Impeachment!

[trish]

So what? You're missing the point, Scooter's criminal too. To dismiss his crimes and stand against the others is being a HYPOCRITE and YOU ARE BEING ONE.

[White_Male_Canada]

So what? You're missing the point, Scooter's criminal too. To dismiss his crimes and stand against the others is being a HYPOCRITE and YOU ARE BEING ONE.

nope.

point is there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME. Libby was set up in a perjury trap.

Clinton conspired to suborn perjury and lied in court. he did it in a deliberate premeditated manner , there was no trap set for him.

if you can`t see the legal distinctions you`re as far gone as queen.

[trish]

The legal point my dense friend is Libby was FOUND guilty.

It's not my fault you're a hypocrite. It's not Clinton's fault or even Scooter's. Just admit that Scooter's was FOUND GUILTY of perjury and should pay for it and you can stop being one. That's all it takes.

[White_Male_Canada]

Dense !? LOL Good one. Libby was found guilty and is a felon. He did pay, 250 Gs and 2 years probation. The sentence was commuted, not pardoned.

You`ve become another mental defective like quinn aka queen aka villageidiot.

Do all you left wing kooks drink from the same well? Better have the water tested.

[trish]

Very good, that wasn't so hard was it. Now remember, if Bush does pardon him in the future, you would be a hypocrite once again to support it.

[White_Male_Canada]

Very good, that wasn't so hard was it. Now remember, if Bush does pardon him in the future, you would be a hypocrite once again to support it.

Clinton suborned perjury and committed perjury yet is not a felon.

So this non-felon who should be one pardoned Terrorists. So I won`t be a hypocrite if a perjurer is pardoned because being caught in a perjury trap is not the same as being a terrorist.

[trish]

You have to audacity to call attention to legalities while at the same time you recommend ignoring the law. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

[White_Male_Canada]

You have to audacity to call attention to legalities while at the same time you recommend ignoring the law. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

LOL, the law wasn`t ignored, it was a legal commutation.

[Rod la Rod]

Either you believe in the rule of law or you do not.

You Mr. Canada are not allowed to make your own legal decisions.

Irving Libby was convicted of MULTIPLE FELONIES BY A JURY in a U.S. COURT OF LAW.

Your OPINION IS MEANINGLESS. In the USA we obey the law.

DO THEY LET CRIMINALS decide the outcome of criminal TRIALS IN CANADA?

OR IS THERE A RULE OF LAW?

ARE YOU PERSONALLY ABOVE THE LAW?

IF SO STAY OUT OF THE USA!!!!

[Oli]

point is there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME. Libby was set up in a perjury trap.

Clinton conspired to suborn perjury and lied in court. he did it in a deliberate premeditated manner , there was no trap set for him.

if you can`t see the legal distinctions you`re as far gone as queen.

Let us see. Clinton lied, Libby lied. Neither lied in court, both in sworn testimony. Clinton's lie was about having sex (in a sexual harassment lawsuit, that was dismissed), Libby's was about what he knew of the outing of a CIA operator (in grand jury testimony about the leak, in which he was the only one charged). Both were caught. Clinton lost his law llicense, Libby was sentenced to jail and a fine.

Libby, like Clinton, was not going to tell the 'whole' truth. He was, like Clinton, going to evade the absolute truth, and give just enough information to satisfy the prosecutor. Both were caught in their lies.

That you see Clinton's as a worse offense exposes your bias. They are both felons.

As Fitzgerald's sentencing memo said: Libby had options, including telling the truth, declining to speak with FBI agents or taking the Fifth Amendment before the Grand Jury or challenging the lines of inquiry he believed to be improper.

"Regrettably, Mr Libby chose the one option the law prohibited: He lied. "