What will be the right-wing spin if Fitzgerald indicts ?

[kentuck]

What will Hannity and Rush say?
They can't credibly say it's a partisan investigation. They might say that the Special Prosecutor went beyond his authority? But, they contradict themselves with the Ken Starr investigation which they supported wholeheartedly if they do that? So what will be their spin?

[deadparrot]

1. I think they've put the one of the worst-case scenarios out there,

(Cheney and/or Bush being involved--and by extension, indicted) so when it doesn't happen, they can point to it and say, "See!? It's not as bad as we thought. This is a victory for the WH."

[BReisen]

8. I agree

I think all the leaks about 22 indictments, Cheney and/or Bush being indicted, etc., etc., are all out there so that the real indictments can be played as not so bad.

[MadisonProgressive]

2. They'll play the race card

[kentuck]

3. How so ?

Appoint another incompetent Clarence Thomas wannabe?

[MadisonProgressive]

5. No the jury is mostly black

The targets are all white

[kentuck]

6. Duh...

OK.. :)

[adigal]

4. Hannity has started this already

He is saying that it is VERY DISTURBING if someone gets indicted for forgetting a meeting or a phone conversation 2 1/2 years ago (like Rove was not purposefully talking to Cooper) or indicted for lying about a situation that ends up NOT BEING A CRIME.

Then dumbass said something that perplexed me: He keeps asking how anyone would ever show up and testify in a grand jury if a prosecutor can use a simple mix-up of times or dates against them. I must be on very confused, because I thought that when you were called (subpoenaed) in front of a grand jury, it was not a tea party: you have no choice but to show up.

Is this right? Because I am going to call dumbass tomorrow if I am right and ask him where he got his law degree. (Although he never finished college, he thinks he is a lawyer.)

[kentuck]

7. But the investigation started 2 years ago ?

It should have been fresh in their minds at that time, right?