It's surprising that he didn't know anything given his position...
2006-06-13 04:45:11 · 5 answers · asked by Squirrel 74 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You need proof of a crime and he covered his behind well. If you cannot get enough proof, in our country, you can't prosecute.That said, boy is he good at this. Talk about Teflon!!! Nothing sticks to him. He must know where all the skeletons are buried!!!
2006-06-24 02:20:17 · answer #1 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The prosecutor Fitzgerald could not prove Rove did anything. There is a building watch in Washington because Democrats may throw themselves off tall buildings there. Sorry to see your Rovian dilemma.
2006-06-13 12:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Innocenct or not, the prosecuter in the case couldn't produce enough evidence of wrong doing to warrant charges or a trial.
People, don't believe everything you read on the internet or hear on the news. Do your own research and form your own opinions.
2006-06-13 11:51:26 · answer #3 · answered by GPC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he is innocent. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Because the GOP are experts at CYA.
2006-06-13 11:47:52 · answer #4 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cause fitzy found nothing!!!
2006-06-22 21:43:34 · answer #5 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋