I've been saying this for quite some time now. I just don't get it! I think he was fed to the "liberal sharks" to keep them quiet for a while. Plame wasn't even undercover so I don't know what the big deal is!
2007-03-08 05:12:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
For the same reason the guy "possessing drugs" will be charges when they can't get enough evidence to charge the drug dealer. Unfortunately, if the guy possessing doesn't give up the dealer, he takes the brunt. But, is he not guilty because of that? I think Scooter is quite guilty. Armitage is another issue-kind of like the dealer.
2007-03-08 13:38:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
He was accused and found guilty of perjury, not leaking anything. Everyone accepts he did not leak anything but there is no evidence of any crime being committed. Libby was just caught telling a lie to a grand jury. Nothing else is relevant.
2007-03-08 13:59:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elizabeth Howard 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was not found guilty of leaking the name. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to Federal investigators.
2007-03-08 13:11:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Crabboy4 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's the Washington thing. He wasn't charged with leaking. He was charged with lying.
2007-03-08 13:53:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Handy man 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the same reason that Leonard Peltier was found guilty! His judge actually said, "I know you didn't do it but someone has to pay."
And who says that Libby didn't do it?
2007-03-08 13:10:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Barkley C 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Didn't Clinton lie under oath?
2007-03-08 20:19:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by RNDiva 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
sorry it didnt work out for you the way you wanted it too
he was guilty of lying
get your facts straight
2007-03-08 13:12:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋