doesn't indict, I'm sure there will be a good reason. What I am afraid of is that he errs too much on the side of caution. Then I wonder if people will continue to see his cautiousness as an asset. I'm just as guilty of putting him on a pedestal as anyone on this board, I'm just saying, let's see how this plays out. He did great on the Ryan case, so I have no real reason to doubt him, other that a hunch that if the Rove indictment is a 50/50 shot, he would err on the side of not indicting.

[Me.]

19. Why Pronounce The Patient Dead

when the prognosis is so good?

“Mark Corallo's name is suddenly popping up as Rove's spokesman.

Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig wrote in The Washington Post in October that Rove was "making contingency plans, which included having allies begin to assemble a legal and political team in case he is eventually indicted.

"Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for the Justice Department, would be part of the public relations defense team, according to a person familiar with the plan. Corallo is no stranger to high-profile defenses. He was spokesman for former representative Bob Livingston (R-La.), who was forced to step aside as the incoming speaker of the House in 1998 after admitting an extramarital affair."

Corallo specializes in "crisis management" now. Here's his bio .

Corallo told me this morning that he was hired by Luskin in October.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

*shadow government*

[novalib]

12. Primal Scream

It's amazing how therapeutic the Primal Scream can be for me.

[Loge23]

13. I don't expect it anyway

I fully expect the idiot to run out his disastrous term and for the country to absorb the wounds caused by our own nationally collective indifference.
There will not, in all probability, be any further serious damage uncovered by Fitz. It's there, I'm sure. But I think they (the criminal admin) buried it pretty deep.

[foreverdem]

14. I'd be sad, but...

Fitzgerald cannot singlehandedly bring down this administration, nor should he have to. That's the job of us and our Party.

If he did not indict, I would accept that he had good reason. It wouldn't change my opinion of him.

[Brazenly Liberal]

15. The only thing you can do is keep on keepin' on.

No, Fitzgerald doesn't work for the Democratic Party. But that's not a bad thing.

Here in Illinois, where he's been working for some time, he has a strong reputation as an honest man, scrupulous and uncorrupted and impartial. If he doesn't indict, it will be a disappointment, but I will believe he has good reasons for not indicting and be confident that he's not missing something another prosecutor would have found.

[yodermon]

16. I'm actually more concerned about AFTER he indicts

Rove for purjury/OoJ etc. Will Fitz then declare he has investigated all he can, and due to the lying of Rove & Libby, he cannot continue?

[H2O Man]

17. too late n/t

[stop the bleeding]

21. :) n/t

[dogday]

18. Tomorrow is another day

Don't get him today, will get him tomorrow....

[Radio_Guy]

20. Then we investigate Fitz

There is more than enough evidence to indict Rove. Anyone who has been paying attention can see that.

[hang a left]

22. .........

[warrens]

23. I'll assume he couldn't prove a case

That's the justice system. You can be sure someone is guilty, but you still have to prove it. Sometimes bad guys walk.

[0007]

24. Wish they'd be as ruthless on this crime cabal as the government

was with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

This has taken so long I'm starting to think the fix is in..If so!

I'll be pissed.