[Dr. Frank fan]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dems did their homework on votes for "declassifying" and must feel safe that it won't happen, therefore, can't prove perjury.

You might be right but I'm not sure why you would assume the (D)s don't want to see Clarke be prosecuted.

A lot of people here are assuming that a Clarke prosecution would be bad for the (D)s. I'm not so sure. I suppose everyone is assuming that he would be prosecuted for lying before Congress in last week's testimony by comparing it with 2002's testimony.

I'm not so sure it wouldn't be the other way around.

[Ingtar]

Besides, where would the Republicans find a friendly judge in DC?

[Jodi]

oops, sorry, posted before I saw your #60.

[ArmstedFragg]

I'm not sure why you would assume the (D)s don't want to see Clarke be prosecuted.

For what it's worth, "Tiny Tommy" was running around yesterday trying to plant the "Clarke is a victim" line, in an apparent attempt to immunize him from the negative consequences of his actions. It's not like him 'free lance', so I'd guess that's the agreed tactic.

It's always possible it was part of a "please don't throw me in the briar patch" routine, though.

[cyncooper]

A lot of people here are assuming that a Clarke prosecution would be bad for the (D)s. I'm not so sure. I suppose everyone is assuming that he would be prosecuted for lying before Congress in last week's testimony by comparing it with 2002's testimony.

I'm not so sure it wouldn't be the other way around.

Let's see, every bit of documentation and evidence supports what Clarke was saying in earlier years. There is nothing to factually support his latest claims.

I'll use common sense and my brain and state I am 100% positive it is his latest testimony that is false.

But you just click your heels together three times and make a wish and maybe up will be down and down will be up. But I don't think so.

LOL