The man has been tried and convicted of breaking the law!!!!!
What possible good could come of pardoning him?
2007-06-07 15:28:52 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Do Presidents have to present justification?
If that were the case clinton would still be writing his for the largest list of pardons in the history of the country.
I would be most interested in hearing clintons justification for Marc Rich, do you thing slick would tell us that since Rich gave and steered millions to hillarys campaign that is why he gave him the pardon?
All people who are pardoned have been convicted or are under prosecution for a crime, so what is the point of your statement.
If I were Libby, I can think of hundreds of good reasons, so again the possible good would be Libby would be pardoned. That of course will never make libby whole financially.
You do know that this witch hunt has destroyed him financially. What possible good came from that? It has been proven by CIA personnel records that Plame was not covert and had not been for some years prior to all of this. So libby gets caught up in something that was not even a crime.
Absolutely amazing the hatred some of you have for AMerica and others. Does this hatred impact your life in a negative manner?
2007-06-08 02:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
A lawyer who commits perjury should lose his law license - just like President Clinton did. But jail time will do too.
Since Bush senior is an ex-CIA man, pardoning Libby for lying about the outing a CIA agent, would be a slap in the face to his dad and the CIA.
2007-06-07 15:50:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pardoning Libby would be an act of pure political self-preservation.
The obvious fear is that if he actually had to serve time and pay that quarter million dollars in fines, he might be more inclined to testify about what has really been going on in the White House these last few years, and the most secretive administration in history is not at all keen for that to happen.
2007-06-07 15:40:20 · answer #3 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
fairly, Bush will pardon him. Scooter can drag out appeals and Bush can pardon hin as he leaves place of work. i think of all of us understand that had Cheney or Rove been named via Libby, he does no longer have taken the fall for them. Why is this pardon fairly heinous? via fact all of us suspect that Libby in easy terms lied for those greater united stateshow intense does it pass? Feels Watergate-ish to me. it fairly is purely the beginning up. I purely decide to function for people who shop saying "Plame wasn't covert" & absolutely everyone would have won that counsel. in the adventure that your comany has your SS# on report, do you think of he could exhibit your Social secure practices # in a team assembly?
2016-11-07 22:04:43 · answer #4 · answered by mcmillian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libby did not commit a crime. His recollection was not EXACT to minute detail --so what. He did not blatantly lie to the grand jury. Clinton already showed the American people it's okay to lie and knowingly comitt perjury. He is a scapegoat--and what harm would a Libby pardon cause?
It's not like Libby is a member of FLAN, a cocaine trafficker, a sex offender, or someone who paid Laura Bush's brother $200,000 for their pardon.
2007-06-07 15:48:21 · answer #5 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, the whole prosecution was based on something that was not a crime. Since there was no crime in the supposed leak, that should have been it.
Secondly, Libby did not recall a conversation that most people would not. You cannot criminalize trying to cover up something that was not a crime, that the prosecutor knew someone else did, and is not reasonable for people to remember.
2007-06-08 02:34:39 · answer #6 · answered by GOPneedsarealconservative 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Richard Armitage "outed" Valerie Plame, even though she was no longer a covert agent.
The independent prosecutor knew this, knew no law was broken, yet continued with the investigation.
He got Libby to screw up and make incorrect statements. For this, Libby was prosecuted.
But Libby was not the leaker, he was just a screw up. Two and a half years in jail for that?
Clinton committed perjury...how much time did he serve?
Berger stuffed classified documents in his shorts...which is the worse offense?
2007-06-08 00:54:06 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The charges were bogus from the beginning. There was no crime to cover up. Libby knew he didn't reveal Plame's identity & did not accurately remember details about the case since it wasn't important to him. It prooves that republican can't get a fair trial in DC. He deserves to be pardoned.
2007-06-07 15:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Libby got hosed by the Dems who were looking for Karl Rove's head (guy's got 9 lives). The charges were trumped and this thing should never have went forward.
2007-06-07 15:35:09 · answer #9 · answered by nomad74 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Old Scooter will write a book someday so Bush knows he has to get him out of there.
2007-06-07 15:35:34 · answer #10 · answered by flushles 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋