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 Speaking of "equal treatment under the law." For months and months now we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline 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...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 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. You are not all together wrong. Yet is seems as though Democratic politicians are much more adept at this kind of chicanery than members of the other party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Speaking of "equal treatment under the law." For months and months now we’ve been hearing that the Libby trial was about the dangers of the “powerful” covering up their secrets—that Plame’s “outing” could actually jeopardize national security, and other self-righteous, hyperbolic, and patently absurd justifications for pushing forward in the hope of grabbing a Republican scalp. Meanwhile, right here in front of us, we have a case where Sandy Berger, a former National Security Advisor, has voluntarily surrendered his law license rather than come clean about what documents he destroyed, why he destroyed them, and who he was trying to protect in doing so. When I begin to hear the same people who’ve been braying for Libby’s blood take similar aim at Berger—and by all rights, their animus should be even more concentrated, given Berger’s position and power, and given the nature of his crime, which involved the pilfering and destruction of classified documents. No reason to think of this as Berger protecting a former President; think of it as Berger protecting a future First Spouse. Protein Wisdom NO, she's not right and neither are you. Had it been a members of the "left" that this was all about you people would be all over them with Righteous indignation and Hell fire damnation for them. The words "DOUBLE STANDARD" certainly come to mind reading the posts in this thread. The real issue is that Bush overruled a legally constituted judge and jury to make sure his friend didn't pay for his crime(s) regardless of what (or how severe) they were. He couldn't wait for the appeals process to do it's job. He has NO respect for any other branch of government nor any respect for separation of powers or due process. Money is his chief ally Actually, had you taken the time to actually read what I cited, you'd realize I didn't write that opinion, I quoted it from another source, which is linked, and the author of the piece is right. GWB has pardoned far fewer (just over 100, I think) individuals than any other president who has preceded him. He has refused close to a thousand requests for pardons or commutations, by the way. What else is a pardon, other than overruling a judge?? Your whole argument is specious. A president is well within his rights to exactly what GWB has done. At least he hasn't taken any bribes, that we know of. As opposed to President Clinton, who pardoned who knows how many people for a bribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 3, 2007 NO, she's not right and neither are you. Had it been a members of the "left" that this was all about you people would be all over them with Righteous indignation and Hell fire damnation for them. The words "DOUBLE STANDARD" certainly come to mind reading the posts in this thread. The real issue is that Bush overruled a legally constituted judge and jury to make sure his friend didn't pay for his crime(s) regardless of what (or how severe) they were. He couldn't wait for the appeals process to do it's job. He has NO respect for any other branch of government nor any respect for separation of powers or due process. Money is his chief ally Laws specifically allow for such intervention by a sitting President. Almost all of them have taken the pardon process much deeper than Bush, but Bush is the one who cares nothing of the law? The real issue of your post is that you don't like Bush, and have a problem with him doing what is legally at his disposal. You said nothing when Clinton pardoned all of those others just before he left office......or did you. Maybe you can find the posts and quote them here? Somehow, I don't think you protested quite as loud when Clinton did it. I know I didn't, because there is nothing we can do about it. Clinton could have pardoned Charles Manson if he wanted to, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's all legal, and it's something we have given to a sitting President. Also, he did wait until part of the appeal process was over. Libby had an appeal to delay his prison sentence, but a judge denied it. That's when Bush commuted (not pardoned) the punishment portion of the conviction. The conviction still stands. The only difference is that he doesn't go to jail (unless, of course, he messes up in the next two years while on probation). Relax. Bush has respect for due process. He exercised it by commuting the sentence, which is an action that is legally at his disposal. You just happen not to like Bush or Libby, and therefore, you think the action is wrong, right? Be honest..... t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted July 3, 2007 NO, she's not right and neither are you. Had it been a members of the "left" that this was all about you people would be all over them with Righteous indignation and Hell fire damnation for them. The words "DOUBLE STANDARD" certainly come to mind reading the posts in this thread. The real issue is that Bush overruled a legally constituted judge and jury to make sure his friend didn't pay for his crime(s) regardless of what (or how severe) they were. He couldn't wait for the appeals process to do it's job. He has NO respect for any other branch of government nor any respect for separation of powers or due process. Money is his chief ally Agreed. Regardless of the legality, what Bush did was certainly immoral. In fact, convicting Scooter in the first place was immoral. If justice had been served, Cheney would be the one behind bars. Also, those people here (just about everyone) that bring up the supposed wrongdoings of other presidents and other parties *cough* are espousing nothing more than moral relativism. Being less wrong than someone else doesn't make a right. There is a huge double standard here, but that is a whole other story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 3, 2007 How is what he did "all but technically illegal"? Is the process or legal precedence of Presidential pardons somehow not clear? Does a sitting President have, or not have, the legal ability to commute or pardon criminals? t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Sorry man, I posted that last one before you changed your original post. Please ignore the "all but technically illegal" question. *A short note of clarity: People do not bring up past political issues, parties, or individuals for moral relativism, they do it to establish precedence. Reps bring up Clinton so much because he was the last sitting Dem President. Plus, he's easy to pick on. It works both ways. You guys can pick on Bush, and we can compare it to Clinton. I just hope that someone without either of those last names gets elected in '08. Change is good. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 I just hope that someone without either of those last names gets elected in '08. Change is good. t. Well, Jeb isn't running, wisely. We've had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for how long? This is yet another reason why Hilary won't win. People are just plain tired of the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I stand with the President 100 percent in this matter, and take great satisfaction in the fact there isn't a thing the liberals can do about it. I'm not so sure about that, man. They can always nominate Al Gore again and make us sit through 8 more months of his campaign commercials...! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts