And get this one.Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and the Democrats got upset.Before that Jimmy Carter pardoned Patricia Hearst a BANK ROBBER! And he also pardon all Vietnam-era draft dodgers and the Republicans didnt get upset.But what it all boils down to is when Republicans Pardon someone Democrats cry foul.But when Democrats do it nobody whines about it.
What it boils down to is that Democrats spin better than Republicans do. Everyone already knows that.
I wish you guys would stop doing the "Clinton did it" defense. It's the equivalent of saying either that it's OK when Bush does it because Clinton did it, or that it's bad when Bush does it because Clinton did it. Either way it's not flattering for Republicans and you're shooting yourselves in the foot by drawing the analogy there.
The simple fact is a commutation in this case was totally justifiable. In many of Clinton's cases, they were not. Defend the commutation on its merits; there are certainly enough of them.
Steveox: "And get this one.Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon and the Democrats got upset.Before that Jimmy Carter pardoned Patricia Hearst a BANK ROBBER! And he also pardon all Vietnam-era draft dodgers and the Republicans didnt get upset.But what it all boils down to is when Republicans Pardon someone Democrats cry foul.But when Democrats do it nobody whines about it."
What the he!! do you mean "the Republicans didn't get upset" when Jimmy Carter pardoned "Vietnam-era draft dodgers"??? As I recall, they were VERY pissed off at the time. Where were you? By the way, that happened considerably AFTER Ford pardoned Nixon in a clear quid pro quo for giving him the Vice President position after Agnew resigned in disgrace. Try using facts instead of imagination as a basis for posting a statement - you might make more sense.
*tsst* Go back and see my earlier post. You obviously don't understand the salient details of the case.
I am not interested in whether a fair trial was conducted. If bogus charges are prosecuted fairly, the result is still bogus -- the fruit of a poisoned tree.
Understand: Libby didn't leak (Armitage did). If he had leaked, it still wouldn't have been a crime. What he was convicted on was obstruction of justice related to his faulty recollection of a conversation with Judith Miller, a third party with almost no relevance to the case at all. The only evidence submitted against Libby was transcripts of what he said as opposed to what Judith Miller said he said -- which she openly said she wasn't really sure he said.
Here's the kicker: the only relevance of Libby's conversation with Judith Miller to the case was that it might prove Libby knew Plame was a CIA agent early enough to leak it. But we already know he didn't leak it.
The end result is that some harmless patsy was convicted, with he-said/she-said evidence, on charges only somewhat related to the investigation of a non-crime that everyone knows he didn't commit. John Jay himself could've presided over the trial; there is still no justice in convicting the man of anything. (It is, in fact, profoundly unjust).
An anti-war State Department official leaks the name of an anti-war CIA bureaucrat (the husband of an anti-war political malcontent whom she got a job at the anti-war CIA) to an anti-war reporter. And now we're expected to believe the whole thing is an exercise in pro-war CYA? Ugh.