Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100

Thread: OT: Bush Spares Libby From Prison...Grant of Executive Clemency...

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Read Christopher Hitchens' piece on it, says basically what needs to be said.

    We've been over this a million times of this board and liberals have to cling to their "Bush Lied!" fantasies. It's funny to me.[/QUOTE]

    The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration--I think its more those than dishonesty, actually, except in Cheney's case-- is so well documented by this point that there's no need to scream about it anymore. The country gets it.

    This is part and parcel of one of the dominant themes of this presidency: Rules and laws are for other people to follow.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]What Clinton did was outrageous. I fumed at him at the time.

    That doesn't make this anything less than what it is: an abuse of power. Bush has spent his entire career saying executives shouldn't offer pardons/clemency that overrides the will of a jury.

    In Texas, he executed Karla Fay Tucker --who unlike Libby was repentent-- after the pope lobbied for the death sentence to be commuted. Then he mocked her before she died.

    But suddenly, when someone who has the goods on his administration is facing jail time, Bush decides its time to reverse himself. Never mind that there is no dispute over Libby's guilt, and that the sentence was in line with federal sentencing guidelines. Never mind that there is an exhaustive process for applying for a pardon/clemency that was totally disregarded here.[/QUOTE]

    Libby is presently in an appeals process, why would he be repentent if he contends he was innocent and the appeal is still ongoing? Acting repentent would sort of undermine his contention that his is innocent, no? If you didn't do anything wrong, there is nothing to repent for.

    Bush didn't execute Tucker, he simply didn't interfere with the sentence and conviction in that case and she was executed because she was guilty of an offense that merited the death penalty in the State of Texas. I know liberals made her a cause celebre, but Bush didn't execute her at all. The State of Texas did. Liberals have an anti-death pentalty agenda and when describing the death pentalty as cruel and ususual or racist has failed, liberals have lately tried the strategy of making the murderers seem to be swell people. Like the founder of the Crips who was killed recently was repainted as a decent mad because hey, he wrote children's books while in prison. Didn't Tucker hack someone to death? Yeah, but she was repentent and Libby isn't, even though Libby isn't and his crime was not hacking someone to death, but rather "lying" to a grand jury during an investigatioj of a crime they already had determined didn't take place. Sounds like a reasonable comparison to me. My God, your phrasings are consistently lazy and absurdly partisan lately. I am beginning to think you are more of a hack than you seemd to be at first. That's too bad.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Read Christopher Hitchens' piece on it, says basically what needs to be said.[/QUOTE]


    link me pls and thx

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration--I think its more those than dishonesty, actually, except in Cheney's case-- is so well documented by this point that there's no need to scream about it anymore. The country gets it.

    This is part and parcel of one of the dominant themes of this presidency: Rules and laws are for other people to follow.[/QUOTE]


    They are arrogant and incompetent in many ways, I agree. But I also think liberals whine like little girls and misrepresent what has actually happened in many instances (this being one of them) and I would contend that MUCH of this faux outrage is just sour grapes and political read meat for a liberal base that is increasingly hysterical in the extreme.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]link me pls and thx[/QUOTE]
    [url]http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/[/url]

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Libby is presently in an appeals process, why would he be repentent if he contends he was innocent and the appeal is still ongoing? Acting repentent would sort of undermine his contention that his is innocent, no? If you didn't do anything wrong, there is nothing to repent for.

    Bush didn't execute Tucker, he simply didn't interfere with the sentence and conviction in that case and she was executed because she was guilty of an offense that merited the death penalty in the State of Texas. I know liberals made her a cause celebre, but Bush didn't execute her at all. The State of Texas did. Liberals have an anti-death pentalty agenda and when describing the death pentalty as cruel and ususual or racist has failed, liberals have lately tried the strategy of making the murderers seem to be swell people. Like the founder of the Crips who was killed recently was repainted as a decent mad because hey, he wrote children's books while in prison. Didn't Tucker hack someone to death? Yeah, but she was repentent and Libby isn't, even though Libby isn't and his crime was not hacking someone to death, but rather "lying" to a grand jury during an investigatioj of a crime they already had determined didn't take place. Sounds like a reasonable comparison to me. My God, your phrasings are consistently lazy and absurdly partisan lately. I am beginning to think you are more of a hack than you seemd to be at first. That's too bad.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, spare me the indignation. You understand the difference between commuting and pardoning, which is all anyone was asking for in Tucker's case -- and also applies here. (For the record: Bush didn't commute any death sentences in Texas, and there were plenty where guilt was in doubt, to say the least.)

    Here's what you refuse to answer: Why commute the sentence before the appeal was heard. Libby was found guilty, after all. Why is George Bush preempting the courts? Why not wait for the appeal to be heard and ruled upon?

    Has there ever been a "preemptive commutation" in history? (This is believed to be the first ever in an obstruction of justice case, at least.) Please explain to me --in your own words-- why it's OK to have one set of rules for members of the administration and another set for everyone else?

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Oh, spare me the indignation. You understand the difference between commuting and pardoning, which is all anyone was asking for in Tucker's case -- and also applies here. (For the record: Bush didn't commute any death sentences in Texas, and there were plenty where guilt was in doubt, to say the least.)

    Here's what you refuse to answer: Why commute the sentence before the appeal was heard. Libby was found guilty, after all. Why is George Bush preempting the courts? Why not wait for the appeal to be heard and ruled upon?

    Has there ever been a "preemptive commutation" in history? (This is believed to be the first ever in an obstruction of justice case, at least.) Please explain to me --in your own words-- why it's OK to have one set of rules for members of the administration and another set for everyone else?[/QUOTE]

    So, guilt was "in doubt" in those murder cases in Texas but isn't in doubt here? And you know this because? I mean, Libby was found guilty and that is a HUGE deal to you, but those murderers in Texas' guilt was "in doubt, to say the least" even though they were also found guilty of crimes that acually had (1) real victims and (2) real injuries. Where is the injury in Libby's crime? Where are the victims? Leaking Plame's name was not a crime and Libby didn't even do it. What did he gain by "lying?" Who did he injure? There was no leak for Libby to cover up...it was Armitrage and Fitz knew it and knew it wasn't a crime. The liberal myth about Joe Wilson and this story has been shattered, absolutely shattered, by the facts.

    Here's my answer - Because Libby's guilt is in doubt, to say the least, in my opinion. Because Bush agrees with that statement and he doesn't want Libby to do jail time for a b*llsh*t "crime" which is nothing more than the criminalizatiojn of everyday politics and he commuted the sentence because he was given that power by the constitution and is excercising it as he sees fit.

    Who gives a sh*t if it is the first? This was a nakedly political, sham of a trial and everyone knows it. So spare me YOUR indignation about this. All of a suffen you have grave procedural problems with this? Like you give a SH*T if Bush had waited to commute or pardon...that's a good one. The timing is not your problem, you disagree with the substance of the commutation, so spare me this newfound devotion to procedure....it's insulting.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 07-03-2007 at 10:01 AM.

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]rather "lying" to a grand jury during an investigatioj of a crime they already had determined didn't take place. .[/QUOTE]

    Lying to a grand jury is acceptable?

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,999
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Why commute the sentence before the appeal was heard?[/QUOTE]


    That's actually a very good point.


    Like I said before...if a common everyday run-of-the-mill citizen lie to a grand jury, the consequences would not be avoided by a "pardon" or sentence "commuting" or whatever thesaurical word you would like to call it.

    Libby has received this blessing of no jail time because the bosses whom he deflected heat away from are still in the position of power to grant him this clemency. He was a "good soldier"...and a pardon is actually what he deserves. Not because he is poor poor innocent Scooter who's family has been through sooooo very much. But because he is a DC insider (lol) with friends in high places. Plain and simple.

    The guy is just a typical scumbag politician...and political scumbagginess knows no political party boundaries. The feigned democrat outrage from this is quite funny. Please. Like they wouldn't do the same. Spare us the talk of democrats being the party of "morals" and "justice". They engage in the same political reacharounds that the current administration engages in.

    It is, however, funny to see "big bad scary" politicians thourougly scared 2 death by the prospect of jail time. What a bunch of p*ssies... :rolleyes:

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Buster]Lying to a grand jury is acceptable?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think he lied.

  11. #31
    The problem here isn't that a crime was or wasn't committed the problem is that Libby lied in order to obstruct Justice. I don't think Libby should go to jail for being the fall guy for Cheney or Rove, so I think what Bush did was actually pretty fair.

    What really went on was nothing more than under handed politics. Had Cheney and Rove done the right thing and been straight with the American people about their different take on the issues from Wilsons this would never have been an issue. It was their underhanded methods of discrediting the messenger instead of the message which lead to perjury in order to obstruct the investigation that the President instigated.

  12. #32
    this situation pretty much speaks for itself

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]I don't think he lied.[/QUOTE]


    12 jurors disagree and convicted him multiple times over... so he definitely did, at least legally speaking and is now a felon

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]
    Has there ever been a "preemptive commutation" in history? (This is believed to be the first ever in an obstruction of justice case, at least.) Please explain to me --in your own words-- why it's OK to have one set of rules for members of the administration and another set for everyone else?[/QUOTE]


    Compared to the Marc Rich pardon, this was kid stuff. All Bush did was reduce the sentence, Rich bought his way out of going to trial.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Compared to the Marc Rich pardon, this was kid stuff. All Bush did was reduce the sentence, Rich bought his way out of going to trial.[/QUOTE]


    I disagree... pardoning/commuting sentence for someone in your own administration reeks of a cover up and is far more dangerous

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Compared to the Marc Rich pardon, this was kid stuff. All Bush did was reduce the sentence, Rich bought his way out of going to trial.[/QUOTE]

    I agree that the Rich thing was outrageous, and said so above and also at the time.

    But I can't recall --and am too lazy to look up-- if Rich's trial was over, pending appeal or hadn't yet happened.

    I'm unaware of another case where the sentence was commuted while the appeal was pending. Seems extremely unusual for the executive branch to interject while the judicial process hadn't yet finished, and even moreso in the middle of a term when there's still time for Bush to let the situation play out, even if he meant to commute the sentence all along.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]12 jurors disagree and convicted him multiple times over... so he definitely did, at least legally speaking and is now a felon[/QUOTE]
    Right. Same with everyone who has ever been commuted or pardoned. Same with those murderers in Texas. The only one who isn't a criminal is OJ. ;)

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]I disagree... pardoning/commuting sentence for someone in your own administration reeks of a cover up and is far more dangerous[/QUOTE]

    Rich wrote the Clintons a check! Of COURSE you think thnis is worse, you are biased. I am biased too, but I admit it. I doubt you or Nuu will admit your biases....

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]I disagree... pardoning/commuting sentence for someone in your own administration reeks of a cover up and is far more dangerous[/QUOTE]

    Libby wasn't pardoned was he, he still will have the record and still faced a stiff fine. And what was he convicted of? Perjury.

    Marc Rich was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for years. His case was the biggest tax evasion case in the history of the country. He also illegally traded Iranian oil during the hostage crisis.

    This is what Rich was indicted for:
    Tax evasion
    Wire fraud
    Mail fraud
    Trading with enemies of the United States and
    Racketeering

    He than fled prosecution so he was essential a fugitive from the US justice system. What changed things for Rich was hiring a friend of Clinton's to represent him and giving millions to Clinton's campaign fund. If you don't think pardoning essentially a trader and hard core criminal in exchange for money isn't worse than reducing the sentence of perjury conviction, than we clearly have a different perspective on what real impropriety is.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I agree that the Rich thing was outrageous, and said so above and also at the time.

    But I can't recall --and am too lazy to look up-- if Rich's trial was over, pending appeal or hadn't yet happened.

    I'm unaware of another case where the sentence was commuted while the appeal was pending. Seems extremely unusual for the executive branch to interject while the judicial process hadn't yet finished, and even moreso in the middle of a term when there's still time for Bush to let the situation play out, even if he meant to commute the sentence all along.[/QUOTE]


    Rich was a fugitive from justice. He never went to trial because he fled the country and fought extradition until he bought his pardon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us