Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 99
  1. #21  
    I am a republican, and my wife is a democrat. Yeah and we are still married. I do not like what Bush is doing this past term at all. I didn't like Clinton when he was in office and still don't. I say do away with the parties. Instead of picking the best for a job I now look at it as picking the lesser of two evils.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    And while supporters of the respective pardoners defend them, it will continue.
    Actually most Dems were outraged over the Marc Rich pardon.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1178382.stm

    John Podesta, Clinton's Chief of Staff, was opposed to the pardon and recommended Clinton not do it.

    Strangely enough, Scooter Libby himself said he thought prosecuters of Rich were over reaching and falsely accused him.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Impressive. Another lovely post of a laundy list of things that Clinton did wrong. I don't agree nor did I agree with Clinton's pardons and I'd bet most here didn't either. But it is pointless to post this stuff unless you want to change the subject....which the right does very well.

    Post another million bullet points...I don't care. You know darn well if Clinton's team had maliciously outted a CIA agent for political gain they would have all been strung by their balls by now.

    Amazing how the right-wing loves to talk about personal accountability yet it is OK to undo what a jury, judge, and appeals court has done to insure one of their own is not held personally accountable for his actions.

    HYPOCRITES!!!!!
    WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OKAY?????? Man....you are so intent on looking ONLY at Bush you keep on missing my whole point. I generally have never agreed with most Presidential pardons. I feel a vast majority of them are personal favors to those who have given money to the pres, has info about them they don't want out, personal relative or close friend, etc..... That is my whole point nothing more. You and several others were so one sided on the criticism it was if this had never happened before and that Bush was setting a whole precedence. That is the only reason I brought up links to the Pardons of all the past Presidents. Clinton's had so many that could be considered so close or at least similar charges to Libby's is the only reason I listed his.

    Yes...I agree the Rep would have done the same thing if Dems were in power and the same thing happened. But first we have to get it straight (as first you insinuated he was charged with Treason and now claimed he was charged with outing a CIA agent) he was investigated and NOT charged with leaking a CIA agent. He was only charged with not telling the truth when questioned about it. I would also take a step further and have questioned why the Dems did not go after so many other leaks during this admin as they did with Libby. They didn't pursue the person responsible for the leaks about the monitoring foreign tied calls or the foreign based prisons with hardly any determination at all. The point again is....all sides plays politics. And many times they play it with National Security for short term selfless short term political points with no regard to the long term effect or well being of the nation. And again before you take offense, I am talking about both parties as I could give multiple examples for both.

    Again, just because I also recognize that the Dems have done similar things while still not approving of the actions at hand, I am labeled a "Right Wing who loves to...". Your failure to recognize the events on the left is a signal of your possible blindness to the realities of the Left Wing as well. For example you say.....
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Amazing how the right-wing loves to talk about personal accountability yet it is OK to undo what a jury, judge, and appeals court has done to insure one of their own is not held personally accountable for his actions.

    HYPOCRITES!!!!!
    Yet in the post you responded to the Dems did EXACTLY the same thing.....which was simply my only point from the beginning....yet don't seem to be calling the Dems Hypocrites when they are pardoning crack dealers and yet claiming to be fighting against the culture of corruption.

    The other thing I find interesting about this is that Bush still held him partially responsible for his acts and the court judgment against him for these acts. I couldn't find many other examples of this before. Most others are full pardons wiping the whole crime and the verdict against them away.

    Instead of acknowledging that yes even though it is wrong it has happened before and is not unique to Bush. You then gave a party loyalty party colored glasses response and inferred that Libby was charged with Treason and that none of Clinton's could come close. I responded to that with several examples directly relating to your own statement. Nothing more. I did ask that if you felt Libby's offense was worthy of Treason, if you felt any of the ones listed by Clinton would be as well. But you failed to answer that.


    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    NO! He was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced by a judge. The sentence was then upheld by appeal where two Republican judges sat! How can you rationalize this?
    I don't. Neither can I rationalize when Clinton did it. When Bush Sr did it. When Reagan did it. When Carter did it. When.....

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Nixon was never formally charged and convicted. Ford pardoned him to make sure that would not happen.

    So we're talking apples and oranges here. Libby was CONVICTED!
    I tried to compare apples to apples, but then you said you did not support it. Then in the same post you claimed that the Rep are hypocrytes because they pardoned those who were "CONVICTED!" even though you just acknowledged Clinton did the exact same thing....but it was not worthy of noting. The spinning is making me dizzy.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/03/2007 at 01:46 PM.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually most Dems were outraged over the Marc Rich pardon.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1178382.stm

    John Podesta, Clinton's Chief of Staff, was opposed to the pardon and recommended Clinton not do it.

    Strangely enough, Scooter Libby himself said he thought prosecuters of Rich were over reaching and falsely accused him.
    You posted this while I was writing my last post. You see...this is all Iwas talking about. Thomas was saying just another example of Bush and his Good Ol' Boys Club, which such mentality and actions I have never approved of, is not unique to Bush as was the impression in the begininnig of the thread.
  5. #25  
    Well Bush is in now in the same league as Clinton as far as "criminal" pardons, isn't he?

    The Sandy Berger situation was very interesting, as well as many others Clinton penned with pride.

    You know, its not that Bush should be defended or given excuses for his actions here, but as we all can see, the democrats are absolutely no different.

    They commit the same crimes, its just that they do so wearing different uniforms claiming different agendas. Both accept bribes, turn blind eyes to problems for the almighty dollar, etc, etc.

    Politics is one big steaming vat of bullsh$t on BOTH sides.

    End of story.
  6. #26  
    Every president pardons a-holes. It happens all the time. Why is this news?
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Really?
    Yes. focusing on the relationship between Bush and Libby is misguided, becuase the legality of the act is not a function how well they know each other. If Bush improperly commuted the sentence of a stranger, it would be no more or less inappropriate thatn doing so for a friend. Likewise, if a stranger's sentence were commuted properly, it would be no more or less appropriate if for a friend.
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Was it misguided to focus on the relationship between Bill and Monica? I mean, Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice not the affair itself.
    The relationship between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinski was relevant in the sense that it was the issue about which Mr. Clinton lied.
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post



    Actually, he may not have. There are certain criteria that needs to be in play for him to use this authority and Libby did not meet it by almost all counts.
    This is where my question (not rationalization) was focused. If Mr. Bush took an action that was outside of his authority, then the appropriate steps should be taken to overturn his decision. Are those criteria binding, or recommended?
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post



    NO! He was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced by a judge. The sentence was then upheld by appeal where two Republican judges sat! How can you rationalize this?
    There is no rationalization in my question. Rather, I'm attempting to introduce rationality to the discussion.

    Whether the resultant penalty is commiserate with the crime is not a function of the process used to arrive at the sentence. The jury exercised its power. The judge exercised his power. The appelate court exercised its power. The President exercised his power (unless it turns out that legal criteria was not met).
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    Every president pardons a-holes. It happens all the time. Why is this news?
    Because this a-hole obstructed an investigation into a crime by members of the same administration which commuted his sentence.
  9. #29  
    Here is an interesting article about the process (or lack of) that some pardon applications goes through to be approved. It is also interesting how there are several examples of joint Dem & Rep support for some:

    Access Proved Vital In Last-Minute Race For Clinton Pardons
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Because this a-hole obstructed an investigation into a crime by members of the same administration which commuted his sentence.
    Susan McDougal comes to mind. I know she was sentenced to 18 months for failure to testify against the Clintons during the Whitewater investigation. She did serve 4 months of her sentence and judge let her out with time served due to her bad back...or something like that. Even though she already served some time, Clinton gave a full pardon for someone who refused to testify about possible crimes against the standing Administration. And I know since she has become a rally cry for many staunch Clinton supports, this will bring on several respones....but it is similar nonetheless.
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Susan McDougal comes to mind. I know she was sentenced to 18 months for failure to testify against the Clintons during the Whitewater investigation. She did serve 4 months of her sentence and judge let her out with time served due to her bad back...or something like that. Even though she already served some time, Clinton gave a full pardon for someone who refused to testify about possible crimes against the standing Administration. And I know since she has become a rally cry for many staunch Clinton supports, this will bring on several respones....but it is similar nonetheless.
    Why muddy the water with this? The current situation is on a completely different level.

    The Scooter Libby situation relates directly to administration policy and the action of a major crime against someone who spoke against the administrations efforts to enact that policy. I think everyone's smart enough here to see the difference.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    The Scooter Libby situation relates directly to administration policy and the action of a major crime against someone who spoke against the administrations efforts to enact that policy. I think everyone's smart enough here to see the difference.
    You keep talking about some major crime. Are you talking about the "major crime" that **** Armitage committed by leaking Plame's identity to Robert Novack? Why wasn't he charged with anything? And why would he want to attack her or Joe Wilson?
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You keep talking about some major crime. Are you talking about the "major crime" that **** Armitage committed by leaking Plame's identity to Robert Novack? Why wasn't he charged with anything? And why would he want to attack her or Joe Wilson?
    Yes, that is the investigation that was obstructed by Scooter's lying under oath.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yes, that is the investigation that was obstructed by Scooter's lying under oath.
    I'm not sure if you answered my question. Are you suggesting that by contradicting Tim Russert's testimony about a conversation between Russert and Libby, Libby prevented Fitzgerald from charging Armitage with a crime he was guilty of? **** Armitage admitted from the beginning that he leaked the info to Novak. If leaking that info was treason, why wasn't he charged with anything? And again, why would Armitage want to attack Plame and Wilson?
  15.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm not sure if you answered my question. Are you suggesting that by contradicting Tim Russert's testimony about a conversation between Russert and Libby, Libby prevented Fitzgerald from charging Armitage with a crime he was guilty of? **** Armitage admitted from the beginning that he leaked the info to Novak. If leaking that info was treason, why wasn't he charged with anything? And again, why would Armitage want to attack Plame and Wilson?
    "In his October 28, 2005 press conference about the grand jury's indictment, Fitzgerald had already explained that Libby's obstruction of justice through perjury and false statements had prevented the grand jury from determining whether the leak violated federal law."
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    "In his October 28, 2005 press conference about the grand jury's indictment, Fitzgerald had already explained that Libby's obstruction of justice through perjury and false statements had prevented the grand jury from determining whether the leak violated federal law."
    No, he didn't put it quite that way. Here's the original transcript.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801340.html
    Intent is a key requirement of the Identities Act. In order to charge Libby, or anyone else, Fitzgerald needed to prove intent. Fitzgerald's point was that charging Libby with obstruction was justified because it interfered with his ability to know for sure Libby's intent.

    However, since Armitage is the one who leaked the identity to Novak, it's hard to see the relevance of Libby's obstruction to Armitage's "crime." Fitzgerald certainly doesn't make the connection.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    No, he didn't put it quite that way. Here's the original transcript.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801340.html
    Intent is a key requirement of the Identities Act. In order to charge Libby, or anyone else, Fitzgerald needed to prove intent. Fitzgerald's point was that charging Libby with obstruction was justified because it interfered with his ability to know for sure Libby's intent.

    However, since Armitage is the one who leaked the identity to Novak, it's hard to see the relevance of Libby's obstruction to Armitage's "crime." Fitzgerald certainly doesn't make the connection.
    I think it's obvious that this originated with Cheney and that's where Fitzgerald wanted to look.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I think it's obvious that this originated with Cheney and that's where Fitzgerald wanted to look.
    I think there are a lot of things that seem "obvious" to you about this Administration but which lack any evidence.
  19. #39  
    Anyone who lies under oath commits a crime.

    Example 1: A person lies under oath to hide a personal affair from his wife and family

    Example 2: A person lies under oath to help make a dubious case for war, plunging a vital part of the world into instability and provide training grounds for international terrorism. And cause depth of 100,000+ humans.

    Do these deserve to be discussed in the same thread? You be the judge.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. #40  
    Did any of you happen to catch Keith Olberman on MSNBC today? WOW! My TV set is still on fire! Sure, the President has the power to pardon or commute at his discretion, but it is still subject to judicial review for abusive practice...

    His entire presidency - count the pardons, and through his tenure as governor as well. Yhis is not about Clinton or anyone else but Bush. Keep in mind that as "crooked" as Nixon was, when he realized he crossed the line with Watergate he knew he had to resign- for the good of the nation. Will Bush make that same realization (and take Cheney with him)?

    The fact that this is being discusssed in a Treo forum, is telling of the enormity of the issue and the potential for what's to come.

    I wish us all a lot of luck!
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions