2007-03-13 07:51:09 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hey, Nixon snitched and released the Watergate tapes that sent 30 people to prison.
2007-03-13 07:57:54 · update #1
I don't know, but if you watched the news last night, did you see where Libby's wife said, if they don't pardon him, we are going to put the screws to someone. Now could that be, Cheney or Bush. Time will only tell.
2007-03-13 07:58:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
My answer would be no. If Libby had a truth to tell and if he had told it there would be no charges against him in which to require the protection of immunity. People need to remember that the name of leaker is not in doubt at this point and it was not Cheney or Bush. It was Armitage. Additionally, anything Libby might say at this point would be suspect as he has been convicted of perjury. He would be seen as an unreliable witness and I doubt even the most rabid of prosecutors would be willing to rely on his testimony without additional corroboration.
2007-03-13 15:01:47 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Impeachment for what?
Palme's name and status as a memeber of the CIA was known to members of the press well before Armitage confirmed it in his leak.
Wilson's report, if you have read it, contradicts his own public statements. Wilson should also have been indicted by Fitz. What Libby was convicted of is lying about a conversation, or forgetting the details of a conversation. The supposed crime during which this conversation occured never happened. Therefore you have an American citizen going to jail for lying about a conversation during an investigation of a non-crime.
Every American should be pissed off about this egregious assault on our liberty.
1. Prosecutor investigates a crime that never occured.
2, Someone misled the investigation into a crime that never occured, and therefore is a criminal for misleading an investigation of a non-crime.
3. That person is going to jail longer than someone who rapes a woman.
And you think it jsutice, because he has a (r) next to his name?
2007-03-13 14:59:02 · answer #3 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Since it's already been determined no crime has been commited, what would he snitch about? He impeded the investigation, which said there was no crime. I'm neither Dem nor GOP, just want the truth out there so we can all make better decisions.
2007-03-13 14:54:54 · answer #4 · answered by Partisanshipsux 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scooter Libby has to do with anyone's impeachment. I doubt you know what Scooter Libby was even charged with or why he was even on trial.
2007-03-13 14:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Libby effectively has immunity. He's already been convicted. He cannot be charged again for the same offense.
2007-03-13 14:54:00 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Only with the threat of a prison sentence hanging over his head.
Funny how some feel that this crook is somehow, heroic for keeping silent.
2007-03-13 14:54:39 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Snitch on them for what? And secondly Scooter did nothing wrong! That's Liberals being idiots as usual. Valerie Plame was not and has never been a covert agent. This whole situation is Bullsh*t!
2007-03-13 15:02:10 · answer #8 · answered by lucasandmariepape 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
What incentive would he have? Bush rewards loyalty, and so his little band won't betray their lord. Bush can just outright pardon Libby. He probably will before leaving office.
2007-03-13 14:55:17 · answer #9 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
My guess is 'no' because I can't imagine that Patrick Fitzgerald didn't ask him to do just that.
2007-03-13 14:53:43 · answer #10 · answered by nora22000 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋