If the outing wasn't a crime, why did Bush even bother saying he'd fire whoever was responsible? He could have said from day 1 that it wasn't a crime, right?
If it wasn't a crime, why did the CIA ask Justice to open an investigation?
If it wasn't a crime, why did Justice agree to investigate?
If it wasn't a crime, why did Ashcroft recuse himself?
If it wasn't a crime then was Libby convicted of obstructing a "not-crime" and sentenced by a Reagan-appointed judge?
If it wasn't a crime, why on earth did Bush allow it to go on for years when he could have stopped it and saved taxpayer money?
I guess it was just tough talk & a flip flop rolled into one.
Does any right winger have answers? I've looked for answers in the right wing blogosphere but you're too busy celebrating criminality, drawing false analogies and comparing the behavior (favorably, I might add) to the standards set by the hated Bill Clinton. What else is new, right Big Dog?
Interesting fact about commutations:
Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions
A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.
2 comments:
Lance,
why don't you bless us with your intellect. You must know at least one of the answers, right?
Just a question here. Bush said he would fire anyone who disclosed Plame's identity (we can argue if it was a crime some other time) and you say he did not do that. Tell me, who disclosed Plame's identity that he should fire? It was not Libby. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction. Since you are so up on the law explain this, how can a person be convicted of perjury based on a different story than someone else. The courts have ruled that a person is not guilty of perjury if his story is different than another person's. There must be evidence that he lied (like a blue dress) and that evidence can not be the account of another person.
As for guidelines, the one you cite states USUALLY. Here is the only guideline that needs to be followed. It comes from Article II section 2 of the Constitution:
...and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
I recall that Clinton did the same for one of his folks. Care to discuss your thoughts on that? Of course, he also fired all the US Attorneys to protect a friend in Congress who was under investigation, but he was Bubba so it was OK.
Why did you delete that comment in the other post? You said that you started this site because people deleted your comments and now you are doing that. Oh, liberals think the rules only apply to others.
Post a Comment