2007-03-09 06:40:37 · 18 answers · asked by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That's a question designed for this site. I'm just going to bow out and let you guys go at it. I can't stand the sight of blood. (Especially mine).
2007-03-09 06:42:42 · answer #1 · answered by H.C.Will 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Does the fact that one of them only lost their law license, and was fined $90,000 yet not serve any prison time, and one of them could face 25 yrs in prison for doing the same thing yet could be pardoned by the President make you feel like a hypocrite for condeming the President if he pardons Libby in a year?
2007-03-09 14:50:35 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was called out for a matter that was NO BODYS BUSINESS.... His sex life and his marital life should have been off-limits....
Of the men who cheat on their wives (71% in 2005), ALL of them lie when caught. Clinton should never have been brought up to be questioned.....it was a witch hunt..
What Libby did was treason....at the bidding of the Vice President and President...it affects national security and the Iraqi War.
Clinton's infidelity didn't cause anyone to be killed.....unlike the current administration.
2007-03-09 14:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Think of your question in reverse and you are on to something.Clinton was not convicted nor did the media condemn him.Libby was popped for not remembering who first told him about Ms Plame's identity.How many people reading this can say for sure when and what the source was,when they first heard or read about Ms. Plame.Who here could give a 100% sure answer to that question if they were in front of a Grand Jury today?
2007-03-09 14:53:03 · answer #4 · answered by Michael 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither's is OK, both are unacceptable. What's ironic is that Libby insists he isn't lying and was found guilty, and Clinton admitted and apologized for lying and got off the hook.
2007-03-09 14:44:07 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Clinton perjury was a demonstrated fact. In the Libby case, perjury was a jury's opinion, but not a demonstrated fact.
2007-03-09 14:47:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Depends on who you ask if you ask a right wing nut job they will tell you Libby was set-up and is innocent. A left leaner will tell you the truth that Bill got his Dick sucked and lied about it, and thats all the millions and millions of dollars spent on the investigation by Ken Starr could come up with.
2007-03-09 14:45:51 · answer #7 · answered by Seoul Brother 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was worse! He was president when he lied under oath!
Personally I think Libby is a fall guy.
2007-03-09 15:10:52 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It sure does. No public official should lie under oath. ( we already know they lie as much as they breathe).
The only difference is one lied to obstruct a hunt for the truth about Sex while the other lied to obstruct a hunt for the truth about Life and Death
2007-03-09 14:49:50 · answer #9 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton lied about sex, his business,,, Libby and Co. lied about why we went to war,,everyones business.
2007-03-09 14:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋