Soxy Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Should be interesting. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Enjoy the jail time, Scooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) Enjoy the jail time, Scooter. I think President Bush will pardon him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) I think President Bush will pardon him. Really? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) Really? Why? Well, couple reasons. First, its entirely possible that Mr. Libby knows more than he was willing to share, and he could have been hoping he could find a way to avoid the charges but still protect the VP (who was a key element in all of this according to the case, and may not be totally out of the woods yet). It's also possible that Mr. Bush may just want to protect a person who served his administration...I mean, if Tenet et al. can get Medals of Freedom... Bush the First got away with pardoning a heck of a lot of the Iran Contra guys, and now half of them are back in government working for this administration. Edited March 6, 2007 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Statement from Harry Reid's office: I welcome the jury’s verdict. It’s about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney’s role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:14 AM) I think President Bush will pardon him. The Presidential Pardon has historically been one of the most abused privlidges of the oval office. I would really hope that Libby is not pardoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) The Presidential Pardon has historically been one of the most abused privlidges of the oval office. I would really hope that Libby is not pardoned. He will be I think, however I can't blame President Bush. Every President I can think of has abused the pardon privilege and given some bad people pardons. I agree, I hate that damn thing, it's so abused. I know in this case it's coincidence, but the timing of this and Cheney's issues is interesting too. Edited March 6, 2007 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I don't know about the pardon, it could potentially piss a lot of people off against the Republicans, and the '08 political season has started already, it seems. There would be a huge uproar if he was pardoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Oh Fox News........so sad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) I don't know about the pardon, it could potentially piss a lot of people off against the Republicans, and the '08 political season has started already, it seems. There would be a huge uproar if he was pardoned. When has that stopped a President before? Clinton, Bush 1, once they're on their way out after their 2nd term, it doesn't hurt them at all, they couldn't care less, and by the time the next election rolls around it's totally forgotten (seriously, was the Mark Rich pardon an issue in 02? All of the Iran-Contra pardons an issue in 1994?). There are some people even speculating that the goal now for Libby's attorneys is to slow down the appeals process enough to keep him out of jail for a little under 2 years. And on top of that, when has a huge uproar stopped this administration from doing anything? I can think of their Social Security destruction plan, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I'm surprised it took them 2.5 hours to get this ready. National Review: Pardon Libby (for those who want to read the justification that would be used if he were pardoned) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) I'm surprised it took them 2.5 hours to get this ready. National Review: Pardon Libby (for those who want to read the justification that would be used if he were pardoned) I haven't read the article, but it's not a hard case to make. Bush just has to say no crime was committed, no one was ever prosecuted for revealing Plame's identity. Libby misremembered events, but who hasn't done that? That's not a crime. The crime here was the political witch hunt which has resulted in the prosecution of Libby. As president, he cannot stand by and see the laws of the country corrupted and abused in the political persecution of an innocent man. His duty is to maintain the rule of law in America. The rule of law may be meaningless to the Democrat party, but it is not to him. His duty is to set this miscarriage right, and to pardon Libby. All that is just my guess at the justification, not to be interpreted as my personal opinion on the case. I'm not sure I even have opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:01 PM) At least the one count he was acquitted of was that. If he hadn't been convicted of the other count of the same charge, it would be true. That's pretty close for Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:58 PM) I don't know about the pardon, it could potentially piss a lot of people off against the Republicans, and the '08 political season has started already, it seems. There would be a huge uproar if he was pardoned. I'm not sure how that will stop Bush. He has destroyed the republican party in the eyes of all non straight ticket republicans, so he doesn't care. Also, the Libby thing was a witch hunt to cover up the fact they didn't have the stones to go after the real criminal, VP Dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I think Scooter should get the same punishment that Sandy Berger got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) I think Scooter should get the same punishment that Sandy Berger got. Hey now, community service is hard work. Not quite the same as hard time, but. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Here's what I don't get about this whole thing. "I don't remember"... that is all this man had to say. Period. I mean, hey, it worked for both Clintons for years! But seriously, why did Scooter go through all the trouble of trying to remember what really happened and then why did he choose to air it all out? As I get older, I mix up stuff all the time, and no, not on purpose. I remember details a lot less clearly then I did 10 years ago. So, "I don't remember" is plausible, and there's no trial. So what the hell REALLY happened here? Of course, you Dems will defend Joe Wilson because he's a HERO to you all, but that's the scumbag that needs to be drilled, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:06 PM) I mean, hey, it worked for both Clintons for years! But seriously, why did Scooter go through all the trouble of trying to remember what really happened and then why did he choose to air it all out? As I get older, I mix up stuff all the time, and no, not on purpose. I remember details a lot less clearly then I did 10 years ago. So, "I don't remember" is plausible, and there's no trial. So what the hell REALLY happened here? What really happened is that he concocted an untrue story which he told investigators repeatedly in multiple separate interviews to cover up the inconvenient facts that the VP's office had attempted to use his wife's job at the CIA as a means of smearing her husband. That is why he was convicted. Saying "I don't know" would have been a lot better than the fabricated story he did tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 11:17 PM) What really happened is that he concocted an untrue story which he told investigators repeatedly in multiple separate interviews to cover up the inconvenient facts that the VP's office had attempted to use his wife's job at the CIA as a means of smearing her husband. That is why he was convicted. Saying "I don't know" would have been a lot better than the fabricated story he did tell them. But. . . but. . . Scooter's a nice guy and Joe Wilson's just a scumbag so cut him some slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 04:17 AM) What really happened is that he concocted an untrue story which he told investigators repeatedly in multiple separate interviews to cover up the inconvenient facts that the VP's office had attempted to use his wife's job at the CIA as a means of smearing her husband. That is why he was convicted. Saying "I don't know" would have been a lot better than the fabricated story he did tell them. See, now, that's what you WANT to believe happened. This is all about smearing the Bush neo-con adminstration to you people and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I still don't understand what Scooter did wrong to be honest. His perceived wrongdoing, I agree, is nothing more than left wing politcal agenda. However, I think our "fine" VP did a lot of things wrong, but I guess it was thought the evidence wasn't there to convict him, but then again I don't think the evidence was there to convict Libby when you consider 2 of THE main witnesses were Judith Miller and Tim Russert, who I wouldn't trust to watch a burnt down newsstand while I went to get lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 06:07 PM) I still don't understand what Scooter did wrong to be honest. His perceived wrongdoing, I agree, is nothing more than left wing politcal agenda. However, I think our "fine" VP did a lot of things wrong, but I guess it was thought the evidence wasn't there to convict him, but then again I don't think the evidence was there to convict Libby when you consider 2 of THE main witnesses were Judith Miller and Tim Russert, who I wouldn't trust to watch a burnt down newsstand while I went to get lunch. He "lied" to a grand jury. It's called perjury, and he got convicted of it... something the illustrious Bill Clinton got away with. I'm sure, since this is Bush's administration or anything having to do with Bush (85 times removed), it's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 A couple things are different between the President's impeachment trial and this criminal trial. The first of which is that Libby's trial is a criminal trial. The second of which is that Libby testified before grand juries several times. Not only was his story different than others on his side, but they were different each time he went up to testify - and not in minor ways. Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury once. The Clinton trial, although some people may feel it justified, was - at its essence - politically motivated. Articles of impeachment had been introduced by many of the same Congressmen who introduced it in 1998 as early as 1993. It is my understanding that someone who is impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" can also be tried in criminal court for the same offenses. If there was a serious legal issue that warranted an actual conviction in this case, why didn't Starr seek out federal prosecution for Clinton after he left office in 2001? Had the statute of limitations run out? Or had Clinton's "indictment" been unable to pass the smell test in a criminal court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts