Opinions on Scooter Libby's Sentence being Commuted
- Thread starter Riktoven
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
The final days of Clinton they were pardoning just about everybody.
The final days of Clinton they were pardoning just about everybody.
two wrongs do not make a right, what clinton did was wrong, but that was 7 years ago
what bush is doing is in the here and now, unfortuantely probably 50% of the American public could not even tell you who scooter libby is
so nothing will happen and the next president will do the same
business as usual in washingtion, everyone please go back to watching american idol
two wrongs do not make a right, what clinton did was wrong, but that was 7 years ago
what bush is doing is in the here and now, unfortuantely probably 50% of the American public could not even tell you who scooter libby is
so nothing will happen and the next president will do the same
business as usual in washingtion, everyone please go back to watching american idol
The Law
Member
I believe Clinton doled out about 150 pardons and commuted about 40 sentences.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
This is conveniently forgotten by the MSM and Dems.
this pardon/commutation means that the Admin is essentially untouchable by any criminal investigation because
(a) once you get high enough, the senior officials just lie so it is impossible to reach the President and
(b) those officials are then pardoned/commuted by the President that you aren't able to reach.
libby is just being paid back for taking the fall
(a) once you get high enough, the senior officials just lie so it is impossible to reach the President and
(b) those officials are then pardoned/commuted by the President that you aren't able to reach.
libby is just being paid back for taking the fall
Lone_Gunman
Member
I know it sucks when someone comes along and introduces a little reality into the discussion. Here is a little perspective on presidential clemency actions (please note that Bill Clinton was by no means the worst offender):
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm
Note in particular that Clinton had 456 clemency actions. Richard Nixon had 926. Ronald Reagan, who granted 406 clemency actions, was pretty close to Clinton.
So I don't really see how the number Clinton had was really anything remarkable.
Also, we are not yet in the "final days" of the Bush administration. We will see a lot more from him before his time is passed.
BryanP
Member
Hey, at least he kept his word.
He took care of him all right. Halliburton owes Cheney for a lot of no-bid contracts. Cheney owes Scooter for muddying the waters in the Plame affair. Any bets on whether Scooter lands a choice position at Halliburton in the near future?
He took care of him all right. Halliburton owes Cheney for a lot of no-bid contracts. Cheney owes Scooter for muddying the waters in the Plame affair. Any bets on whether Scooter lands a choice position at Halliburton in the near future?
MrTuffPaws
Member
What I think about it???? "It's good to be rich and in power."
budney
member
I condemned Clinton when he did it; now I'm condemning Bush when he does it. That's consistent. Those of you saying, "So what? Clinton did it!" Were you equally accepting at the time, or did you condemn Clinton for what you now excuse Bush?
--Len.
budney
member
I'm sure it was part of the deal they made with Libby when he agreed to take the fall for his boss.
--Len.
PressCheck
Member
Yup, and it's the right thing to do.
This is Bush Strategery in action. He commutes Libby so he doesn't have to serve time in federal prison. Libby will appeal the conviction and fine. If the appeal goes in Libby's favor, everything is good, and Bush can claim the system worked properly. If the appeal fails, Bush can pardon Libby on the last day of his presidency.
Strategery in action.
Strategery in action.
CDignition
Member
Bush Wont pardon till all Appeals are done...After that is done, he will(Assuming it isnt all thrown out on appeal)..
Go Bush, the right decision.
Go Bush, the right decision.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The theory is that a President can put individual law breakers and their punishements aside if he sees it being "for the common good".
The President was elected,he's using his Constitutional powers.
Clinton did it, Ford pardoned Nixon, this is nothing new.
Why anyone cares is the question that concerns me.
Are things going so well in a thousand other areas that we have time to worry about this bottom of the barrel minutia?
The only real way Justice could be served here is by moving on to things that matter.
The President was elected,he's using his Constitutional powers.
Clinton did it, Ford pardoned Nixon, this is nothing new.
Why anyone cares is the question that concerns me.
Are things going so well in a thousand other areas that we have time to worry about this bottom of the barrel minutia?
The only real way Justice could be served here is by moving on to things that matter.
Two Cold Soakers
Member
Another case of some animals being more equal than others.
Nothing to see here.
Nothing to see here.
longeyes
member
some background in the realm of gangsta politics
from Steve Sailer:
Monday, October 31, 2005
The Scooter Libby-Marc Rich connection
As I pointed out on Friday, you can make a lot of money being a mob lawyer, but in return you normally have to sacrifice your ambitions for positions of power and trust in the government. Nobody would allow John Gotti's lawyer to become "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney," but, until very recently, there were few vocal objections to I. Lewis Libby, the long-time lawyer for world-class mobster Marc Rich, being a key player in the White House for the last half decade. Why the double standard?
Jim Pinkerton writes in Newsday:
... Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York flailed at Libby, declaring the alleged actions of Vice President Dick Cheney's now-former chief of staff to be "reprehensible."
Clinton must be careful, however, because Libby's past legal career is closely intertwined with her husband's presidency. During the 1980s and 1990s, Libby was a lawyer for Marc Rich.
And if you don't remember Marc Rich, you will be reminded of him soon enough. He's the American financier who skipped out of the United States in 1983, one step ahead of a $48-million tax bill and a 51-count indictment for various skullduggeries, including trading with Iran amidst the American hostage crisis. As Rich's lawyer over the next two decades, Libby collected, by his own estimate, some $2 million in fees.
Wait, there's more. In January 2001, outgoing President Bill Clinton gave Rich a pardon. Interestingly, Rich's ex-wife, Denise, donated more than a million dollars to Democratic causes around then, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Libby denied having anything to do with the pardon effort, but admitted he had called Rich on January 22, 2001 - which is to say, after he started working for Cheney - to congratulate him on his getting off. And Libby's powerful presence inside the White House - his title was assistant to George W. Bush as well chief of staff to Cheney - might help explain why the incoming Bush administration failed to pursue obvious threads of corruption trailing out of President Clinton's pardon of Rich and other dubious figures.
For his part, Rich shows no signs of behaving better. Still wheeling and dealing out of Switzerland, he is a featured nogoodnik in the new UN report on Saddam Hussein and the UN's corrupt Oil for Food program. Which is to say, investigators might wish to look into any continuing Libby-Rich links.
Back in 2001, Clinton wrote in the NYT to explain his pardon of Rich:
7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff;
After first scoffing at Clinton's citation of Libby's involvement, Byron York changed his tune in National Review Online after he listened to Libby's testimony:
Bad Night for the GOP: Lewis Libby comes to Marc Rich’s defense.
March 2, 2001 8:55 a.m.
Lewis Libby, a top Republican lawyer who is now vice president Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told the House Government Reform Committee last night that he agreed with much of Bill Clinton's widely discredited op-ed article outlining the former president's reasons for pardoning fugitive tax evader Marc Rich.
In a session that stretched late into the evening, Libby, who represented Rich for several years ending in the spring of 2000, told the committee he believes Rich is not guilty of the tax and racketeering charges filed by federal prosecutors in 1983. Libby also said he "quite possibly" would have considered applying for a pardon for Rich had Rich asked him to do so.
Libby, who said his law firms collected as much as $2 million for representing Rich, testified he had nothing to do with the application that led to clemency for Rich. He declined to say whether he approved of the decision to pardon Rich, but he conceded that he called Rich on January 22, two days after the pardon, to "congratulate him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time." Libby testified he made the call from his home to make clear that he was calling in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Bush administration.
In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer.
For Republicans, Libby's testimony was a sour endnote to what had been a long day of revelations that made President Clinton's decision to pardon Rich seem even more inexplicable than previously thought.
Pinkerton served in the Reagan and first Bush White Houses, but I think he's being naive to think that the Libby-Rich connection will be given much of an airing in the press. They've had close to five years to discuss it and it's never gotten any traction.
Why not?
Clinton argued in defense of his pardon for Rich:
(8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank.
That appears to be plausible. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff broke a story in August 2001 based on transcripts of phone conversations between Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak:
Barak first raised the issue with Clinton on Dec. 11, 2000, the same day Jack Quinn, Rich's newly hired lawyer (and former Clinton White House counsel) submitted a thick pardon application that included a personal letter from Rich's ex-wife Denise requesting the pardon be granted.
In that first conversation, Barak described Rich as a "Jewish American businessman" who was "making a lot of philanthropic contributions to Israeli institutions and activities like education."
Barak acknowledged that Rich had "violated certain rules of the game in the United States." But "I just wanted to let you know that here he is highly appreciated," the Israeli leader said. Clinton was not caught off guard by the information. "I know about the case because I know his ex-wife. She wants to help him, too. If your ex-wife wants to help you, that's good."
Barak raised the issue of a Rich pardon a second time on Jan. 8, 2001, with less than two weeks left in Clinton's presidency. "I believe it could be important (gap) not just financially, but he helped Mossad [the Israeli intelligence agency] on more than one case." [The word "gap" is typically used when note-takers cannot make out a garbled word or sentence.]
Clinton, who described the case as "bizarre," warned Barak: "It's best that we not say much about that." "Okay, I'm not mentioning it anyplace," Barak said.
In their third conversation, on Jan. 19, transcripts show the two leaders spoke by phone for 22 minutes, between 2:47 p.m. and 3:09 p.m., and that it was Clinton and not Barak who raised the Rich matter that afternoon.
"I'm trying to do something on clemency for Rich, but it is very difficult," Clinton said. "Might it move forward?" Barak asked. The president ruminated about the problems he was facing.
"I'm working on that, but I'm not sure. There's nothing illegal about it, but there's no precedent. He was overseas when he was indicted and never came home."
Clinton concluded that the question "is not whether he should get it or not, but whether he should get it without coming back here. That's the dilemma I'm working through."
The Forward newspaper of New York (formerly the Jewish Daily Forward), which provides better coverage of this kind of issue than the mainstream media, reported in 2003:
Marc Rich, the pardoned tax fugitive, has given away more than $100 million in the last two decades, according to an elegant, hard-bound history of his philanthropic work issued recently by his foundation.
It turns out, though, that even if recipients returned every penny, it still might not be enough to settle his tax bill. New York state tax authorities told the Forward that a two-year-old warrant seeking $137 million from Rich in unpaid state taxes and fines remains outstanding.
The billionaire financier is best known as the recipient of a controversial January 2001 pardon from then-president Bill Clinton. Rich had fled the United States for Europe in 1983 shortly before a grand jury indicted him on charges that he and his associates plotted to evade $48 million in federal taxes and violated sanctions against Iran while Americans were being held hostage there.
But the Switzerland-based Rich Foundation for Education, Culture and Welfare is highlighting another side of Rich's activities during the last two decades. In recent months, it has mailed out approximately 1,000 copies of a hard-bound, 105-page commemorative book detailing 20 years of Rich's charitable work. The book has been sent to other foundations, non-profit organizations and journalists around the world, said Avner Azulay, the Rich Foundation's Israel-based managing director, in an e-mail to the Forward.
Between 1981 and 2001, Rich's foundations gave approximately $115 million to nearly 1,200 organizations in more than 50 countries, according to the book. The majority of Rich's giving — $60.2 million — has been in Israel, where he has funded a diverse array of cultural, educational, social welfare and Jewish-Arab coexistence projects. Rich has also given widely to both Jewish and non-Jewish causes in Latin America and Europe, and he donated $395,000 to fund projects, such as public-health efforts, in the Palestinian territories....
Azulay, a former Mossad agent, said that questions about Rich's legal issues and personal matters are "irrelevant to the Rich Foundation's activity, before or after the pardon." Rich did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.
One of Rich's most prominent gifts was to Birthright Israel, the $210 million Jerusalem-based partnership between Jewish communities around the world, the Israeli government and Diaspora Jewish philanthropists that has brought 40,000 young Jews on trips to Israel since 2000. As one of its philanthropic partners, Rich pledged $5 million to the program.
Rich, who has renounced his American citizenship, has been more modest in his giving to programs in the United States — such gifts total only $3.7 million...
Only 17 American Jewish groups and institutions are listed in the commemorative book as having received funding for American-based projects, including, among others, several yeshivas, the Center for Jewish History in New York and the Anti-Defamation League.
Rich's giving, and the suspicion that it contributed to the willingness of prominent American Jews and Israeli officials to support his clemency effort, sparked an uproar in some segments of the American Jewish community.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, blasted those who had supported Rich's pardon appeal after accepting his money. Writing in a February 2001 opinion article, the Reform leader argued that the fugitive's supporters "were bought" by his philanthropy.
Prominent individuals associated with Birthright Israel wrote to the president urging him to pardon Rich. So did the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, whose organization received $250,000 from Rich. Foxman later declared at a press conference that it had "probably" been a mistake to lobby Clinton for the pardon...
A new round of publicity regarding the pardon appeared to be avoided late last month, when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler upheld the right of the Bush administration to deny public access to records on the 177 pardons and commutations Clinton approved on his last day in office.
from Steve Sailer:
Monday, October 31, 2005
The Scooter Libby-Marc Rich connection
As I pointed out on Friday, you can make a lot of money being a mob lawyer, but in return you normally have to sacrifice your ambitions for positions of power and trust in the government. Nobody would allow John Gotti's lawyer to become "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney," but, until very recently, there were few vocal objections to I. Lewis Libby, the long-time lawyer for world-class mobster Marc Rich, being a key player in the White House for the last half decade. Why the double standard?
Jim Pinkerton writes in Newsday:
... Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York flailed at Libby, declaring the alleged actions of Vice President Dick Cheney's now-former chief of staff to be "reprehensible."
Clinton must be careful, however, because Libby's past legal career is closely intertwined with her husband's presidency. During the 1980s and 1990s, Libby was a lawyer for Marc Rich.
And if you don't remember Marc Rich, you will be reminded of him soon enough. He's the American financier who skipped out of the United States in 1983, one step ahead of a $48-million tax bill and a 51-count indictment for various skullduggeries, including trading with Iran amidst the American hostage crisis. As Rich's lawyer over the next two decades, Libby collected, by his own estimate, some $2 million in fees.
Wait, there's more. In January 2001, outgoing President Bill Clinton gave Rich a pardon. Interestingly, Rich's ex-wife, Denise, donated more than a million dollars to Democratic causes around then, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Libby denied having anything to do with the pardon effort, but admitted he had called Rich on January 22, 2001 - which is to say, after he started working for Cheney - to congratulate him on his getting off. And Libby's powerful presence inside the White House - his title was assistant to George W. Bush as well chief of staff to Cheney - might help explain why the incoming Bush administration failed to pursue obvious threads of corruption trailing out of President Clinton's pardon of Rich and other dubious figures.
For his part, Rich shows no signs of behaving better. Still wheeling and dealing out of Switzerland, he is a featured nogoodnik in the new UN report on Saddam Hussein and the UN's corrupt Oil for Food program. Which is to say, investigators might wish to look into any continuing Libby-Rich links.
Back in 2001, Clinton wrote in the NYT to explain his pardon of Rich:
7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff;
After first scoffing at Clinton's citation of Libby's involvement, Byron York changed his tune in National Review Online after he listened to Libby's testimony:
Bad Night for the GOP: Lewis Libby comes to Marc Rich’s defense.
March 2, 2001 8:55 a.m.
Lewis Libby, a top Republican lawyer who is now vice president Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told the House Government Reform Committee last night that he agreed with much of Bill Clinton's widely discredited op-ed article outlining the former president's reasons for pardoning fugitive tax evader Marc Rich.
In a session that stretched late into the evening, Libby, who represented Rich for several years ending in the spring of 2000, told the committee he believes Rich is not guilty of the tax and racketeering charges filed by federal prosecutors in 1983. Libby also said he "quite possibly" would have considered applying for a pardon for Rich had Rich asked him to do so.
Libby, who said his law firms collected as much as $2 million for representing Rich, testified he had nothing to do with the application that led to clemency for Rich. He declined to say whether he approved of the decision to pardon Rich, but he conceded that he called Rich on January 22, two days after the pardon, to "congratulate him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time." Libby testified he made the call from his home to make clear that he was calling in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Bush administration.
In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer.
For Republicans, Libby's testimony was a sour endnote to what had been a long day of revelations that made President Clinton's decision to pardon Rich seem even more inexplicable than previously thought.
Pinkerton served in the Reagan and first Bush White Houses, but I think he's being naive to think that the Libby-Rich connection will be given much of an airing in the press. They've had close to five years to discuss it and it's never gotten any traction.
Why not?
Clinton argued in defense of his pardon for Rich:
(8) finally, and importantly, many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank.
That appears to be plausible. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff broke a story in August 2001 based on transcripts of phone conversations between Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak:
Barak first raised the issue with Clinton on Dec. 11, 2000, the same day Jack Quinn, Rich's newly hired lawyer (and former Clinton White House counsel) submitted a thick pardon application that included a personal letter from Rich's ex-wife Denise requesting the pardon be granted.
In that first conversation, Barak described Rich as a "Jewish American businessman" who was "making a lot of philanthropic contributions to Israeli institutions and activities like education."
Barak acknowledged that Rich had "violated certain rules of the game in the United States." But "I just wanted to let you know that here he is highly appreciated," the Israeli leader said. Clinton was not caught off guard by the information. "I know about the case because I know his ex-wife. She wants to help him, too. If your ex-wife wants to help you, that's good."
Barak raised the issue of a Rich pardon a second time on Jan. 8, 2001, with less than two weeks left in Clinton's presidency. "I believe it could be important (gap) not just financially, but he helped Mossad [the Israeli intelligence agency] on more than one case." [The word "gap" is typically used when note-takers cannot make out a garbled word or sentence.]
Clinton, who described the case as "bizarre," warned Barak: "It's best that we not say much about that." "Okay, I'm not mentioning it anyplace," Barak said.
In their third conversation, on Jan. 19, transcripts show the two leaders spoke by phone for 22 minutes, between 2:47 p.m. and 3:09 p.m., and that it was Clinton and not Barak who raised the Rich matter that afternoon.
"I'm trying to do something on clemency for Rich, but it is very difficult," Clinton said. "Might it move forward?" Barak asked. The president ruminated about the problems he was facing.
"I'm working on that, but I'm not sure. There's nothing illegal about it, but there's no precedent. He was overseas when he was indicted and never came home."
Clinton concluded that the question "is not whether he should get it or not, but whether he should get it without coming back here. That's the dilemma I'm working through."
The Forward newspaper of New York (formerly the Jewish Daily Forward), which provides better coverage of this kind of issue than the mainstream media, reported in 2003:
Marc Rich, the pardoned tax fugitive, has given away more than $100 million in the last two decades, according to an elegant, hard-bound history of his philanthropic work issued recently by his foundation.
It turns out, though, that even if recipients returned every penny, it still might not be enough to settle his tax bill. New York state tax authorities told the Forward that a two-year-old warrant seeking $137 million from Rich in unpaid state taxes and fines remains outstanding.
The billionaire financier is best known as the recipient of a controversial January 2001 pardon from then-president Bill Clinton. Rich had fled the United States for Europe in 1983 shortly before a grand jury indicted him on charges that he and his associates plotted to evade $48 million in federal taxes and violated sanctions against Iran while Americans were being held hostage there.
But the Switzerland-based Rich Foundation for Education, Culture and Welfare is highlighting another side of Rich's activities during the last two decades. In recent months, it has mailed out approximately 1,000 copies of a hard-bound, 105-page commemorative book detailing 20 years of Rich's charitable work. The book has been sent to other foundations, non-profit organizations and journalists around the world, said Avner Azulay, the Rich Foundation's Israel-based managing director, in an e-mail to the Forward.
Between 1981 and 2001, Rich's foundations gave approximately $115 million to nearly 1,200 organizations in more than 50 countries, according to the book. The majority of Rich's giving — $60.2 million — has been in Israel, where he has funded a diverse array of cultural, educational, social welfare and Jewish-Arab coexistence projects. Rich has also given widely to both Jewish and non-Jewish causes in Latin America and Europe, and he donated $395,000 to fund projects, such as public-health efforts, in the Palestinian territories....
Azulay, a former Mossad agent, said that questions about Rich's legal issues and personal matters are "irrelevant to the Rich Foundation's activity, before or after the pardon." Rich did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.
One of Rich's most prominent gifts was to Birthright Israel, the $210 million Jerusalem-based partnership between Jewish communities around the world, the Israeli government and Diaspora Jewish philanthropists that has brought 40,000 young Jews on trips to Israel since 2000. As one of its philanthropic partners, Rich pledged $5 million to the program.
Rich, who has renounced his American citizenship, has been more modest in his giving to programs in the United States — such gifts total only $3.7 million...
Only 17 American Jewish groups and institutions are listed in the commemorative book as having received funding for American-based projects, including, among others, several yeshivas, the Center for Jewish History in New York and the Anti-Defamation League.
Rich's giving, and the suspicion that it contributed to the willingness of prominent American Jews and Israeli officials to support his clemency effort, sparked an uproar in some segments of the American Jewish community.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, blasted those who had supported Rich's pardon appeal after accepting his money. Writing in a February 2001 opinion article, the Reform leader argued that the fugitive's supporters "were bought" by his philanthropy.
Prominent individuals associated with Birthright Israel wrote to the president urging him to pardon Rich. So did the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, whose organization received $250,000 from Rich. Foxman later declared at a press conference that it had "probably" been a mistake to lobby Clinton for the pardon...
A new round of publicity regarding the pardon appeared to be avoided late last month, when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler upheld the right of the Bush administration to deny public access to records on the 177 pardons and commutations Clinton approved on his last day in office.
Master Blaster
Member
difference between Democrats and Republicans?
the difference between Democrats and republicans is like the difference between a Turd sandwhich, and a Turd sandwhich with mustard.
the difference between Democrats and republicans is like the difference between a Turd sandwhich, and a Turd sandwhich with mustard.
macd
Member
Who gives a * what Clinton did. This isnt about Clintion, its about bush and his total disregard for the law and our Constitution. Just like that slimeball cheney claiming not to part of the executive branch and their refusal to obey a congressional subpoena. If this prez and vp doesnt have to abide by the check and balances our forefathers put forth then what will make anyone else that occupies that office do so in the future. This is a turning point in history right now. We are on the edge of going from democracy to dictatorship. bush is NOT the emporer here.
The fact is anyone that supports these actions is hypocrisy to the Nth degree.
Fact is scooter lied to a grand jury. Period. Whether you agree with the charges or not, he still lied. He was prosecuted by a republican appointed prosecuter and sentenced and then denied appeal all by republican appointed judges. That is the law. When the judge and jury speaks, that is the LAW. If you dont like it, leave. But that is the way our country was founded. This scumbag in the white house, just took a dump on our laws and our Constitution.
What pisses me off even more is the Democrats sit there like a bunch of do nothings. Friggen protect the Constitution or something. Anyone that supports or defends either party has some serious issues. Time to start thinking for ourselves folks.
The fact is anyone that supports these actions is hypocrisy to the Nth degree.
Fact is scooter lied to a grand jury. Period. Whether you agree with the charges or not, he still lied. He was prosecuted by a republican appointed prosecuter and sentenced and then denied appeal all by republican appointed judges. That is the law. When the judge and jury speaks, that is the LAW. If you dont like it, leave. But that is the way our country was founded. This scumbag in the white house, just took a dump on our laws and our Constitution.
What pisses me off even more is the Democrats sit there like a bunch of do nothings. Friggen protect the Constitution or something. Anyone that supports or defends either party has some serious issues. Time to start thinking for ourselves folks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Libby was going to sing to keep his a$$ out of prison. Now the bush administration is safe and we will never be able to prosecute the original leakers (someone had to tell Libby so he could tell Rove and Armitage). Libby did not leak her name on his own initiative. Now Dick and (probably) George are safe again.
Perhaps Dick declassified Plame's standing (he was given that power, the 1st time for a VP) so he could pass the information on. That looks just as bad.
It is all handled now. no jail for Libby, no risk for this administration.
Libby - 30 months for Obstruction, Perjury and Lying to a Grand Jury.
John Mitchell - guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury - two and a half to eight years in prison.
John Ehrlichman - conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges - two and a half years in prison.
Charles Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Ellsberg case. - one-to-three year sentence, fined $5,000, and disbarred.
Libby's 30 months seems about right. It was handed down by one of GWB's appointments, prosecuted by GWB's DOJ assigned prosecutor, and reviewed by Republican appointed justices. Sounds like a left wing conspiracy!
Perhaps Dick declassified Plame's standing (he was given that power, the 1st time for a VP) so he could pass the information on. That looks just as bad.
It is all handled now. no jail for Libby, no risk for this administration.
Libby - 30 months for Obstruction, Perjury and Lying to a Grand Jury.
John Mitchell - guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury - two and a half to eight years in prison.
John Ehrlichman - conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges - two and a half years in prison.
Charles Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Ellsberg case. - one-to-three year sentence, fined $5,000, and disbarred.
Libby's 30 months seems about right. It was handed down by one of GWB's appointments, prosecuted by GWB's DOJ assigned prosecutor, and reviewed by Republican appointed justices. Sounds like a left wing conspiracy!
How was Sandy supposed to know that people had stuffed all those Bin Laden documents in his socks and underwear?
Good thing Valerie Flame never has been and never will be a CIA agent. She's was only an analyst. And that's why NO ONE was ever charged with outing a CIA Agent.
Libby should never have been prosecuted.
It has become clear that Fitzgerald knew for quite some time that there was no underlying crime, and the investigation should have been dropped. Surely there were some REAL crimes going on in the Federal Government in the same time frame?!?
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are white collar versions of the Duke Lacrosse team, scapegoats for anger, not actual criminals.
The mentality of some in our justice system reminds me of the French Reign of Terror in 1793. This tendency towards turning every public (or even academic) displeasure into the prosecution of any available low-hanging fruit is far more frightening than the Patriot Act.
Furthermore, I think it's equally frightening that some of you here are cheerleaders for this. Actually, it's disgusting.
It has become clear that Fitzgerald knew for quite some time that there was no underlying crime, and the investigation should have been dropped. Surely there were some REAL crimes going on in the Federal Government in the same time frame?!?
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are white collar versions of the Duke Lacrosse team, scapegoats for anger, not actual criminals.
The mentality of some in our justice system reminds me of the French Reign of Terror in 1793. This tendency towards turning every public (or even academic) displeasure into the prosecution of any available low-hanging fruit is far more frightening than the Patriot Act.
Furthermore, I think it's equally frightening that some of you here are cheerleaders for this. Actually, it's disgusting.
Hyperbole? Just a bit.
First of all, judges don't parole anyone, parole boards do. In addition, most states have pretty heavy "repeat offender" laws, "three strikes etc" especially in regard to crimes involving minors.
At any rate, your argument, and all the "clinton" arguments consist basically of saying "someone else did something the same or worse, so this is fine.".
BS. It's not fine, it's not fine before or in the future, and we as citizens are obligated to remind our reps that we don't think it's fine to abuse the powers of office.
- Status
