He wants the appeals process to run its course before he issues the pardon, but he doesn't want one of his boys to sit in jail while he awaits the outcome. I can see why he did it.
It doesn't bother you that Sandy Berger steals documents from the national archives for a cover up for the clintons and 9/11 but Scooter Libby the obvious fall guy gets pardoned and you have a problem with it. Good lord.
Sounds like you didn't read my post very closely. Here is what I said once again: "Perhaps you could discuss how this differs from the 140 pardons Clinton gave on January 20, 2001." I then posted a link. Notice that no where in my words did I make a statement regarding whether Bush was right or wrong, or Clinton was right or wrong. I simply asked if "you could discuss. From there I was called a "klannish" (whatever that may be), and told I had "logical and reasoning flaws". Perhaps then you could ENLIGHTEN us as to why a President would be empowered with the right to pardon, and then when he exercises it, whether it be 140 times or once, he is "wrong". Perhaps you could further enlighten us as to why the Congress saw fit to give that particular right to a President. And finally, perhaps you could discuss both questions without the need to personally attack me for anything unrelated to the question at hand. OldTrader
The party of law and order, of justice and the American way watches a man convicted in a court of law by his peers, and then his bosses buddy commutes his sentence so he doesn't see jail time. This has nothing to do with Sandy Berger, are you klowns and klannish even capable of staying on point?