Axxman Posted July 10, 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 10, 2007 So, you don't think Bush commuted his sentence to keep him from talking? After saying at the beginning he'd punish anyone in his administration if it was discovered they had anything to do with this? Come on... Honestly, thats a pretty ridiculous theory. Especially in light of the fact that the White House Chief of staff and the Bush Campaign manager both were talking plenty. No efforts were made to silence them. Considering that, it would make no sense for the White House to shut up Scooter Libby. Libby would have just been another guy who talks to the media like Armitage and Rove did. The reason his sentence was communted was because it was too harsh and they were trying to expedite the sentence. As far as Bush being spineless because he didn't 'pardon' Libby...maybe, just maybe, Bush doesn't know if Libby lied or not. Maybe Bush is willing to accept the jury's verdict, but not the judges sentence. I was one of those Repubs years ago who was outraged by Clinton's wholesale "get out of jail" pardons...Maybe Bush has the fortitude to avoid that. Libby was found guilty in a court of law (in a sham trial) and Bush has let it stand...but for Bush the punishment was unjust and he was able to do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2007 So, you don't think Bush commuted his sentence to keep him from talking? After saying at the beginning he'd punish anyone in his administration if it was discovered they had anything to do with this? Come on... Honestly, thats a pretty ridiculous theory. Especially in light of the fact that the White House Chief of staff and the Bush Campaign manager both were talking plenty. No efforts were made to silence them. Considering that, it would make no sense for the White House to shut up Scooter Libby. Libby would have just been another guy who talks to the media like Armitage and Rove did. The reason his sentence was communted was because it was too harsh and they were trying to expedite the sentence. As far as Bush being spineless because he didn't 'pardon' Libby...maybe, just maybe, Bush doesn't know if Libby lied or not. Maybe Bush is willing to accept the jury's verdict, but not the judges sentence. I was one of those Repubs years ago who was outraged by Clinton's wholesale "get out of jail" pardons...Maybe Bush has the fortitude to avoid that. Libby was found guilty in a court of law (in a sham trial) and Bush has let it stand...but for Bush the punishment was unjust and he was able to do something about it. Libby got a fair trial. If Libby cannot afford a good defense, then who can. The Judge that presided over the case was Republican appointee, and his sentence was within the sentencing guidelines for his crime. If anything, the reason why Bush commuted Libby's sentence rather than pardoned him is that by pardoning Libby, the entire verdict and case against him is set aside. He could then be brought before congress, given immunity, and thus been forced to testify on the entire outing and coverup. By commuting his sentence instead of pardoning him, Libby can simply claim the 5th if suppenoed before congress on the grounds that his case is still being litigated and he does not want to prejudice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypathia Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 300 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) So, you don't think Bush commuted his sentence to keep him from talking? After saying at the beginning he'd punish anyone in his administration if it was discovered they had anything to do with this? Come on... Honestly, thats a pretty ridiculous theory. Especially in light of the fact that the White House Chief of staff and the Bush Campaign manager both were talking plenty. No efforts were made to silence them. Considering that, it would make no sense for the White House to shut up Scooter Libby. Libby would have just been another guy who talks to the media like Armitage and Rove did. The reason his sentence was communted was because it was too harsh and they were trying to expedite the sentence. As far as Bush being spineless because he didn't 'pardon' Libby...maybe, just maybe, Bush doesn't know if Libby lied or not. Maybe Bush is willing to accept the jury's verdict, but not the judges sentence. I was one of those Repubs years ago who was outraged by Clinton's wholesale "get out of jail" pardons...Maybe Bush has the fortitude to avoid that. Libby was found guilty in a court of law (in a sham trial) and Bush has let it stand...but for Bush the punishment was unjust and he was able to do something about it. Libby got a fair trial. If Libby cannot afford a good defense, then who can. The Judge that presided over the case was Republican appointee, and his sentence was within the sentencing guidelines for his crime. If anything, the reason why Bush commuted Libby's sentence rather than pardoned him is that by pardoning Libby, the entire verdict and case against him is set aside. He could then be brought before congress, given immunity, and thus been forced to testify on the entire outing and coverup. By commuting his sentence instead of pardoning him, Libby can simply claim the 5th if suppenoed before congress on the grounds that his case is still being litigated and he does not want to prejudice it. Newsflash....Bill Clinton hasn't been President for 6 yrs. George Bush is President; he's the decider; he's the one who PROMISED to be more honest and ethical; he's the candidate of "God's self-proclaimed people" (as evangelical's think of themselves...all other christians exempt). Evangelicals SHOULD be the one's screaming bloody murder over this whole thing because honestly....it stinks to high heaven and everybody knows it!! My theory isn't ridiculuous at all; it makes perfect sense. Libby was doing the bidding of Dick Cheney and kept his mouth shut because unlike "Brownie" of Katrina fame this man wasn't going to take the fall for following orders and he darned sure wasn't gonna go to jail for Dick Cheney; he expected something in return for his loyalty and he got it. To heck with accountability to the American people. This administration does what it wants to do with no regard for the law, congress or anyone else. If Scooter Libber ever does ever write that tell-all book that I hope he writes those of you who support this travesty will turn on him like an angry mob and say, "Why didn't he say something when the trial was going on"? The same thing that's said about anyone in this administration who dares to spill the beans at some later point. (Why do it for free when you can do it and make some money?? Capitalism is the American way after all.). Of course, he probably won't spill the beans, he did what he was told, covered up, and won't spend a day in jail for it. A typical day in the life of an elite. Keep in mind that a dangerous prescedent has been set here by this administration with all these sneaky ways around accountibility and all those executive orders that bypass the other two branches of govt. So, we can count on more of the same with future administrations be they republican or....democrat. So if you're not complaining about it now don't whine when your opposition does the same thing later on. What a sad day for America. What a terrible path for future generations this adminstration had lead us down with their behavior and actions. This Scooter Libby thing is just one more of many trangressions perpetration by this bunch with the full backing of the evangelical right. Edited July 11, 2007 by Hypathia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 To be honest with you. I don't think this is that big of a deal. Every president issues pardons and commutes sentences. Sometimes they are well deserved, other times such as in the case of Marc Rich or Scooter Libby, they aren't. Just the same, unless you (as in you collectively) were screaming bloody murder at Clinton's questionable pardons or Reagans or Bush Sr's , then its kind of hypocritical to bash Bush now for commuting Libby's sentence. That said, its also pretty ridiculous for those who condemned Clinton's questionable pardon's to be defending Bush commuting Libby's sentence. He did not do anything commendable at all, he simply did something that every president seems to do for their friends and contributors when they are in trouble. On a side note, Marc Rich's attorney who petitioned Clinton for a pardon was none other than Scooter Libby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 11, 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 11, 2007 That said, its also pretty ridiculous for those who condemned Clinton's questionable pardon's to be defending Bush commuting Libby's sentence. He did not do anything commendable at all, he simply did something that every president seems to do for their friends and contributors when they are in trouble. Exactly! So why are we hearing so much about the Libby deal? If every President does it, why does anyone whine about the deals when a President who is not of their party does the same thing? To me, it makes people look like hypocritical cry babies. This same situation is going to happen with every President- no matter his party affiliation, simple as that. It should be a non-issue. The only real issue people should have is whether or not a President should have the authority in the first place. Obviously, the founding fathers thought so, so what's the argument? t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 11, 2007 On a side note, Marc Rich's attorney who petitioned Clinton for a pardon was none other than Scooter Libby. I know!! I find this nothing short of hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 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 11, 2007 On a side note, Marc Rich's attorney who petitioned Clinton for a pardon was none other than Scooter Libby. I know!! I find this nothing short of hilarious. Never let the facts get in the way, whatever you do. Rich had many lawyers, including the infamous Jack Quinn, who was the one who actually took the pardon to Clinton. Robert Fink, another Rich lawyer testified on his behalf. Scooter was one of many lawyers who worked for Rich's various business concerns in the 70's and '80's In fact, Scooter worked for Rich's firm for almost 20 years. Shall we talk about Rich's barber next? Or how about his pool boy? With the exception of partisan hacks and conspiracy lovers, this tidbit of info falls under the "So What?" category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypathia Posted July 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 300 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2007 Would you say you're a partisian hack Marnie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 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 11, 2007 Would you say you're a partisian hack Marnie? Nope. I'd say I'm on the side of facts. I dislike Republicans and Democrats who ignore the facts or misstate the facts to score points with the uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 11, 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 11, 2007 On a side note, Marc Rich's attorney who petitioned Clinton for a pardon was none other than Scooter Libby. I know!! I find this nothing short of hilarious. Never let the facts get in the way, whatever you do. Rich had many lawyers, including the infamous Jack Quinn, who was the one who actually took the pardon to Clinton. Robert Fink, another Rich lawyer testified on his behalf. Scooter was one of many lawyers who worked for Rich's various business concerns in the 70's and '80's In fact, Scooter worked for Rich's firm for almost 20 years. Shall we talk about Rich's barber next? Or how about his pool boy? With the exception of partisan hacks and conspiracy lovers, this tidbit of info falls under the "So What?" category. Why do republicans always go back to Clinton? What happened to the party of personal responsibility? You don't hear democrats crying 'Bush 41 did this or that' so why do republicans ALWAYS drag Clinton out to excuse the wrong doings of others? Clinton is a lightening rod, to be sure. Plus he and his shenanigans are in our collective recent memories. Plus he was/is such a scoundrel. Plus he's married to a sitting senator, running for the nomination. I mean, do you really need more reasons? We could talk about Jimmy Carter, if you'd like to discuss the achievements of another recent Democratic president. I'd be willing to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts