View Full Version : Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence
waste gate
07-02-07, 05:32 PM
President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term that Bush said was excessive.
Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070702/D8Q4NGAO0.html
Grant of Executive Clemency
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html
Statement by the President
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html
:huh: If that happen in the UK there would be uproar!
Heibges
07-02-07, 05:37 PM
Will Aldrich Ames, John Pollard, and Robert Hansen be let out next? :doh:
Edit: And John Walker Jr. and his family.
Tchocky
07-02-07, 05:38 PM
Quelle surprise.
robbo180265
07-02-07, 05:40 PM
Bet Paris Hilton's p##d off:D
waste gate
07-02-07, 05:42 PM
Its actually less than I expected; a full pardon..
bookworm_020
07-02-07, 06:02 PM
Its actually less than I expected; a full pardon..
The pardon will come! It just has to wait for the last hours of Bush's term in office. If he did it now, there would be big problems for him.:up:
waste gate
07-02-07, 06:13 PM
Its actually less than I expected; a full pardon..
The pardon will come! It just has to wait for the last hours of Bush's term in office. If he did it now, there would be big problems for him.:up:
It may not matter in the last hours of his presidency, but in his statement Bush claims; I respect the jury's verdict. That may place him in a corner.
Article II Section 2 gives the president unquestioned authority to grant pardons. I cn't see any problems arising. He has already been so weakened he couldn't use his 'bully pulpit' to rally support for the immigration bill.
Tchocky
07-02-07, 06:20 PM
This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.
Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.
A nice example of saying without saying. "some people say"....."others say". If news shows get pulled up for this, so should George. He takes on what nameless others have said, then claims tro have "concluded" something. Yup, sure.
He's giving more air time to critics, the party line on the justice system for the defense, and nothing of his own. Bah!
Given Libby's years of (highly lucrative) service, I don't think the fine will trouble him greatly.
This gives me the impression that it's OK to commit perjury. :-?
waste gate
07-02-07, 06:39 PM
Check out these pardons Tchocky. Based on the convictions many other things could be considered OK. We know that isn't true.
An example:
SMITH, Gerald Owen, Florence, Mississippi, Armed bank robbery
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
Tchocky
07-02-07, 06:40 PM
True.
Doesn't make it OK, though :-?
bradclark1
07-02-07, 06:52 PM
Bush will give him a full pardon at his last hour. He wouldn't give a crap what people think then. Bet a virtual dollar!
Kind of takes away from what he said at the beginning of the investigation.
Tchocky
07-02-07, 06:54 PM
C'mon brad, live a little!
I bet my virtual house! AND my virtual kids!
When Ford let Nixon off that was the end of integrity on the White House. It wasn't that Nixon did some bad stuff. It was that after he was caught he got let off the hook.
The really bad part is that the American people just go with it. Its times like these that I really dig the French. As weird and snooty as they are, if the government does something they don't want they riot til they get what they want.
This is what Giuliani had to say about it:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010277
Speaking of justice, Mr. Giuliani has been more circumspect than some of his rivals on whether he would pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. And he repeated again that he wouldn't pardon Mr. Libby "right now." On the other hand, Mr. Giuliani advanced a pretty good argument that he should never have been tried. "Perjury has to be material--it has to relate to what you're investigating," he offered. "If someone goes in front of a grand jury and tells a lie about an insignificant fact, it's a lie but it isn't perjury. There's all kinds of lying that isn't criminal . . . If the investigation is about a non-crime, when you know who did it, how could anything be material to it?" That sounds an awful lot like an argument for a pardon, even if Mr. Giuliani seems to think the time may not be right.
According to a lawyer friend of mine, if Giuliani is right, and the court of appeals agrees, Bush will have spared an innocent man. If he had pardoned him outright, Libby would have been deprived of the opportunity to prevail in the appellate court.
Onkel Neal
07-02-07, 07:40 PM
I didn't like it when Clinton pardoned a slew of crooks, now Bush is doing it :nope:
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:05 PM
Let us not forget that William Jefferson Clinton earned an impeachment via perjury and didn't spend any time in jail.
Let us not forget that William Jefferson Clinton earned an impeachment via perjury and didn't spend any time in jail.
Let us not forget that that was the saddest excuse for an impeachment ever. BJs in the Oval Office.:roll:
PeriscopeDepth
07-02-07, 08:10 PM
Clinton's impeachment was a political stunt, and a grandly successful one at that. Yes he lied, but about blowjobs. Not ratting out a CIA agent. Not that I like Clinton very much, but Libby and Co. deserved much more than a perjury conviction. It's a pity the only person they could get was Libby, and only on perjury.
PD
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:12 PM
Let us not forget that William Jefferson Clinton earned an impeachment via perjury and didn't spend any time in jail.
Let us not forget that that was the saddest excuse for an impeachment ever. BJs in the Oval Office.:roll:
No, he was impeached for perjury.
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:14 PM
Clinton's impeachment was a political stunt, and a grandly successful one at that. Yes he lied, but about blowjobs. Not ratting out a CIA agent. Not that I like Clinton very much, but Libby and Co. deserved much more than a perjury conviction. It's a pity the only person they could get was Libby, and only on perjury.
PD
Libby ratted out no one. One Richard Armitage leaked the info, and the special prosecutor knew it before he took Libby to trial.
Tchocky
07-02-07, 08:15 PM
His conviction was hardly for "ratting" on anyone, though.
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:19 PM
His conviction was hardly for "ratting" on anyone, though.
Correct. Libby was convicted of perjury.
Yea good grief it's not that you took the cookie, it's that you Lied about it...this is the part that that no one I have yet seen have the BALLZ to stand up and say ya..ya know what, I did it,...I ate the cookie, it was great,,,shouldn't have done it, but damn it was good..."I'm Sorry".
The lack of remorse is what is pathetic for any of them.
PeriscopeDepth
07-02-07, 08:23 PM
The lack of remorse is what is pathetic for any of them.
Agreed.
PD
bradclark1
07-02-07, 08:29 PM
No, he was impeached for perjury.
An attempted railroad job that failed. He wasn't impeached for anything. As far as I know he was found innocent.
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:34 PM
No, he was impeached for perjury.
An attempted railroad job that failed. He wasn't impeached for anything. As far as I know he was found innocent.
He was impeached. Its a lot like an indictment to you and I, except the entire house has to vote for or against it.
Admittedly the entire process is very political. Ask Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached.
bradclark1
07-02-07, 08:38 PM
When Ford let Nixon off that was the end of integrity on the White House. It wasn't that Nixon did some bad stuff. It was that after he was caught he got let off the hook.
The really bad part is that the American people just go with it. Its times like these that I really dig the French. As weird and snooty as they are, if the government does something they don't want they riot til they get what they want.
Ford said he had to think a lot about it and what he did, he did for the country not for Nixon. Ford cut his own throat and he knew he did but he did what he thought was right. The country had been through enough. Got to respect that. There isn't a politician alive today with that kind of courage.
waste gate
07-02-07, 08:42 PM
When Ford let Nixon off that was the end of integrity on the White House. It wasn't that Nixon did some bad stuff. It was that after he was caught he got let off the hook.
The really bad part is that the American people just go with it. Its times like these that I really dig the French. As weird and snooty as they are, if the government does something they don't want they riot til they get what they want.
Ford said he had to think a lot about it and what he did, he did for the country not for Nixon. Ford cut his own throat and he knew he did but he did what he thought was right. The country had been through enough. Got to respect that. There isn't a politician alive today with that kind of courage.
:up:
bradclark1
07-02-07, 08:48 PM
He was impeached. Its a lot like an indictment to you and I, except the entire house has to vote for or against it.
Admittedly the entire process is very political. Ask Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached.
You're right.
Yea good grief it's not that you took the cookie, it's that you Lied about it...this is the part that that no one I have yet seen have the BALLZ to stand up and say ya..ya know what, I did it,...I ate the cookie, it was great,,,shouldn't have done it, but damn it was good..."I'm Sorry".
The lack of remorse is what is pathetic for any of them.
Sounds like Clinton but he tried to lie first.
bookworm_020
07-02-07, 10:41 PM
Why don't they just get rid of the pardons given by presidents? It would mean less conflict of intrest:hmm:
Babysteps?
Hell, it was only in the last 8 months we put a stop to paying full federal pensions to politicians who left office in disgrace after being convicted of felonies....:o
When Ford let Nixon off that was the end of integrity on the White House. It wasn't that Nixon did some bad stuff. It was that after he was caught he got let off the hook.
The really bad part is that the American people just go with it. Its times like these that I really dig the French. As weird and snooty as they are, if the government does something they don't want they riot til they get what they want. Ford said he had to think a lot about it and what he did, he did for the country not for Nixon. Ford cut his own throat and he knew he did but he did what he thought was right. The country had been through enough. Got to respect that. There isn't a politician alive today with that kind of courage. That's courageous? Take the most corrupt president in history and spare the country from facing the fact that its head of state was a criminal? If a nation cannot or will not face the realities of that fact then thats a pretty weak culture to be head honcho of world politics.
I don't buy that excuse. I think what would have been courageous would be to have let the man fall. Every nation has to face its pitfalls. Its a betrayal of the principles of society to say that a criminal president wont be allowed to go to trial. That just underscores how untrue those ideals are.
Skybird
07-03-07, 02:09 AM
The three powers are not separated for no good reason. Absence of this separation is a typical primary characteristic of tyrannies.
I can understand a pardon for criminals who served the major part of their term when certain conditions are fulfilled (like it was the case in Germany with some older RAF terrorists who believably had renounced terrorism). But overruling a whole courtcase prior to penalty...?
"I respect the jury's verdict," President Bush said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive," Mr Bush said.
Aha. This president stands above the laws. He stands above the court'S decision. He rates his assessement as higher than the legal system. But nevertheless he respects the jury's verdict. He just thinks it should have had no power at all.
Technically, he may be given the ability to give a pardon. Which means: he must not use it and is free to decide against it. I personally think the presidential pardon encourages corruption and almost provokes the inner circle to overstep rules and laws, always knowing that the president is able to prevent legal consequences.
What remains of that former penalty, 250.000 dollars, is just peanuts for these people. It does not hurt and thus is no penalty.
Bush again illustrated why he has such a bad reputation. Simply the worst looser ever in office. He shouldn't be allowed to regularly leave office - he should be forced out with all disgrace that means for him. The damage he did to his country, nationally and internationally, can hardly be overestimated.
robbo180265
07-03-07, 02:44 AM
I didn't like it when Clinton pardoned a slew of crooks, now Bush is doing it :nope:
Here here:up: :up: :up:
:huh: If that happen in the UK there would be uproar!
And there should be one, yes. :stare:
Imagine if this happend to Jeffory Archer in the UK! :rotfl::rotfl:
That would be street-violence time!
The three powers are not separated for no good reason. Absence of this separation is a typical primary characteristic of tyrannies.
I can understand a pardon for criminals who served the major part of their term when certain conditions are fulfilled (like it was the case in Germany with some older RAF terrorists who believably had renounced terrorism). But overruling a whole courtcase prior to penalty...?
"I respect the jury's verdict," President Bush said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive," Mr Bush said.
Aha. This president stands above the laws. He stands above the court'S decision. He rates his assessement as higher than the legal system. But nevertheless he respects the jury's verdict. He just thinks it should have had no power at all.
Technically, he may be given the ability to give a pardon. Which means: he must not use it and is free to decide against it. I personally think the presidential pardon encourages corruption and almost provokes the inner circle to overstep rules and laws, always knowing that the president is able to prevent legal consequences.
What remains of that former penalty, 250.000 dollars, is just peanuts for these people. It does not hurt and thus is no penalty.
Bush again illustrated why he has such a bad reputation. Simply the worst looser ever in office. He shouldn't be allowed to regularly leave office - he should be forced out with all disgrace that means for him. The damage he did to his country, nationally and internationally, can hardly be overestimated.
Yet you overestimate it all the time Skybird.
What the hell does this mean?
Technically, he may be given the ability to give a pardon. Which means: he must not use it and is free to decide against it.
There's no "technically" about it. The sitting US President has the power to pardon criminals and they have had that power since the founding of our country so learn to deal with it. This is not Germany Skybird, and thank God for it.
"He must not use it"? Ha! Tell that to his predecessor who issued no less than 456 pardons. Bush on the other hand has issued only about 15, yet he is the one you choose to lambast. Now we all know how much you hate our present President Skybird, but you're just going to have to accept that we're never, ever going to listen to your "advice".
Konovalov
07-03-07, 08:08 AM
Bush will give him a full pardon at his last hour. He wouldn't give a crap what people think then. Bet a virtual dollar!
Kind of takes away from what he said at the beginning of the investigation.
:yep: 100%.
bradclark1
07-03-07, 08:08 AM
That's courageous? Take the most corrupt president in history and spare the country from facing the fact that its head of state was a criminal? If a nation cannot or will not face the realities of that fact then thats a pretty weak culture to be head honcho of world politics.
I don't buy that excuse. I think what would have been courageous would be to have let the man fall. Every nation has to face its pitfalls. Its a betrayal of the principles of society to say that a criminal president wont be allowed to go to trial. That just underscores how untrue those ideals are.
Yes, it is courageous. Whither you or I agree with it is neither here nor there but Ford did what he thought was right for the country. He knowingly killed his own presidency before it started. A politician wouldn't do that out of cronyism, it would have been easier to let him burn.
Do I personally agree with the pardon myself? No I don't, but it doesn't stop me from respecting him for the reason he did it. That took a lot of personal courage.
Skybird
07-03-07, 08:12 AM
However, August, however. I stick to every single word I said. And if you see the need to defend such most questionable "representatives" of yours for strange reasons of loyalty or whatever you think it is, then this does not do you any compliments.
Ouh, and my "overestimations", as you call it, apparently is shared by most of your press, the huge majority of your people, the huge majority of global opinion.
In German, we have one simple word for it: Vetternwirtschaft (nepotism?). And if others before did like that or not, is meaning nothing. It still remains to be Vetternwirtschaft. Go on, choose your colours: defend it.
However, August, however. I stick to every single word I said. And if you see the need to defend such most questionable "representatives" of yours for strange reasons of loyalty or whatever you think it is, then this does not do you any compliments.
Ouh, and my "overestimations", as you call it, apparently is shared by most of your press, the huge majority of your people, the huge majority of global opinion.
In German, we have one simple word for it: Vetternwirtschaft (nepotism?). And if others before did like that or not, is meaning nothing. It still remains to be Vetternwirtschaft. Go on, choose your colours: defend it.
The beauty part is I don't have to defend anything to the likes of you. You people can ostricise Scientologists and nobody can tell you that you can't and our President can issue pardons and sentance commutations and global opinion means squat.
SUBMAN1
07-03-07, 09:42 AM
:huh: If that happen in the UK there would be uproar!
Probably, but there was no uproar when Clinton let loose axe murderers at the end of his term, and this commute is minor compared to whom Clinton let loose.
-S
geetrue
07-03-07, 12:38 PM
ABC news was talking about it among themselves on the air and said,"Why would Bush do such a thing at a point in time that his popularity is at an all time low"?
The other person answers, "Maybe that's why President Bush did it, because it won't hurt his popularity"
I think Putin made him do it :lol:
bradclark1
07-03-07, 02:26 PM
Probably, but there was no uproar when Clinton let loose axe murderers at the end of his term, and this commute is minor compared to whom Clinton let loose.
-S
Oh, there you go then. Because Clinton did Bush can too. Two wrong's always makes a right.
Heibges
07-03-07, 03:21 PM
:huh: If that happen in the UK there would be uproar!
Probably, but there was no uproar when Clinton let loose axe murderers at the end of his term, and this commute is minor compared to whom Clinton let loose.
-S
I think you mean Willie Horton, and that was Mike Dukkakis.:lol:
:huh: If that happen in the UK there would be uproar!
Probably, but there was no uproar when Clinton let loose axe murderers at the end of his term, and this commute is minor compared to whom Clinton let loose.
-S
Presidents have been issuing exciting pardons long, long before Clinton and Bush. Check this one out:
A more puzzling case is Reagan's pardon of Robert Wendell Walker, who was convicted for attempted bank robbery. It is unclear why Reagan pardoned Walker, who had been sentenced to five years of probation. The pardon would have remained obscure if not for Walker's arrest November 3, 2000. He is charged with killing his wife and dismembering her body.
IMHO the powers should really remain seperated.
Heibges
07-03-07, 03:22 PM
However, August, however. I stick to every single word I said. And if you see the need to defend such most questionable "representatives" of yours for strange reasons of loyalty or whatever you think it is, then this does not do you any compliments.
Ouh, and my "overestimations", as you call it, apparently is shared by most of your press, the huge majority of your people, the huge majority of global opinion.
In German, we have one simple word for it: Vetternwirtschaft (nepotism?). And if others before did like that or not, is meaning nothing. It still remains to be Vetternwirtschaft. Go on, choose your colours: defend it.
I agree fully with you. There is no little bit of treason in my book. It's like being a little big pregnant.
Here's a list of Presidential pardons Clinton issued just before leaving office.
The one thing in common? All were represented in the pardon effort by a lawyer named Rodham.
DOJ http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
Pardon Grants January 2001
Name / Home Town / Offenses
ALLEN, Verla Jean Everton, Arkansas False statements to agency of United States
ALTIERE, Nicholas M. Las Vegas, Nevada Importation of cocaine
ALTSCHUL, Bernice Ruth Sherman Village, California Conspiracy to commit money laundering
ANDERSON, Joe, Jr. Grove Hill, Alabama Income tax evasion
ANDERSON, William Sterling Spartanburg, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud
AZIZKHANI, Mansour T. Huntsville, Alabama Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications
BABIN, Cleveland Victor, Jr. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud
BAGLEY, Chris Harmon Harrah, Oklahoma Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
BANE, Scott Lynn Mahomet, Illinois Unlawful distribution of marijuana
BARBER, Thomas Cleveland Hampton, Florida Issuing worthless checks
BARGON, Peggy Ann Monticello, Illinois Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act
BHATKA, Tansukhlal Income tax evasion
BLAMPIED, David Roscoe Ketchum, Idaho Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
BORDERS, William Arthur, Jr. Washington, D.C. Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery
BOREL, Arthur David Little Rock, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BOREL, Douglas Charles Conway, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BRABHAM, George Thomas Austin, Texas Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank
BRASWELL, Almon Glenn Doravilla, Georgia Conspiracy to defraud government with respect to claims; perjury
BROWDER, Leonard Aiken, South Carolina Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud
BROWN, David Steven New York, New York Securities fraud and mail fraud
BURLESON, Delores Caroylene, aka Delores Cox Burleson Hanna, Oklahoma Possession of marijuana
BUSTAMANTE, John H. Cleveland, Ohio Wire fraud
CAMPBELL, Mary Louise Ruleville, Mississippi Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps
CANDELARIA, Eloida False information in registering to vote
CAPILI, Dennis Sobrevinas Glendale, California Filing false statements in alien registration
CHAMBERS, Donna Denise Memphis, Tennessee Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy
CHAPMAN, Douglas Eugene Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAPMAN, Ronald Keith Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAVEZ, Francisco Larios Santa Ana, California Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens
CISNEROS, Henry G.
CLINTON, Roger
COHN, Stuart Harris New Haven, Connecticut 1. Illegal sale of gold options2. Illegal sale of silver options
COOPER, David Marc Wapakoneta, Ohio Conspiracy to defraud the government
COX, Ernest Harley, Jr. Pine Bluff, Arkansas Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements
CROSS, John F., Jr. Little Rock, Arkansas Embezzlement by a bank employee
CUNNINGHAM, Rickey Lee Amarillo, Texas Possession with intent to distribute marijuana
DE LABIO, Richard Anthony Baltimore, Maryland Mail fraud, aiding and abetting
DEUTCH, John Described in January 19, 2001 information
DOUGLAS, Richard False statements
DOWNE, Edward Reynolds Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and tax evasion; securities fraud
DUDLEY, Marvin Dean Omaha, Nebraska False statements
DUNCAN, Larry Lee Branson, Missouri Altering an automobile odometer
FAIN, Robert Clinton Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
FERNANDEZ, Marcos Arcenio Miami, Florida Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
FERROUILLET, Alvarez Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering, false statements
FUGAZY, William Denis Harrison, New York Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding
GEORGE, Lloyd Reid Mail fraud
GOLDSTEIN, Louis Las Vegas, Nevada Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment
GORDON, Rubye Lee Tampa, Florida Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks
GREEN, Pincus Switzerland
HAMNER, Robert Ivey Searcy, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
HANDLEY, Samuel Price Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HANDLEY, Woodie Randolph Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HARMON, Jay Houston Jonesboro, Arkansas 1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute 2. Conspiracy to import cocaine
HEMMINGSON, John Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering
HERDLINGER, David S. St. Simons Island, Georgia Mail fraud
HUCKLEBERRY, Debi Rae Ogden, Utah Distribution of methamphetamine
JAMES, Donald Ray Fairfield Bay, Arkansas Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statement to a bank to influence credit approval
JOBE, Stanley Pruet El Paso, Texas Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and bank fraud
JOHNSON, Ruben H. Austin, Texas Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or director
JONES, Linda Conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other offenses against the United States
LAKE, James Howard Illegal corporate campaign contributions, wire fraud
LEWIS, June Louise Lowellville, Ohio Embezzlement by a bank employee
LEWIS, Salim Bonnor Short Hills, New Jersey Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations
LODWICK, John Leighton Excelsior Springs, Missouri Income tax evasion
LOPEZ, Hildebrando San Isidro, Texas Distribution of cocaine
LUACES, Jose Julio Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Possession of an unregistered firearm
MANESS, James Timothy Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance
MANNING, James Lowell Little Rock, Arkansas Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
MARTIN, John Robert Gulf Breeze, Florida Income tax evasion
MARTINEZ, Frank Ayala Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
MARTINEZ, Silvia Leticia Beltran Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
McCORMICK, John Francis Dedham, Massachusetts Racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, and violation of the Hobbs act
McDOUGAL, Susan H.
MECHANIC, Howard Lawrence 1. Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968 2. Failure to appear 3. Making false statement in acquiring a passport
MITCHELL, Brook K., Sr. Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments, false statements to USDA, and false entries on USDA forms
MORGAN, Charles Wilfred, III Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
MORISON, Samuel Loring Crofton, Maryland Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property
NAZZARO, Richard Anthony Winchester, Massachusetts Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud
NOSENKO, Charlene Ann Phoenix, Arizona Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally
OBERMEIER, Vernon Raymond Belleville, Illinois Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine
OGALDE, Miguelina Glendale, California Conspiracy to import cocaine
OWEN, David C. Olathe, Kansas Filing a false tax return
PALMER, Robert W. Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to make false statements
PERHOSKY, Kelli Anne Bridgeville, Pennsylvania Conspiracy to commit mail fraud
PEZZOPANE, Richard H. Palo Heights, Illinois Conspiracy to commit racketeering, and mail fraud
PHILLIPS, Orville Rex Waco, Texas Unlawful structure of a financial transaction
POLING, Vinson Stewart, Jr. Baldwin, Maryland Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting
PROUSE, Norman Lyle Conyers, Georgia Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol
PRUITT, Willie H. H., Jr. Port Richey, Florida Absent without official leave
PURSLEY, Danny Martin, Sr. Goodlettsville, Tennessee Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal gambling
RAVENEL, Charles D. Charleston, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud the United States
RAY, William Clyde Altus, Oklahoma Fraud using a telephone
REGALADO, Alfredo Luna Pharr, Texas Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States
RICAFORT, Ildefonso Reynes Houston, Texas Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration
RICH, Marc Switzerland
RIDDLE, Howard Winfield Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported animal skins)
RILEY, Richard Wilson, Jr. Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
ROBBINS, Samuel Lee Cedar Park, Texas Misprision of a felony
RODRIGUEZ, Joel Gonzales Houston, Texas Theft of mail by a postal employee
ROGERS, Michael James McAllen, Texas Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
ROSS, Anna Louise Lubbock, Texas Distribution of cocaine
RUST, Gerald Glen Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUST, Jerri Ann Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUTHERFORD, Bettye June Albuquerque, New Mexico Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
SANDS, Gregory Lee Sioux Falls, South Dakota Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SCHWIMMER, Adolph Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to export arms and ammunition to a foreign country and related charges
SERETTI, Albert A., Jr. McKees Rocks, Pennyslvania Conspiracy and wire fraud
SHAW, Patricia Campbell Hearst Wilton, Connecticut Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony
SMITH, Dennis Joseph Redby, Minnesota 1. Unauthorized absence 2. Failure to obey off-limits instructions 3. Unauthorized absence
SMITH, Gerald Owen Florence, Mississippi Armed bank robbery
SMITH, Stephen A.
SPEAKE, Jimmie Lee Breckenridge, Texas Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes
STEWART, Charles Bernard Sparta, Georgia Illegally destroying U.S. Mail
STEWART-ROLLINS, Marlena Francisca Euclid, Ohio Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SYMINGTON, John Fife, III
TANNEHILL, Richard Lee Reno, Nevada Conspiracy and restraint of trade
TENAGLIA, Nicholas C. Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare program
THOMAS, Gary Allen Lancaster, Texas Theft of mail by postal employee
TODD, Larry Weldon Gardendale, Texas Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act
TREVINO, Olga C. Converse, Texas Misapplication by a bank employee
VAMVOUKLIS, Ignatious Exeter, New Hampshire Possession of cocaine
VAN DE WEERD, Patricia A. Tomahawk, Wisconsin Theft by a U.S. Postal employee
WADE, Christopher V.
WARMATH, Bill Wayne Walls, Mississippi Obstruction of correspondence
WATSON, Jack Kenneth Oakridge, Oregon Making false statements of material facts to the U.S. Forest Service
WEBB, Donna Lynn Panama City, Florida False entry in savings and loan record by employee
WELLS, Donald William Phenix City, Alabama Possession of an unregistered firearm
WENDT, Robert H. Kirkwood, Missouri Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner
WILLIAMS, Jack L. Making false statements to federal agents
WILLIAMS, Kevin Arthur Omaha, Nebraska Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
WILLIAMS, Robert Michael Davison, Michigan Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities obtained by fraud
WILSON, Jimmie Lee Helena, Arkansas Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit agency, and converting public money to personal use
WINGATE, Thelma Louise Sale City, Georgia Mail fraud
WOOD, Mitchell Couey Sherwood, Arkansas Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine
WOOD, Warren Stannard Las Vegas, Nevada Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false document with the Securities and Exchange Commission
WORTHEY, Dewey Conway, Arkansas Medicaid fraud
YALE, Rick Allen Belleville, Illinois Bank fraud
YASAK, Joseph A. Chicago, Illinois Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a grand jury
YINGLING, William Stanley Interstate transportation of stolen vehicle
YOUNG, Phillip David Little Rock, Arkansas Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife
And BTW:
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Clinton never pardoned that dry cleaner for not removing that stain....
Whats up wid dat?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
:smug:
=============
Thats not the full list of pardons... I think there was 450 or something like that.......never heard the Media or Demos say one peep about that.
But according to most Demos... Bush made hurricaine Katrina hit New Orleans....
Skybird
07-03-07, 04:42 PM
Nice list, August. In what way does it mean anything? How many wrongs turn a questionable practice into something good? That list is a list of arguments against presidential pardons. why a president is allowed to annul court sentences without needing to make his decision object to legal counter-checking and verification (which makes it an act free to total arbitrariness) escapes my understanding.
And BTW:
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Nothing is perfect, not even the United States Constitution.
It's man-made, like all others, made by people who lived in a certain place, in a certain time, and were confronted with certain environmental and social and political challenges, both enlightened and handicapped by the philosphical and educational horizons and barriers of their time, and not forseeing the situation of the present we living people today experience. Just making an old scripture a holy grail does not compensate for having no really long history. I personally think that America deeply regrets that it sent it's former king to hell - America desperately would love to have a monarchy. That's where the cult about the president, the extreme patriotism trying to compensate the weak national feeling of unity, and this rallying around the flag is coming from.
Onkel Neal
07-03-07, 04:46 PM
RICH, Marc Switzerland
Who, I heard on NPR today, was represented by...
ta-dum: Scooter Libby! :dead:
waste gate
07-03-07, 05:27 PM
Nothing is perfect, not even the United States Constitution.
It's man-made, like all others, made by people who lived in a certain place, in a certain time, and were confronted with certain environmental and social and political challenges, both enlightened and handicapped by the philosphical and educational horizons and barriers of their time, and not forseeing the situation of the present we living people today experience. Just making an old scripture a holy grail does not compensate for having no really long history. I personally think that America deeply regrets that it sent it's former king to hell - America desperately would love to have a monarchy. That's where the cult about the president, the extreme patriotism trying to compensate the weak national feeling of unity, and this rallying around the flag is coming from.
This is just too funny. Time to step off your anti-americanism Skybird. Face the fact that of the written national constitutions, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest and shortest. And has served us quite well.
Heibges
07-03-07, 05:47 PM
Nothing is perfect, not even the United States Constitution.
It's man-made, like all others, made by people who lived in a certain place, in a certain time, and were confronted with certain environmental and social and political challenges, both enlightened and handicapped by the philosphical and educational horizons and barriers of their time, and not forseeing the situation of the present we living people today experience. Just making an old scripture a holy grail does not compensate for having no really long history. I personally think that America deeply regrets that it sent it's former king to hell - America desperately would love to have a monarchy. That's where the cult about the president, the extreme patriotism trying to compensate the weak national feeling of unity, and this rallying around the flag is coming from.
This is just too funny. Time to step off your anti-americanism Skybird. Face the fact that of the written national constitutions, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest and shortest. And has served us quite well.
Didn't somebody say something about democracy being the worse form of government, but we are stuck with it until something better comes along. :D
waste gate
07-03-07, 05:52 PM
Perhaps someone did, but I can tell you it wasn't me.
Tchocky
07-03-07, 06:47 PM
Hey, just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it right or irreversible.
One of the great and wonderful things about the Constitution is that it's a real pain in the legislative ass to change anything.
But some things can and should be changed, so the "no, its in the Constitution" defence doesn't really fly. Also, tradition doesnt mean a damn thing.
Here's a list of Presidential pardons Clinton issued just before leaving office. What does that do to make your point any more valid? Nothing. What you're doing is you're approaching this like a Republican vs. Democrat debate. You think this is about Bush, therefore showing that Clinton did it too would make any Left wing criticism of Bush's pardon's look pale next to Clinton's. However this isn't about Left Wing or Right Wing primarily. This is about the executive powers of the President being abused. That you say Clinton abused them doesn't make the same accusation against Bush any less pertinent.
And if you really are trying to make it seem as if Clinton's actions were a terrible misuse of his powers then you're making an argument for Skybird. If you aren't saying that then you're just making an inrrelavent argument.
waste gate
07-03-07, 08:07 PM
The selective outrage is what is very interesting to me.
Tchocky
07-03-07, 08:18 PM
What do you mean?
waste gate
07-03-07, 08:45 PM
What do you mean?
I don't recall this much fuss over previous commutations or pardons. But then it doesn't mean it didn't occur. I don't recall it and it is nothing more than political posturing. The house is going to have hearings on it next wednesday which will amount to nothing. No wonder the congress has lower approval ratings than Bush. You really have to work hard to do worse than GWB!
Heibges
07-03-07, 09:00 PM
I think the issue is what he was pardoned for. Regardless of the legal ins and outs, many of us consider Libby's behavior somewhat treasonous and traitorous.
waste gate
07-03-07, 09:15 PM
I think the issue is what he was pardoned for. Regardless of the legal ins and outs, many of us consider Libby's behavior somewhat treasonous and traitorous.
How so? Is perjury somewhat treasonous and traitorous? Remember it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name to Robert Novak, not Scooter.
Her is the fella.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg/180px-Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg)
If anyone should have been prosecuted for outing a CIA operative it should have been Armitage. But it seems that the special prosecutor was after an administration official.
Here's a list of Presidential pardons Clinton issued just before leaving office. What does that do to make your point any more valid? Nothing. What you're doing is you're approaching this like a Republican vs. Democrat debate. You think this is about Bush, therefore showing that Clinton did it too would make any Left wing criticism of Bush's pardon's look pale next to Clinton's. However this isn't about Left Wing or Right Wing primarily. This is about the executive powers of the President being abused. That you say Clinton abused them doesn't make the same accusation against Bush any less pertinent.
And if you really are trying to make it seem as if Clinton's actions were a terrible misuse of his powers then you're making an argument for Skybird. If you aren't saying that then you're just making an inrrelavent argument.
Look i will not debate the validity of my countries constitution, especially with foreigners. It is our custom and I firmly believe a valuable and honorable one.
However you are completely wrong. It is ALL about politics. Libbys conviction was all about politics. Democratic outrage at his commutation is all about politics.
The reason for a chief executives (both at the federal and state level) clemency power is for him to right what he considers to be a wrong. I believe that Bush really feels that Libby was railroaded for political purposes. As such he is fully justified in commuting his sentence.
That is a big difference than the Clinton pardons which were done for money.
The Avon Lady
07-04-07, 01:19 AM
Here's a contrarian opinion that will get some people's dander up here:
Free At Last (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29031).
The more I read the newswire and mass media reports, the more confused I became of exactly what the facts are in this case.
However you are completely wrong. It is ALL about politics. Libbys conviction was all about politics. Democratic outrage at his commutation is all about politics. If its all a Democratic comnspiracy to get Libby convicted then why were the lion's share of the people involved in the process of prosecuting him Republicans? And besides, if Libby lied in an attempt to block the investigation of a breach of national security, a breach that appears to have been motivated by political agendas, why shouldn't he be prosecuted and imprisoned? Because Libby was pardoned it says to everyone now that people don't have to be accountable to the checks and balances on the executive powers of the White House. This is a very serious matter and Bush is using his position to override the public interest. Whatever your feeling about the "custom" of pardoning, there is a responsibility involved in it and while Ford might have made a brave personal move in pardoning Nixon for the greater good of the nation, Bush is doing this instead for his buddy. Nobody has confidence in the White House and this just reinforces that.
And as for us 'foreigners' questioning your way of life, the moment that Americans stop being opinionated about the rest of the world then the rest of the world might not be so critical of American way of life. But that isn't going to happen because America is an active palyer in the lives of almost every person on the planet. So it is the culture and political process of the nation of the USA that influences what happens around the world much of the time. Us stupid foreigners have a stake in every federal election too. And if America is the beacon of hope and justice around the world then it is alarming to the rest of us when we see it dimmed. Don't give me that crap about foreigners.
Tchocky
07-04-07, 08:57 AM
Look i will not debate the validity of my countries constitution, especially with foreigners. It is our custom and I firmly believe a valuable and honorable one.
However you are completely wrong.
ah.
The Avon Lady
07-04-07, 09:57 AM
How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/politics/04clintons.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)?!
:down:
geetrue
07-04-07, 11:30 AM
From Avon Lady's high lighted article above:
Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”
“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
I'm sure glad Mr ex-president Bill Clinton didn't get convicted of adultry while in the White House or the loan scandal problem back in Arkansas that followed him and his wife to the presidency or the numerous complaints from female co-workers and campaign workers about his advances. If BS Bill had of been convicted of any of those crimes then he would be a hypocrite (acording to his own words)
You made a good arguement P_Funk , it read well. I didn't think I would ever be able to say that to, what you refer to as, a foreigner :lol:
This will be 44th year of following politics from Lydon Johnson to today's polictcal agenda and from my experience this is all about polictics, smear em, talk bad about them, drum up business for the public to get on the democrates side.
This is all about power and money ... We have not heard the entire truth on this matter. If we knew the truth, I suspect an even bigger controversy would occur.
Heibges
07-04-07, 11:31 AM
I think the issue is what he was pardoned for. Regardless of the legal ins and outs, many of us consider Libby's behavior somewhat treasonous and traitorous.
How so? Is perjury somewhat treasonous and traitorous? Remember it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name to Robert Novak, not Scooter.
Her is the fella.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg/180px-Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg)
If anyone should have been prosecuted for outing a CIA operative it should have been Armitage. But it seems that the special prosecutor was after an administration official.
I totally believe Libby is the fall guy. I think all these guys involved, whomever they may be, are scumbags.
They are like that idiot who told the Japanese to drop their depthcharges lower.
Edit:
Presidential Pardons
Nixon= 863
Ford= 382
Carter= 534
Reagan= 393
Bush= 74
Clinton= 396
GW Bush= 58
If its all a Democratic comnspiracy to get Libby convicted then why were the lion's share of the people involved in the process of prosecuting him Republicans? And besides, if Libby lied in an attempt to block the investigation of a breach of national security, a breach that appears to have been motivated by political agendas, why shouldn't he be prosecuted and imprisoned?
Sorry, nice strawman but Libby wasn't prosecuted for blocking an investigation, the investigators already knew who had breached national security before they ever questioned him. This wasn't a conspiracy to get Libby, this was an effort by the political opposition to make the Bush administration look bad any way they can. Libby was just a convenient target. albiet a weak one, who was overly punished for what should have been worth just a simple firing. All just so the opposition could tout about sending a Bush admin official to jail.
Because Libby was pardoned it says to everyone now that people don't have to be accountable to the checks and balances on the executive powers of the White House. This is a very serious matter and Bush is using his position to override the public interest.
Oh bull. Serious is a relative term. Where is your outrage at Bush's predecessors HUNDREDS of similar actions for much baser reasons? Don't give me that crap about two wrongs not making a right. Clinton did what he did, hundreds of times, for money, pure and simple. Bush simply mitigated part of a sentence that he felt was over the top for one man who can not help him or his family in the least, so I fail to see how you can equate the two.
Whatever your feeling about the "custom" of pardoning, there is a responsibility involved in it and while Ford might have made a brave personal move in pardoning Nixon for the greater good of the nation, Bush is doing this instead for his buddy. Nobody has confidence in the White House and this just reinforces that.
Yeah, "custom" was a bad choice of words. It's actually "a 200 year old Constitutional power granted to the Chief Executive and used extensively by every President from George Washington on down to George Bush", but that takes too long to say so I guess "custom" will have to do.
And as for us 'foreigners' questioning your way of life, the moment that Americans stop being opinionated about the rest of the world then the rest of the world might not be so critical of American way of life. But that isn't going to happen because America is an active palyer in the lives of almost every person on the planet. So it is the culture and political process of the nation of the USA that influences what happens around the world much of the time. Us stupid foreigners have a stake in every federal election too. And if America is the beacon of hope and justice around the world then it is alarming to the rest of us when we see it dimmed. Don't give me that crap about foreigners.
Hey I never called foreigners "stupid" (well maybe I did as a joke in another thread), self serving yes, but certainly not stupid. However you can make whatever claims you want, that don't mean we have to, or even should, listen to you. Unless you're willing to become one of our citizens and pay our taxes then you're nothing but another outsider serving his own national interests, not necessarily ours and we'd be fools to see it otherwise.
If it were up to me i'd pull our troops out of every country around the world, eliminate all foreign aid, fortify the heck out of our borders, kick the UN off of US soil and leave the rest of the world to their own devices like we did before WW1. That's how much I am sick and tired of the US always having to be the one who has to sort out foreign troubles then take the incessant criticism and unrealistic expectations of our so called friends.
And don't be complaining to me about our cultural influences. If you want to be free of it, then stop watching our TV shows and stop buying our products. While you're at it take back all your news commentators and entertainers because whether or not you admit it, your culture effects our as well, and if one is bad then so is the other.
Tchocky
07-04-07, 06:50 PM
Just a thought about Clinton's pardons, seeing as there's a lot of flak about those.
SUBSIM wasn't around for the Clinton administration, at least, no-one here was posting at the time. So expecting outrage over these pardons as well as the one that is happening right now is a little bloody rich.
Rich. Oh, a pun.
bleh. ugh.
Ishmael
07-04-07, 08:06 PM
[quote=P_Funk]If its all a Democratic comnspiracy to get Libby convicted then why were the lion's share of the people involved in the process of prosecuting him Republicans? And besides, if Libby lied in an attempt to block the investigation of a breach of national security, a breach that appears to have been motivated by political agendas, why shouldn't he be prosecuted and imprisoned?
Sorry, nice strawman but Libby wasn't prosecuted for blocking an investigation, the investigators already knew who had breached national security before they ever questioned him. This wasn't a conspiracy to get Libby, this was an effort by the political opposition to make the Bush administration look bad any way they can. Libby was just a convenient target. albiet a weak one, who was overly punished for what should have been worth just a simple firing. All just so the opposition could tout about sending a Bush admin official to jail.[/quote=August]
What conspiracy? The CIA requested the investigation from the Justice Dept. because a covert CIA officer and her entire network were compromised by members of the administration. Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, a Republican, Recused himself in favor of US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, another Republican. The key thread in Fitzgrald's trial was that all the leakers, including Armitage, received that information from the Vice-President's Office and Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald was attempting to establish if Cheney authorised the leaks but was prevented from doing so by Libby's Perjury.
[quote=August][quote=P-funk]Because Libby was pardoned it says to everyone now that people don't have to be accountable to the checks and balances on the executive powers of the White House. This is a very serious matter and Bush is using his position to override the public interest.
Oh bull. Serious is a relative term. Where is your outrage at Bush's predecessors HUNDREDS of similar actions for much baser reasons? Don't give me that crap about two wrongs not making a right. Clinton did what he did, hundreds of times, for money, pure and simple. Bush simply mitigated part of a sentence that he felt was over the top for one man who can not help him or his family in the least, so I fail to see how you can equate the two.[/quote=August]
The difference was whether pardons or commutations were given in exchange for perjured testimony shielding Libby's bosses from subpoena/prosecution. In other words, accessory to obstruction of justice.
[quote=August];quote=P-Funk]Whatever your feeling about the "custom" of pardoning, there is a responsibility involved in it and while Ford might have made a brave personal move in pardoning Nixon for the greater good of the nation, Bush is doing this instead for his buddy. Nobody has confidence in the White House and this just reinforces that.
Yeah, "custom" was a bad choice of words. It's actually "a 200 year old Constitutional power granted to the Chief Executive and used extensively by every President from George Washington on down to George Bush", but that takes too long to say so I guess "custom" will have to do.[/quote=August]
While the power to grant pardons and commutations is absolute, Bush's use of it at this time in this manner smacks of Obstruction of Justice.
[quote=August][quote=P-Funk]And as for us 'foreigners' questioning your way of life, the moment that Americans stop being opinionated about the rest of the world then the rest of the world might not be so critical of American way of life. But that isn't going to happen because America is an active palyer in the lives of almost every person on the planet. So it is the culture and political process of the nation of the USA that influences what happens around the world much of the time. Us stupid foreigners have a stake in every federal election too. And if America is the beacon of hope and justice around the world then it is alarming to the rest of us when we see it dimmed. Don't give me that crap about foreigners.
Hey I never called foreigners "stupid" (well maybe I did as a joke in another thread), self serving yes, but certainly not stupid. However you can make whatever claims you want, that don't mean we have to, or even should, listen to you. Unless you're willing to become one of our citizens and pay our taxes then you're nothing but another outsider serving his own national interests, not necessarily ours and we'd be fools to see it otherwise.
If it were up to me i'd pull our troops out of every country around the world, eliminate all foreign aid, fortify the heck out of our borders, kick the UN off of US soil and leave the rest of the world to their own devices like we did before WW1. That's how much I am sick and tired of the US always having to be the one who has to sort out foreign troubles then take the incessant criticism and unrealistic expectations of our so called friends.
And don't be complaining to me about our cultural influences. If you want to be free of it, then stop watching our TV shows and stop buying our products. While you're at it take back all your news commentators and entertainers because whether or not you admit it, your culture effects our as well, and if one is bad then so is the other.[/quote=August]
I include here a link to Keith Olbermann's special commentary from yesterday that sums this up far more eloquently than I with overtones of Emile Zola's J'accuse article in the Dreyfuss Affair.
http://www.dailymotion.com/virtualmatter/video/x2gbma_countdown-olbermann-resign-070307
The Avon Lady
07-04-07, 11:36 PM
Just a thought about Clinton's pardons, seeing as there's a lot of flak about those.
SUBSIM wasn't around for the Clinton administration, at least, no-one here was posting at the time. So expecting outrage over these pardons as well as the one that is happening right now is a little bloody rich.
Rich. Oh, a pun.
bleh. ugh.
Your post is right on the Marc!
:p
:D
:smug:
:shifty:
:o
:nope:
:88)
:oops:
robbo180265
07-05-07, 01:52 AM
Just a thought about Clinton's pardons, seeing as there's a lot of flak about those.
SUBSIM wasn't around for the Clinton administration, at least, no-one here was posting at the time. So expecting outrage over these pardons as well as the one that is happening right now is a little bloody rich.
Rich. Oh, a pun.
bleh. ugh.
Your post is right on the Marc!
:p
:D
:smug:
:shifty:
:o
:nope:
:88)
:oops:
Here here!
And why is it that when one of us dares to criticise the American government, people around here take it all personally?
My landlady is American and she thinks the Libby pardon stinks too:nope:
The Avon Lady
07-05-07, 01:59 AM
Just a thought about Clinton's pardons, seeing as there's a lot of flak about those.
SUBSIM wasn't around for the Clinton administration, at least, no-one here was posting at the time. So expecting outrage over these pardons as well as the one that is happening right now is a little bloody rich.
Rich. Oh, a pun.
bleh. ugh.
Your post is right on the Marc!
:p
:D
:smug:
:shifty:
:o
:nope:
:88)
:oops:
Here here!
Pardon me but you missed the pun.
Actually, now it's 2. :p
robbo180265
07-05-07, 02:16 AM
Just a thought about Clinton's pardons, seeing as there's a lot of flak about those.
SUBSIM wasn't around for the Clinton administration, at least, no-one here was posting at the time. So expecting outrage over these pardons as well as the one that is happening right now is a little bloody rich.
Rich. Oh, a pun.
bleh. ugh.
Your post is right on the Marc!
:p
:D
:smug:
:shifty:
:o
:nope:
:88)
:oops:
Here here!
Pardon me but you missed the pun.
Actually, now it's 2. :p
You're right I did :oops: :D
Because Libby was pardoned it says to everyone now that people don't have to be accountable to the checks and balances on the executive powers of the White House. This is a very serious matter and Bush is using his position to override the public interest.
Oh bull. Serious is a relative term. Where is your outrage at Bush's predecessors HUNDREDS of similar actions for much baser reasons? Don't give me that crap about two wrongs not making a right. Clinton did what he did, hundreds of times, for money, pure and simple. Bush simply mitigated part of a sentence that he felt was over the top for one man who can not help him or his family in the least, so I fail to see how you can equate the two. Clinton doesn't have anything to do with this President's actions. You can't justify today with yesterday. You can't shield the question of Bush's behavior with allegations about Clinton's. Thats irrelavent to today and it just throws sand in the air. Like someone else said, Reagan made some weird moves too with his powers so why this obcession with Clinton? Its got nothing to do with the matter at hand.
And yes Bush mitigated part of a sentense, the most important part. On one hand you rip Clinton for doing the same thing but with Bush its only part. And what am I equating it to? I made a striaght up comment without direct comparisons.
Whatever your feeling about the "custom" of pardoning, there is a responsibility involved in it and while Ford might have made a brave personal move in pardoning Nixon for the greater good of the nation, Bush is doing this instead for his buddy. Nobody has confidence in the White House and this just reinforces that.
Yeah, "custom" was a bad choice of words. It's actually "a 200 year old Constitutional power granted to the Chief Executive and used extensively by every President from George Washington on down to George Bush", but that takes too long to say so I guess "custom" will have to do. I'm not debating the fact that its a constitutional power. I'm making a point that every power comes with a responsibility to use it wisely.
And as for us 'foreigners' questioning your way of life, the moment that Americans stop being opinionated about the rest of the world then the rest of the world might not be so critical of American way of life. But that isn't going to happen because America is an active palyer in the lives of almost every person on the planet. So it is the culture and political process of the nation of the USA that influences what happens around the world much of the time. Us stupid foreigners have a stake in every federal election too. And if America is the beacon of hope and justice around the world then it is alarming to the rest of us when we see it dimmed. Don't give me that crap about foreigners.
Hey I never called foreigners "stupid" (well maybe I did as a joke in another thread), self serving yes, but certainly not stupid. However you can make whatever claims you want, that don't mean we have to, or even should, listen to you. Unless you're willing to become one of our citizens and pay our taxes then you're nothing but another outsider serving his own national interests, not necessarily ours and we'd be fools to see it otherwise.
If it were up to me i'd pull our troops out of every country around the world, eliminate all foreign aid, fortify the heck out of our borders, kick the UN off of US soil and leave the rest of the world to their own devices like we did before WW1. That's how much I am sick and tired of the US always having to be the one who has to sort out foreign troubles then take the incessant criticism and unrealistic expectations of our so called friends.
And don't be complaining to me about our cultural influences. If you want to be free of it, then stop watching our TV shows and stop buying our products. While you're at it take back all your news commentators and entertainers because whether or not you admit it, your culture effects our as well, and if one is bad then so is the other. And in these 3 paragraphs we might begin to glean a sense how some people around the world might not be too happy with America.
Like I said before. America is the world's biggest know it all. America butts into every nation on the face of the earth and the powers of every nation are always skirmishing on one level or another to preserve the self interest of the nation against the aggressive outward policy of the US to secure its own. You might want to lock your country up into a tight little ball and forget the rest of us but thats not what your country keeps doing.
And I might add that my nation like many others has its sovereignty attacked by the US routinely. I've mentioned it before: attempts to take the North West passage away from Canada, parking Nuclear subs inside out waters, a judge ordering the seizure of Canadian soil in a criminal trial without even talking to Canadian officials, numerous take overs of Canadian companies, DEA and Texas Ranger and ATF officers operating inside of Canada (with traitorous governmental help on our side). Thats the short list that I can get off the top of my head.
You come off very arrogant August but the fact is that my nation is right next to yours and we have to live every day with wondering how much of our interests get drowned out by hostile American interests. I don't hate America. I think America is a good force in the world despite many things. The cradle of Democracy, the beacon of justice and hope, whatever you like. But don't tell me that I have no place criticizing your nation when mine is often criticized by yours when we differ in opinion or political motivation. I remember a few years ago when there was a serious push to legalize marijuana the American ambassador came up here and made some very damning remarks. Apparently we can't make our own laws if they conflict with those of the US. I don't imagine this stuff.
The US is everywhere around the world telling other people how to live. Its isn't unreasonable to expect people to push back and protest a little when they don't agree.
But don't tell me that I have no place criticizing your nation when mine is often criticized by yours when we differ in opinion or political motivation. I remember a few years ago when there was a serious push to legalize marijuana the American ambassador came up here and made some very damning remarks. Apparently we can't make our own laws if they conflict with those of the US. I don't imagine this stuff.
I don't see the need to repeat myself so here's a bit pasted from an earlier post.
However you can make whatever claims you want, that don't mean we have to, or even should, listen to you. Unless you're willing to become one of our citizens and pay our taxes then you're nothing but another outsider serving his own national interests, not necessarily ours and we'd be fools to see it otherwise.
Tchocky
07-05-07, 11:07 AM
Jeez, since when did we start posting by nationality?
Heibges
07-05-07, 11:54 AM
For me, it's not even a matter of the pardons, so much as these guys have the feeling they didn't do anything wrong.
If you go into one of those meetings where they write your name down on a list, take away your pen and paper, and tell you not to talk about the information you are being entrusted with until you receive written notification from the government, you get the distinct idea that you should keep your big mouth shut about what you are told no matter how insignificant it seems to you.
The fact these creeps are so smug about something that could potentially have been devastating for our intelligence services.
robbo180265
07-05-07, 02:09 PM
For me, it's not even a matter of the pardons, so much as these guys have the feeling they didn't do anything wrong.
If you go into one of those meetings where they write your name down on a list, take away your pen and paper, and tell you not to talk about the information you are being entrusted with until you receive written notification from the government, you get the distinct idea that you should keep your big mouth shut about what you are told no matter how insignificant it seems to you.
The fact these creeps are so smug about something that could potentially have been devastating for our intelligence services.
I couldn't comment apparently,after all I'm a foreigner therfore my opinion doesn't count(not aimed at you Heibges - I agree with you 100%;) )
I don't see the need to repeat myself so here's a bit pasted from an earlier post.
If you really are that obtuse then good luck living in your bunker.
I don't see the need to repeat myself so here's a bit pasted from an earlier post.
If you really are that obtuse then good luck living in your bunker.
Personal insults now P Funk? What's the matter, you can't take being told your opinions are discounted?
I don't see the need to repeat myself so here's a bit pasted from an earlier post.
If you really are that obtuse then good luck living in your bunker.
Personal insults now P Funk? What's the matter, you can't take being told your opinions are discounted?
You're the one that said that you don't want anything to do with the rest of the world. Hence a bunker metaphor.
And it isn't an insult so much as an accusation. If you find it offensive, so be it.
I don't see the need to repeat myself so here's a bit pasted from an earlier post.
If you really are that obtuse then good luck living in your bunker.
Personal insults now P Funk? What's the matter, you can't take being told your opinions are discounted? You're the one that said that you don't want anything to do with the rest of the world. Hence a bunker metaphor.
And it isn't an insult so much as an accusation. If you find it offensive, so be it.
No I don't find it offensive at all, your anger actually amuses me.
Oh and for the record, if advocating that *my* country stop wasting the lives of our soldiers and our national wealth for a world which neither wants nor appreciates the effort is a bunker mentality then sour grapes to you. We never should have got into the habit in the first place. Then people like you would have to find someone else to complain about.
No I don't find it offensive at all, your anger actually amuses me.
Oh and for the record, if advocating that *my* country stop wasting the lives of our soldiers and our national wealth for a world which neither wants nor appreciates the effort is a bunker mentality then sour grapes to you. We never should have got into the habit in the first place. Then people like you would have to find someone else to complain about. I don't know why you think I'm angry. If I'd said it in person as I thought of it in my head it would have been an even tone of voice that I'd have used.
If you seriously think that your nation is interfering with the development and running of the rest of the world because of the generosity of the American spirit then you don't know much about power or economics or history. The interests of the US as prosecuted by its foreign policy has always been selfish and much of the time damaging to other nations. That there is a benefit to other nations sometimes is the result of the good in many people in the system, the coincidental benefit of sharing with allies, and need to at least follow some moral guidelines. However the behavior of world superpowers has always been outside of what we would consider moral behavior in this modern democratic society. The powers that be also are willing to sacrifice its own people for these interests; hence the liberal use of the American Military. It would be nice for my nation if your nation stopped trying to control us as a satellite and instead treat us as an equal. But that isn't going to happen because at the end of the day you and most of your countrymen want them to do what they do because it makes your life and your country's life better. America is wealthy because of her land. But she is powerful because of how she uses that wealth very deliberately.
It isn't a habit that your nation is out in the world making things happen, its a primal directive of the power that your nation was lucky enough to discover. And its not like I think the US special. If Canada were suddenly as powerful as the US we'd be bastards to the Nicaraguans too. That doens't change the moral implications of what happens.
So again I'll say it. In a world where nations attempt to coexist there needs to be understanding and dialogue and mutual respect of criticism. But the US, as any other superpower, ignores other interests most of the time and it leaves the rest of us in the cold trying to look out for ourselves. The reson why things like the UN don't work is because the US can't sacrifice strategic power or influence to let real peace and understanding happen. Russia and China do the same.
Now taking what I said at least in mind hypothetically you can begin to understand where people can actually believe in Anarchism (not that silly individualist crap but the collective one that isn't talked about). But thats beside the point.
I generalize alot there because I don't want to go and start writing an essay. I'm not angry August, I just find it frustrating when I get the cliche and unhealthy image of an American dismissing a foreigner's POV. We care about the world too and as long as your country is out there we need to get along with it. When we get crossed we react much the way you would if something bad happened to your country. You wouldn't hesitate to tell my country off for doing something bad to the US, now would you?
[quote=August]I generalize alot there because I don't want to go and start writing an essay. I'm not angry August, I just find it frustrating when I get the cliche and unhealthy image of an American dismissing a foreigner's POV. We care about the world too and as long as your country is out there we need to get along with it. When we get crossed we react much the way you would if something bad happened to your country. You wouldn't hesitate to tell my country off for doing something bad to the US, now would you?
Well that would depend on the subject. Internal politics like Bush pardoning Libby (which is what we were talking about) has nothing to do with Canada.
Tchocky
07-06-07, 08:58 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2120913,00.html
Ha ha. Good man Terry :)
Well that would depend on the subject. Internal politics like Bush pardoning Libby (which is what we were talking about) has nothing to do with Canada. Well we somewhat digressed didn't we from the main subject. You generally said that foreigners should sod off, without qualifying veryu much. But I also pointed out that the US has routinely butted into internal Canadian affairs with no regard for our interest or our sovereignty.
But yes at the end of the day I have no say in what your president should do. But neither do you. He's an elected official and until the next election none of us can do anything about it. But since we're all people and we all have opinions and we have a vested interest in the health of American democracy we like to banter on about whats right or wrong with the most important country in the world. When I say he shouldn't have commuted Libby's sentense its a theoretical discussion. I'm talking about why it was a bad thing to do and why I as an observer of significant political occurances see it as a problem for democracy or just wrong morally.
And do you realise that while it is your constitution August, it is in many ways mine too? The American constitution, as my father put it, is the greatest document of the modern era. It gives us something that we never had before and it does it so well that so many nations have either used it heavily for inspiration or have down right ripped it off (I believe its Vietnam that has a constitution that is only different from the American one where 'The United States of America' is exchanged for 'Vietnam'). So the health of American democracy is important to us all.
And if you are so sensitive to non-Americans expressing opinions about your country then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a message board with significant numbers of nosey opinionated foreigners.;) But I don't mean that seriously, its just another point. What else is a message board for if not to discuss things?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2120913,00.html
Ha ha. Good man Terry :)
Well that's a nice propaganda piece but just filled with inaccuracies :D
For example Terry Jones says:
When Bush became governor in 1995, the average number of executions in the state was 7.6 a year. During his time in office, he managed to put down a further 24 humans a year, bringing the annual number of executions up to 31.6
Maybe an foreign actor like Jones doesn't understand this but a US state Governor doesn't "put down" anyone. Juries and judges do that for capital crimes (like cold blooded murder) in accordance with long standing (read pre Bush) Texas law, but of course you knew that right?
Then there is the case of Victor Rita. Far from having an "umblemished record", Rita was first convicted of the crime of perjury in May of 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. So if we are being asked to compare the two cases we see that Libby gets a jail sentence for his first offense and Rita gets probation for his. That sort of shoots down the whole analogy don'cha think?
Then there is the fact that Rita's second perjury case (you know, the one Jones claim was his first?) was part of an investigation into Rita buying illegal machinegun parts which the court found he deliberately attempted to conceal by switching the illegal parts for other legal ones. In Libbys case the investigators already knew he wasn't the source of the leak they were investigating so, unlike the Rita case, there was no underlying crime to justify the more severe sentance.
Really Tchocky, you should at least check up on your facts just a little before you present the word of a foreign actor as relevant to the discussion. Last I heard experience with Monty Python hardly qualifies him as an expert in American legal proceedings.
Tchocky
07-06-07, 10:37 PM
Maybe an foreign actor like Jones doesn't understand this but a US state Governor doesn't "put down" anyone. Juries and judges do that for capital crimes (like cold blooded murder) in accordance with long standing (read pre Bush) Texas law, but of course you knew that right? No, I didn't know that. But doesn't he sign the death warrants? And wouldn't it be a bit strange if the executions tripled when he became Governor, but for a completely unrelated reason? I'm sure the process was the same before El Diablo got the Texas job, but why did the rate triple?
meh
Or maybe, just maybe, Jones was using the phrase "put down" in a comic/satirical sense, like he does in the rest of the article.
Then there is the case of Victor Rita. Far from having an "umblemished record", Rita was first convicted of the crime of perjury in May of 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. So if we are being asked to compare the two cases we see that Libby gets a jail sentence for his first offense and Rita gets probation for his. That sort of shoots down the whole analogy don'cha think? The NYT tells me that, like Libby, Rita has a clear record as far as federal sentencing guidelines go.
That could be where Jones is getting his words from.
Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines. So, as far as the courts were concerned, the cases were similiar. (Maybe, I'm not bothered going into this very far)
So, the analogy may stand up.
Then there is the fact that Rita's second perjury case (you know, the one Jones claim was his first?) was part of an investigation into Rita buying illegal machinegun parts which the court found he deliberately attempted to conceal by switching the illegal parts for other legal ones. In Libbys case the investigators already knew he wasn't the source of the leak they were investigating so, unlike the Rita case, there was no underlying crime to justify the more severe sentance. Whether they knew he was the source or not, that makes no difference to the fact that he was convicted for perjury. Let's take it from the article
"did knowingly and corruptly endeavour to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice by misleading and deceiving the grand jury" OK, so he didn't leak. Wahey, we knew that already. But he did obstruct the investigation into the source, from which we can assume his motive was to protect a guilty party. That's quite serious.
Really Tchocky, you should at least check up on your facts just a little before you present the word of a foreign actor as relevant to the discussion. Last I heard experience with Monty Python hardly qualifies him as an expert in American legal proceedings. Ok, look at my post. It starts with "Ha ha". The article I linked was written by a comedian. It's written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I wasn't posting it as an incisive filleting of the American legal system as far as perjury is concerned, and you know that.
If I'm linking to something in pursuit of debate, I'll check it out at least superficially. But when the article isn't serious, when it's satirical and not set to change minds, I let it go unexamined.
Ishmael
07-07-07, 12:36 AM
I think the issue is what he was pardoned for. Regardless of the legal ins and outs, many of us consider Libby's behavior somewhat treasonous and traitorous.
How so? Is perjury somewhat treasonous and traitorous? Remember it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name to Robert Novak, not Scooter.
Her is the fella.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg/180px-Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_L._Armitage.jpeg)
If anyone should have been prosecuted for outing a CIA operative it should have been Armitage. But it seems that the special prosecutor was after an administration official.
Armitage got the info about Plame's identity and covert status from the Vice-President's office according to Fitzgerald. So did Rove and Ari Fleischer. As Fitzgerald pointed out, the leaks all originated from the VP's office. It was the CIA who initiated the investigation with Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case due to possible conflict-of-interest, bringing Fitzgerald in as Special Prosecutor.
It was Fitzgerald's investigation and questioning of Libby that revealed his perjury and obstruction of justice as Fitzgerald attempted to determine if Cheney himself had ordered the leaks to discredit Ambassador Wilson.
The commutation and potential pardon by Bush are nothing less than the President becoming an Accessory to Obstruction of Justice.
To those who complain about Clinton's pardons. As sleazy as they were, none were granted to his own administration staffers involved in covering up his own crimes. Also, as sleazy as Clinton's behavior was, no one was killed and no unnecessary wars were generated by it.
To those who complain about Clinton's pardons. As sleazy as they were, none were granted to his own administration staffers involved in covering up his own crimes.
Yeah Susan McDougal wasn't technially part of his administration, just a business partner involved in covering up the Clintons involvement in the Whitewater scandal. I guess that's different somehow.
To those who complain about Clinton's pardons. As sleazy as they were, none were granted to his own administration staffers involved in covering up his own crimes.
Yeah Susan McDougal wasn't technially part of his administration, just a business partner involved in covering up the Clintons involvement in the Whitewater scandal. I guess that's different somehow. How is that relavent? It isn't a direct equal to Ishmael's accusation. Pardoning someone is different than bringing someone to help in a scandal. The two actions are different, and any political entity would do what you accuse Clinton. If you want to get into why anyone hires who then I could say many of the people that Bush has in his Admin is far worse than anyone that ever surrounded Clinton. Karl Rove alone is enough to show the dishonest spirit of this particular presidential crew. But that isn't the issue at hand. Clinton didn't pardon someone in an attempt at self preservation or giving a free ride to a member of his inner group.
Stop referring back to Clinton. Its always a stretch. "Bush did this but Clinton sorta did something less than honest too thats not really of the same caliber." Can you muster a better argument than "Remember Clinton" or "Its in the constitution so sod off"?
How is that relavent? It isn't a direct equal to Ishmael's accusation. Pardoning someone is different than bringing someone to help in a scandal. The two actions are different, and any political entity would do what you accuse Clinton. If you want to get into why anyone hires who then I could say many of the people that Bush has in his Admin is far worse than anyone that ever surrounded Clinton. Karl Rove alone is enough to show the dishonest spirit of this particular presidential crew. But that isn't the issue at hand. Clinton didn't pardon someone in an attempt at self preservation or giving a free ride to a member of his inner group.
Stop referring back to Clinton. Its always a stretch. "Bush did this but Clinton sorta did something less than honest too thats not really of the same caliber." Can you muster a better argument than "Remember Clinton" or "Its in the constitution so sod off"?
Well it's only a stretch to you because your political leaning prevents you from seeing the obvious. Let me remind you that the other half of the Clinton team, and they ARE a team, is a serious contender for the Democratic party Presidential nomination next year, so stop acting like they are yesterdays news.
After all they are the people who sent Sandy Berger into the national archives to steal and destroy vital evidence on 9-11, they are the people who traded military secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions, they are the people whose 8 years of ineffective responses to various Al Quaeda attacks got more than a few Americans killed around the world and emboldened them to attack us here in our homeland. These are the people you think are less dishonest than Carl Rove? :roll:
Susan McDougal was pardoned in return for her silence about the details of the ClintonS (as in plural) involvement in the Whitewater scandal. She was exactly the same type of sacrifical lamb that you claim Libby to be and a direct comparison to the Ismaels original statment.
This is why I feel we shouldn't pay heed to the opinions of foreigners such as yourself, at least when its about our nations internal politics. Rarely do any of you have even a clue to our nations mood or the workings of our government, but you all still have an opinion which you insist on repeating ad nauseum. I apologize if i sound a bit callous or arrogant but I grow weary of it having read it ever since the days of DECnet.
Now you seem to have some kind of axe to grind against us with your repeated mention of various transgressions, like our subs travelling to close to your shores and the, what did you call it?, "treasonous"?, complicity of your government in cooperating with ours. Maybe instead of worrying about who our Presidents pardon for crimes that have nothing to do with your country, you ought to concentrate on your own politicans.
I PROMISE that if you do you won't hear a peep out of me about it. Your business is your own.
Susan McDougal was pardoned in return for her silence about the details of the ClintonS (as in plural) involvement in the Whitewater scandal. She was exactly the same type of sacrifical lamb that you claim Libby to be and a direct comparison to the Ismaels original statment. Thats not entirely true. For one she was convicted in 1996 and pardoned in 2001. Libby was convicted last week and commuted... how many days was it? I think 5 years and less time than it takes to get transferred to prison after a sentense is just a touch different. And the other thing is loan fraud and a breach of national security sit in two very different worlds of severity. Its especially bad in a time when the executive is calling for more broad actions against freedom to protect said freedom and is acting in ways that don't conform to its own policy... or maybe they really do.
But you're right that it was a shady deal. But what I can't figure out is how you seem to be arguing two mutually exclusive points. Either the president can do what he wants with his constitutional rights, ie. commuting Libby's sentense, or its a sick miscarriage of the public good that he does whatever he likes with it, ie. Clinton pardoning McDougal.
Now you seem to have some kind of axe to grind against us with your repeated mention of various transgressions, like our subs travelling to close to your shores and the, what did you call it?, "treasonous"?, complicity of your government in cooperating with ours. Maybe instead of worrying about who our Presidents pardon for crimes that have nothing to do with your country, you ought to concentrate on your own politicans.
I PROMISE that if you do you won't hear a peep out of me about it. Your business is your own. I certainly do have a problem with the US, but those issues were brought up in our little detour into the merits of me having an opinion about your country. And I don't see why you need to be so defensive about us misguided non-Americans. Its not as if the ideas of the winner of the arguments on this forum are binding on the US. No, you're telling me to go away because you think I'm wrong and not relavent. I do have my own gripes with my politicians and I'd be happy to talk about them if not for one thing: how many threads on this board about Canada actualy survive past 3 posts? Theres also the fact that America is both important and interesting and while the borders are there our shared interest in the happenings there are very much relavent to the rest of the world. Even the domestic things, because believe it or not influence is both direct and passive in the world. What happens one place can set a precedent and bleed into another. But I'm already playing your game and trying to justify my right just to answer a thread about the US. The fact is I have an opinion, you have an opinion, we disagree alot, and so the hell what? You don't want to answer it then don't. Do what Skybird does with WG. Otherwise just use your vastly superior position as a true blooded American to proove me wrong in my understanding of your country.
Tchocky
07-13-07, 05:41 AM
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/12/america/NA-GEN-US-Bush.php
robbo180265
07-13-07, 06:04 AM
Just thought I'd say that I'm with P Funk on this one:up:
The Avon Lady
07-13-07, 06:47 AM
Proper of the President (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VmNThlNjA2MDM5MzliMjk2Zjc3YmVjZGIyZGVhYTE=), testimony delivered by David B. Rivkin Jr. to the House Judiciary Committee hearings Wednesday on the the president's Scooter Libby commutation.
David B. Rivkin, Jr. is a partner with BakerHostetler LLP, a former member of the White House Counsel’s Office and a Department of Justice Official.
Tchocky
07-13-07, 07:01 AM
There is no dispute about what Mr. Berger did, since he admitted, after some time had elapsed, to such transgressions as stealing highly — classified documents from the National Archives, destroying at least some of them, and lying about it to Executive branch officials. What he did certainly amounted to an obstruction of justice, providing misleading and false information to Executive branch officials, and several other serious criminal law transgressions. The only reason perjury is not on this list is because Mr. Berger was not put in the position where he had to testify under oath.
Yet, presented with all of these facts, the career DOJ attorneys decided not to prosecute him and settled for the imposition of a fine on Mr. Berger, as well as the forfeiture for a period of years of his security clearance. My point here is not to suggest that Mr. Berger was treated too leniently; rather, it is to suggest that Mr. Libby was treated too harshly. It looks to me like Berger got away easily, thus knocking down the idea that Libby was treated too harshly.
That of course is just my opinion, and I'm not going to back it up. Just like the author in his last point. "I think this was false, so I'm right".
As a result, the overall narrative provided by the prosecutor, the context if you will, is extremely important. In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Fitzgerald presented the jury the following damning narrative — there was a nefarious effort in the White House to destroy Joe Wilson’s reputation and even to punish him, by allegedly hurting the career of his wife Valerie Plame; these activities were part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people. While I believe this narrative to be fundamentally false, it proved successful with the jury. The fact that the critics of the President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence invariably invoke the broad narrative of the alleged White House Iraq war — related nefarious activities, underscores how unfair and politicized this whole exercise has been.
Whut?
The Avon Lady
07-13-07, 07:12 AM
That of course is just my opinion, and I'm not going to back it up. Just like the author in his last point. "I think this was false, so I'm right".
No. That was not the subject of this article. What's your excuse?
Furthermore, I don't think his belief on the subject is the equivalent of someone who has no idea whether an appropriate fine would be $10,000 or $250,000 or whether 5 days, months or years in prison should be meeted out.
Tchocky
07-13-07, 07:28 AM
That was not the subject of this article. What's your excuse? He's saying that Fitzgerald presented the jury with a misleading version of events. He doesn't go into why he believes this is misleading, only holding opponents of the "jury argument" as evidence. That those who criticise the President invoke similiar ideas isn't much of an indictment, nice things to say about GWB are thin in the ground these days. The effort to sell the war isn't the subject, granted. But when it's brought in as argument for a pardon, then it's on the table. He's claiming it to be false/irrelevant, but not providing evidence/backup.
Furthermore, I don't think his belief on the subject is the equivalent of someone who has no idea whether an appropriate fine would be $10,000 or $250,000 or whether 5 days, months or years in prison should be meeted out.
His belief is as much as he says it is. I can infer a decent amount from his employment (Bush I, Reagan) and his association with the AEI.
If he believes the context to be extrememly important, as he says he does, further elucidation on that "fundamental" flaw wouldn't go amiss. "Because I say so" doesn't fly very far.
The Avon Lady
07-13-07, 08:07 AM
That was not the subject of this article. What's your excuse? He's saying that Fitzgerald presented the jury with a misleading version of events. He doesn't go into why he believes this is misleading, only holding opponents of the "jury argument" as evidence. That those who criticise the President invoke similiar ideas isn't much of an indictment, nice things to say about GWB are thin in the ground these days. The effort to sell the war isn't the subject, granted. But when it's brought in as argument for a pardon, then it's on the table. He's claiming it to be false/irrelevant, but not providing evidence/backup.
What damning irrefutable evidence did prosecutor Fitzgerald offer that establishes his claim that, to quote the author:
"these activities were part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people".
Objection. Hearsay, your honor!
Furthermore, I don't think his belief on the subject is the equivalent of someone who has no idea whether an appropriate fine would be $10,000 or $250,000 or whether 5 days, months or years in prison should be meeted out.
His belief is as much as he says it is.
You're playing with the literal semantics of the word "belief". Try not reading into the most brittle literal meaning of words not in context.
I can infer a decent amount from his employment (Bush I, Reagan) and his association with the AEI.
Such as his possibly having a good grasp of the assault on the Bush administration and, further, a historic perspective dating back through the previous Democratic administration that would also explain the rationale for assuming that going to war against Iraq was the correct thing to do. Refresher: in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE).
".....for a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Simon & Garfunkel, "The Boxer"
Tchocky
07-13-07, 08:21 AM
I really don't know where Democratic remarks in 1998/2002 come into this. I'm a little scared of asking, too.
What annoyed me about Rivkin's paragraph is that he didn't support what he said. I said that I could infer what his reasons were, given his background. But I had to run off and Google him to get that. And that's not enough to back up his sentence. Should everything be referenced and footnoted to death? No. But if someone of august legal standing intends to make a point, I expect a little more than "I believe this to be false". He says that context is extremely important, two lines later it's irrelevant to his own claims. It doesnt convince or interest me.
This is at most a minor point about a minor point. I
.....for a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
- Simon & Garfunkel, "The Boxer"
Wahey!
"I disagree. And furthermore......" - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The Plumber"
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.