[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, Fitzgerald just said nobody else is going to be indited. Republicans were right, this was a bunch of hooey. What a horrible Fitzmas! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not so into this case and have no idea who is guilty or not, but how can he say that somebody will not be indicted but still keep them under investigation? Doesn't being under investigation mean that there is a possibility that you will be indicted, if not there would not be grounds for investigation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he didn't exactly say "no more inditements". But he said "it would be rare", and the Grand Jury furture availablity was just a normal course of action. Reading between the lines, this is it. No Rove, let alone Cheney or investigation into the lies that led us to war.