>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, it would be more impressive if you referenced the web site(s) where you got your "evidence." Grabbing a few statements of opinion (with an obvious POV) off the internet, without attribution, doesn't prove much.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, I know, but I was in a hurry. There are actually more that he pardoned who were connected to hillary or her kin. He also pardoned his brother for a crime he'd already done time for, as I recall.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy is a good link. It provides a lot of information that will make you downright proud to call yourself a Democrat. I'll also try to find the article I heard about that shows over 80% of the felons in the us are Democrats (even after an adjustment for race). Yeah buddy! I think I know why they use a jackazz for a mascot.
>>>>
>>>>Did I miss you response on the Libby question?
>>>
>>>You must have because I said Libby should never have even gone to trial after the prosecutor found out Richard Armitage leaked the info. And, if it was such a crime to release the information, what happened to the prosecution of Armitage? Libby was grilled for eight hours, where a zealot asked him the same question in numerous ways, then indicted him for bad memory. Bill Clinton absolutely bold face lied, but since he was president, and the Senate lacked the "fortitude" to do what should have been done, he got off. He should have been shot as a traitor for selling secrets to the chinese, not to mention raping several women. He's a piece of "work", also known as dung. His wife would be even worse. She wouldn't know the truth if it landed on her.
>>>
>>>Ahhhh, now I feel better. You criminal coddling democrats don't have to worry though, cause Fred is on the way!<g>
>>
>>
>>Selling secrets to the Chinese? Raping several women?
>>
>>Re Libby, as I thought you knew, he was not charged with and convicted of the leaks (although he was one of the leakers). It was for lying to the FBI and a grand jury. Also, if Fitzgerald conducted such a lousy, partisan prosecution, how come he got such an easy conviction? (Even though more than one juror said afterwards they felt bad for Libby). Were the jurors part of some conspiracy?
>
>I know Libby was convicted of the same thin Clinton should have been. But my question remains, if the leak was such a crime, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted. Or if it wasn't, why was the case pursued after they learned it wasn't Cheney or any of his foot soldiers? Armitage should have been basted in front of the Grand Jury.
>

Here is some info. See the 7th paragraph in particular.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0708pagejul08,1,2133061.column