kat8585 Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 I agree. There was no crime committed. What I don't get is how did he get convicted then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is now well known that the only thing Scooter is guilty of is perjury. Let's see, I guess you can get away with perjury if you are a sitting President of this country. Good point, Clinton was certainly no better, the people he gave clemency to were real criminals versus just political hacks like Libby. So yeah I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i think commuting his sentence was the right thing to do. it was NOT a pardon. it just means he doesn't have to serve any jail time while awaiting an appeal. if he'd pardoned libby, it would have meant libby had a guilty stain on his record for life. by commuting his sentence, libby still has to clear his own name through the appeal process, and he has a very strong case. most experts in the legal field believe he will prove his innocense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Yes, it was his right, but that's not really the question (aside from the fact that he did ignore the guidelines, but I'll set that aside for the moment). What it comes down to is a question of ethics. Given the stalemate between Congress and the White House over the subpoena orders, it worries me that the President is willing to quickly pardon those in his administration doing the dirty work - specifically, Cheney's dirty work (maybe we should just impeach Cheney and take care of all of it that way). Georges, You are passing judgment and making assumptions about something you are nor sure about and something that was not proven in a Court of Law. Neither has Cheny's supposed dirty work ever been investigated. Know why? There is nothing to investigate and the folks leveling such charges know it. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 3, 2007 i think commuting his sentence was the right thing to do. it was NOT a pardon. it just means he doesn't have to serve any jail time while awaiting an appeal. if he'd pardoned libby, it would have meant libby had a guilty stain on his record for life. by commuting his sentence, libby still has to clear his own name through the appeal process, and he has a very strong case. most experts in the legal field believe he will prove his innocense. He might I agree. Although here is a man who took a big big salary decrease to work for the Veep, he was really well respected in the legal world before this, regardless of what happens that part of his life is over and ruined. They really stuck him good, I would be pretty ashamed if I were Cheney, letting him just sit out there to fry while he himself does nothing to help him. Cheney is very self protective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 What Clinton did or did not do is NOT RELEVANT. You mentioned precedent. He did perjure himself and was not punished. Perhaps we could mention Sandy "I didn't know they were in my underwear" Burger. Shalom, OMGOODNESS, this is SO funny!! Marnie, you crack me up! Well, really! I mean, think about this. Clinton gets contributions from Mark Rich's wife, then pardons him. He gets donations for his library from a couple of other people and he pardons them. He pardons the husband of a client of one his lawyer cronies, but who brings that up? Clinton perjures himself (whether or not you think what he did was all that serious) and does he get fined? No. Sandy Burger burgles the Library of Congress (was it?) and makes off with a bunch of documents. Does he get punished? No. Democrats all over the country signed up dead people to vote for their candidates. What ever happened to them? Nothing. So, if you are Democrat you are above the law in this country, apparently. Nah, I think it's if you're rich or well connected enough that you're above the law. This is a nonpartisan phenomenom and becoming more common. IMO, all politicians serve their contributors first and the people next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 I personally don't believe he did anything wrong, but was being made a scape goat because Bush's enemies were determined to find some type of crime against someone in the administration in reference to the Valerie Plame situation. The same way they viciously savaged Newt and Delay, only much moreso with them, and will do with any rising star in the Republican party. I know Libby wasn't one of these, but it's just their MO. If they can bring down any Republican, or make the administration look bad in any way, they will, and they won't let up til they get the job done. Any Texans remember what Ronnie Earl tried to do to Kay Baily Hutchison? He's the same one who went after Delay, I think. No! I don't remember Earl going after Hutchinson. When did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 That has not been established at all. Why did President Bush go on TV. and make a big big deal about this leak then, he called it a leak and made a big deal about it right? He certainly thought it was a crime at the time. No there was and is a crime there it is not a witch hunt. Libby however I think was a witch hunt because the administration needed a fall guy and the left wing needed someone to blame, so yes I think he got royally set up. There have been numerous crimes in the office of the Vice President during this administration; they needed to end any further investigation to so they gave up Libby as a fall guy. The problem with this administration is that they don't really seem to believe what they claim in my opinion particularly when it comes to honor and integrity. This has certainly been established by the fact that EVERYONE knows who 'leaked' Plame's name and its still a dead fish in the water. If it was a crime then why hasn't Richard Armitage been charged? Answer that ONE question. He's the one who did it and they won't charge him. WHY??? Because they got what they wanted already. They got a person as close to the President as they could and found him guilty of "not remembering" dates and times correctly. And now the case is closed. And you know what...in a sense, they won because there are people like you who think that Libby's guilty verdict is somehow an indictment of the Administration...thats all they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 No! I don't remember Earl going after Hutchinson. When did that happen? He tried hard to derail her senate campaign and bring her down in 1993, but it didn't work. You can type "Ronnie Earl and Kay Bailey Hutchison" into a search. He did also go after Tom Delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Warrior Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 123 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 I wasn't talking about precedent, I was talking about rules. The president is not supposed to be able to commute sentences unless all other options have been exhausted - i.e. Bush should have waited until the appeals process was over, at least. Yes, just the same as Gerald Ford should have waited until Nixon was actually Tried AND Convicted BEFORE pardoning him. It seems to be the way of things, especially amongst those that seem to think the President is above the law or the constitution, like Bush and Nixon As Richard Nixon once said in an interview, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts