Berger admitted to taking classified information out of the archives. This is a felony. His position demands that he knows this.
Libby is not being charged with leaking classified information because he did not. There was no crime, yet he is being charged for giving false information about a conversation of minor relevance he had years earlier.
One of the writers of the law they initially tried to charge Libby with has publicly stated that the Plame situation did not qualify for the law.
How is this right?
2006-12-26 15:30:13 · 5 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Libby was asked to recall a conversation he had years earlier with a reporter. It is highly possible that he honestly did not remember. Since there was no crime and he knew it, what motivation did he have to lie?
2006-12-27 02:45:12 · update #1
Because the Republicans and Democrats have adopted different strategies to deal with charges of corruption. When public oppinion turns strongly enough against a Republican, the rest of them go out of their way to punish him, in an attempt to distance themselves from the charges. Foley - out, and ruined. Lott - out, and ruined. Libby - out, and ruined. The list goes on...
The Democrats' strategy is a continuation of what worked so well for Clinton. Deny everything, and fight everything, no matter how much evidence there is. Jefferson - still in office. Frank - still in office. Berger, even after a conviction for a serious federal felony - no jail time, and likely back in office if Hilary wins. And again, the list goes on...
The Democrats' strategy seems to be working better.
G-
The size of the issue is directly proportional to the importance of the man. Clinton was clearly much more important than Libby. Even so, Clinton only faced losing his job. Libby faces jail time, for an identical offence.
2006-12-26 15:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by Thisisnotmyrealname 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Berger is a democrat, and Libby is a republican. The media vilified Libby and convicted him before he was even charged with anything. Berger admitted to a serious crime, but that was barely reported. I think exposure influences prosecutorial decisions sometimes. There is huge media pressure to go after Libby, but none to go after Berger. That the only explanation I can come up with. I agree that Bergers crime is much more serious than anything Libby did. Not even sure he's committed any crime.
2006-12-26 15:37:56 · answer #2 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Libby worked for a Republican while Berger worked for a Democrat. Republicans are guilty until proven innocent and even then they still accused of being guilty. Democrats are always innocent even when being proved guilty.
2006-12-26 15:44:16 · answer #3 · answered by Fly Boy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's a very good question my friend. I guess because Berger was part of Clinton's "teflon" Administration. Why is it that if you ask a lib this question, they want to spin it all to hel* to make it look like it's someone else's fault? The guy is a crook and he just walks around free. It's wrong!
2006-12-26 15:36:55 · answer #4 · answered by Cinner 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
how is it a minor issue when scooter lies under oath...
yet a HUGE issue when Clinton lies under oath?
both about fairly minor issues overall as far as the government is concerned...
and the whole Berger thing seems to have been more "after the fact"... more and more revealed much after it occurred... which a lot of people go... "that sucks, but it was years ago"...
2006-12-26 17:31:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋