? asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

If libby verdict comes back guilty, can he be pardoned by Bush Immediately?

Does he have to wait until the end of the term to pardon? Will this lead to more resignations? Will this lead to charges against Cheney possibly. I think that would be bad for the country, even though I hate the guy (Cheney).

Has there ever been a case like this? Its seems unprecedented to me, but Im only 27, born after Nixon, etc.

Update:

Good point Butterbob

Couldnt it be a mistrial thanks to that juror?

This cloud of secrecy in our govt has got to go

Also, it seems like status quo. But, this is alot more serious than Clinton IMO, even though the charge is the same.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    What? Libby lied under oath all on his own. Because the truth is that he didn't out Plame; Armitage did.

    So the only charge is that he lied about conversations he had with reporters and other people.

    But aren't you curious, and aren't the liberals and Dems curious, why he hasn't been charged with revealing a covert agent? Could it be because he didn't?

    Therefore, all that is left is lying under oath, a charge that all Democrats know is no big deal. At least it wasn't when Clinton did it - have they flip-flopped?

  • 1 decade ago

    The latest is that the jury is dead locked. Which mean mistrial. Which means they would have to do it all over again. Will they? I doubt it. I read there are 150 sealed indictments. What can that mean? More to come? Hope so. Bush could pardon right away. Why doesn't he do that for those poor boarder guards who are in jail for lies. Proved lies. This Justice system is a joke. Have to wonder why lady justice is blindfolded. Maybe so she doesn't see all the injustice.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    In order for one to be pardoned they must file an application, so in essence, Libby cannot be granted a pardon immediately and must forego the process, just as anyone else must. Here's the pardons issued by Bush, including drug offenders that our Goverment seems to want to protect.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Bush could pardon him immediately but in all probability he will wait until he is told to do so by Cheney.

    And the for most part Bush will probably pardon Libby just because this is the way Bush constantly screws things up!

    Its getting closer and closer to revolution time in this country. -

    Source(s): a realist.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Bush can pardon Libby at any time he sees fit, just like he can pardon inmates on death row awaiting execution up to their final moment.

    Also, perhaps you remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (the reason behind his lying being frivolous in some apologists' minds is besides the point), the same crimes that Libby was convicted for.

    This is also not to mention the conviction of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger of pocketing classified documents, most assuredly damning to himself and Bill Clinton in light of the ongoing investigation into the events that led up to 9/11. Distorting the national security picture that gave rise to this unprecedented human tragedy is assuredly a more grave offense than Libby's lying about a crime that never took place. Berger plead guilty to a misdemeanor and got a slap on the wrist of a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years.

    Lest we reiterate to you that Libby was not on trial for the alleged original crime committed, the so-called "outing" of non-covert CIA wmd analyst Valerie Plame. It is probably a waste of time to point out that the court ruled that no crime was committed under the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act," and in all likelihood it was Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, who revealed her identity, or even Richard Armitage, former US Deputy Secretary of State. The point is that Libby could face 25 years for lying to the Justice Department, the FBI and the Federal Court, when in fact Clinton received no major penalty for doing so, except removal from the Arkansas bar and a few other legal-technical penalties ensuing from Judge Wright's referral of Clinton to the Arkansas Supreme Court for disciplinary action. His crime: civil contempt of court for willful failure to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Does the media have some selective memory in reference to the "crime of the century" theatrics regarding the Libby case? I dare say "yes."

    Lastly, the shroud of secrecy by the Bush administration is a deliberate strategy to keep al-Qaeda and its cohorts from penetrating the thought and direction of the US government. This is not a strategy the Bush administration made up. To quote Sun-Tzu from "The Art of War": (I:18) All warfare is based on deception; (XI:35) It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus ensure secrecy; upright and just, and thus maintain order; (XI:36) He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance.

    I charge that it is not wise to be as transparent as many liberals demand from this government in a time of war and grave danger to American lives. If you had so many citizens' fates on your mind, would you be so brazen as to outlay your war strategy for the whole world (and al-Qaeda) to see?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.