Scooter pardoned (edit: sentence commuted)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 3 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]472455[/snapback]</div>

I don't contribute to any politician, support any party, or am under the illusion that either a politician or a party is going to change anything. You and the other rabid liberals here have a fantasy that if/when the Dems get control they are going to "change the way things are done" and "fix things". You just don't get it -- the liberal mindset is not part of the mainstream any more. Even if the Dems win the Presidency, the Senate and they retain the House it isn't going to be the utopia you dream about. Politicians ALWAYS do what is best for themselves first, regardless of party. That means they aren't going to make the radical changes you want made, because it will risk them losing office. Look at Clinton's term(s) in office. He was smart enough to move to the center after getting slapped down for trying to implement liberal programs (centralized healthcare). If a Dem wins the next Pres, before long you will be crying about how he/she abandoned those that helped them win, while at the same time defending everything he/she does.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 3 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]472455[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't be too sure about that one. The same was thought after Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, yet a scant six years later, that idiot Reagan with his down-home, folksy demeanor, a couple glib comments, and Carter getting mired in the Iran hostage crisis, managed to smack-down Carter first, then Mondale, rather handily, followed by George H.W. handing Michael Dukakis his nice person.

While the Democrats have quite a good chance of taking the White House in 2008, it's a long way until 2012 and the American public has a very short memory. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a majority of dumbasses help another Republican (likely someone like Jeb Bush) into the White House in 2012.

 

Bush is clearly obstructing justice .He has obviously conspired with Libby in a scheme to exchange the withholding of incriminating evidence for a Presidential commutation .
The mafia would use witness tampering.They would whack or threaten the witness .
What Bush has done has the same effect.Its witness bribing .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 3 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]472464[/snapback]</div>

I agree (somewhat) - Clinton was as much a "liberal" as Bush is a "Conservative" (ie, one in name only). While last November's election gave me a little hope, this batch of spineless jellyfish we call Congress are turning into everything I feared they would.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]471938[/snapback]</div>

Whether I think that the punishment fit the crime or not is not the issue. There is a huge legal difference between a pardon and a commutation, whether you personally care for the difference or not.

As a convicted felon, he will be disbarred, he will not be able to teach school in California and most other states if he were to look for a new career now that he can no longer practice law, he will not be able to vote in most states, he will not be able to possess or own firearms, he will have to regularly report to a probation officer and will need to get the probation department's permission before being able to do most things that you and I take for granted. Also, I don't know about you, but $250,000 do not grow on any of my trees.

Exactly where did I write or remotely implied that Scooter Libby should have gotten off because other convicted criminals did?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jul 2 2007, 08:47 PM) [snapback]471933[/snapback]</div>

You called it!

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1564010/2...703/index.jhtml

Did Paris Hilton And Lil' Kim Get It Worse Than Scooter Libby?
'Breaking the law is breaking the law,' replied one respondent when asked if justice has been served.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 3 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]472559[/snapback]</div>

No, but Scooter's got an entire orchard of money trees, starting with his reliable old oak, Mr. Cheney. I have no doubt that Scooter not only won't have to contribute 1 cent toward paying that fine, but that he's been made (or will be made) considerably more wealthy by those he's kept his mouth shut about.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 3 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]472559[/snapback]</div>

Until Bush pardons him at the end of his term.

So he's limited for a few more months. I'm sure his book deal and the talk circuit will fill in nicely until the pardon comes through.

As for the $250,000 I'm sure it's already raised and ready to pay. Probably part of the quid pro quo deal Scooter got to keep his mouth shut. He does no time and he's "taken care of".

All I can say is after this I don't want to hear one word about Bill Clinton commiting perjury over having sex with a consenting adult. Last time I checked sex in the Oval Office was not a felony. Scooter Libby's perjury was much more serious. He obstructed justice. He covered up a crime. And the commuting of his prison time (and eventual pardon he gets) is an affront to law abiding Americans. It is also yet another indication of the hubris of this administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 3 2007, 07:52 PM) [snapback]472613[/snapback]</div>

Don't hold your breath. The 'Blame Clinton for every idiotic/deceitful thing Bush has ever done' mantra will always be dredged up by those who simply have no logical rationale to defend Bush's actions, no matter how ridiculous the comparison might be. Bringing Clinton up constantly is essentially all the Bush dead-enders have left to cling to.

The constant 'Clinton was worse' refrain is particularly grating since Clinton had to deal with an opposition-controlled Congress his entire term while Junior got a Republican rubber-stamp Congress for six of his eight years, meaning Bush has gotten virtually everything he wanted for that entire time with only token resistance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 3 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]472347[/snapback]</div>

"I wonder what he traded with Iran?"
Marc Rich traded oil from Iran to Israel.He was a Mossad agent and his pardon was lobbied for by the Israeli Prime Minister and by a former Mossad chief.
Interesting trivia ...
Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer and testified before a congressional committee investigating the pardon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 3 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]472534[/snapback]</div>

"The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .""Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7070301366.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 4 2007, 04:23 AM) [snapback]472827[/snapback]</div>

Well, Bush has effectively taken Libby off that witness list, now, hasn't he? And we'd have to impeach Cheney FIRST.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 4 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]472909[/snapback]</div>

"the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."
I like the idea that Bush and Cheney could be "suspended "

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 4 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]472956[/snapback]</div>

You know what that means...right? (starts with P....)

 

I feel like I got ripped off. I was out of internet connection range when I heard Libby's sentence was commuted and couldn't wait to get back here to comment.

YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

and...

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!

I love it!!

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 3 2007, 08:14 PM) [snapback]472658[/snapback]</div>

I guess that the Israeli connection stifled Dr Berman.
I was thinking how enlightening it is to compare Bushs actions to Clintons .
Bush outed the identity of an American asset.Destroying her career and putting herself and anyone else she has ever associated with, in potential danger.
While Clinton remains silent about Marc Rich for over 7 years .Clinton never substantiates his pardon by ever revealing Rich's foreign covert activity .He quietly endures the idiotic ridicule from the right wing.

 

Defending your country and upholding the Constitution? Your tour's extended, forget seeing your wife & kids.

Defending the Vice President and subverting the Constitution? You can go right now! So do a little dance, pay a little fine, get down tonight!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 3 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]472628[/snapback]</div>

I agree - all you have to do to look at how ridiculous it is is chart the Deficit against which administration was in power - from 1950 to current is what I use, since it leaves out WWII.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Jul 7 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]474777[/snapback]</div>

You mean this?



Sorry, it only goes back to 1960.

BTW this chart illustrates why I registered Democrat when Reagan ran for a second term. Prior to that I was registered as non-partisan.
Republicans seem to think if they can reduce the deficit by a little in the few months before their term is up that somehow the public won't notice all of that RED. And it seems to work. Except *I'm* not buying it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]474815[/snapback]</div>

put a * by that whole blue line at the end of the 1990's... That was built on the back of a whole economy of companies that weren't making as much money as they were saying they were. Right where the blue turns to red, the crook was finished with his administration looking the other way at the corporate corruption and the cowboy took over and cleaned it up, tossed the enron type reporting ceo's in jail and had to eat the effects of all the 'charges' and time it took those companies to straighten it out so more ceo's wouldn't have to go to jail.

During the boom of corruption, there was hiring and wage crazyness and tax revenue. During the cleanup there was a bit of recession, less hiring and a downturn in tax revenue for a while. Now it's going blue again on the back of an honest economy.

If you want the sharp spike, elect Billary back to the whitehouse... but just how long can corrpution in corporate america sustain itself?

Answer: 8 years....