At this point in his last term, and with a dismal approval rating - he had nothing to lose by pardoning Scooter Libby.
Given the past arguably abusive use of this authority, I am fast becoming an advocate of those who think the President should not even have the far reaching authority to essentially overturn a valid jury verdict - federal, criminal or civil.
2007-07-04 14:39:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
sorry but your question/statement is lacking in value or thought. Even though i'm not sure i agree with what Bush did there is no treason here and if you think so try a dictionary for the definition. When the investigation for who outed a CIA operative in the Bush group turned up that the person outed was a CIA employee but not an operative the investigation should have closed. Also when it turned out that the person letting the information out was not in the Bush group it should have either stopped the investigation or steered it toward the person responsible.
2007-07-04 14:03:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by tgatecrasher2003 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
It was done to protect Cheney and others, Libby was the fall guy and he was pardoned so he would not feel pressure to testify.
2007-07-04 14:32:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There was no treason, in fact the only crime was committed by the out of control prosecutor.
2007-07-04 14:03:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Here's a link from "Polaris" that you apparently won't read. It challenges your hypothesis
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
2007-07-04 14:08:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by ohbrother 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You bet he did... and Libby knew he would. That is the only reason he kept quiet. i bet there is a big paycheck attached too.
What a tangled web they weave.. those Republicans...
2007-07-04 14:03:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Bush is protecting Cheney.
2007-07-04 14:00:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
What color is the sky is your world? You people are getting a bit ridiculous with your accusations.
2007-07-04 14:03:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
your question assumes facts not in evidence.
2007-07-04 14:05:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by karl k 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No.
2007-07-04 14:05:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 2
·
1⤊
0⤋