might have had to cut a deal with federal prosecutors? Who knows what he might devulge about Cheney and others if he had sufficient motivation. Is this just a cynical ploy to save Cheney's neck? This administration is looking sleazier and sleazier. Supporters of the administration always point to Clinton's indiscretions, as if that is the standard they are trying to meet. They are succeeding.
2007-07-03 07:49:56 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yup, He didn't want to leave Cheney out to dry. Comes off clean as a whistle. I'd sue the pants off of all of those crooks. I hope the press exposes them all.
2007-07-03 08:05:54 · answer #1 · answered by Lefty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Back atcha...... Why do all the BUSH lovers keep referring back to the Clinton administration.. I find it funny.. That is in the past .... Why whenever Bush is called on something we have to hear..... (in spoiled brat voice) "Well Billy did it first!!!!" Please Clinton made mistakes .. but the "people" picked Bush to be bigger & better... Now that he has become the almighty screw up.. we have to listen to Whining- BOTTOM LINE: Libby committed a crime that you or I would have done time for.. The fact that he works for us.. should make you more concerned.. that they can do ANYTHING.. and get away with it.. Do you really think the fine hurt him?? Do you really think he will have probation like common criminals ?? Are you that naive? He obstructed justice & committed perjury -in a case that would have jeopardized a fellow Americans LIFE! Commuting that...IS Dispicable!
2016-05-17 09:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by arvilla 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's no need to cut a deal with the prosecutor, the sentence is already entered. He's going to write a book. He needs the cash since he no longer has a law license. Now he just won't write it till after January of 2009.
2007-07-03 07:55:47 · answer #3 · answered by webned 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it would be a challenge to exceed Clinton's sleaziness. Clinton's outright pardons during his last days in office were far more controversial than Bush's semi-pardon of Libby.
Libby was convicted of lying about outing a previously outed CIA employee. Her intel career was not ruined or even damaged by Libby - her intel career was blown by a CIA mole who outed her to the Ruskies years earlier. Libby's crime was much ado about nothing. His sentence was harsh relatively speaking because of his proximity to the seat of power.
2007-07-03 08:03:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think so, in fact i would even speculate that if Libby keeps quiet he will get a full pardon.
Clinton this and Clinton that. 2 wrongs don't make a right, i'm with you there.
2007-07-03 07:54:37 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If Mr. Libby cut a deal, he would not have agreed to accepting a maximum jail sentence. The President did the right thing in commuting the sentence. Mr. Libby got railroaded. He did not commit any crime.
The Bush Administration is not sleazy. Your left wing liberal prejudice is showing.
2007-07-03 07:56:50 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋
The plan is simple. You lie, get convicted and I will get you out. The truth will never come out.
2007-07-03 07:59:40 · answer #7 · answered by Jose R 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe bush was covering cheneys butt . so the answer is yes
2007-07-03 07:57:35 · answer #8 · answered by lilbitevans 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋