tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post7112300006965751725..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Rove did NOT Deny Involvement in the Siegelman Caselegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-41623526394370657012010-02-19T12:11:07.109-06:002010-02-19T12:11:07.109-06:00Do you have copy writer for so good articles? If s...Do you have copy writer for so good articles? If so please give me contacts, because this really rocks! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-22829963184328362009-08-14T17:44:58.182-05:002009-08-14T17:44:58.182-05:00Glenn Bumphus:
I think it was not the mandate of ...Glenn Bumphus:<br /><br />I think it was not the mandate of the inquiry to accuse Rove but to establish if in fact a crime had been committed.<br /><br />Formal accusations will come later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-28475135331540153162009-08-14T10:34:15.736-05:002009-08-14T10:34:15.736-05:00Why didn't the Judiciary Committee call Canary...Why didn't the Judiciary Committee call Canary, Riley, et al, first to build the case against Rove. If they start taking the fifth or "not recalling" on a question as significant as whether Rove was involved then the jig is up.<br /><br />It makes no sense that they didn't work from that end firstGlenn Bumphusnoreply@blogger.com