Justus For All

Not me!

I am trying to work out the difference between “…charges will not be laid…” and “not guilty”.

Does it mean that there are no charges to answer? If so, why not say “The Grand Jury can find no charges to be answered”

If there were potential charges, but Rove is not guilty of those charges then why not say “Not guilty of the charges being investigated”.

Or does it mean that it is not worth proceeding because there is now no possibility of a fair and impartial trial given the extent of publicity given to the case throughout the Grand Jury process? If that is the case, why not say so?

No charges = no charges, Probligo. No guilt possible if there is no charge. No subject, no predicate. A big box of nothing. A bleak wasteland of dashed leftist expectations. A large table was set and all the guests imagined they smelled delicious and appetizing scents wafting from the kitchen. Public Health Department came in and sent everyone home hungry, citing Botulism. Game called because of rain, and no time left for re-scheduling. Elvis has left the building.

K,

After wading through all of the emotive claptrap, I think your answer lay in the first 23 characters.

OK, so the Grand Jury is reported to have believed that Rove did not lie about his conversation with the Time Magazine reporter, or reveal the name of the active CIA operative. Why not so say if that is the case?

Does not upset me in the least, nor would an indictment in the remote instance that events had taken that course.

I am glad your system has worked in this instance. Thank you for your clear and succinct reply. It helps a lot.

The actual Grand Jury record will make for fascinating reading - when it eventually hits the light of day. Because the only reports thus far are (and I have been asleep for the past eight hours) are the press release of Rove’s lawyer. I accept that he is reporting accurately what the Grand Jury has told him. But the Grand Jury itself is silent. That is a fascinating situation.