Should Libby have admitted guilt before the President pardoned him?
I find it offensive that the president said that he feels that the jury in the case was wrong.
I think its wrong that the Libby family issued a statements proclaiming his innocence.
Websters defines Pardon as
1: indulgence 1
2: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty
3 a: a release from the legal penalties of an offense b: an official warrant of remission of penalty
4: excuse or forgiveness for a fault, offense, or discourtesy <I beg your pardon>
so if Libby's actions weren't an offense and still says he is not guilty how can the president pardon him?
Answer:
No, of course not since there was no pardon and I do not believe you have to do that anyway, I mean did slick willy get guilt admissions for the 384+ felons he pardoned? We know that the clintons received a lot of cash for those pardons. why did you call it a pardon?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Stench Of Democrat Hypocrisy
There are some odors that just can't be washed away.
WASHINGTON -- Six years ago, the launch of Hillary Clinton's career in the US Senate was marred by allegations that her brothers had received payments from people pardoned by President Bill Clinton in the waning months of his presidency.
Now, in the wake of the launch of her presidential campaign, the pardon controversy has reemerged in an obscure court case in which Senator Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton.
Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.
But while Hillary Clinton immediately expressed chagrin over the news in 2001 that Hugh received the money -- and asked him to return it -- she said Tony was "not paid," according to a congressional report. The Clinton campaign yesterday declined to comment on the case involving Tony Rodham.
Clinton critics have been seeking to revive an array of controversies, from the Whitewater land deal to the Monica Lewinsky case. The Clinton campaign has sought to depict them as old or moot cases. But the Tony Rodham case could be different because it is in court just as Senator Clinton's campaign reaches full speed.
Yesterday, US Bankruptcy Court Judge Marian Harrison of Nashville ordered Tony Rodham to respond by March 16 to the allegation that he failed to repay a loan of $107,000 from the couple pardoned by Clinton, according to attorneys involved in the case.
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/...
The only thing Libby was guilty of was being a Republican. He was tried by the liberal media. We are at war with terrorists out to destroy this country and the dumbocrats in congress think this is an issue of national security. I can't wait to vote the liberals out in 08.
so your saying clinton should be in jail too
President Bush did not Pardon him, but Commuted his sentence, a huge difference. Libby has still been found guilty, and faces a huge fine and possible lose of his legal career, but no jail time.
He wasn't pardoned. His sentence was commuted. He is still guilty in this case until and if he is actually pardoned.
You need some more facts.
Why do I get thumbs down, huh?
I just suggested she needs more facts... as in, presidential pardon.
He belongs in jail...
just another example of the corruption in our country, and it starts at the very top w/ our so-called "leader" of a president.. you can do anything and everything regardless of the law as long as you have power, but for those who aren't privileged or rolling in money its basically one big, F*** YOU!!
thnk you, thank you, and thank you! be careful though, that open minded free thinking is not allowed in the new world order!! you might enjoy these videos. very powerful, as knowledge always is. dont pay any attention to these trolls who defend the scum. uh, huge difference between being incarcerated and not being incarcerated for those who dont get it. why not just do that for us all? why do they get treated to a different standard the rest of us?
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: