[TheWOAT]

Why the hell would you steal 4lb of butter, or better yet, why would you pardon that person 50 years later? Im sure the guy served his time, would it be to remove a dishonorable discharge on his record in order for him to recieve Vet benefits? Nice gesture maybe, but you wont see me or anyone I know give someone a 2nd chance at life for stealing butter. F--- that guy

There were also some gems in that pardon list. I think I read something about someone trying to sneak drugs into a prison. Clinton was a coke head. Book it.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

TheWOAT: I think we were just supposed to be impressed that SpliffDaddy found a long list somewhere on the internet.

To his credit, that was quite a long list.

Seriously though, I remember the Mark Rich pardon pissing off alot of democrats. I dont think Libby being set free will tarnish Bush in any way. There is a saying involving the words "Shiny Turd" that is appropiate in this case.

[besson3c]

TheWOAT: I think we were just supposed to be impressed that SpliffDaddy found a long list somewhere on the internet.

[besson3c]

I don't care if Johnny Republican, Johnny Democrat, Johnny Libertarian, Johnny Green Party, or anybody else pulls a stunt like this. When you commit a crime, you should be tried the same way you would be if you weren't a powerful politician, period.

There is no excusing the commute. I don't give a rat's ass how many times Clinton pardoned somebody. If he did, that was wrong, and so is this. I wish people in here would stop being partisan hacks willing to defend your party unconditionally as if this were a competition or something.

I often do think that people that are this partisan simply aren't terribly bright, as harsh as this sounds.

[Spliffdaddy]

Seems to me there's little difference whether you're always excusing one party or always condemning one party. Right, besson?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

TheWOAT: I think we were just supposed to be impressed that SpliffDaddy found a long list somewhere on the internet.

pfft. I pulled that from memory. I'm *that* good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Seems to me there's little difference whether you're always excusing one party or always condemning one party. Right, besson?

True, would you like for me to condemn the Democratic party?

Here I am, besson3c, proclaiming on top of a giant mountain (where I can get WiFi reception) that hereforth on this day, July 3, 2007, Democrats suck big time ass. Of course, Republicans suck ass too, but today I'm only proclaiming that Democrats suck ass on top of this here mountain.

How did I do?

WTF is that old moutain goat doing looking at me so weird? Ahhhh... it's coming after me!! HELLPPPP! Somebody call 911 please.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

*smackdown*

Hilarious.

Typical of conservatives to miss the irony and then congratulate themselves. You people really aren't much for subtlety, are you?

You remind me of the idiots who go on the Colbert Report thinking he's a real conservative.

[tie]

There is an interesting story in the NY Times about Bush's stated justifications for the commutation. It raises a number of points I hadn't thought about, not being a lawyer.

Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.

Critics of the system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

On Monday, Mr. Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence — handing an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of the president’s arguments in their own cases.

Given the administration’s tough stand on sentencing, the president’s arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.

“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who writes the blog Sentencing Law and Policy.
...
“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it.
...
Mr. Bush repeated yesterday that he had found Mr. Libby’s punishment to be too severe. But experts in federal sentencing law said a sentence of 30 months for lying and obstruction was consistent with the tough sentences routinely meted out by the federal system.

“On what legal basis could he have reached that result?” asked Frank O. Bowman III, an authority on federal sentencing who teaches law at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said of the commutation. “There is no legal basis.”

Nor is there a reason to think that the Justice Department has changed its position about the sentencing system generally. Indeed, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said last month that the department would push for legislation making federal sentences tougher and less flexible.

Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law”; Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.

The parallel to the Rita case is quite interesting.

Here's Bush's statement:

Originally Posted by Bush

[C]ritics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury....

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, two years of probation and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison....

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Sentencing Law and Policy blog has lots more details and perspectives.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How long did Libby spend in jail for covering for some (several?) people in the Bush Administration, possibly members of the Cabinet? Zero.

Correct. The same number of days he also spent in jail for turning into a werewolf and devouring a small village one moonlit night.

...oh..wait. That didn't happen. Neither did your example. Libby, if he was "covering" (and he says he simply doesn't remember) was covering for HIMSELF because HE was the one that risked going to jail. Bush wasn't going to go to jail, Bush wasn't going to get impeached over what Armitage did, and Bush wasn't really in any harms way. Bill Clinton on the other hand risked jail time for himself, since what McDougal's silence bought was her not testifying against him. If McDougal talked, it would have brought down Clinton OR if she lied she'd have spent even more time in prison for perjury. If Clinton would have pardoned her without her going to jail, that too would have likely brought down his presidency (or at least sank his poll numbers - something he wasn't willing to risk). Susan McDougal (and many other instances of gross political payback during the Clinton Administration) is a clear example of quid pro quo. You don't even have to get to the Marc Rich senario for that.

I'm MORE THAN WILLING to accept some kind of standard for what's okay and what's not, as long as it's consistent. If you want to suggest that Clinton AND Bush are corrupt crooks who abused the pardon power, I'd be able to see logically that you might have a point. If on the other hand you aren't or weren't up in arms with Clinton than it's clear we are dealing with a political double standard, and the argument you are making is a moot one.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'll go on record as admitting that what Dubya did by pardoning (not the legal definition of what happened) Libby was wrong. What Clinton did was wrong. And to be fair, Bush #1 pardoned almost as many mofos as Clinton (490-something to Slick Willy's 540). I am surprised nobody retaliated by posting the almost 500 people that Bush #1 pardoned.

It's unacceptable no matter how you slice it.

Still, it just seems wrong to send somebody to prison for lying about a crime that was never proven to have occurred. But, if a jury of Americans was convinced Libby had lied, then who am I to say it didn't happen. And who is Dubya to say it didn't happen?

[OreoCookie]

You should be more careful reading my post, I didn't say `Bush', I said `Bush Administration'. You're also trying to push the point that Libby was wrongfully convicted of a minor crime when all that doesn't matter. He has been found guilty by a court. You try to inject your favorite arch villain into this discussion here and forcefully draw parallels between two very different cases. You are even trying to allude that I'm hypocritical as I `condone' Clinton's acts when I did neither.

If you want to talk about Clinton, start another thread.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'll go on record as admitting that what Dubya did by pardoning (not the legal definition of what happened) Libby was wrong. What Clinton did was wrong. And to be fair, Bush #1 pardoned almost as many mofos as Clinton (490-something to Slick Willy's 540). I am surprised nobody retaliated by posting the almost 500 people that Bush #1 pardoned.

I agree with the first half of the statement.
Usually the more controversial pardons are signed quietly in the last days of office, though (for obvious reasons). However, I doubt that all of Bush Sr's and Clinton's pardons were `uncalled for' or as problematic as this case here.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Still, it just seems wrong to send somebody to prison for lying about a crime that was never proven to have occurred. But, if a jury of Americans was convinced Libby had lied, then who am I to say it didn't happen. And who is Dubya to say it didn't happen?

Then Congress shall change the law and lower the penalties for obstruction of justice. The articles tie linked to above raise some very interesting (legal) questions and point out some of the implications of Bush commuting Libby's sentence, especially for people in similar situations.

[stupendousman]

Libby was a victim of a political witch hunt, plain and simple. There was no crime, and nothing to investigate. The prosecutor knew that at the very beggining and was simply fishing for a Bush administration head regardless of how he had to get it. That being said, Libby was careless with the process and got himself into the position he did.

I don't support what he did, and do believe that he deserves punishment - but not jail time. My opinion is consistent in that I believed that the impeachment slap on the wrist was appropriate for Bill Clinton and his multiple instances of perjury and subornation of perjury, and it wasn't necessary for him to be indicted and go to jail for it. In these political games (and neither man would have been in the position they were had it not been for people playing politics), it's enough to humiliate a guy and strip their law license. It forever taints their record. While I"m not a big fan of pardons, it's clear that since Libby didn't do something that directly benefited Bush and that the punishment is not consistent with how the previous administration was treated in regards to the crime. I don't think it's all that big of a deal and everyone who still supports the Clinton's but is up in arms about this commutation has just put a big "partisan hack" target on their foreheads. You can't logically support one and attack the other over this. It just can't be done.

FWIW.

[OldManMac]

Olbermann says it best. [Crooks and Liars � Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of the United States

[HackManDan]

Libby's sentence not unusually long - Los Angeles Times

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Olbermann says it best. [Crooks and Liars � Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of the United States

Wow...there's an impartial source. What did he have to say about Clinton when he pardoned McDougal?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

Libby's sentence not unusually long - Los Angeles Times

But records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's.

WHAT cases similar to Libby's? The only case I know of that could be deemed to be similar is the perjury and subornation of perjury that Bill Clinton had engaged in and he wasn't even indicted. So, yes...any prison time is unusually long for someone who gets tripped up in a politically motivated witch hunt.

The LA TIMES is comparing apples to oranges in this case.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by awaspaas 

Ahh, classic use of "BUT CLINTON!" - works flawlessly every time!

It is usually used to point out that such attacks are purely shill based.

And they are valid in doing so.

[Helmling]

I'm glad I've avoided being a hypocrite on this one.

I think both Clinton and Libby should do hard time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow...there's an impartial source. What did he have to say about Clinton when he pardoned McDougal?

Who cares? The question doesn't make him any less right.

[medicineman]

Libby and Fitzgerald have a history. Going back to the Marc Rich pardon.

Interesting read: OpinionJournal - Hot Topic

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

WHAT cases similar to Libby's? The only case I know of that could be deemed to be similar is the perjury and subornation of perjury that Bill Clinton had engaged in and he wasn't even indicted. So, yes...any prison time is unusually long for someone who gets tripped up in a politically motivated witch hunt.

The LA TIMES is comparing apples to oranges in this case.

How about this one? Sentencing Law and Policy: Comparing Lewis Libby and Victor Rita

Don't forget to remind us of Bill Clinton again; it's been at least an hour.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who cares? The question doesn't make him any less right.

I disagree and to top it off, he'll never be able to persuade me because he is an obvious biased left-wing shill. That by default makes him not credible.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=OldManMac;3422261]How about this one? Sentencing Law and Policy: Comparing Lewis Libby and Victor Rita

Your link makes assumptions that I think that are false.

Don't forget to remind us of Bill Clinton again; it's been at least an hour.

I'll stop when Clinton supporters stop pretending to be outraged when their guy did a lot worse.

[besson3c]

stupendousman:

Pull your head out of your partisan ass dude. Stop, take a deep breath, and start thinking...

If Democratic presidents pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this was wrong. Are you with me? Okay...

If a Republican president pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this is also wrong. You see, like you learned in grade school, two wrongs don't make a right.

Whether or not a particular Democratic president pardoned somebody is a different conversation altogether. We aren't talking about past presidents, we are talking about this one. Bush was wrong to pardon Libby since Libby was found guilty by our supreme court, supposedly our most impartial judges and most elite judicial system we have - hence its name.

Now, before you click that reply button and whip off a response about all of the Democratic presidents that pardoned people (including Clinton), stop yourself... Again, it doesn't matter. If that happened, that was wrong, but we aren't talking about these cases now, are we? If you want to start another thread about past commutes, go right ahead.

I know that by saying that your guy was wrong, I've probably angered you, and I'm sure you are thinking of ways to disagree with me as you read this. Stop, and think about this though. Just say that Bush was a Democrat and this happened. How would you feel? Be honest... Now, why should it make a difference that Bush is a Republican? Wrong is wrong, right? Do we really want the definition of what is wrong to be shaped by which party the president belongs to? Think about this...

Now... Now that you have read this, you may go off and write your thread about past Democratic commutes.

[besson3c]

This **** is *REALLY* upsetting me... The more I think about this, the more angry I'm becoming.

It is absolutely appalling to think that some people in here think that it's cool to commute people that were found guilty by the supreme court just because they happen to belong to your favorite political party.

This is beyond partisan, this is just plain old ****ing dumb. Think people! Do you really want different legal precedents set depending on what political party you belong to? Your social class? Your race?

Stop being so ****ing partisan and defending politicians that don't deserve your blind and unconditional loyalty. Unless you are being paid for your support, this is simply dumb. Go find a sports team to cheer for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is that what you told your mom when she tried to explain to you that two wrongs don't make a right?

No ****!

I mean, why the hell do we have to point this out to people in here? Is it not ****ing obvious? If a 10 year old knows that two wrongs don't make a right, I expect you guys to as well.

Unbelievable.

[besson3c]

Hey, if you guys want to swear in here, I did it, so that means it's alright for you to as well...

[OldManMac]

[QUOTE=stupendousman;3422330]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

How about this one? Sentencing Law and Policy: Comparing Lewis Libby and Victor Rita

Your link makes assumptions that I think that are false.


I'll stop when Clinton supporters stop pretending to be outraged when their guy did a lot worse.

Of course you would think that. Are you a legal professional? Are you intimately involved in the details of this case? Do you know something more than what's been presented on the news? If not, it's nothing more than your opinion that's guiding your views, and there's nothing wrong with that, except that he was found guilty in a court of law, which has been pointed out numerous times already, but which you still can't seem to wrap your head around.

I'm not a Clinton supporter; if he did something illegal, he should suffer the consequences as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It is usually used to point out that such attacks are purely shill based.

Is that what you told your mom when she tried to explain to you that two wrongs don't make a right?

[smacintush]

Yeah I get it besson3c:

If Democratic presidents pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this was wrong…though he was still a good President and a decent guy who got unfairly attacked for his personal business…

…when a Republican president pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this is also wrong and it is a clear sign of the culture of corruption of that party and more specifically this President and his criminal right-wing cronies.

Makes perfect sense.

Of course I'm just being a d*ck.

Seriously, you guys realize that this is all irrelevant right? Pardon powers of the President are absolute and are given only one single guideline:

shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

That's it. Whine all you want but there are NO standards. The founding fathers didn't even really have that much to say.

So you can cry and whine all you want and pretend to be disgusted when those of your own party do it too but really, what are you gonna do about it? Nothing. The constitution isn't going to be changed and you will still use this as yet another reason to hate someone in the party you dislike and you will still ignore these things when the sitting President is in the "correct" party.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, why the hell do we have to point this out to people in here? Is it not ****ing obvious? If a 10 year old knows that two wrongs don't make a right, I expect you guys to as well.

Some people get really tired of seeing a former President get almost NO flack for pardoning hundred of real criminals…including some of his cronies…while the current President of the opposing party gets tarred and feathered for commuting a single part of one single conviction.

People keep bringing up Clinton because for the most part there has been no outrage. Not then, not now. This is called hypocrisy.

Clinton got a free pass just like all the rest of the Presidents do. The idea that were supposed to "do something" about Bush now is an asinine notion based mainly upon political preferences.

[tie]

I don't have a problem with pardons. I do have a problem with cronyism, both in Clinton's case and in Bush's case. I also have a problem with the partisan hypocrisy of many of the Bush supporters in this thread, like of stupendousman and smacintush. Where's your outrage now?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I don't support what he did, and do believe that he deserves punishment - but not jail time.

This is complete nonsense. The jail time was standard for the crime, not at all exceptional. See the Rita case. I posted the link before and OldManMac posted it again. You seem not to have read it.

[Taliesin]

I'm not quite sure: Has it happened before that a president pardoned someone before all other legal means of appeals were used up?

The speed of the pardoning surprises me, I mean, Libby didn't even come to see the interior of a prison and he gets pardoned right away. Isn't it normal that someone should only be able to get pardoned, when the one in question is sitting in prison, having used all appeals to no avail, acting in sober manners in prison and feeling remorse over his misconduct, writing letters to the governor or president for pardoning.

It seems to me as if he got pardoned, or to be more exact the sentence got commuted, right away without further time passing, because the Bush-administration fears that Libby might talk in order to reduce his prison-time in a deal with the court.

I have googled a bit around, and found that Clinton didn't pardon anyone in the same year the sentencing happened, so I guess the people in question saw the prison from inside.

While I was at it I searched for blanket pardons issued by presidents, and I found that Carter issued a blanket pardon for all Vietnam-draft-dodgers, and then i found that President Ford issued a blanket pardon for Nixon (!!), who was responsible for quite a long list of crimes, but the worst one, the secret bombardment of Cambodia, was not a crime according to US-law anyway, but all the wiretapping was.

Then I found that George Bush Senior issued a long list of blanket pardons for nearly all the people from the Reagan-administration that were convicted of corrupt activities, including all the various international affairs.

So since it's a pattern that US-presidents, espescially republican ones, pardon convicted personnel from the previous administration, espescially if they happen to be republican, too, then why not save some time and make all governmental personell immune, or at least give the president the power to issue a preemptive blanket pardon for the own administration, isn't preemption the guideline of the wot?

If you think what is happening in the US is bad, you can multiply it by 100 for the case of a middle-east-democracy named Lebanon . There every parliamentary is immune and every one who has served a term in parliament, gets payed his/her salary for the rest of his/her life. There are no checks and balances, politicians can grant themselves money from just about wherever they want, and bribe whoever they want, and do whatever they want using the power they have in their position, only having to fear a more powerful politician or outside forces, and what's worse it is not expected any other way in Lebanon. Therefore the best job people aspire in Lebanon to reach, is to become a politician in paliament or better yet in the government as a minister.

Change of the system is practically impossible there, because the politicians make the law, and they have little incentive to make laws reducing their powers and possibilities to enrich themselves.

It's so bad that the word democracy has become a synonym for corruption, at least in the middle-east.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

Technically, Libby was not pardoned. Just his prison sentence was commuted. He's still a convicted felon.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

I also have a problem with the partisan hypocrisy of many of the Bush supporters in this thread, like of stupendousman and smacintush. Where's your outrage now?

Don't accuse me of being a hypocrite on this issue. When have I ever said that I was outraged at the Clinton pardons? Or Bush 41 or anyone else's? I don't think it's a big deal for Clinton or Bush or Bush Or Ford or Reagan or anyone else.

My disgust is with the overstated outrage at this Presidents action coupled with all of the false retroactive outrage over Clinton's. I can't attack Republican's for hypocrisy because in reference to this case there is none. Previous administrations pardoned HUNDREDS, Bush has pardoned what? 3 or 4? Plus ONE commutation of ONE part of a sentence? Not exactly abuse of power relatively speaking.

I believe in the Pardon powers and I haven't seen any use of that power that makes me think it should be amended. Not even from Ford.

If you wanna attack me attack me for that, don't make stuff up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Don't accuse me of being a hypocrite on this issue. When have I ever said that I was outraged at the Clinton pardons? Or Bush 41 or anyone else's? I don't think it's a big deal for Clinton or Bush or Bush Or Ford or Reagan or anyone else.

My disgust is with the overstated outrage at this Presidents action coupled with all of the false retroactive outrage over Clinton's. I can't attack Republican's for hypocrisy because in reference to this case there is none. Previous administrations pardoned HUNDREDS, Bush has pardoned what? 3 or 4? Plus ONE commutation of ONE part of a sentence? Not exactly abuse of power relatively speaking.

I believe in the Pardon powers and I haven't seen any use of that power that makes me think it should be amended. Not even from Ford.

If you wanna attack me attack me for that, don't make stuff up.

If this is really at the heart of this issue for you, what took you so long to express this?

Also, while you are clarifying yourself, why do you feel that it is no big deal?

[tie]

"I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware." - Bush

[Spliffdaddy]

Bush didn't replace the jury's verdict. Libby is still a convicted felon.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman:

Pull your head out of your partisan ass dude. Stop, take a deep breath, and start thinking...

Guess again. My standards are pretty consistent. I wasn't all that shocked that Clinton didn't get even as much as indicted when he clearly committed and suborned perjury. I'm also not shocked that Bush kept Libby from having to go to jail as well. Both got slaps on the wrist for getting themselves in hot what for what amounts to low-level poltical hijinks.

If Democratic presidents pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this was wrong. Are you with me? Okay...

If a Republican president pardons people who were found guilty by the courts, this is also wrong. You see, like you learned in grade school, two wrongs don't make a right.

...and it's my take that if it isn't wrong for Bill and Hillary Clinton to go out in public and not constantly being asked about the pardons that were bought and sold, then then it's not wrong to ignore what Bush has done since there's even less of a conflict of interest as say there was when Clinton pardoned a person who chose to do jail time rather than testify against him in a manner that probably would have ended with him leaving office and/or facing criminal charges himself.

Now, before you click that reply button and whip off a response about all of the Democratic presidents that pardoned people (including Clinton), stop yourself... Again, it doesn't matter. If that happened, that was wrong, but we aren't talking about these cases now, are we? If you want to start another thread about past commutes, go right ahead.

WOW! How CONVENIENT? When a democrat does REALLY BAD..hey, we just aren't going to talk about it...it's uh..IRRELEVANT...yeah, that's it! When a democrat sets a VERY LOW standard and the democrats and the media does not hold them to the standard they NOW claim to hold, then it's a clear matter of hypocrisy and can be rightly ignored as political partisanship. When I see people in this thread complaining about Bush start threads suggesting that Hillary (whose brother helped buy pardons) should be investigated for her role in the pardons she and her husband supported, I'll accept the notion that the comments in this thread are being made in the interest of setting high standards for political office holders. When some of the people making these comments have supported the Clintons and have refused to use the same standard they seem to hold Bush to, then...IT'S RELEVANT.

Remember...it's not the high standards that matter, it's the hypocrisy those who claim to support them that matter. We were told that time after time during the Clinton administration, and I FOR ONE and willing to accept the standard that those who support and supported the Clintons have set. If you are not, then you should have been more active in seeing that the pardon game stopped when Clinton left office. You didn't so....

I know that by saying that your guy was wrong, I've probably angered you, and I'm sure you are thinking of ways to disagree with me as you read this.

Bush isn't "my guy". I never really cared for him much.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=OldManMac;3422380]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Of course you would think that. Are you a legal professional? Are you intimately involved in the details of this case?

A. I have had legal training.
B. I read the stuff linked.
C. All I need to know is that the only comparable example of perjury by a government official during an investigation of something that wasn't even a crime, ended up with the official in question not even getting indicted. That's the standard that was set. Like it or not.

I'm not a Clinton supporter; if he did something illegal, he should suffer the consequences as well.

Did you vote for him? Did you support his impeachment?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yeah I get it besson3c: So you can cry and whine all you want and pretend to be disgusted when those of your own party do it too but really, what are you gonna do about it? Nothing. The constitution isn't going to be changed and you will still use this as yet another reason to hate someone in the party you dislike and you will still ignore these things when the sitting President is in the "correct" party.

BINGO.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

People keep bringing up Clinton because for the most part there has been no outrage. Not then, not now. This is called hypocrisy.

SWISH! Two for two.

[besson3c]

Wow, this thread has really gone to the shitter...

I'm outta here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Don't accuse me of being a hypocrite on this issue. When have I ever said that I was outraged at the Clinton pardons? Or Bush 41 or anyone else's? I don't think it's a big deal for Clinton or Bush or Bush Or Ford or Reagan or anyone else.

Man..give this guy the World Series MVP...he's batting a thousand.

The only pardon that bugged me...really, was the one for Susan McDougal. It's a clear case of quid pro quo. She kept silent and went to jail when she was immune from prosecution. It's the same thing that G. Gordon Liddy did and it is done because you'll either do even more time for perjury or havie to give someone up. That person in this case was Bill Clinton and if she testified truthfully, Clinton would have been a party to business fraud and likely had to stepped down from office. THAT is corruption. It doesn't matter what Libby did...Bush wasn't going to go done for anything. The only one in harms way was Scooter Libby, and even at that he hadn't done anything illegal.

Sorry guys...on this one, you're wasting oxygen, which is the same reason I DIDN'T get all that upset about McDougal even though it was clearly the action of a corrupt politician. The difference of course is that many of the people who are making a stink now are looking to send that corrupt politician back to the White House. Sniff...sniff...is that hypocrisy I'm smelling? Yep.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

IThis is complete nonsense. The jail time was standard for the crime, not at all exceptional. See the Rita case. I posted the link before and OldManMac posted it again. You seem not to have read it.

AGAIN...jail time IS NOT the standard for a politician lying under oath during a political witch hunt. Bill Clinton lied time and again under oath and subborned perjury, and didn't even get indicted. Libby is a convicted felon. He's getting the shaft, unless you believe of course that Bill Clinton should also do jail time?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wow, this thread has really gone to the shitter...

I'm outta here.

Start another thread explaining your disgust for the Clintons. I'll join you there.

[OldManMac]

[QUOTE=stupendousman;3423171]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

A. I have had legal training.
B. I read the stuff linked.
C. All I need to know is that the only comparable example of perjury by a government official during an investigation of something that wasn't even a crime, ended up with the official in question not even getting indicted. That's the standard that was set. Like it or not.



Did you vote for him? Did you support his impeachment?

I've had legal training as well, but that doesn't make me a lawyer. Artful dodge.

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Don't accuse me of being a hypocrite on this issue. When have I ever said that I was outraged at the Clinton pardons? Or Bush 41 or anyone else's? I don't think it's a big deal for Clinton or Bush or Bush Or Ford or Reagan or anyone else.

I'm sorry, smacintush. You are right. I was confused by your post "Yeah I get it besson3c:.." but I was mistaken.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=OldManMac;3423189]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've had legal training as well, but that doesn't make me a lawyer. Artful dodge.

Almost as artful as the "you're not a lawyer, so you can't comprehend" routine. Thanks.