Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Sentence And I'm Disgusted.

Jul 03, 2007 11:43

Yes, he did. Libby doesn't have to go to prison for his crimes because our glorious President is above the law. And the world knows, yet again, that our current administration feels that it is simply granted rights by God to do whatever the bloody hell it feels ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 4

(The comment has been removed)

lillyflowers July 3 2007, 17:27:53 UTC
I feel much the same way, though I've always been kind of a political junkie.

I had an sort of mini-epiphany the other day after, yet again, hearing the Republicans - specifically Rudy - rant about how the Clinton administration did nothing about terrorists. It had never set right in my conscious, until the other day.

Reply


lillyflowers July 3 2007, 17:24:40 UTC
I saw Fred's comment on the Daily Kos. *puke*

Any candidate with half a functioning brain and an IQ higher than a cantaloupe should realize that hanging on Bush's coat tails isn't the smartest campaign strategy going, is it? Hell, he's got what, a 28% approval rate?

You'll be "pleased" to know that good ol'Mitt has attained #1 in the polls here in NH. I can't believe anyone in this state thinks he's a worthy candidate for the presidency after watching him in action just miles to the south of us.

Reply


iconoclast July 3 2007, 17:29:07 UTC
Romney meant the *underlying* crime Fitzgerald was empowered to investigate, e.g., the leaking of Plame's identity. Libby didn't do that--Richard Armitage did--but Libby did lie under oath and yes, that's illegal. We impeached a president for it.

Romney is a moron.

Reply


unbleachedbrun July 4 2007, 03:09:18 UTC
The Republicans are making the same argument the Democrats did in trying to defend Clinton on his perjury charge, saying that it was okay that Clinton lied to a federal court because getting a blow job and committing adultery wasn't illegal. So, the Republicans' claim is that the prosecutor knew there was no crime and the investigation uncovered no crime, and in Libby's case, he claims his "mis-statement" was unintentional and accidental (unlike Clinton, who deliberately lied to cover up his past).

I think the fault in the Libby case lies with the federal judge who refused to allow Libby to stay out of prison during the appeal. Many legal scholars say that Libby has a chance of winning his appeal. If the judge hadn't been so gung-ho about sending little Scooter off to the Big House, the appeals process could have played itself out and the President wouldn't have been in the position to have had to make the commutation decision (and, as slow as the courts are, that decision might not have had to be made until after the Bush

Reply


Leave a comment

Up