Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
He didn't do anything wrong? Not even a little bit? What! Obstruction of Justice is a crime. Period. There's no debating that. Had he not done anything wrong, Bush would have given him a full pardon - without question. Instead, he communted his sentence; Which in my mind was was for a lot of reasons, but I won't go there right now.
Bush simply thought the sentence was excessive, which it wasn't, that's why he communted the sentence. Not because he thought Libby was innocent. Big difference.
|
What did he obstruct? He was asked to describe a conversation with Tim Russert, which had happened over a year before the investigation and had been based on entirely different issues, and his description was different than Russert's. That's it. Nothing else. Is it possible for even a minute that maybe, just maybe, Russert was the one who was wrong? Russert admittedly did not have notes on the conversation so it came down to he said/he said. Oh and the converstaion was not about anything illegal. Why would he have obstructed justice when there was nothing illegal to hide in the first place? The entire thing has been a trumped up BS kanagaroo court advanced and pushed forward for poltical gain by democrats. That's it. You don't find it odd that within days of the beginning of the investigation the prosecutor knew who the "leak" was, knew that no crime was commited, and knew that neither the Vice President or President had anything to do with it, yet he continued invetsigating for months costing tax payer money all the while essentially trying to catch people in "lies".
The reason Bush did not pardon him was for similar BS poltical reasons. Instead on inflaming the worthless negative-nellie democrats in Washington he simply compromised. Now they can all spend a couple days spewing their sanctimonious crap and the story will die. Until his conviction gets overturned on appeals that is.