2007-03-18 09:42:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because he assisted in the leak of a CIA agent and a liar. Why did cons go on a witch hunt for Clinton?
2007-03-18 09:46:01 · answer #1 · answered by CC 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If they truly could have tied Libby, Rove or anyone else with leaking an Undercover Officers identify, the DA would have had someone up on Federal charges. Plame and her attorneys did a good job though playing with the word "covert" officer which does NOT fall under the Intelligence Protection Act.
2007-03-18 09:47:52 · answer #2 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Scooter Libby was found guilty of 4 counts of perjury by a jury of his peers. You obviously don't have a very clear understanding of what a witch hunt is.
C'mon Leogirl, If we're going to oppose illegal immigration let's do it. But don't use the situation to push your ideological agenda. Bush is pushing for amnesty just as hard as any Democrat. And isn't it convenient that the Republicans cannot get together enough to tell everyone about the North American Union? You obviously aren't as interested in stopping the amnesty as you are in pushing your ideological lie.
2007-03-18 09:47:31 · answer #3 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
They didn't go on a hunt for Libby. They were on a hunt for Rove.
The whole ridiculous thing was a non-scandal and a proven lie by Wilson and Plame.
2007-03-18 09:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by charbatch 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think they really wanted to get the VP instead on something you know they went after Libby but all but gave a free pass to the guy that stuffed documents in his pants and socks.
the old double standard ,I`m canadian so I`m not for Dem. or Rep.just call it as I see it.
2007-03-18 09:49:29 · answer #5 · answered by ken s in area 51 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because for the last 6 years you great patriotic war=freedom loving republicans haven't done due diligence and run the country legally. Somebody had to do what the voters wanted. And the voters voted last November for checks and balances to make some sort of reappearance...
2007-03-18 09:49:38 · answer #6 · answered by conx-the-dots 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We knew this was coming after the elections. A slew of investigations and false outrage over this and that. Dems are nuts when they don't get their way. When they lose 2 presidential elections in a row, they go into overdrive and seek to criminalize being a Republican. And this from the so called party of "tolerance" ... ha! What a joke!
2007-03-18 09:56:19 · answer #7 · answered by Apachecat 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They wanted to make an example of him.
Many of the people on here do not even realize that Abramoff was the leak and he admitted it. I am sure most of them don't even know why Libby was actually tried. But if you asked them if Martha Stewart should have gone to jail they'll say no.
Can you say double standard?
2007-03-18 09:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by C B 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cosider it payback for the witchunt against the Clintons.
2007-03-18 09:50:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
To detract their constituents from realizing that the democrats are pushing the amnesty bills through.
2007-03-18 09:46:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋