PDA

View Full Version : DUHbya commutes Libby sentence...


Pages : [1] 2

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 03:50 PM
wow, what a shock. :rolleyes: He keeps a crook friend out of jail...forget what the courts decide. I bet Cheney made him do it. ROFL

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush0703,0,3656692,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Wow I am actually shocked.

President Cheney wins again.

I am all for impeachment now.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Good.

Sully
07-02-2007, 03:54 PM
First in with "Clinton did it, too!"

Cochise
07-02-2007, 03:57 PM
Wow I am actually shocked.

President Cheney wins again.

I am all for impeachment now.

Impeachment for what? Doing what the President has the power to do at his discretion?

I'm not a huge fan of this, even though the whole thing was a sham, but :rolleyes:

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 04:00 PM
LOL, two of the appellate judges who rebuffed Libby's request were REPUBLICON nominated. That will make for good spin when CONS try to say the system was not treating Libby fairly so the POTUS had to act to save him. :hmmm:

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 04:01 PM
Impeachment for what? Doing what his office has the power to do at his discretion?

I'm not a huge fan of this, even though the whole process was a sham, but to say he should be impeached over it shows a misunderstanding of what impeachment is.

I am sure they can dig something up. I don't care honestly anymore.

Honestly i wouldn't be so mad if he had done this right when he was walking out the door in '09 but this is ridiculous.

Logical
07-02-2007, 04:01 PM
No suprise, in fact the only thing suprising is how early in the term Bush I mean Cheney did it.

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 04:04 PM
It's not early when you consider DUHbya needs to do something to hold on to his delusional 25% base. He doesn't want to end up in the teens where the trend is heading. And after the whole immigration debacle, he needed SOMETHING red meatish to throw to the wolves.

Coach
07-02-2007, 04:13 PM
Lame, but knew this was going to happen. He should have gone to jail.

HolmeZz
07-02-2007, 04:22 PM
The trial was sure a good use of taxpayer dollars.

banyon
07-02-2007, 04:42 PM
:shake:

Valiant
07-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Whats shocking??? Every president has done this Dem or Rep, the only thing shocking is how early he did it...

WoodDraw
07-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Horrible. If you commit a crime, just make sure you do it while working for the executive branch. What's sad is that this will actually help Bush keep support with his base.

patteeu
07-02-2007, 05:03 PM
LOL, two of the appellate judges who rebuffed Libby's request were REPUBLICON nominated. That will make for good spin when CONS try to say the system was not treating Libby fairly so the POTUS had to act to save him. :hmmm:

I have every confidence that you know how deceptive this claim is.

Logical
07-02-2007, 05:06 PM
I have every confidence that you know how deceptive this claim is.

I don't, please enlighten us.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 05:21 PM
This may also be a way to placate conservatives after the immigration debacle.

My thoughts:

I thought the punishment was too severe, but I feel he should serve some time. If his fines are offset with donations, well some of that I'm fine with but not if it's all of it. He needs to pay some price for what he did.

However, I support impeachment of Cheney whether this happened or not.
He needs to pay a price for everything he's done.

DaKCMan AP
07-02-2007, 05:23 PM
Nothing this administration does surprises me anymore. They don't believe laws or regulations apply to them.

Mr. Laz
07-02-2007, 05:41 PM
it's what kept Libby from spilling the beans ..... also why he did it so early.

he will also pardon him completely at the end of his administration.

patteeu
07-02-2007, 05:59 PM
I don't, please enlighten us.

I mistakenly thought she was talking about the guy who originally denied Libby's request to postpone incarceration pending his appeal. That guy was a Bush appointee but only after he'd been held up by Republicans as a Clinton appointee before Bush's election. It was a part of his efforts to establish a new tone in Washington.

As it is, this 3 judge panel apparently consisted of a conservative (appointed by Reagan), a liberal (appointed by Clinton), and something of a swing voter (appointed by GHWBush). memyselfi is right that 2 of those three were appointed by Republicans.

patteeu
07-02-2007, 06:00 PM
it's what kept Libby from spilling the beans ..... also why he did it so early.

he will also pardon him completely at the end of his administration.

What beans?

go bowe
07-02-2007, 06:22 PM
not my momma's old fashioned baked beans recipe! :eek: :eek: :eek:


please, please...

don't take my beans away...

i'll run out of farts without them...

Ugly Duck
07-02-2007, 06:23 PM
it's what kept Libby from spilling the beans ..... also why he did it so early.

he will also pardon him completely at the end of his administration.As long as Monkeyboy keeps it a commuted sentence instead of a pardon, Scooter can still claim the 5th. This is way better than a pardon for Scooter.

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 06:28 PM
Fitzgerald isn't backing down!

He is also not amused. :clap:

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 06:40 PM
As long as Monkeyboy keeps it a commuted sentence instead of a pardon, Scooter can still claim the 5th. This is way better than a pardon for Scooter.

I asked this question in the other thread too. You don't really have to answer it twice, though. Plead the 5th where?

WoodDraw
07-02-2007, 06:42 PM
Impeachment for what? Doing what the President has the power to do at his discretion?


I haven't found the quotes yet, but I believe this situation was given as an example of a use of impeachment when the Constitution was being written. The power to pardon was always controversial, but Congress's power to impeach was seen as a powerful check against Presidential self interests.

Now that's never been used before, but it's not way out there in absurdity land.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 06:45 PM
Anyone who expected otherwise was kidding themselves. Libby was seen as a good coverup-soldier. Law-and-order party indeed.

Logical
07-02-2007, 06:49 PM
Fitzgerald isn't backing down!

He is also not amused. :clap:Link, not sure what you are referencing.

ChiefsfaninPA
07-02-2007, 06:53 PM
No suprise, in fact the only thing suprising is how early in the term Bush I mean Cheney did it.

This pretty much sums up this whole administration. They do what they want, when they want.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 07:05 PM
Man I can't wait for Billary to get elected...only then will the law be justifiably enforced.

.

Mr. Laz
07-02-2007, 07:10 PM
As long as Monkeyboy keeps it a commuted sentence instead of a pardon, Scooter can still claim the 5th. This is way better than a pardon for Scooter.
i see ... didn't know that.


better for scooter or better for Bush/cheney?

Mr. Laz
07-02-2007, 07:12 PM
Man I can't wait for Billary to get elected...only then will the law be justifiably enforced.

.
you mean like the GOP screaming during the Clinton administration?


wasn't Bush supposed to be "all that what good in the world"?

penchief
07-02-2007, 07:13 PM
I'm stunned.

Really, I am.

That and very discouraged.

And for those of you who think that he did nothing wrong......I pray for our country.

The levels of hypocricy and hubris have just risen to sickening levels.

Please God, make it stop.

Save our Country.

Please.

Frazod
07-02-2007, 07:20 PM
With each passing day, he acts more like a dictator and less like a president. He knows he's hated by the people. He just doesn't care. And more to the point, he no longer even PRETENDS to care.

I really wonder where it will end. Then again, maybe I don't want to know.

:shake:

stevieray
07-02-2007, 07:30 PM
you mean like the GOP screaming during the Clinton administration?


wasn't Bush supposed to be "all that what good in the world"?

more like the psuedo shock displayed in this thread....

OTOH, I guess I'd be pissed too when your payback only amounts to just lil ol scooter.

Logical
07-02-2007, 07:39 PM
With each passing day, he acts more like a dictator and less like a president. He knows he's hated by the people. He just doesn't care. And more to the point, he no longer even PRETENDS to care.

I really wonder where it will end. Then again, maybe I don't want to know.

:shake:Tim 4 years ago can you imagine we would be thinking this way?

Frazod
07-02-2007, 07:47 PM
Tim 4 years ago can you imagine we would be thinking this way?
Nope.

I wonder if this is what it was like to be a German citizen during the 1930s.

penchief
07-02-2007, 07:50 PM
more like the psuedo shock displayed in this thread....

OTOH, I guess I'd be pissed too when your payback only amounts to just lil ol scooter.

As usual, you're overlooking the big picture.

This isn't about little ol' Scooter and big bad Bill. It's about perjury related to a blow job versus perjury related to intentionally leaking the name of an undercover agent (a treasonous act). It's a national security issue versus a personal issue. Not only did lil' ol' Scooter commit perjury in a far more serious scenario (as far as the consequences for this country are concerned), he did it to cover up more serious "errors in judgment" committed by this administration.

It's a coverup and it's obvious, IMO. It's as obvious as OJ and Robert Blake. This administration is clearly nothing more than a bunch of fuggin' crooks. I know you don't agree because you are so loyal to them but I beg you to be objective just once.

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 08:11 PM
With each passing day, he acts more like a dictator and less like a president. He knows he's hated by the people. He just doesn't care. And more to the point, he no longer even PRETENDS to care.

I really wonder where it will end. Then again, maybe I don't want to know.

:shake:

Who are you and what have you done with Tim? :hmmm:

FTR, I found Logical's awakening comforting...

yours freaks me out. Perhaps I have underestimated the disdain, distrust, and disgust this man illicits. None the less, I'm heartened to see people like you reach this conclusion. I'm saddened that the majority of the American people are helpless to do a damn thing about it.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 08:14 PM
With each passing day, he acts more like a dictator and less like a president. He knows he's hated by the people. He just doesn't care. And more to the point, he no longer even PRETENDS to care.

I really wonder where it will end. Then again, maybe I don't want to know.

:shake:
The people who will like it are the hard-core partisan supporters.
The non hard-core, the swing voters,and the indies will not like it.
This will hurt the GOP even more.

Brock
07-02-2007, 08:18 PM
Whats shocking??? Every president has done this Dem or Rep, the only thing shocking is how early he did it...

No shit, the people who are acting like this is a big deal apparently just started paying attention a few years ago.

PunkinDrublic
07-02-2007, 08:19 PM
It's thugs looking out for other thugs. What do you expect.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 08:20 PM
The people who will like it are the hard-core partisan supporters.

I like it.

The non hard-core, the swing voters,and the indies will not like it.
This will hurt the GOP even more.

I doubt it.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 08:27 PM
As long as Monkeyboy keeps it a commuted sentence instead of a pardon, Scooter can still claim the 5th. This is way better than a pardon for Scooter.

Looks like Duck is gone. Can anyone explain what they think he might have meant? I'm missing it entirely.

memyselfI
07-02-2007, 08:28 PM
The delusional 25% have so much time and energy vested in supporting this President that no matter what they will not back off lest they be exposed for the fools they truly are.

The German analogy is quite fitting. Hitler had his deluded supporters way past sanity point as well.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 08:28 PM
I like it.



I doubt it.
Polls are showing that.
I know polls are not accurate. :hmmm:

stevieray
07-02-2007, 08:31 PM
As usual, you're overlooking the big picture.


As usual, the left speak for everyone.

And I'm not overlooking the big picture..Payback and retrubition for WJC will be fulfilled when he becomes the First Offical Stepdad of the United States.

After years and years of mocking and comparing Bush to Hitler, after criminal accusation after criminal accusation against him never took water, Libby becomes the sacpegoat the Dems can hang their hat on. Is that why the newly Congress' approval rating is lower in less than a year what Bush couldn't achieve in six? Or is that just more indicitive of the ugliness of our society and what we've become? cynical, untrusting and apathetic towards each other...feeling that no matter who is in office, it doesn't matter? I think it's more indicitive of the fatherless society coming home to roost.

Like most things in this country, it's citizens are pissing it away by dividing itself from within.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 08:34 PM
What I don't like about it is that the politically connected and elite get off from their convictions, even by a jury...but private citizens like Martha Stewart do have to pay for the same crime.

Dave Lane
07-02-2007, 08:37 PM
Jeez I didn't think he had the guts. Well its no wonder Scooter didn't roll. Do worry you won't do a day in jail and heres a numbered Swiss bank account to cover your money situation. Frightening really.

This will come back to bite the GOP in the ass just like it did Gerald Ford.

Wow talk about conflict of interest! Amazing.

Dave

stevieray
07-02-2007, 08:37 PM
The delusional 25% have so much time and energy vested in supporting this President that no matter what they will not back off lest they be exposed for the fools they truly are.

The German analogy is quite fitting. Hitler had his deluded supporters way past sanity point as well.

and there you have it..calling others Nazi's/Hitler...


Godwins law?

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 08:38 PM
What I don't like about it is that the politically connected and elite get off from their convictions, even by a jury...but private citizens like Martha Stewart do have to pay for the same crime.

And that was a travesty as well, IMO.

penchief
07-02-2007, 08:38 PM
As usual, the left speak for everyone.

And I'm not overlooking the big picture..Payback and retrubition for WJC will be fulfilled when he becomes the First Offical Stepdad of the United States. Who else fits being the first husband in office? This country will put billary in just to give itself temporary piece of mind.

After years and years of mocking and comparing Bush Hitler, after criminal accusation after criminal accusation against him never took water, Libby becomes the sacpegoat the Dems can hang their hat on. Is that why the newly Congress' approval rating is lower in less than a year what Bush couldn't achieve in six? Or is that just more indicitive of the ugliness of our society and what we've become? cynical, untrusting and apathetic towards each other...feeling that no matter who is in office, it doesn't matter? I think it;s more indicitive of the fatherless society coming home to roost.

Like most things in this country, it's citizens are pissing it away by dividing itself from within.

Clearly, you are unwilling to consider things within their proper context.

As far as this administration's criminal activities go....It's kind of hard to get to the bottom of things when the standard operating procedure is to stack the deck with loyal partisans, lie and stonewall, and then accuse the opposition of political shenanigans when they're only trying to pursue balance.

Ironically, republicans set the table for these kind of abuses by abusing the system when Clinton was president to pursue his demise for political purposes, which resulted in congress being fearful and the public being cynical of aggressive oversight. I think Cheneyburton counted on that from the start.

By the way, this administration has been this country's biggest offender when it comes to dividing this nation. It's been part of their political gameplan from the start.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 08:39 PM
Jeez I didn't think he had the guts. Well its no wonder Scooter didn't roll. Do worry you won't do a day in jail and heres a numbered Swiss bank account to cover your money situation. Frightening really.

This will come back to bite the GOP in the ass just like it did Gerald Ford.

Wow talk about conflict of interest! Amazing.

Dave

Gerald Ford was running for reelection. George Bush isn't.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 08:40 PM
And that was a travesty as well, IMO.
Well, we agree there.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 08:44 PM
By the way, this administration has been this country's biggest offender when it comes to dividing this nation. It's been part of their political gameplan from the start.

:rolleyes:

Logical
07-02-2007, 08:56 PM
Who are you and what have you done with Tim? :hmmm:

FTR, I found Logical's awakening comforting...

yours freaks me out. Perhaps I have underestimated the disdain, distrust, and disgust this man illicits. None the less, I'm heartened to see people like you reach this conclusion. I'm saddened that the majority of the American people are helpless to do a damn thing about it.In fairness Tim's conversion started before mine in fact I had quite a blowout that I regret deeply with him over it. Some of the new people would not believe it if they were to see the earlier versions of Tim and I.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 08:57 PM
:rolleyes:

In all honesty, I expected Bush to pardon Libby at some point and I'm fine with that. It's typical of any presidency, Republican or Democrat. I think we all know that it was coming. But I am slightly shocked and a little disappointed because I think the guy should have least done *some* time before being pardoned. A day maybe? 5 days? Just something.

Stevie, with all due respect, don't you find it ridiculous that Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby?

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 09:04 PM
In all honesty, I expected Bush to pardon Libby at some point and I'm fine with that. It's typical of any presidency, Republican or Democrat. I think we all know that it was coming. But I am slightly shocked and a little disappointed because I think the guy should have least done *some* time before being pardoned. A day maybe? 5 days? Just something.

Stevie, with all due respect, don't you find it ridiculous that Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby?

:bravo: :bravo:

Absolutely ****ing correct.

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:05 PM
Looks like Duck is gone. Can anyone explain what they think he might have meant? I'm missing it entirely.

Only an educated guess, but if a person is pardoned from a crime they could no longer claim that something they said in relationship to that matter could be used against them. Since his sentence was only commuted he has not been cleared of those potential crimes. Perhaps Banyon or Ammorix can clear up this mystery.

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:09 PM
In all honesty, I expected Bush to pardon Libby at some point and I'm fine with that. It's typical of any presidency, Republican or Democrat. I think we all know that it was coming. But I am slightly shocked and a little disappointed because I think the guy should have least done *some* time before being pardoned. A day maybe? 5 days? Just something.

Stevie, with all due respect, don't you find it ridiculous that Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby?Outstanding point.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:09 PM
Some of the new people would not believe it if they were to see the earlier versions of Tim and I.

I remember. You inspired me to jump into the fray. You were the first one that I decided to take on.

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 09:11 PM
Only an educated guess, but if a person is pardoned from a crime they could no longer claim that something they said in relationship to that matter could be used against them. Since his sentence was only commuted he has not been cleared of those potential crimes. Perhaps Banyon or Ammorix can clear up this mystery.

That is correct Logical. A commutation only stops him from going to prison he still has a felony conviction on his record.

WilliamTheIrish
07-02-2007, 09:13 PM
Stevie, with all due respect, don't you find it ridiculous that Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby?

I'm not sure if I find it ridiculous.

I find it pathetic that MORE people know what Paris Hilton did than what Scooter Libby was indicted for.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 09:19 PM
Stevie, with all due respect, don't you find it ridiculous that Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby?

No...disobeying a court order usually doesn't end up in your favor.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 09:19 PM
That is correct Logical. A commutation only stops him from going to prison he still has a felony conviction on his record.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it better for Libby to able to take the Fifth? There's nowhere to testify if he's pardoned rather than commuted. Right?

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:21 PM
I remember. You inspired me to jump into the fray. You were the first one that I decided to take on.Yep back then I was almost as partisan as patteeu, but not quite.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:22 PM
Yep back then I was almost as partisan as patteeu, but not quite.

Not as partisan, but meaner.

You simultaneously became more objective and more pleasant.

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:22 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it better for Libby to able to take the Fifth? There's nowhere to testify if he's pardoned rather than commuted. Right?

Not true, Congress can still require him to testify or another Grand Jury.

Logical
07-02-2007, 09:23 PM
Not as partisan, but meaner.True

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it better for Libby to able to take the Fifth? There's nowhere to testify if he's pardoned rather than commuted. Right?

I have no idea.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Not true, Congress can still require him to testify or another Grand Jury.

But testify against who? Not against himself. That's double jeopardy.

Frazod
07-02-2007, 09:26 PM
True

Yeah, you basically called me everything but a traitor. But as it turns out, we're the ones were were betrayed.

penchief
07-02-2007, 09:27 PM
True

It's a credit to you. I've always admired that transformation more than the political one.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 09:52 PM
No...disobeying a court order usually doesn't end up in your favor.

Come on! If President Bush had given Paris Hilton a commuted sentence, there would have been rioting in the streets. And all she did was violate the terms of her suspended driver's license. Hell, even Jared Allen served more time than Libby, though it appears his monetary fine will be similar.

I just think that it's completely unfair that this man serves NO jail time. If you or I were convicted of a similar crime (without ties to a Presidential administration), we'd serve the maximum penalty and would probably die in prison.

This just isn't right.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 09:55 PM
I'm not sure if I find it ridiculous.

I find it pathetic that MORE people know what Paris Hilton did than what Scooter Libby was indicted for.

Really? Wow. How about ironic? Ludicrous? An abomination of the law?

Where the "Moral Code" in all this? And hey, I voted for the guy in 2000 so I'm as guilty as anyone for him being in office. But I'm certainly not pledging my undying allegiance to this man.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 10:01 PM
And all she did...



and here lies the bias. the woman drove drunk. she then drove on a suspended license. repeat offender. you are rationalizing her actions so you can compare the level of severity in time served. they are now both felons. one served their country, and the other expects to be served by their country.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 10:02 PM
Come on! If President Bush had given Paris Hilton a commuted sentence, there would have been rioting in the streets. And all she did was violate the terms of her suspended driver's license. Hell, even Jared Allen served more time than Libby, though it appears his monetary fine will be similar.

I just think that it's completely unfair that this man serves NO jail time. If you or I were convicted of a similar crime (without ties to a Presidential administration), we'd serve the maximum penalty and would probably die in prison.

This just isn't right.

Mr. Allen put other peoples' lives in danger. To a much lesser extent, the same could be argued about Ms. Hilton. I'm as certain as I can be that Mr. Libby didn't endanger anyone. To claim that he did is disingenuous, IMO.

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 10:04 PM
and here lies the bias. the woman drove drunk. she then drove on a suspended license. repeat offender. you are rationalizing her actions so you can compare the level of severity in time served. they are now both felons. one served their country, and the other expects to be served by their country.

Paris is not a felon Stevie she was charged with all misdemeanors and spent 23 days in jail. Libby was convicted of 2 felonies and spends 0 time in jail.

Does that add up?

Logical
07-02-2007, 10:06 PM
But testify against who? Not against himself. That's double jeopardy.

It was only an educated guess don't persecute me. Hey I was trying.:shrug:

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 10:08 PM
It was only an educated guess don't persecute me. Hey I was trying.:shrug:

Hey, me too. Trying to understand his point, that is.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 10:09 PM
and here lies the bias. the woman drove drunk. she then drove on a suspended license. repeat offender. you are rationalizing her actions so you can compare the level of severity in time served. they are now both felons. one served their country, and the other expects to be served by their country.

Hmm. I guess we're just missing each other's points. The country was in an outrage when Paris was sent home with an ankle bracelet just three days after beginning her sentence for violating her probation for Reckless Driving (not a DUI) by driving on a suspended license.

Libby, after being convicted had his sentence commuted.

Paris committed a misdemeanor crime, not a felony. Libby clearly committed a felony. So, the person with the lesser offense spent 23 days more in jail than the convicted felon.

Fair? In my book, no.

one served their country, and the other expects to be served by their country.

Which person are you referring to? :p

stevieray
07-02-2007, 10:10 PM
Paris is not a felon Stevie she was charged with all misdemeanors and spent 23 days in jail. Libby was convicted of 2 felonies and spends 0 time in jail.

Does that add up?

Did Libby violate a court order after being convicted?

Now I know why there are people out there who signed a free Paris petition.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 10:13 PM
Did Libby violate a court order after being convicted?

Now I know why there are people out there who signed a free Paris petition.

Anyone who violates terms of probation (including Jared Allen) violate court orders. This can be said of anyone in our country who gets arrested for anything while on probation. While certainly that behavior shouldn't be acceptable, it's not uncommon.

Libby didn't have an opportunity to violate anything because he wasn't given probation: He was to report to Federal prison.

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 10:15 PM
Did Libby violate a court order after being convicted?

Now I know why there are people out there who signed a free Paris petition.

Which is worse Stevie you decide:

Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI

Hilton was arrested on charges of drunken driving in September.

In January, she pleaded no contest to a charge of alcohol-related reckless driving. She was sentenced to three years' probation and had her license suspended.

In February, she was caught driving on a suspended license, which later was ruled a probation violation.

Just to let you know I was just as outraged, actually alot more, when Paris was released. I thought was BS then and still do.

Now with this commutation it goes to show there are 2 justices systems in this country, one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Great isn't it?

Logical
07-02-2007, 10:16 PM
Come on! If President Bush had given Paris Hilton a commuted sentence, there would have been rioting in the streets. And all she did was violate the terms of her suspended driver's license. Hell, even Jared Allen served more time than Libby, though it appears his monetary fine will be similar.

I just think that it's completely unfair that this man serves NO jail time. If you or I were convicted of a similar crime (without ties to a Presidential administration), we'd serve the maximum penalty and would probably die in prison.

This just isn't right.I think lying to a grand jury should get anyone time, frankly I don't want to let lying ever become acceptable.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 10:19 PM
Anyone who violates terms of probation (including Jared Allen) violate court orders. This can be said of anyone in our country who gets arrested for anything while on probation. While certainly that behavior shouldn't be acceptable, it's not uncommon.





it's not acceptable. and it's not uncommon to serve time for it.

Logical
07-02-2007, 10:20 PM
Hey, me too. Trying to understand his point, that is.I would think UD got it from a news story as he is not a lawyer either. Guess we will have to wait for his late night return to find out the answer. You might want to PM him to ensure you get an answer.

stevieray
07-02-2007, 10:20 PM
Now with this commutation it goes to show there are 2 justices systems in this country, one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Great isn't it?

and you think this is something new?

dirk digler
07-02-2007, 10:23 PM
and you think this is something new?

Of course not I used to be a deputy and worked in the criminal justice field. I just expected the POTUS to hold it to a higher standard. Silly me.

BTW you didn't answer my question which one was worse.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 10:23 PM
I think lying to a grand jury should get anyone time, frankly I don't want to let lying ever become acceptable.

I agree. And please let me make this clear because often times, because of my location, people automatically assume I'm some kind of bleeding-heart liberal (which couldn't be further from the truth):

I don't care if this was the Bush Administration. Or the Clinton Administration. Or the Reagan Administration. Or the Carter Administration:

It was absolutely, unequivocally wrong for ANY President to commute this man's sentence before serving even ONE day in a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison.

alanm
07-02-2007, 11:02 PM
You all knew something like this was going to happen. And on his last day there will be a pardon.

Pitt Gorilla
07-02-2007, 11:03 PM
Good.How can this possibly be a good thing? Seriously.

Gracie Dean
07-02-2007, 11:18 PM
Tim 4 years ago can you imagine we would be thinking this way?


I knew

but no one listened

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 11:27 PM
How can this possibly be a good thing? Seriously.

Mr. Libby put no one in danger. He put nothing in danger. To put the man in prison is a vindictive act of vengence against this administration. Nothing more.

Bring it on against the president, if you can make the case; bring it against the vice president. Give it your best shot.

But this prosecution was muscle-flexing crap from the beginning, and I have no patience for destroying a man, his career and his family in the name of sending a message to Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney.

This kind of bullshit could chase reasonably sensible people away from accepting governmental positions.

IMO, the protection that Pres. Bush offered today didn't go far enough.

Commuting Mr. Libby's sentence was only a good move, IMO.

Again, IMO, pardoning him would have been a great move.

Ugly Duck
07-02-2007, 11:32 PM
I would think UD got it from a news story as he is not a lawyer either. Guess we will have to wait for his late night return to find out the answer. You might want to PM him to ensure you get an answer.

Here's da way I figure it.... when someone has a pardon, they have immunity from prosecution, so they can't claim the 5th. Scooter was convicted of obstructing an investigation that the prosecutor claimed Scooters lies prevented him from concluding. If the prosecutor then attempted to continue the investigation, Scooter could be compelled to testify because he would have immunity from prosecution. He could be tossed in jail for contempt.

But Monkeyboy commuted the sentence instead, so Scooter can now plead the 5th so his testimony won't incriminate him. Scooter can now continue to stonewall because he's not immune from prosecution, but his ace in the White House will keep him from being punished by commuting his sentences. Its a foolproof way of circumventing the rule of law & protecting the WH brass. Damn smart move.

ClevelandBronco
07-02-2007, 11:42 PM
Here's da way I figure it.... when someone has a pardon, they have immunity from prosecution, so they can't claim the 5th. Scooter was convicted of obstructing an investigation that the prosecutor claimed Scooters lies prevented him from concluding. If the prosecutor then attempted to continue the investigation, Scooter could be compelled to testify because he would have immunity from prosecution. He could be tossed in jail for contempt.

But Monkeyboy commuted the sentence instead, so Scooter can now plead the 5th so his testimony won't incriminate him. Scooter can now continue to stonewall because he's not immune from prosecution, but his ace in the White House will keep him from being punished by commuting his sentences. Its a foolproof way of circumventing the rule of law & protecting the WH brass. Damn smart move.

I was afraid at first that that was what you were driving at, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt before I accused you of not understanding the nature of Mr. Libby's conviction.

If that was indeed your initial point, you should probably read more about the case before you comment further.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-02-2007, 11:44 PM
Mr. Libby put no one in danger. He put nothing in danger. To put the man in prison is a vindictive act of vengence against this administration. Nothing more.

Bring it on against the president, if you can make the case; bring it against the vice president. Give it your best shot.

But this prosecution was muscle-flexing crap from the beginning, and I have no patience for destroying a man, his career and his family in the name of sending a message to Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney.

This kind of bullshit could chase reasonably sensible people away from accepting governmental positions.

IMO, the protection that Pres. Bush offered today didn't go far enough.

Commuting Mr. Libby's sentence was only a good move, IMO.

Again, IMO, pardoning him would have been a great move.



I think anytime you set prescedent that it's okay to lie to a grand jury, you are certainly putting lives in danger. How far across the board does that translate?

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 11:46 PM
I was afraid at first that that was what you were driving at, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt before I accused you of not understanding the nature of Mr. Libby's conviction.

If that was indeed your initial point, you should probably read more about the case before you comment further.

Um, but he was convicted. Regardless of the "nature". This decision will be viewed as another in a long list of Bush Administration failures.

No matter how you try to spin it, it's completely and utterly unacceptable.

Logical
07-02-2007, 11:49 PM
Mr. Libby put no one in danger. He put nothing in danger. To put the man in prison is a vindictive act of vengence against this administration. Nothing more.

Bring it on against the president, if you can make the case; bring it against the vice president. Give it your best shot.

But this prosecution was muscle-flexing crap from the beginning, and I have no patience for destroying a man, his career and his family in the name of sending a message to Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney.

This kind of bullshit could chase reasonably sensible people away from accepting governmental positions.

IMO, the protection that Pres. Bush offered today didn't go far enough.

Commuting Mr. Libby's sentence was only a good move, IMO.

Again, IMO, pardoning him would have been a great move.I am shocked you have always seemed so reasonable, but supporting someone who lied to the FBI in an investigation forget the other charges no matter the political affiliation is unbelieveable. I am shocked you can condone it.

HolmeZz
07-02-2007, 11:51 PM
To put the man in prison is a vindictive act of vengence against this administration.

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS A LIBERAL BIAS

WoodDraw
07-03-2007, 12:04 AM
Mr. Libby put no one in danger. He put nothing in danger. To put the man in prison is a vindictive act of vengence against this administration. Nothing more.

Bring it on against the president, if you can make the case; bring it against the vice president. Give it your best shot.

But this prosecution was muscle-flexing crap from the beginning, and I have no patience for destroying a man, his career and his family in the name of sending a message to Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney.

This kind of bullshit could chase reasonably sensible people away from accepting governmental positions.

IMO, the protection that Pres. Bush offered today didn't go far enough.

Commuting Mr. Libby's sentence was only a good move, IMO.

Again, IMO, pardoning him would have been a great move.

Does it matter that he put no one in danger? He wasn't tried for attempted murder or assault. Danger isn't a prerequisite in our justice system. He lied on pultiple occasions, both to a grand jury and a prosecuter, was indicted for it, and found guilty on multiple counts. Do you dispute the evidece? Because if so, I'd be interested to hear. As far as I've read, not too many people still do.

You've been caught up in the politics of this. The FBI requested the grand jury investigation and Libby was found guilty of knowingly lying and impeding that investigation. All he had to do was tell the truth and he wouldn't be in this position today.

WoodDraw
07-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Orin Kerr of the great Volokh Conspiracy:


"Politics" and the Libby Prosecution: The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political."

I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

I find this claim bizarre. I'm open to arguments that parts of the case against Libby were unfair. But for the case to have been purely political, doesn't that require the involvement of someone who was not a Bush political appointee? Who are the political opponents who brought the case? Is the idea that Fitzgerald is secretly a Democratic party operative? That Judge Walton is a double agent? Or is the idea that Fitzgerald and Walton were hypnotized by "the Mainstream Media" like Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian Candidate? Seriously, I don't get it.

http://volokh.com/

irishjayhawk
07-03-2007, 12:21 AM
The trial was sure a good use of taxpayer dollars.

No it wasn't, the country was divided on it. ;)

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 12:22 AM
I think anytime you set prescedent that it's okay to lie to a grand jury, you are certainly putting lives in danger. How far across the board does that translate?

If there was any charged crime behind what Mr. Libby supposedly "lied" about, I'd be worried. (You guys are really obsessed with trying to make a charge of "lying" stick, aren't you?)

The man was convicted of not telling when no crime was committed and not telling who didn't commit it.

That's Alice in Wonderland stuff.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:28 AM
If there was any charged crime behind what Mr. Libby supposedly "lied" about, I'd be worried. (You guys are really obsessed with trying to make a charge of "lying" stick, aren't you?)

The man was convicted of not telling when no crime was committed and not telling who didn't commit it.

That's Alice in Wonderland stuff.:rolleyes:

Now you are approaching patteeu level of irrational support of the administration.

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 12:51 AM
:rolleyes:

Now you are approaching patteeu level of irrational support of the administration.

I rationally support this administration, and I will continue to do so until it has evacuated the office on Jan. 20, 2009. Then you can expect that I will do the same for the next administration regardless of the political party that wins the office, for the same rational reasons. I'm a big fan of representative democracy.

Sometimes I get more of what I want, sometimes I get less. The two parties are in agreement on the vast majority of things when you consider the vast possibilities of directions toward which this nation could be steered.

-----

BTW: There's no way that I can be compared with patteeu, Logical.

patteeu is a more intelligent, more measured and better spoken participant here than I could ever pretend to be.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:58 AM
I rationally support this administration, and I will continue to do so until it has evacuated the office on Jan. 20, 2009. Then you can expect that I will do the same for the next administration regardless of the political party that wins the office, for the same rational reasons. I'm a big fan of representative democracy.

Sometimes I get more of what I want, sometimes I get less. The two parties are in agreement on the vast majority of things when you consider the vast possibilities of directions toward which this nation could be steered.

-----

BTW: There's no way that I can be compared with patteeu, Logical.

patteeu is a more intelligent, more measured and better spoken participant here than I could ever pretend to be.
I think you underestimate yourself, just my opinion though.

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 01:21 AM
I think you underestimate yourself, just my opinion though.

Hell, Logical, we just genuinely like each other, I think, and we probably enjoy our differences.

So did Adams and Jefferson.

I'll be celebrating the union of States this July 4th. Maybe you caught this thread:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165339

Those 13 colonies had no business coming together, except that it was necessary.

Our nation fought a war of separation from 1861-65. That was necessary, too.

Brothers grow up together, but then they come to blows. Then they grow up and move on in basically the same direction until they have to come to blows again to determine the next common direction. It's necessary.

We're going through a difficult redefinition now because of terrorist threats, illegal immigration, and our own systemic challenges, but I still think that we'll all come out the other end as good Americans.

Hey, shoot me. I'm an optimist.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-03-2007, 01:28 AM
If there was any charged crime behind what Mr. Libby supposedly "lied" about, I'd be worried. (You guys are really obsessed with trying to make a charge of "lying" stick, aren't you?)

The man was convicted of not telling when no crime was committed and not telling who didn't commit it.

That's Alice in Wonderland stuff.


I'm not "you guys". I rarely post here, and have ZERO political affiliation. In fact, I wholeheartedly admit I am largely ignorant to politics because it usually is the one thing that enrages me. I do however believe that committing purjury in front of a grand jury is an offense that should be punished with prison time. It sets a dangerous precedent to condone that behavior. That's all I'm saying. Yeah I know, it would only be condoned by the president. That might make it more scary from my chair though...........

Logical
07-03-2007, 01:36 AM
Hell, Logical, we just genuinely like each other, I think, and we probably enjoy our differences.

So did Adams and Jefferson.

I'll be celebrating the union of States this July 4th. Maybe you caught this thread:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165339

Those 13 colonies had no business coming together, except that it was necessary.

Our nation fought a war of separation from 1861-65. That was necessary, too.

Brothers grow up together, but then they come to blows. Then they grow up and move on in basically the same direction until they have to come to blows again to determine the next common direction. It's necessary.

We're going through a difficult redefinition now because of terrorist threats, illegal immigration, and our own systemic challenges, but I still think that we'll all come out the other end as good Americans.

Hey, shoot me. I'm an optimist.

Thanks for the plug for my thread. :thumb:

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 01:43 AM
Thanks for the plug for my thread. :thumb:

Hey, we're bitching with each other about who gets the shadiest spot in paradise this morning, right?

You were right in reminding us. (Y'little Jimimy Cricket muffhugger.)

Saggysack
07-03-2007, 01:46 AM
I rationally support this administration, and I will continue to do so until it has evacuated the office on Jan. 20, 2009. Then you can expect that I will do the same for the next administration regardless of the political party that wins the office, for the same rational reasons. I'm a big fan of representative democracy.

Sometimes I get more of what I want, sometimes I get less. The two parties are in agreement on the vast majority of things when you consider the vast possibilities of directions toward which this nation could be steered.

-----

BTW: There's no way that I can be compared with patteeu, Logical.

patteeu is a more intelligent, more measured and better spoken participant here than I could ever pretend to be.

QFFR

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 02:11 AM
My bad. I have no clue what QFFR means.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-03-2007, 02:15 AM
My bad. I have no clue what QFFR means.


Yeah me either.

Saggysack
07-03-2007, 05:20 AM
My bad. I have no clue what QFFR means.

It's a personal thing. A reminder for myself, more than anything else.

QFFR. Quoted for future reference.

Amnorix
07-03-2007, 06:37 AM
Congress should grant immunity and pound him down.

Frankly, it's a sad day for the government, IMHO. Regardless of the particular facts here, it just encourages future executive branch lawlessness. :shake:

patteeu
07-03-2007, 06:48 AM
Yeah, you basically called me everything but a traitor. But as it turns out, we're the ones were were betrayed.

How can you be so sure. If you got it so wrong the first time by your own admission, how can you be confident you aren't just as clueless now? Hell, maybe you are a traitor and you just don't realize it? Of course, I don't think that's the case, but I'm pretty confident that you're confused about this president.

patteeu
07-03-2007, 06:57 AM
Which is worse Stevie you decide:





Just to let you know I was just as outraged, actually alot more, when Paris was released. I thought was BS then and still do.

Now with this commutation it goes to show there are 2 justices systems in this country, one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Great isn't it?

One difference between Libby's case and that of Hilton, Allen, and Clinton is that in the latter 3 cases, they committed crimes during the course of a legitimate legal proceeding (for Clinton) or during the course of normal scrutiny by authorities (for Hilton and Allen). In Libby's case, the prosecutor had already determined that the crime which he was tasked with investigating had not even occurred. Libby committed his crime only after that runaway prosecutor obtained a dubious mandate to go fishing in the White House pond.

patteeu
07-03-2007, 07:03 AM
Orin Kerr of the great Volokh Conspiracy:



That Judge Walton is a double agent?

Judge Walton was a Clinton appointee who was held up by Republicans until Clinton left office. Upon taking office, one of the many moves that GWBush took to change the tone and reach out to democrats was to renominate Walton whereupon he was confirmed. I struggle to think of any of Bush's efforts to reach out to democrats that went unpunished.

Messier
07-03-2007, 07:17 AM
Judge Walton was a Clinton appointee who was held up by Republicans until Clinton left office. Upon taking office, one of the many moves that GWBush took to change the tone and reach out to democrats was to renominate Walton whereupon he was confirmed. I struggle to think of any of Bush's efforts to reach out to democrats that went unpunished.


He's the uniter!

Amnorix
07-03-2007, 07:22 AM
Judge Walton was a Clinton appointee who was held up by Republicans until Clinton left office. Upon taking office, one of the many moves that GWBush took to change the tone and reach out to democrats was to renominate Walton whereupon he was confirmed. I struggle to think of any of Bush's efforts to reach out to democrats that went unpunished.

This is after he was appointed to DC Superior Court by President Reagan in '81 and BushDaddy in '91, right? And after he acquired a "tough on crime" reputation?

I mean, this isn't exactly appointing Laurence Tribe to the Supreme Court, is it? In fact, do we know for certain where his politics lay?

He's a career jurist. Sounds like he made his bones in the Carter administration, to a degree, but BACK THEN, the point was that the justice department was SUPPOSED to be apolitical, at least mostly. Then he served 20 years as a "state" judge, earned a very solid reputation, and probably has broad support on both sides of the aisle.

In fact, all I see is accolades from Republicans. Various appintments to prestigous posts within the judiciary by CJs Rehnquist and Roberts, etc. ad infinitum.

:shrug:

Amnorix
07-03-2007, 07:23 AM
One difference between Libby's case and that of Hilton, Allen, and Clinton is that in the latter 3 cases, they committed crimes during the course of a legitimate legal proceeding (for Clinton) or during the course of normal scrutiny by authorities (for Hilton and Allen). In Libby's case, the prosecutor had already determined that the crime which he was tasked with investigating had not even occurred. Libby committed his crime only after that runaway prosecutor obtained a dubious mandate to go fishing in the White House pond.

:LOL: You should investigate the background and process utilized by Ken Starr. It makes any reasonable man vomit. The constant morphing of the case to try to find something, anything, to hang on Clinton. Talk about a "dubious mandate".

Velvet_Jones
07-03-2007, 07:57 AM
What I don't like about it is that the politically connected and elite get off from their convictions, even by a jury...but private citizens like Martha Stewart do have to pay for the same crime.
6 months versus 2.5 years for the same crime is not a good comparison.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 08:02 AM
6 months versus 2.5 years for the same crime is not a good comparison.
I'm not making a comparison by duration of time in jail. I making a comparison of doing none at all. I also said I would be for a reduction in Libby's time in, as it was too much—just that he should do some.

Velvet_Jones
07-03-2007, 08:04 AM
I'm not making a comparison by duration of time in jail. I making a comparison of doing none at all. I also said I would be for a reduction in Libby's time in, as it was too much—just that he should do some.
So how much time did Clinton spend in jail for perjury? Oh, thats right, none.

Frazod
07-03-2007, 08:07 AM
How can you be so sure. If you got it so wrong the first time by your own admission, how can you be confident you aren't just as clueless now? Hell, maybe you are a traitor and you just don't realize it? Of course, I don't think that's the case, but I'm pretty confident that you're confused about this president.

No offense, patteeu, but if I want your opinion, I'll forge a directive from the Republican party giving it to you.

Actually, go ahead and take offense. It's because of partyline robots like you that I rarely post here.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 08:11 AM
So how much time did Clinton spend in jail for perjury? Oh, thats right, none.
So you're now ASSuming you think I support that?
I supported his impeachment.

Edit: I just looked this up and found this:

On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

Velvet_Jones
07-03-2007, 08:13 AM
Here's da way I figure it.... when someone has a pardon, they have immunity from prosecution, so they can't claim the 5th. Scooter was convicted of obstructing an investigation that the prosecutor claimed Scooters lies prevented him from concluding.
The problem with what you are saying is that Fitzpatrick already knew who leaked Plame's identity before Libby slipped up. A reasonable person would have already concluded the investigation instead of grand-standing.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 08:16 AM
Like I posted earlier, this IS falling along party lines for the supporters with swing voters and Indies being against it. Guess it matches other polls.

WoodDraw
07-03-2007, 08:50 AM
Judge Walton was a Clinton appointee who was held up by Republicans until Clinton left office. Upon taking office, one of the many moves that GWBush took to change the tone and reach out to democrats was to renominate Walton whereupon he was confirmed. I struggle to think of any of Bush's efforts to reach out to democrats that went unpunished.

Regardless of the circumstances in that particular case, he has a record both before and afterwards of respect from both Democrats and Republicans. He's been appointed to multiple committees by Republicans, including Bush, Rehnquist, and Roberts. Not exactly the sign of a crazy liberal.


Does anyone dispute the evidence? If so, please share.

Chief Henry
07-03-2007, 09:10 AM
I'm glad I don't have to remember what I said two years ago, word for word.

Chief Henry
07-03-2007, 09:15 AM
Man I can't wait for Billary to get elected...only then will the law be justifiably enforced.

.



It wasn't enforced the first time she was president :huh:

chasedude
07-03-2007, 09:23 AM
wow, what a shock. :rolleyes: He keeps a crook friend out of jail...forget what the courts decide. I bet Cheney made him do it. ROFL

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush0703,0,3656692,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines


It doesn't matter anyways. Prez Bush will give him a pardon as soon as he leaves office.

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 11:00 AM
How can you be so sure. If you got it so wrong the first time by your own admission, how can you be confident you aren't just as clueless now? Hell, maybe you are a traitor and you just don't realize it? Of course, I don't think that's the case, but I'm pretty confident that you're confused about this president.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

He's confused just like 75% of the rest of the country. No, they were confused when they elected the Chimp in Chief, TWICE. Now they see clearly what their confusion has led to and why.

You on the otherhand really remind me of my teenage friend...

she was brainwashed by a cult. Trying to hold a conversation with her was much like trying to hold one with you because no matter what reality you presented to her all she could do was spew pre-programmed respones that required no independent thought but just being able to recite cliches. Understandable for an 18 year old...

DaneMcCloud
07-03-2007, 11:06 AM
I'm glad I don't have to remember what I said two years ago, word for word.

Are you freaking serious? :banghead:

So I take it you support a Presidential Administration (as long as they're YOUR party) with NO accountability?

Un-believe-able.

HolmeZz
07-03-2007, 11:07 AM
The 25% cannot be shaken.

Cochise
07-03-2007, 11:29 AM
Trying to hold a conversation with her was much like trying to hold one with you because no matter what reality you presented to her all she could do was spew pre-programmed respones that required no independent thought but just being able to recite cliches.

Among the most ironic posts ever on ChiefsPlanet

HolmeZz
07-03-2007, 11:48 AM
Memy should prolly change her subtitle. It can easily be read that she's a War Dissenter who's Irresponsible.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 11:51 AM
The 25% cannot be shaken.
...but they can be stirred! ROFL

This your idea of addressing content?

Frazod
07-03-2007, 12:16 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

He's confused just like 75% of the rest of the country. No, they were confused when they elected the Chimp in Chief, TWICE. Now they see clearly what their confusion has led to and why.

You on the otherhand really remind me of my teenage friend...

she was brainwashed by a cult. Trying to hold a conversation with her was much like trying to hold one with you because no matter what reality you presented to her all she could do was spew pre-programmed respones that required no independent thought but just being able to recite cliches. Understandable for an 18 year old...

FTR, I NEVER voted for the sonofabitch. Didn't vote in 2000, choked down my own vomit in 2004 when I was forced to vote for Kerry (which was nothing more than a lesser-of-two-evils vote against Bush).

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 12:52 PM
FTR, I NEVER voted for the sonofabitch. Didn't vote in 2000, choked down my own vomit in 2004 when I was forced to vote for Kerry (which was nothing more than a lesser-of-two-evils vote against Bush).

Good, you were never one of the lambs. I don't blame you for wanting to clarify that fact...though, that post wasn't directed at you. ;)

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 12:53 PM
Among the most ironic posts ever on ChiefsPlanet

Yeah, it's most ironic when you consider the one liners I'm allegedly now spewing from the DNC were originally written by me on this board four or five years ago. :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
07-03-2007, 01:11 PM
Yeah, it's most ironic when you consider the one liners I'm allegedly now spewing from the DNC were originally written by me on this board four or five years ago. :rolleyes:

All that means is that you demagogues spouting bumper sticker rhetoric need new material. ROFL

Mr. Laz
07-03-2007, 07:17 PM
he no longer even PRETENDS to care
this is the scariest part

Logical
07-03-2007, 08:39 PM
No offense, patteeu, but if I want your opinion, I'll forge a directive from the Republican party giving it to you.

Actually, go ahead and take offense. It's because of partyline robots like you that I rarely post here.:clap: I miss the old Fraz fire.

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 08:50 PM
QFFR

I'm not saying that I'll support every policy decision. Obviously I won't. I don't support every policy decision put out there by the GOP.

But if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 you won't hear me calling for impeachments and resignations and special prosecutions over a difference of opinion.

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 08:56 PM
I'm not saying that I'll support every policy decision. Obviously I won't. I don't support every policy decision put out there by the GOP.

But if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 you won't hear me calling for impeachments and resignations and special prosecutions over a difference of opinion.


Nah, only impeachment over blowjobs not blown jobs.

Forget habeus corpus, no WMD, lying about reasons for war, botching the war effort, pissing on the constitution, not to mention disregarding laws and rules as only applying to the little people...

we want the POTUS impeached (or imprisoned) because we don't share his opinion. ROFL ROFL ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Nah, only impeachment over blowjobs not blown jobs.

Forget habeus corpus, no WMD, lying about reasons for war, botching the war effort, pissing on the constitution, not to mention disregarding laws and rules as only applying to the little people...

we want the POTUS impeached (or imprisoned) because we don't share his opinion.

Well, you're a fruit bat. With you it's more than a difference of opinion. It's a mental condition, so you get a pass.

a1na2
07-03-2007, 09:22 PM
Let's see, all but 2 presidents have pardoned criminals. (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm) Many presidents have commuted sentences. As of Sept 2005 Bush had pardoned 58 and I could only find references for 2 commutations.

On Clintons last day in office he pardoned 46. In his 8 years in office he pardoned 456. Bush I pardoned 77 in 4 years. Reagan pardoned 404. Carter pardoned more (566) than Reagan.

It is part of the constitution that gives the president power to pardon whomever he sees fit. There were some pretty shady characters pardoned by Clinton on his last day.

I think this whole whining about Libby is overblown.

Logical
07-03-2007, 09:39 PM
Let's see, all but 2 presidents have pardoned criminals. (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm) Many presidents have commuted sentences. As of Sept 2005 Bush had pardoned 58 and I could only find references for 2 commutations.

On Clintons last day in office he pardoned 46. In his 8 years in office he pardoned 456. Bush I pardoned 77 in 4 years. Reagan pardoned 404. Carter pardoned more (566) than Reagan.

It is part of the constitution that gives the president power to pardon whomever he sees fit. There were some pretty shady characters pardoned by Clinton on his last day.

I think this whole whining about Libby is overblown.There is really only 1 comparable pardon, that is when Ford pardoned Nixon. It was at least justifiable to protect the office of the Presidency. This commutation has the appearance of being payment for protecting the VP not the office of the President.

Uncle_Ted
07-03-2007, 10:06 PM
... Upon taking office, one of the many moves that GWBush took to change the tone and reach out to democrats was to renominate Walton whereupon he was confirmed. I struggle to think of any of Bush's efforts to reach out to democrats that went unpunished.

Please, please tell me that you are joking. Please tell me that you are not so f'ing delusional as to believe that when Bush took office he tried to sincerely "reach out to the other side". While he was offering bipartisanship with one hand he was giving dems the UFIA (unsolicited finger in the ass) with the other. Many Republicans will even agree that W has been one of the most (if not the most) divisive, partisan presidents of the modern era. He has done nothing but impugn the motives and the patriotism of anyone who has ever dared to speak out against him. He tried to rule in a dictatorial fashion by claiming a "mandate" from the people, even though he won by the narrowest of margins, lost the popular vote, and held only a slim margin in Congress. The fact that even a substantial minority of the Republican party opposes his over-reaching in the exercise of executive powers is telling.

This abuses of this administration, and the fact that the dems bent over and took it up the ass time and time again, has turned our system of government into a joke. I'm currently reading Churchill's books on WWII and it's depressing to me how different his views were from those of the mafia goons (like Cheney) that we have in power now when it comes to strengths and the merits of democratic society. I'm to the point where I'm starting to think it's pointless to even give a shit anymore.

For the record, I expected Libby to be pardoned all along, and I still think he will be once he exhausts his appeals (after the 2008 election). That's the presidents prerogative. It stinks, I dont like it, but so what? He has the power to do it ... but that's not the end of the story. Sure he has the power to do it, but as Americans we have the right to criticize him for it or to think he's a prick for doing it. Of course he will ignore us, and Cheney will tell us to go f*ck ourselves like he always does, but even though we have no way to hold him accountable, we at least have the right to criticize.

But what's making me f'ing puke are the self-righteous and self-delusional windtards who think that this is some great victory over the evil democrats and that in commuting Libby sentence Bush has corrected some dastardly injustice. Even if I thought for a moment that Libby got a raw deal (which I don't), for Bush to now all of the sudden start caring about fairness in sentencing is a bald-faced lie. He only cares in this particular case about this particular defendant. His little foray into this area of jurisprudence lasted all of about 3 seconds (the amout of time it took him to sign Libby's commutation). Now that he's ignored all the mechanisms for handling such matters that his own administration has put into place (so he could "fix" this one case), it's now back to standard operating procedure -- continuing to not give a shit about "justice" for the wrongly convicted or the excessively punished.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by memyselfI
Trying to hold a conversation with her was much like trying to hold one with you because no matter what reality you presented to her all she could do was spew pre-programmed respones that required no independent thought but just being able to recite cliches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Among the most ironic posts ever on ChiefsPlanet

QFT

:thumb:

Logical
07-03-2007, 11:34 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by memyselfI
Trying to hold a conversation with her was much like trying to hold one with you because no matter what reality you presented to her all she could do was spew pre-programmed respones that required no independent thought but just being able to recite cliches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




QFT

:thumb:I have fought with DEnise almost longer than anyone on the Planet (going back to about 1995 on the old Star BB) with the possible exception of about three posters and you are just plain wrong Rob. DEnise is nothing if unpredictable and ever changing in the way she presents her side of arguments. She has never ever been one to use canned preprogrammed responses.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2007, 11:38 PM
I have fought with DEnise almost longer than anyone on the Planet (going back to about 1995 on the old Star BB) with the possible exception of about three posters and you are just plain wrong Rob. DEnise is nothing if unpredictable and ever changing in the way she presents her side of arguments. She has never ever been one to use canned preprogrammed responses.

Not since that major head injury she endured....back in 200-2001 or so. For the record, I also fought with her back at the KC Star board.... imagine that.... :p

You are just going too far back, in giving her credit...IMHO. :)

Logical
07-04-2007, 12:13 AM
Not since that major head injury she endured....back in 200-2001 or so. For the record, I also fought with her back at the KC Star board.... imagine that.... :p

You are just going too far back, in giving her credit...IMHO. :)

Rob DEnise was against us going into Iraq when all the Dems were backing GW. She was IMO on the wrong side of the Shaivo argument (your side ironically). I bet I can think of other instances since 2001 where she did not follow the Dem lead if you give me time. If the stupid search function did not just about crash the BB every time I could pull up instances.

penchief
07-04-2007, 05:12 AM
Let's see, all but 2 presidents have pardoned criminals. (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm) Many presidents have commuted sentences. As of Sept 2005 Bush had pardoned 58 and I could only find references for 2 commutations.

On Clintons last day in office he pardoned 46. In his 8 years in office he pardoned 456. Bush I pardoned 77 in 4 years. Reagan pardoned 404. Carter pardoned more (566) than Reagan.

It is part of the constitution that gives the president power to pardon whomever he sees fit. There were some pretty shady characters pardoned by Clinton on his last day.

I think this whole whining about Libby is overblown.

You don't have to like what Clinton did or even disagree with the president's right to do so. Clinton abused the privelege and so did Bush.

Clinton went hog wild while Bush commuted the sentence of an underling who was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in a NATIONAL SECURITY case that is MOST LIKELY the result of a coordinated effort by the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT to cover up their own LIES.

The implications are devestating to our country, IMO. This very well could be an ongoing coverup. And when one considers the conduct of this administration since day one, it probably is.

And for what it's worth, it's not whining. It's disgust. It's exasperation. All we want is for the lawlessness to stop. All we want is for the constitution to be followed. All we want is for transparency to be restored. All we want is a little accountability up in this mutherfugger.

a1na2
07-04-2007, 07:21 AM
You don't have to like what Clinton did or even disagree with the president's right to do so. Clinton abused the privelege and so did Bush.

Clinton went hog wild while Bush commuted the sentence of an underling who was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in a NATIONAL SECURITY case that is MOST LIKELY the result of a coordinated effort by the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT to cover up their own LIES.

The implications are devestating to our country, IMO. This very well could be an ongoing coverup. And when one considers the conduct of this administration since day one, it probably is.

And for what it's worth, it's not whining. It's disgust. It's exasperation. All we want is for the lawlessness to stop. All we want is for the constitution to be followed. All we want is for transparency to be restored. All we want is a little accountability up in this mutherfugger.

did you look at the link? Every president, less the two, have used the power to pardon people. If you think there isn't any political connections in them all you are really missing the point. Do you think squeaky clean politicians get into office just because they are clean? HINT: There are no squeaky clean politicians.

In the long run there might not be a commutation of sentence like this one, but the circumstances of others seem to be miles worse in comparison. Like the murderer that Clinton released, that might be considered worse than perjury. I only mention Clinton's pardon as it was the only one I found in my short search. I'm sure there are lists of others but not placed into a digital format for the internet to date.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 08:55 AM
No offense, patteeu, but if I want your opinion, I'll forge a directive from the Republican party giving it to you.

Actually, go ahead and take offense. It's because of partyline robots like you that I rarely post here.

Oh, I do hope you'll continue to post here despite the harrowing experience it must be to encounter people with opinions that aren't as whimsical and poorly thought out as your own. I'll try to be more gentle with you in the future, Fluffy.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 09:00 AM
Does anyone dispute the evidence? If so, please share.

I don't dispute the evidence and I don't have any reason to believe that Judge Walton had a political motive behind his decision.

Baby Lee
07-04-2007, 09:03 AM
What's the assessment gonna be if the pending appeal is successful?

patteeu
07-04-2007, 09:08 AM
Please, please tell me that you are joking. Please tell me that you are not so f'ing delusional as to believe that when Bush took office he tried to sincerely "reach out to the other side". While he was offering bipartisanship with one hand he was giving dems the UFIA (unsolicited finger in the ass) with the other. Many Republicans will even agree that W has been one of the most (if not the most) divisive, partisan presidents of the modern era. He has done nothing but impugn the motives and the patriotism of anyone who has ever dared to speak out against him. He tried to rule in a dictatorial fashion by claiming a "mandate" from the people, even though he won by the narrowest of margins, lost the popular vote, and held only a slim margin in Congress. The fact that even a substantial minority of the Republican party opposes his over-reaching in the exercise of executive powers is telling.

This abuses of this administration, and the fact that the dems bent over and took it up the ass time and time again, has turned our system of government into a joke. I'm currently reading Churchill's books on WWII and it's depressing to me how different his views were from those of the mafia goons (like Cheney) that we have in power now when it comes to strengths and the merits of democratic society. I'm to the point where I'm starting to think it's pointless to even give a shit anymore.


I'm absolutely serious. Bush made way too many efforts to play nice with the democrats (for my taste) and for all his trouble he ended up with a largely disloyal opposition that as a group chose to put themselves in a position where the perception of national failure was a pre-requisite for party success.

penchief
07-04-2007, 10:40 AM
did you look at the link? Every president, less the two, have used the power to pardon people. If you think there isn't any political connections in them all you are really missing the point. Do you think squeaky clean politicians get into office just because they are clean? HINT: There are no squeaky clean politicians.

In the long run there might not be a commutation of sentence like this one, but the circumstances of others seem to be miles worse in comparison. Like the murderer that Clinton released, that might be considered worse than perjury. I only mention Clinton's pardon as it was the only one I found in my short search. I'm sure there are lists of others but not placed into a digital format for the internet to date.

I don't completely disagree with your point. But my point is different. I'm just trying to point out that the consequences of what this administration is hiding are far more serious. This directly involves abuses of power that have been extremely destructive to our democracy and our government.

It's funny. When the neocons and the righties were not in the White House, they manipulated every inch of the legal system in their attempts to destroy the opposition over personal issues that occurred long before Clinton became president.

Now that the neocons and the righties control the executive branch, they subvert the law and ignore the legal system over issues of vital importance to good governance. And they do it with such mendacity that it amazes me so many people are still so passive about it.

This administration has made a mockery of what this country stands for.

Frazod
07-04-2007, 10:50 AM
Oh, I do hope you'll continue to post here despite the harrowing experience it must be to encounter people with opinions that aren't as whimsical and poorly thought out as your own. I'll try to be more gentle with you in the future, Fluffy.

You're a mindless tool of the ruling elite. You have no opinions - just those opinions of your masters. You're a blustering, pathetic clown. And I would pity you were it not for the irreparable harm you and other morons like you have done to this country.

Take a bow, dipshit.

Uncle_Ted
07-04-2007, 11:12 AM
I'm absolutely serious. Bush made way too many efforts to play nice with the democrats (for my taste) and for all his trouble he ended up with a largely disloyal opposition that as a group chose to put themselves in a position where the perception of national failure was a pre-requisite for party success.

I'd be curious to know what sort of things you have in mind. I don't count things that were already on his agenda but happened to coincide with the dems (like the recent immigration bill). I mean areas where he actually "reached out" or compromised.

If you'd like me to list a few from my viewpoint (these aren't all confined to Bush per se, but rather the Republican leadership cadre with Bush/Cheney at the top):

1) Talking about being a uniter, but immediately nominating an arch-conservative (Ashcroft) as AG
2) Reaching deeper into regulatory agencies than any recent president to purge experts and career personnel and replace them with political apointees (John Bolton acknowledged that they did this, and was even proud of it)
3) Changing numerous procedural rules in Congress to marginalize the democratic minority (like the attempt to go "nucular" and declare the filibuster unconstitutional ... narrowly averted by a few Republican senators that realized the damage that would cause (and I guess you could say that they also had foresight, since the Republican minority in Congress has used the threat of filibuster extensively in the last 6 months))
4) Alberto Gonzales (his actual appointment less an example of partisanship as it was cronyism; his running of the justice department a glaring example of destructive partisanship in its hiring practices).
5) Flushing the few moderates that he did appoint early on after they were not compliant enough for Cheney to browbeat into submission.

These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure others could (and will) add to the list.

tiptap
07-04-2007, 11:25 AM
"This read is my only take on the Libbey commute."

What's stunning about President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, if you're a criminal defense lawyer, isn't that it was politically motivated. Or that it tramples on principles of equal justice. Or even that it is the latest in a long string of Bush administration assaults on the rule of law.

Rather, what's astonishing is that the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else.

The specific bases Bush gave for the commutation are that the 30-month prison sentence was too harsh for Libby's crime, that he was a first-time offender who had a long history of public service, that his conviction had already damaged his career and reputation and caused his wife and young children to suffer, and that sentencing Judge Reggie Walton rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended that he consider "factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." Defense attorneys would generally agree that these are all good reasons for reducing Libby's sentence—particularly in light of the nature of his offense. They would also agree that 30 months was too long in the first place to serve for the nonviolent crime of making false statements.

The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for. Only the rarest of exceptions to this rule would be permitted.

That proposed legislation would effectively reverse the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which authorized sentencing judges to consider factors like a defendant's life story and the nature and circumstances of his or her offense. Gonzales' bill would also make the federal guidelines, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, essentially mandatory again—again leaving judges less leeway for showing mercy.

Consider, in that light and in comparison to Libby, the case of United States v. Rita, which the Supreme Court decided two weeks ago. As Douglas Berman describes at Sentencing Law and Policy, Victor Rita also got "caught up in a criminal investigation and ultimately was indicted on five felony counts based on allegations that"—like Libby—"he lied while giving grand jury testimony." Rita was convicted. At sentencing, he argued that he should receive a sentence below the range in the federal guidelines because he was elderly and sick, had served for 24 years as a Marine, including tours in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and was vulnerable to abuse in prison because he'd worked in criminal justice on behalf of the government.

After receiving a within-the-guidelines sentence of 33 months, Rita appealed on the ground that the sentence was unreasonable given the nature of his offense and his personal circumstances. The Bush administration opposed Rita's appeal. The government argued that 33 months was reasonable simply because it complied with the federal guidelines. And the Supreme Court agreed, affirming Rita's sentence. Berman lists other cases in which Bush prosecutors demanded and got harsh sentences for minor crimes committed by sometimes-sympathetic defendants. The point is that this administration has steadfastly asserted its belief in uniform sentencing. Nationwide, the Department of Justice requires prosecutors to advocate for sentences that adhere to the guidelines because, the administration argues, this is the best way to narrow sentencing disparities among defendants who commit similar crimes.

Pardons and sentence commutations are by definition tickets that are good for only one ride, special treatment for special defendants. And yet, one can't help asking, what of all those fears about disparity? In the weeks and months to come, defense attorneys across the country won't be able to resist tapping away at their keyboards, arguing that their clients' individual circumstances call for sentencing breaks, just like Libby's did. It probably won't work. But the administration's inconsistency is so glaring—and so perfectly illustrates the flaw of harsh and mandatory sentencing regimes—that to point it out to judges will be irresistible.
Harlan J. Protass is special counsel at O'Shea Partners LLP and an adjunct professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he teaches about sentencing.

http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/nav/tap2/

Remove mandatory sentencing.

a1na2
07-04-2007, 04:40 PM
I don't completely disagree with your point. But my point is different. I'm just trying to point out that the consequences of what this administration is hiding are far more serious. This directly involves abuses of power that have been extremely destructive to our democracy and our government.

It's funny. When the neocons and the righties were not in the White House, they manipulated every inch of the legal system in their attempts to destroy the opposition over personal issues that occurred long before Clinton became president.

Now that the neocons and the righties control the executive branch, they subvert the law and ignore the legal system over issues of vital importance to good governance. And they do it with such mendacity that it amazes me so many people are still so passive about it.

This administration has made a mockery of what this country stands for.

As did Clinton, as did Bush I, as did Reagan, as did Carter, etc. All the way back to FDR.

Pitt Gorilla
07-04-2007, 04:55 PM
FTR, I NEVER voted for the sonofabitch. Didn't vote in 2000, choked down my own vomit in 2004 when I was forced to vote for Kerry (which was nothing more than a lesser-of-two-evils vote against Bush).I voted for W in 2000. Oops.

Ugly Duck
07-04-2007, 05:35 PM
I'm absolutely serious. Just can't believe that. I gotta feeling that you are conducting some kinda psychology experiment for a political science class. Something like regurgitating every Republican talking point that comes down the pipe whilst twisting & turning & convoluting the most pretzolic "arguments" in vain attempt to make the Republican position seem reasonable. I don't believe you are serious at all.... I think you are too smart for that.

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2007, 06:05 PM
FTR, I NEVER voted for the sonofabitch. Didn't vote in 2000, choked down my own vomit in 2004 when I was forced to vote for Kerry (which was nothing more than a lesser-of-two-evils vote against Bush).I didn't vote in 2000. I hated Kerry. No way was I voting for him. Funny, when I voted for Bush, I was confidant he would make some smart(LMAO) decisions. Boy, was I wrong. When are we EVER gonna have a good candidate to vote for?

BigMeatballDave
07-04-2007, 06:08 PM
Nah, only impeachment over blowjobs not blown jobs.

Forget habeus corpus, no WMD, lying about reasons for war, botching the war effort, pissing on the constitution, not to mention disregarding laws and rules as only applying to the little people...

we want the POTUS impeached (or imprisoned) because we don't share his opinion. ROFL ROFL ROFLThats funny you still have that in your sig. I was so wrong. Rumsfeld is a blithering idiot.

memyselfI
07-04-2007, 08:58 PM
Thats funny you still have that in your sig. I was so wrong. Rumsfeld is a blithering idiot.

Wow, admissions of being wrong. :clap: FTR, the sig is staying until Jan. 09. :p

WilliamTheIrish
07-04-2007, 09:23 PM
I voted for W in 2000. Oops.

Same here. Bad decision. (understatement)

MadMax
07-05-2007, 01:02 AM
Politics is a nasty subject...Can we agree? lol Hell Im at the point that I believe they are ALL crooked and suck. I do believe the Dems are worse and more about hate and spite, but I have to ask myself how much do any of them do to make our lives better? Buncha selfish rich bastards is what I come up with. :(

penchief
07-05-2007, 03:59 AM
[/b]

As did Clinton, as did Bush I, as did Reagan, as did Carter, etc. All the way back to FDR.

Not so, IMO. Some administrations have had good intentions. This one has its own agenda and that's all it represents (consolidate power and take back the humanitarian gains of the 20th century in favor of unregulated commerce). I will agree that this administration's self-serving agenda sprouted from the Reagan Administration but not all administrations are so blatant about screwing the constitution and the American people.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 06:27 AM
You're a mindless tool of the ruling elite. You have no opinions - just those opinions of your masters. You're a blustering, pathetic clown. And I would pity you were it not for the irreparable harm you and other morons like you have done to this country.

Take a bow, dipshit.

OK, Fluffy. Keep stumbling through life without a clue about what you believe if it works for you. People like you ought to spend a little bit of time living under a a real dictator so you have at least a glimmer of an idea of what it means.

Amnorix
07-05-2007, 06:48 AM
I'm absolutely serious. Bush made way too many efforts to play nice with the democrats (for my taste) and for all his trouble he ended up with a largely disloyal opposition that as a group chose to put themselves in a position where the perception of national failure was a pre-requisite for party success.

This is the MO for the party out of power as well. In fact, the Republicans were more than happy to do anything and everything to undermine Clinton and limit his political power and abilty to focus on policy, including by bringing the most absurd impeachment articles imaginable.

Please don't use the phrase "disloyal opposition". The party out of power has no loyalty to the President, and never has, going all the way back to the Civil War and beyond that to the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Hamiltonian Federalists.

a1na2
07-05-2007, 06:57 AM
Not so, IMO. Some administrations have had good intentions. This one has its own agenda and that's all it represents (consolidate power and take back the humanitarian gains of the 20th century in favor of unregulated commerce). I will agree that this administration's self-serving agenda sprouted from the Reagan Administration but not all administrations are so blatant about screwing the constitution and the American people.

I can agree to a point. Something we don't see, and probably will never see is that type of wrongdoing in other administrations because in the past we didn't have the communications we do now. In FDR's time if something was wrong the people kept closed mouth about it. If someone was suspected of being a leaker they would have simply been eliminated.

Think about how much Clintonesque activity went on during the Kennedy administration, not that law was being subverted, but the silence about the sexual antics of JFK.

I don't know if it's the advent of the internet, but wide open global communications seems to keep anyone in the public eye really in the public eye. Secrets are no longer held.

stevieray
07-05-2007, 07:39 AM
I can agree to a point. Something we don't see, and probably will never see is that type of wrongdoing in other administrations because in the past we didn't have the communications we do now. In FDR's time if something was wrong the people kept closed mouth about it. If someone was suspected of being a leaker they would have simply been eliminated.

Think about how much Clintonesque activity went on during the Kennedy administration, not that law was being subverted, but the silence about the sexual antics of JFK.

I don't know if it's the advent of the internet, but wide open global communications seems to keep anyone in the public eye really in the public eye. Secrets are no longer held.

Scooter is their SB...that's why they all think that his conviction validates every accusation they've ever made. it doesn't really hold water, which is exactly why they've been reduced to a psuedo victory dance where they pat eaxh other on the back, and deflect any negativity, including from their own party, back to Bush.

Amnorix
07-05-2007, 08:01 AM
I can agree to a point. Something we don't see, and probably will never see is that type of wrongdoing in other administrations because in the past we didn't have the communications we do now. In FDR's time if something was wrong the people kept closed mouth about it. If someone was suspected of being a leaker they would have simply been eliminated.

Think about how much Clintonesque activity went on during the Kennedy administration, not that law was being subverted, but the silence about the sexual antics of JFK.

I don't know if it's the advent of the internet, but wide open global communications seems to keep anyone in the public eye really in the public eye. Secrets are no longer held.

Yes, right.

FDR had a long-term mistress, who was actually with him when he died at Sarasota Springs or wherever it was. Not that he wasn't right to do so (because he clearly was), but the actions of the navy regarding the Western Atlantic prior to our actually entering WWII were incredible. We did everything we could to help out England, while Congress (and most people in the US) were adamant that we not enter the war.

And, of course, we have Jefferson and his slave mistress, Kennedy and his antics, heck - LBJ and his antics, Nixon being just complete scum long before Watergate, J. Edgar Hoover holding the reins of power for 50 years while having a very, very odd relationship with his #2 man to say the least, etc. ad infinitum.

Chief Henry
07-05-2007, 08:22 AM
Are you freaking serious? :banghead:

So I take it you support a Presidential Administration (as long as they're YOUR party) with NO accountability?

Un-believe-able.



Dane, yes I'm freaking serious. First of all, this president hasn't been perfect by any means. I'm not happy with a number of things hes done or tried to do. BUT The prosecutor
Patrick Fitgerald knew the informant was. So WHY did he drag the
country through that whole escapade?

Scooter Libby didn't repeat word for word a conversation he had TWO
years ago with Tim Russert...........Who in the hell can repeat a conversation from two years ago. The jury beleaved Tim Russert
END OF STORY.

Patrick Fitzgerald knew who spilled the beans but yet still went on witht he trial. :shake:

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 08:37 AM
That Jefferson had a slave mistress, is inclusive as it could have been his brother as well.

Frazod
07-05-2007, 08:40 AM
OK, Fluffy. Keep stumbling through life without a clue about what you believe if it works for you. People like you ought to spend a little bit of time living under a a real dictator so you have at least a glimmer of an idea of what it means.

You f#cking retard, you don't even know what YOU believe, let alone what I believe. I think for myself. Novel concept - you should try it sometime. That means extremist morons LIKE YOU, whether they lean all the way left or all the way right, don't like me. And that's fine, because if you did, I'd clearly be doing something wrong.

Donger
07-05-2007, 08:41 AM
Heh. Anyone know who Marc Rich's attorney was?



Scooter Libby.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 08:43 AM
Heh. Anyone know who Marc Rich's attorney was?



Scooter Libby.
Repost.
Mentioned twice in either of the two threads.

Donger
07-05-2007, 08:50 AM
Pretty balanced take, IMO.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypocrisy is unpardonable. President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of a convicted liar brought out the worst in both parties.
art.protest.afp.gi.jpg

Activists, one costumed as Scooter Libby, demonstrate across from the White House on Tuesday to protest President Bush's decision to spare Libby from jail.

In keeping I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby out of jail, Bush defied his promise to hold wrongdoers accountable and undercut his 2000 campaign pledge to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House. And it might be a cynical first step toward issuing a full pardon at the conclusion of his term.

Democrats responded as if they don't live in glass houses, decrying corruption, favoritism and a lack of justice.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

It's hard to fathom that those pardons had absolutely nothing to do with cronyism or ideology, but Hillary Clinton defended them. She drew a distinction between her husband's pardons and Bush's commutation.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the senator said Bill Clinton's pardons were simply a routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none was aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy. "This," she said of the Libby commutation, "was clearly an effort to protect the White House."

Indeed, there is ample evidence that Libby's actions were fueled by animosity throughout the White House toward opponents of the president's push to war against Iraq.

But Hillary Clinton will have a hard time convincing most voters that her brother-in-law would have gotten a pardon in 2001 had his name been Smith. Or that Rich's pardon plea would have reached the president's desk had he not been a rich Mr. Rich.

The hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

Bush vowed at the start of the investigation to fire anybody involved in the leak of a CIA agent's identity, but one of the leakers, adviser Karl Rove, still works at the White House. Libby was allowed to keep his job until he was indicted for lying about his role.

The president said Libby's sentence was excessive. But the 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Three of every four people convicted for obstruction of justice in federal court were sent to prison, for an average term of more than five years.

Want more hypocrisy? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney praised the commutation for Libby, quite a departure for a guy who brags that he was the first Massachusetts governor to deny every request for a pardon or commutation. Romney even refused a pardon for an Iraq war veteran who, at age 13, was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun.

What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.

What about all those Democrats who thought public shame was punishment enough for Clinton lying under oath, basically the position adopted today by Libby's supporters? Many of those Democrats now think Libby should go to jail for his perjury.

"There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."

The Libby case followed the same pattern of hype and hypocrisy established during Clinton's impeachment scandal. It's as if we're all sentenced to relive the same sad scene:

A powerful man lies or otherwise does wrong.

He gets caught.

His enemies overreach in the name of justice.

His friends minimize the crime in pursuit of self-interest.
advertisement

And the powerful man hires a lawyer.

Marc Rich had a high-priced attorney for his battles with the justice system. His name was Scooter Libby.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 09:06 AM
If Bush really believes Libby's sentence was too harsh, then why didn't he commute Marth Stewart's sentence. Answer: because he needs to buy Libby's silence.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 09:33 AM
Here's another twist on this whole incident"

Ironically, of course, “conservative” better describes those in the national-security bureaucracy who, like Amb. Joe Wilson, not only voted for Bush in 2000, but donated money to his campaign, in the belief that Bush would carry out a “humbler” foreign policy more along the lines of his father than of Bill Clinton, only to recoil in horror when it became clear that the radical right had gained control of foreign policy after 9/11 and set it on a trajectory that ‘’departed markedly from the usual or customary.”*

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=41

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:18 AM
I'd be curious to know what sort of things you have in mind. I don't count things that were already on his agenda but happened to coincide with the dems (like the recent immigration bill). I mean areas where he actually "reached out" or compromised.

If you'd like me to list a few from my viewpoint (these aren't all confined to Bush per se, but rather the Republican leadership cadre with Bush/Cheney at the top):

1) Talking about being a uniter, but immediately nominating an arch-conservative (Ashcroft) as AG
2) Reaching deeper into regulatory agencies than any recent president to purge experts and career personnel and replace them with political apointees (John Bolton acknowledged that they did this, and was even proud of it)
3) Changing numerous procedural rules in Congress to marginalize the democratic minority (like the attempt to go "nucular" and declare the filibuster unconstitutional ... narrowly averted by a few Republican senators that realized the damage that would cause (and I guess you could say that they also had foresight, since the Republican minority in Congress has used the threat of filibuster extensively in the last 6 months))
4) Alberto Gonzales (his actual appointment less an example of partisanship as it was cronyism; his running of the justice department a glaring example of destructive partisanship in its hiring practices).
5) Flushing the few moderates that he did appoint early on after they were not compliant enough for Cheney to browbeat into submission.

These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure others could (and will) add to the list.


Nominating Bill Clinton judges like the one mentioned in this thread.

Naming a democrat and several moderates (e.g. Christy Todd Whitman) to his cabinet.

Keeping George Tenet on at CIA.

Inviting Ted Kennedy to the WH to socialize early in his first term.

Working with Ted Kennedy and other democrats on NCLB and the Prescription Drug entitlement to the chagrin of his base.

It's a little unfair for you to say that you don't count things that were a part of his agenda because reaching out to the dems in and of itself was a key part of his first term agenda.

BTW, Bush has no control over Congressional rules so that has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm sorry, but being a uniter can't possibly mean governing as if you were a member of the opposing party. If that's your definition, as it appears to be, then you should give up on ever encountering such a uniter because it will never happen. GWBush made himself available for unity but congressional democrats who were still smarting from losing their deathgrip on Congress in the 90's and, even moreso, from barely losing the Presidential election in 2000 were in no mood to play second fiddle without mounting an insurection. I don't blame them at all. I *do* have a problem with those of you who pretend that GWBush is the guy who prevented unity. Frankly, I was pissed at him for going as far as he did in that pursuit.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:28 AM
This is the MO for the party out of power as well. In fact, the Republicans were more than happy to do anything and everything to undermine Clinton and limit his political power and abilty to focus on policy, including by bringing the most absurd impeachment articles imaginable.

Please don't use the phrase "disloyal opposition". The party out of power has no loyalty to the President, and never has, going all the way back to the Civil War and beyond that to the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Hamiltonian Federalists.

I pretty much agree with what you say here except that I think *some* democrats have gone beyond the pale in talking up failure in the war and for that I think they deserve the "disloyal opposition" appellation. I'm not one who was ever under the illusion that "unity" was possible. It makes no sense for the minority party to quietly accept it's minority status without looking for ways to attack and undermine the majority position (although House Republicans gave it a great effort for a decade or two before the rise of Newt Gingrich). But when it comes to fighting a war, we need to find ways to be unified enough to present a united front to the enemy. We don't have that united front right now.

Dallas Chief
07-05-2007, 11:32 AM
If Bush really believes Libby's sentence was too harsh, then why didn't he commute Marth Stewart's sentence. Answer: because he needs to buy Libby's silence.
I really hope you are kidding.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:37 AM
You f#cking retard, you don't even know what YOU believe, let alone what I believe. I think for myself. Novel concept - you should try it sometime. That means extremist morons LIKE YOU, whether they lean all the way left or all the way right, don't like me. And that's fine, because if you did, I'd clearly be doing something wrong.

What makes you think I don't like you? I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to dictatorships and Nazi Germany, but I like you just fine. I have lots of politically illiterate friends who are still trying to muddle their way toward a personal ideology.

Dallas Chief
07-05-2007, 11:48 AM
Pretty balanced take, IMO.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypocrisy is unpardonable. President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of a convicted liar brought out the worst in both parties.
art.protest.afp.gi.jpg


This whole thing is rife with hypocracy, just as it was when Bill Clinton used his Constitutional Powers to do the same thing. It's called checks and balances, although I am sure that cronyism in not what our fore fathers had in mind as a use for this authority. What a difference 230 years make. :hmmm:

Frazod
07-05-2007, 12:31 PM
What makes you think I don't like you? I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to dictatorships and Nazi Germany, but I like you just fine. I have lots of politically illiterate friends who are still trying to muddle their way toward a personal ideology.

Because I haven't accepted W as my personal lord and saviour, I'm politically illiterate. So sayeth Mr. Roboto.

You're funny. ROFL

penchief
07-05-2007, 12:59 PM
Here's another twist on this whole incident"



http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=41

I agree 100% that they are not conservatives (unless you're talking about social conservatives). I've said that all along. But they are extreme righties, for sure.

memyselfI
07-05-2007, 03:05 PM
Because I haven't accepted W as my personal lord and saviour, I'm politically illiterate. So sayeth Mr. Roboto.

You're funny. ROFL

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/G/bush_jesus_christ.jpg

"I bless you anyway, my lost child."

Frazod
07-05-2007, 03:22 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/G/bush_jesus_christ.jpg

"I bless you anyway, my lost child."

You know, with the beard, he kids of looks like James Brolin. Somebody should e-mail that to Babs.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 03:32 PM
Because I haven't accepted W as my personal lord and saviour, I'm politically illiterate. So sayeth Mr. Roboto.

You're funny. ROFL

Thanks. ;)

But, no, it has nothing to do with whether you like the president or not. There are plenty of politically savvy people around here who don't like GWB. None of them seriously wonder whether present day America is like living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's though.

|Zach|
07-05-2007, 05:25 PM
It would be one thing if he said, 'You know, the guy got railroaded, he was innocent' ... but what he said was, 'Well, he's guilty. He did these things. And I'm going to make sure he doesn't get punished.'"

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:30 PM
It would be one thing if he said, 'You know, the guy got railroaded, he was innocent' ... but what he said was, 'Well, he's guilty. He did these things. And I'm going to make sure he doesn't get punished.'"

You don't think that loss of your good name, a $250,000 fine, loss of your livelihood, and a mega lawyer bill are punishment?

|Zach|
07-05-2007, 05:33 PM
You don't think that loss of your good name, a $250,000 fine, loss of your livelihood, and a mega lawyer bill are punishment?
For perjury at that level?

No.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 05:35 PM
You don't think that loss of your good name, a $250,000 fine, loss of your livelihood, and a mega lawyer bill are punishment?
I do think that's a good point*

* except that there has also been a legal defense fund is being raised for him too. I doubt he pays a dime of it. As for his name, he's still well connected politically and to power. He will probably do just fine. So I think some time even just 6 months and some fines would be fairer....even if part of his tab only is picked up. However, the fines should go to Valerie Plame. I think you know where I stand on that.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:35 PM
For perjury at that level?

No.

I think you're delusional. ;)

Are there different levels of perjury?

|Zach|
07-05-2007, 05:36 PM
Welcome to Patteu's justice system. It isn't what you did it is who you know.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:37 PM
I do think that's a good point*

* except that there has also been a legal defense fund is being raised for him too. I doubt he pays a dime of it. As for his name, he's still well connected politically and to power. He will probably do just fine. So I think some time even just 6 months and some fines would be fairer....even if part of his tab only is picked up. However, the fines should go to Valerie Plame. I think you know where I stand on that.

If Valerie Plame thinks she was harmed by Libby, she should sue him. Honestly, I don't see any connection.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:38 PM
Welcome to Patteu's justice system. It isn't what you did it is who you know.

You're going to have to help me out with this one.

penchief
07-05-2007, 06:04 PM
Thanks. ;)

But, no, it has nothing to do with whether you like the president or not. There are plenty of politically savvy people around here who don't like GWB. None of them seriously wonder whether present day America is like living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's though.

All we're asking is that they don't keep digging that hole. But they still keep digging it.

Cheney pronounces he is above the law and then Bush confirms it by pronouncing that Libby is not guilty because he's being persecuted. What?

This after the administration is guilty of validating torture and spying on Americans, after unilaterally breaking weapons treaties while unilaterally building a new breed of nuclear weapon, after lying us into an unjust war and destablizing the Middle East, after robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, after all the election-day shenanigans, and after being just plain greedy and incompassionate (I will never again call them incompetent).

I just don't understand how there is anybody yet to understand where these zealots are coming from.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 06:06 PM
You don't think that loss of your good name, a $250,000 fine, loss of your livelihood, and a mega lawyer bill are punishment?

No, not according to the sentencing guidelines used in every other similar case. What makes this case different than every other one before it? This was based on politics, not law.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 06:27 PM
No, not according to the sentencing guidelines used in every other similar case. What makes this case different than every other one before it? This was based on politics, not law.

I agree, but remember the whole trial was based on politics not law.

DC Jury
No specific charges initially
I don't know ='s perjury according to said DC jury
perjury ='s conviction.

Bush just evened out the scale which is his right under law.

Give me a break with your self righteous bullshit unless you want to admit slick willie should of been impeached and have done jail time for his perjury. Get real.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 06:28 PM
No, not according to the sentencing guidelines used in every other similar case. What makes this case different than every other one before it? This was based on politics, not law.

I don't dispute your last point, but it most certainly is a punishment even if you and Zach don't consider it painful enough. I'd say that your conclusion is impacted by politics, even if it's the politics of trying to be nonpartisan.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 06:34 PM
I agree, but remember the whole trial was based on politics not law.

DC Jury
No specific charges initially
I don't know ='s perjury according to said DC jury
perjury ='s conviction.

Bush just evened out the scale which is his right under law.

Give me a break with your self righteous bullshit unless you want to admit slick willie should of been impeached and have done jail time for his perjury. Get real.

:rolleyes:

If you are going to dispute the evidence, at least give me something to respond to. It's never a good sign when people on a fan site discover evidence that Libby's lawyers couldn't find. And I'm not sure how I got labeled as a Clinton apologist, but I'm hardly one.

penchief
07-05-2007, 06:38 PM
:rolleyes:

If you are going to dispute the evidence, at least give me something to respond to. It's never a good sign when people on a fan site discover evidence that Libby's lawyers couldn't find. And I'm not sure how I got labeled as a Clinton apologist, but I'm hardly one.

If you're a liberal you're a Clinton apologist. You can't blame them, though. They're just taking their cues.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 06:41 PM
I don't dispute your last point, but it most certainly is a punishment even if you and Zach don't consider it painful enough. I'd say that your conclusion is impacted by politics, even if it's the politics of trying to be nonpartisan.

It's a punishment in the same way ordering him to sit in his room would be a punishment. I don't dispute that he is being punished, just that he is being punished fairly. I honestly feel sorry for Libby, but I feel sorry for a lot of criminals. I blame the liberalism in me. That doesn't mean I wish for their freedom.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 06:41 PM
:rolleyes:

If you are going to dispute the evidence, at least give me something to respond to. It's never a good sign when people on a fan site discover evidence that Libby's lawyers couldn't find. And I'm not sure how I got labeled as a Clinton apologist, but I'm hardly one.

The evidence of perjury was judged by a jury pool from DC which is over 80% Democrat. That and the fact that this was all originated by the Dems is good enough for me. Evidence you ask? Ok, Bill's spooge was all over Monica's dress and he denied it in testimony before a Grand Jury and was convicted of Perjury. Libby just said "I don't recall" and the jury decided he did remember and therefore committed perjury and convicted him.

I mean this is how politics works be you a Dem. or Republican. If your a public official you run the risk of people coming for you with a political agenda.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 06:43 PM
The evidence of perjury was judged by a jury pool from DC which is over 80% Democrat. That and the fact that this was all originated by the Dems is good enough for me. Evidence you ask? Ok, Bill's spooge was all over Monica's dress. Libby just said "I don't recall" and the jury decided he did.

Did you even follow this trial? One of the jury members openly came out and said they felt sorry for Libby and didn't want to convict him, but found the evidence overwhelming. Again, dispute the evidence and not a straw man version of it.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 06:46 PM
Did you even follow this trial? One of the jury members openly came out and said they felt sorry for Libby and didn't want to convict him, but found the evidence overwhelming. Again, dispute the evidence and not a straw man version of it.

Yes, I followed it. It was political bs to begin with and now Bush has righted the wrong. It's over your political ideology lost, get over it.

PS - The jurists post trial comment means NOTHING.

penchief
07-05-2007, 06:47 PM
The evidence of perjury was judged by a jury pool from DC which is over 80% Democrat. That and the fact that this was all originated by the Dems is good enough for me. Evidence you ask? Ok, Bill's spooge was all over Monica's dress. Libby just said "I don't recall" and the jury decided he did.

Come on ChiefaRoo, dig deep. Do you really believe deep down that these guys have been telling the truth every single time their untruths have been proved?

Do you really trust them with the heart of that which Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin had entrusted us future generations to perpetuate? I don't. I think they're not only fugging it up royally. I think they're doing it on purpose.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 06:53 PM
Come on ChiefaRoo, dig deep. Do you really believe deep down that these guys have been telling the truth every single time their untruths have been proved?

Do you really trust them with heart and soul of what Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin had entrusted we future generations to perpetuate? I don't. I think they're not only fugging it up royally. I think they're doing it on purpose.

I think the founding fathers wrote several profound, high minded documents and they created a well founded, sound framework for the country so the rule of law could be established and fairly applied.

That being said all bets are off inside the beltway. Politics is a blood sport and a court room in the District combined with political rivals as defendent and prosecutors is a completely different type of justice (or injustice in my book) than what would go on in a courtroom in mainstream America with a typical citizen.

Our system isn't perfect and this was a political lynching IMO .

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 06:54 PM
Yes, I followed it. It was political bs to begin with and now Bush has righted the wrong. It's over your political ideology lost, get over it.

Again I quote from Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy,

"Politics" and the Libby Prosecution: The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political."

I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

I find this claim bizarre. I'm open to arguments that parts of the case against Libby were unfair. But for the case to have been purely political, doesn't that require the involvement of someone who was not a Bush political appointee? Who are the political opponents who brought the case? Is the idea that Fitzgerald is secretly a Democratic party operative? That Judge Walton is a double agent? Or is the idea that Fitzgerald and Walton were hypnotized by "the Mainstream Media" like Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian Candidate? Seriously, I don't get it.

Quite the trick the Democrats pulled off there.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 06:58 PM
Again I quote from Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy,



Quite the trick the Democrats pulled off there.

You are missing my point. The justice system does not work the same way in DC when you combine rival political agendas and set them against each other as defendent and prosecutor. Add in the Democratic jury and there you have it.

Bush and his guys may or may not of leaked Valerie so and so's name to the public. What I am telling you it doesn't matter as the President quashed (commuted the sentence) the whole thing which is his right.

By the way Joe Wilson (who is a Democrat) hates Karl Rove and was trying to get him busted to begin with. It's all power politics guys.

penchief
07-05-2007, 07:03 PM
I think the founding fathers wrote several profound, high minded documents and they created a well founded, sound framework for the country so the rule of law could be established and fairly applied.

That being said all bets are off inside the beltway. Politics is a blood sport and a court room in the District combined with political rivals as defendent and prosecutors is a completely different type of justice (or injustice in my book) than what would go on in a courtroom in mainstream America with a typical citizen.

Our system isn't perfect and this was a political lynching IMO .

I agree with much of what you say. However, this was NOT a political lynching while the Clinton witch hunt clearly was. That said, let's deal with the NOW.

The righties would like you to think it was a lynching because their ideal is to divide. But these schmucks lied about their manipulation of the "people's government" for reasons of power, politics, and commerce.

The difference is that they crossed the line as if it didn't even exist. They have absolutely no shame. In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that Libby is a victim?

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 07:05 PM
You are missing my point. The justice system does not work the same way in DC when you combine rival political agendas and set them against each other as defendent and prosecutor. Add in the Democratic jury and there you have it.

Bush and his guys may or may not of leaked Valerie so and so's name to the public. What I am telling you it doesn't matter as the President quashed (commuted the sentence) the whole thing which is his right.

By the way Joe Wilson hates Karl Rove and was trying to get him busted to begin with. It's all power politics guys.

That makes to sense. Your just spouting randomness and disputing the evidence without even addressing it.

What evidence is there that the jury was biased? If they were, why did the judge - a Bush appointee and well respected among Republicans - describe the evidence as overwhelming and give the sentence he did?

Your intent on making all of this political when no evidence towards that exists. Libby was indicted by a Republican, Bush appointee, but yet you blame some mythical Democratic jury for this entire thing. It's just not logical.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 07:06 PM
I agree with much of what you say. However, this was NOT a political lynching. However, the Clinton witch hunt was. That said, let's deal with the NOW.

The righties would like you to think it was a lynching because their ideal is to divide. But these schmucks lied about their manipulation of the "people's government" for reasons of power, politics, and commerce.

The difference is that they crossed the line as if it didn't even exist. They have absolutely no shame. In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that Libby is a victim?

Look I'm just telling you how I think the game is played in DC

That being said in my heart of hearts I think Joe Wilson somehow P.O'd Karl Rove. Rove retaliated. The VP and Pres. may or may not of known about it and in the end a lesser official fell on his sword knowing he'd get commuted/pardoned in the end. We the public are never going to know more than that unless it comes out in a few decades or after someones death.

We don't live in a perfect world.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 07:09 PM
That makes to sense. Your just spouting randomness and disputing the evidence without even addressing it.

What evidence is there that the jury was biased? If they were, why did the judge - a Bush appointee and well respected among Republicans - describe the evidence as overwhelming and give the sentence he did?

Your intent on making all of this political when no evidence towards that exists. Libby was indicted by a Republican, Bush appointee, but yet you blame some mythical Democratic jury for this entire thing. It's just not logical.

I believe he was indicted by a Grand Jury. Are you familar with the saying that goes something to the effect of "It's easy to indict someone. You can indict a ham sandwich"

None of this really matters as it's besides the point. Wake up guys justice is relative when politics is involved.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 07:13 PM
I believe he was indicted by a Grand Jury. Are you familar with the saying that goes something to the effect of "It's easy to indict someone. You can indict a ham sandwich"

None of this really matters as it's besides the point. Wake up guys justice is relative when politics is involved.

Yes I'm familiar with the saying, but you're using it wrong. It comes from a (crazy) judge who complained that prosecuters have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to indict a ham sandwhich. That saying actually contradicts your point.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 07:26 PM
Yes I'm familiar with the saying, but your using it wrong. It comes from a (crazy) judge who complained that prosecuters have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to indict a ham sandwhich. That saying actually contradicts your point.


Ehh, whatever, I stand behind my central point.

mlyonsd
07-05-2007, 07:32 PM
The saddest thing in this whole affair is Plame/Wilson are given a free pass.

Plame should have been walked out the door once the revelation came out she had a hand in sending her husband to do her work. If I was the CIA Director I would have taken away her badge the moment I found that out.

Even though Wilson is a lying weasel he gets a pass from the media.

If both of them really thought they were wronged why don't they take out a civil suit against the only person identified as the leaker? Why don't the sue Armitage?

The answer is they are left winger puppets. I wonder who's house they had supper at tonight.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 07:43 PM
The saddest thing in this whole affair is Plame/Wilson are given a free pass.[/quuote]
For what?


[quote]Even though Wilson is a lying weasel he gets a pass from the media.
What proof do you have he lied?
I don't rely on the major for my media and I have nothing on them that suggests this.

If both of them really thought they were wronged why don't they take out a civil suit against the only person identified as the leaker? Why don't the sue Armitage?
What does this have to do with Libby's own perjury to a grand jury though?
This doesn't make him innocent. He didn't need to lie then right? I didn't follow every detail closely but I don't understand this in regard to someone needing to lie to a grand jury.

The answer is they are left winger puppets. I wonder who's house they had supper at tonight.
Glenn Beck is against this commutation...and he's even a NeoCon.
Did you know that Wilson voted for Bush in 2000 and gave money to his campaign because he promised a more humble foreign policy?

mlyonsd
07-05-2007, 07:54 PM
Glenn Beck is against this commutation...and he's even a NeoCon.
Did you know that Wilson voted for Bush in 2000 and gave money to his campaign because he promised a more humble foreign policy?

Wilson claimed in his op-ed that Cheney's office sent him which has been proven false. There has never been any evidence to the contrary. Look it up, the burden is on you.

As far as Libby's perjury trial, where did I tie anything of it into my post?

I don't give a rat's ass about what Glenn Beck says. Why do you always have to quote someone else when you post? Have you ever had a single thought on your own that you didn't feel the need to be justified by a public figure? Going into the voting booth must be tough for you depending on who's voice is going off in your brain at the time.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 08:10 PM
Yes I'm familiar with the saying, but you're using it wrong. It comes from a (crazy) judge who complained that prosecuters have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to indict a ham sandwhich. That saying actually contradicts your point.

Hmmm. I'm having trouble seeing how that contradicts his point.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 08:23 PM
Wilson claimed in his op-ed that Cheney's office sent him which has been proven false. There has never been any evidence to the contrary. Look it up, the burden is on you.
What damage did that do?
Burden? How 'bout the burden being on those who claim it was Armitage when no there is no proof that Armitage was the primary source. Is this your idea of an original thought?

As far as Libby's perjury trial, where did I tie anything of it into my post?
You didn't. It's just that I found what you said irrelevant as well...as this was about an obstructed investigation.

I don't give a rat's ass about what Glenn Beck says. Why do you always have to quote someone else when you post? Have you ever had a single thought on your own that you didn't feel the need to be justified by a public figure? Going into the voting booth must be tough for you depending on who's voice is going off in your brain at the time.
I don't give a rats ass if Armitage was the primary source either after at least 127 lies from this administration on an unecessary war that has killed at least the same number of Americans as 9/11 and maimed at least another 10,000 not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and we can't get to the truth of the matter still because things were obstructed. And all you can do is whine about Plame alone.

Do you have any original thoughts of your own other than what this administration tells you is true.

In other words you prefer made up facts? Well,that is original...but also can be delusional. No wonder you believe this administration despite it's 127 plus lies on this war. Other than that people here usually request links.

Anyhow, I assure you I do, but none of use live in a void of data from which form our own opinions. In this instance you said "they were left winger puppets"...which was false to me originally. In order to prove it false I had to show they weren't. I supplied an example. What's wrong with that?

Actually, it was just an observation of mine from watching others comments here and elsehwere and I was surprised Beck took the position he took. You may not care but don't make it sound like it's all left-wingers....the standard line of right these days. Blame, blame, blame others. Hardly original either! LMAO! Classic projection.

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 08:30 PM
Hmmm. I'm having trouble seeing how that contradicts his point.

My point: Libby was indicted by a Republican, Bush appointed prosecutor
His point: He was indicted by a grand jury, not a prosecutor. Gives quote
My point: Quote is actually about how easy it is for a prosecutor to control a grand jury

His conspiracy is that the entire trial was political, controlled by a Democratic jury in the end. That seems a little out there, given that the original charges come from a Republican prosecutor, no?

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 08:32 PM
My point: Libby was indicted by a Republican, Bush appointed prosecutor
His point: He was indicted by a grand jury, not a prosecutor. Gives quote
My point: Quote is actually about how easy it is for a prosecutor to control a grand jury

His conspiracy is that the entire trial was political, controlled by a Democratic jury in the end. That seems a little out there, given that the original charges come from a Republican prosecutor, no?
Dont'cha know it's the left, the left, the left....it has nothing to do with what they did. Not only that but it's original too.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:00 PM
My point: Libby was indicted by a Republican, Bush appointed prosecutor
His point: He was indicted by a grand jury, not a prosecutor. Gives quote
My point: Quote is actually about how easy it is for a prosecutor to control a grand jury

His conspiracy is that the entire trial was political, controlled by a Democratic jury in the end. That seems a little out there, given that the original charges come from a Republican prosecutor, no?

Ah, I see what you're saying.

I'm not sure people's party affiliations are a complete defense against the charge of playing a political game though. I'm not saying Fitzgerald was politically motivated, but being appointed by a Republican doesn't mean he couldn't be. It also doesn't prevent the possibility of being motivated by personal gain based on visions of bringing down a presidency or a vice presidency. I'm not arguing that these tainted motivations were present, I'm just pointing out a factor that might limit the applicability of Orin Kerr's analysis.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:02 PM
How 'bout the burden being on those who claim it was Armitage when no there is no proof that Armitage was the primary source.

It came directly from the horse's mouth. Robert Novak has spoken publicly about this and confirmed that his primary source was Armitage.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 09:04 PM
It came directly from the horse's mouth. Robert Novak has spoken publicly about this and confirmed that his primary source was Armitage.
That means nothing to me with this group. That's just his testimony...and from what I understand it's impeachable too.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 09:10 PM
Ok guys. Since we are talking this into the ground lets bring in my idea of an excellent debater. Click on the link, page down to the July 3rd stream link on the middle left of the page and listen to the first half of the show. IMO this pretty much sums up the whole issue. By the way this Levin guy has been a DC lawyer for a long time and knows what's going on.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/

WoodDraw
07-05-2007, 09:11 PM
Ah, I see what you're saying.

I'm not sure people's party affiliations are a complete defense against the charge of playing a political game though. I'm not saying Fitzgerald was politically motivated, but being appointed by a Republican doesn't mean he couldn't be. It also doesn't prevent the possibility of being motivated by personal gain based on visions of bringing down a presidency or a vice presidency. I'm not arguing that these tainted motivations were present, I'm just pointing out a factor that might limit the applicability of Orin Kerr's analysis.

Sure, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, it's a good argument. I quoted him more in response to the few here who still claim, with no evidence, that it was all political. At every step of the trial at least one Republican has been in charge. Either there is a big conspiracy out there going on, or the argument is bogus.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:14 PM
That means nothing to me with this group. That's just his testimony...and from what I understand it's impeachable too.

What group are you talking about?

Logical
07-05-2007, 09:15 PM
Ok guys. Since we are talking this into the ground lets bring in my idea of an excellent debater. Click on the link, page down to the July 3rd stream link on the middle left of the page and listen to the first half of the show. IMO this pretty much sums up the whole issue. By the way this Levin guy has been a DC lawyer for a long time and knows what's going on.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/

Mark Levin this is almost as funny as using Michael Savage.ROFL

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:19 PM
Sure, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, it's a good argument. I quoted him more in response to the few here who still claim, with no evidence, that it was all political. At every step of the trial at least one Republican has been in charge. Either there is a big conspiracy out there going on, or the argument is bogus.

I don't think it needs to be a big conspiracy, but I grant that in the absence of evidence of tainted motives, it's a decent argument.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 09:23 PM
Mark Levin this is almost as funny as using Michael Savage.ROFL

Not really. Levin is both highly entertaining (if you like a dry sense of humor) and informed as he's lived and worked in DC as a lawyer in and out of Govt. He has both personal and professional experience with legal matters as it relates to DC and the political scene as a whole. He can argue with the same detail as any Senator or Congressmen on a wide variety of subjects. This guy has as much or more information than anyone in talk radio or on TV. Just listen to him. Savage by comparison only has his ideology and his bi-polar tendencies to get him by.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 09:23 PM
What group are you talking about?
You know who I mean....I won't say it, but Armitage signed PNAC letter so he agreed with their agenda. He's just their man at State despite other claims of him being Powell's liberal "bitch." Novak is member of AEI and just one of their men in the press among many of them in the press lying their arses off.

But I say it's impeachable due to a tape that was introduced into evidence of a conversation between Woodward and Armitage that indicates Armitage didn't even really know Plame's name much less that she was a CIA agent.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:35 PM
You know who I mean....I won't say it, but Armitage signed PNAC letter so he agreed with their agenda. He's just their man at State despite other claims of him being Powell's liberal "bitch." Novak is member of AEI and just one of their men in the press among many of them in the press lying their arses off.

But I say it's impeachable due to a tape that was introduced into evidence of a conversation between Woodward and Armitage that indicates Armitage didn't even really know Plame's name much less that she was a CIA agent.

He didn't tell Novak her name. He told him that Wilson's wife worked for CIA and may have been involved in sending him or something like that. Novak looked up her name in Who's Who.

As for Novak being a neocon, you realize he was an early opponent of the Iraq war don't you? He opposed it before it started.

Novak was close to Jude Wanniski who once called Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz the two most dangerous men in the world, and this was before 9/11. I can't say how close he was other than that they were/are both true believing supply-siders, so I can't say whether Novak shared Wanniski's view of those two actual neocons or not.

Regarding Novak being a member of AEI, I doubt that that's the case. I think you are confusing him with Michael Novak.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 09:42 PM
He didn't tell Novak her name. He told him that Wilson's wife worked for CIA and may have been involved in sending him or something like that. Novak looked up her name in Who's Who.

According to this tape Armitage didn't know she was that either. Just saying it's impeachable testimony.

I stand corrected on the wrong Novak.
I didn't read Bob Novak on the war,or anyone before going in for that matter and only googled "Novak" to check memberships. They do have a lot of pundits and journalists in the press though. IMO, they're one of the causes of the conflict and division in the courntry right now.

Logical
07-05-2007, 09:43 PM
Not really. Levin is both highly entertaining (if you like a dry sense of humor) and informed as he's lived and worked in DC as a lawyer in and out of Govt. He has both personal and professional experience with legal matters as it relates to DC and the political scene as a whole. He can argue with the same detail as any Senator or Congressmen on a wide variety of subjects. This guy has as much or more information than anyone in talk radio or on TV. Just listen to him. Savage by comparison only has his ideology and his bi-polar tendencies to get him by.
I do listen to him he comes on after Savage, I listen to both to have a laugh at radicalism given a voice on the radio. They both like to hear themselves yell, it is quite funny. Rick Roberts and Roger Hedgecock are much saner and better representatives of the hard right. I certainly don't like all they have to say but they say it with sanity for the most part.

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 09:48 PM
I do listen to him he comes on after Savage, I listen to both to have a laugh at radicalism given a voice on the radio. They both like to hear themselves yell, it is quite funny. Rick Roberts and Roger Hedgecock are much saner and better representatives of the hard right. I certainly don't like all they have to say but they say it with sanity for the most part.

Logical. There is a huge difference Levin has worked at the highest levels of government. Savage has not and Hedgecock was just the Mayor of Sandy Eggo. I don't even know who this Rick Roberts guy is and I listen to a lot of talk radio as I travel by car for my job quite a bit.

Check out Levin's Bio. He worked for Reagan and was Ed Meeses' Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan. Sure he rants but and raves (which I find humorous too) but he also knows exactly what he's talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin

banyon
07-05-2007, 09:55 PM
Only an educated guess, but if a person is pardoned from a crime they could no longer claim that something they said in relationship to that matter could be used against them. Since his sentence was only commuted he has not been cleared of those potential crimes. Perhaps Banyon or Ammorix can clear up this mystery.

The 5th amendment to the Constitution protects one against self-incrimination.

Cleveland Bronco and others are correct that so long as there is no threat of criminal prosecution, then the 5th amendment privilege would not apply and they could compel testimony (with the threat of incarceration until compliance).

However, I do not agree that Bush's commutation means that Scooter would have to testify. If Scooter wins or loses his appeal, then his threat of prosecution for obstruction would be gone, his defense lawyer might even rightly argue that Scooter potentially faces other charges that have never been brought against him that he could face penalty for. So he may still be able to use the 5th.

banyon
07-05-2007, 09:59 PM
So how much time did Clinton spend in jail for perjury? Oh, thats right, none.

Obviously, sitting presidents cannot be tried for criminal actions while in office, while Libby can. Clinton was tried dby the Senate, which is the body that the Constitution recommends, yet was acquitted. Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers, thus the difference. If you do not believe in a trial by your peers, then move to Singapore or Russia.

banyon
07-05-2007, 10:02 PM
I can agree to a point. Something we don't see, and probably will never see is that type of wrongdoing in other administrations because in the past we didn't have the communications we do now. In FDR's time if something was wrong the people kept closed mouth about it. If someone was suspected of being a leaker they would have simply been eliminated.

Think about how much Clintonesque activity went on during the Kennedy administration, not that law was being subverted, but the silence about the sexual antics of JFK.

I don't know if it's the advent of the internet, but wide open global communications seems to keep anyone in the public eye really in the public eye. Secrets are no longer held.

This douche is obviously Tom. This avatar dates back to when he was R8ter H8ter.

banyon
07-05-2007, 10:04 PM
The evidence of perjury was judged by a jury pool from DC which is over 80% Democrat. That and the fact that this was all originated by the Dems is good enough for me. Evidence you ask? Ok, Bill's spooge was all over Monica's dress and he denied it in testimony before a Grand Jury and was convicted of Perjury. Libby just said "I don't recall" and the jury decided he did remember and therefore committed perjury and convicted him.

I mean this is how politics works be you a Dem. or Republican. If your a public official you run the risk of people coming for you with a political agenda.

Bil was convicted of perjury? By whom? Would you care to lay some money on the question?