In 1983, financier Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Clinton's eleventh-hour move, along with pardons of his half-brother, Roger, and former business partner Susan McDougal, outraged Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich's ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.
2007-07-16 15:34:08 · 7 answers · asked by alfie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sounds comparable.
In both cases (assuming your facts are correct), the pardon was against DoJ guidelines and utterly without respect for the legal process. And in both cases it was completely lawful, because the president has unfettered discretion in the exercise of pardon powers.
And in both cases, it would be grounds for impeachment under some Republican interpretations, based on conflict of interest.
2007-07-16 15:46:24 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mister Libby's prison sentence was commuted by President George Walker Bush. Mister Rich was given a pardon by President William Jefferson Clinton. In both cases, the two Presidents had the power to carry out those actions.
For those who don't like either action, they should call for an amendment to Article Two of the Constitution.
2007-07-16 23:47:50 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libby actually was lawyer who represented dude who got pardon from Clinton.
Libby was charged for perjury. Clinton was also charged for perjury.
Libby got his sentence commuted. Clinton got impeached.
Yea, hypocrisy is everywhere.
One difference though. Although Clinton pardoned controversial people, all of them were represented by lawyers and went through justice department.
But Bush handed out Libby commutation without telling anybody, not even justice department, didn't tell prosecution, didn't tell lawyers, judge...etc.
2007-07-16 22:44:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think Clinton did the wrong thing. What I cannot understand is how Republicans can talk about moral relativism all the time but then consistently justify anything Bush does with "Clinton did worse".
Is Clinton the standard by which you judge your president?
2007-07-16 23:04:48 · answer #4 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Libby would have stayed behind bars long enough, he would have felt betrayed by Bush and his buddies. Obviously it was important to get Libby out of jail fast before he could leak damaging information against this arrogant administration.
2007-07-16 23:04:17 · answer #5 · answered by wztellinitthewayitis 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is the new rule, if one does something wrong, its ok to do the same/
Two wrongs don't make a right!!
2007-07-16 22:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
kenneth Starr.
2007-07-16 23:03:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋