Grand jury bites governor

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's spokeswoman said he hadn't seen the special grand jury's report on his administration's wrongdoing (he's in Japan). But a statement was issued in his name anyway scoffing at the report as a "litany of sound bites rather than a legal document of purported evidence."

That sounds more like lawyer talk than Ernie.

But since he's trying to get re-elected, you think they ought to come up with a snappier response than denial and contempt for the grand jury?

OK, we've all heard the line that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But this grand jury gave up 17 months of their lives, heard 150 witnesses, indicted 29 of Fletcher's associates. That's a lot of ham sandwiches. And Fletcher not only had to issue a blanket pardon for them, but in the deal to get his own criminal charges dropped, he admitted "evidence strongly indicates wrongdoing by his administration...."

Besides, is it fair to misrepresent the jurors' report as "sound bites" and not legalistic enough, after Fletcher's lawyers did all in their powers to keep it under court seal, and the Kentucky Supreme Court wouldn't let the grand jury name any of the indicted aides whom Fletcher blanket-pardoned?