tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post6853111768167368082..comments2024-01-22T18:22:29.391-08:00Comments on hedera's corner: Questionshederahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01696592301686568456noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-10276637992218766562008-08-05T17:38:00.000-07:002008-08-05T17:38:00.000-07:00On the positive side--if we can call it that--pros...On the positive side--if we can call it that--prosecution lawyers rarely want to go into court just to harass someone. They usually are convinced of someone's guilt, even if only on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, before they move to indict and prosecute. In cases like this, I would think the fair thing to do would be to make a clean breast of what evidence they DID have, just to prove that they WEREN'T needlessly troubling him. But of course they won't. The implication--since they won't--is that they DIDN'T have a strong case. <BR/><BR/>Does anything that happens on Dubya's watch surprise me?Curtis Favillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06213075853354387634noreply@blogger.com