DRUDGE: NYT FRIDAY: Rove and Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy

Drudge ^ | 10/20/2005 | Drudge

[soccermom]

With all due respect, even if there wasn't an underlying crime, we have to follow the law within the investigation. If the prosecutor is nit-picking over a few minor inconsistencies, that is one thing. But if these guys lied to cover up something that wasn't even a crime, they're idiots. What will it take for people to learn that the "cover-up" is worse than the "crime". Remember when the judge threw out the Paula Jones case and Clinton was banging on the bongo drums? Their side thought, since there was no Jones case, the perjury and Obstruction of Justice by Clinton shouldn't be pursued. Sorry -- Clinton still broke the law, even if he thought it was no biggie because the case was a non-issue. I hope the NYT is wrong. But, if they did break the law trying to cover something that wasn't even criminal, they deserve to face charges. We can't lower ourselves to the democrat standards.

[BushisTheMan]

Respectfully, you sound like a DUer.

[BushisTheMan]

You're a moron.

[JeffAtlanta]

And who looked like, and turned out to be, the bigger man?

It made Bush look like Nagin's lapdog. It was all shades of Jimmy Carter.

[wny]

get a grip

[toddlintown]

And Generalissimo Franco is still dead.