Cknolls Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) I think Bush should hold a state dinner for Libby in the near future. Edited July 3, 2007 by Cknolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 MSNBC.com ticker: White House won't rule out eventual pardon for Libby. More soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) MSNBC.com ticker: White House won't rule out eventual pardon for Libby. More soon. You KNOW the press corp had 85,000 people in the room SCREAMING that question to Tony Snow today. So again, the "beat" goes on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) You KNOW the press corp had 85,000 people in the room SCREAMING that question to Tony Snow today. So again, the "beat" goes on... From what I have seen the press room is very small. 85K might be a bit on the high side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 This isnt any worse than what Clinton did 6 years ago...yet of course Dems like Schumer and the rest will be b****ing and moaning forever about it. Short-term memory is awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) From what I have seen the press room is very small. 85K might be a bit on the high side. Smartass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) All in all, it is the best justice system in the world. Flawed indeed, but better than any of the alternatives I know of. I hear in Canada and France the entire system is free. Oops, wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) You KNOW the press corp had 85,000 people in the room SCREAMING that question to Tony Snow today. So again, the "beat" goes on... As they should be. QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) This isnt any worse than what Clinton did 6 years ago...yet of course Dems like Schumer and the rest will be b****ing and moaning forever about it. Short-term memory is awesome 1. 6 years ago, Bush was in office. 2. I just realized, I think I am confusing 2 Bergers here - who did Clinton pardon or commute, and when? Can someone refresh my memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:53 AM) As they should be. 1. 6 years ago, Bush was in office. 2. I just realized, I think I am confusing 2 Bergers here - who did Clinton pardon or commute, and when? Can someone refresh my memory? 6 years and 7 months ago, whatever. And on his last day(s) in office he made over one hundred pardons including mark Rich and i think one of Hilary's brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) 6 years and 7 months ago, whatever. And on his last day(s) in office he made over one hundred pardons including mark Rich and i think one of Hilary's brothers. He didn't pardon Berger, though, right? Samuel Berger? If we are talking about Hillary's brothers and their slimey business dealings, then I agree that was wrong too. But not nearly on the same scale - those people were not in the close White House decision-making circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 There are three pardons that Clinton made that were in my mind pretty craptacular (that stand out in my mind) and all were made in the last two weeks of his presidency. 1. Rostenkowski on two counts of mail fraud (although it was after his sentence was served) 2. Marc Rich (never tried) 3. Roger Clinton (two counts of cocaine possession) Oh yeah, another reason why this commutation is as craptacular as all these? Libby didn't even petition for it and go through the system. In August, Governor George Bush let a mentally retarded man be executed. But he finds two and a half years in a minimum security pen excessive for an aide who leaked a covert operative's name and lied about it several times to investigative arms of the government while under oath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:03 PM) There are three pardons that Clinton made that were in my mind pretty craptacular (that stand out in my mind) and all were made in the last two weeks of his presidency. 1. Rostenkowski on two counts of mail fraud (although it was after his sentence was served) 2. Marc Rich (never tried) 3. Roger Clinton (two counts of cocaine possession) Oh yeah, another reason why this commutation is as craptacular as all these? Libby didn't even petition for it and go through the system. In August, Governor George Bush let a mentally retarded man be executed. But he finds two and a half years in a minimum security pen excessive for an aide who leaked a covert operative's name and lied about it several times to investigative arms of the government while under oath. Oh yeah, I had forgotten about Rostenkowski. That was complete B.S., I was quite angry at that one. Rosty deserved what he was given by the justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) There are three pardons that Clinton made that were in my mind pretty craptacular (that stand out in my mind) and all were made in the last two weeks of his presidency. 1. Rostenkowski on two counts of mail fraud (although it was after his sentence was served) 2. Marc Rich (never tried) 3. Roger Clinton (two counts of cocaine possession) Oh yeah, another reason why this commutation is as craptacular as all these? Libby didn't even petition for it and go through the system. In August, Governor George Bush let a mentally retarded man be executed. But he finds two and a half years in a minimum security pen excessive for an aide who leaked a covert operative's name and lied about it several times to investigative arms of the government while under oath. Oh really? Really? Is THAT what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 That's what the CIA seemed to say, so yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 No, it's not... except those who had an axe to grind in the CIA (Plame herself), but now we're getting into semantics, which is really at the heart of the case. It came out in all of that - Libby wasn't the one who leaked it after all, so what really happened again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) This isnt any worse than what Clinton did 6 years ago...yet of course Dems like Schumer and the rest will be b****ing and moaning forever about it. Short-term memory is awesome Kinda like how Republicans keep b****ing about Clinton's BJ and pardons for the last 6-8 years? It seems to me that giving the President the ability to pardon people at will distorts the checks and balances -- why should the president have this power, especially if those he is pardoning/ commuting are directly linked to him? It seems like its just something that is only ever abused and never really used for a good cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 05:13 PM) Kinda like how Republicans keep b****ing about Clinton's BJ and pardons for the last 6-8 years? It's not brought up much at all until this happened... because again, at the heart of it all, the hypocracy is quite enormous here. Now, if you want to talk about someone who lied under oath... now that is a story no one wants to even remotely touch... because it was about "private" stuff. /rollseyes I just saw your edit... now I do agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) Kinda like how Republicans keep b****ing about Clinton's BJ and pardons for the last 6-8 years? It seems to me that giving the President the ability to pardon people at will distorts the checks and balances -- why should the president have this power, especially if those he is pardoning/ commuting are directly linked to him? It seems like its just something that is only ever abused and never really used for a good cause. Like I said earlier... if a person is prosecuted for a crime commited while part of the executive branch of government, the executive power to pardon or commute should be nullified. That would seem to be ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) I'm trying to see even deeper than that obvious conflict of interest, though. Why should the executive be able to throw out the work of the legislature (perjury laws) and judicial branches (trial by jury, conviction, sentencing) at will, with absolutely no reprocussions or limits on the power? Aside from political fallout which only matters every 4 years, it doesn't seem like there's anything anyone can do if there was a gross abuse of this power (or would it be impeachable?). Are there any examples of this power being used for some great benefit to the country, or is it almost exclusively for political favors? Edited July 3, 2007 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) Why should the executive be able to throw out the work of the legislature (perjury laws) and judicial branches (trial by jury, conviction, sentencing) at will, with absolutely no reprocussions or limits on the power? I am with you on this. Seems to defy logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Actually, at the heart of it all, I agree with you all as well. However, it is EXPRESSLY in the Constitution, so there are reasons that this was put in. I'll see if I can come up with some research to see why, because now I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) Actually, at the heart of it all, I agree with you all as well. However, it is EXPRESSLY in the Constitution, so there are reasons that this was put in. I'll see if I can come up with some research to see why, because now I'm curious. I think perhaps the legislature was seen as having more teeth when it came to going after rogue executive branchers. They do have powers that can be equated to arrest and trial, just under different guise. But nowadays, those powers seem minimized, either in perception or practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It's a shame any American would not be outraged over this, or the fact that Libby's actions were tied to revealing the identity of a CIA agent, all part of an orchestrated effort to mislead the American public into war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) It's a shame any American would not be outraged over this, or the fact that Libby's actions were tied to revealing the identity of a CIA agent, all part of an orchestrated effort to mislead the American public into war. *yawn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) It's not brought up much at all until this happened... because again, at the heart of it all, the hypocracy is quite enormous here. Now, if you want to talk about someone who lied under oath... now that is a story no one wants to even remotely touch... because it was about "private" stuff. /rollseyes I just saw your edit... now I do agree with that. Could you tell me exactly where in a court of law Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury and had his sentence commuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts