NationStates Jolt Archive

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

I should note that if Democrats somehow fail to take advantage of this situation, then the whole lot of them should be charged with the crime of stupidity. This is a legal and moral outrage in every possible sense.

I just read about this. Damnit.


here is a link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_TRIAL?SITE=INKEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

How is $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby still "a harsh punishment", as mr. bush claims? This only shows big time crooks that if they have the right friends, they can do anything illegal that they want to, and get away without sitting behind bars. This clearly shows the lack of leadership on part of Bush, and shows that Cheney really is controlling the president like a puppet.

I should note that if Democrats somehow fail to take advantage of this situation, then the whole lot of them should be charged with the crime of stupidity. This is a legal and moral outrage in every possible sense.


QFT. This should further fan the flames of anger of every american, to the point that we can't stand the heat anymore, and actually oust this administration. They show once again, that they believe they, or their croonies are above the law. Its time that we show them otherwise.

Republican Party Coddles Criminals!

This is news?

How is $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby still "a harsh punishment", as mr. bush claims?
I think we have to realize who we are talking about here.

I think we have to realize who we are talking about here.

Oh yes thats right. He thinks that torture is reasonable, but 2 years in jail isn't. How...twisted.

Cronyism is cronyism and bush owed him the commutation.

Libby gets to remain a felon, ineligible to vote, disbarred, banned from possessing guns, out of a job.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

They're only doing this because he's part of their administration. Who knows what would happen if he was a Democrat? (But I'm probably just stating the obvious)

Cronyism is cronyism and bush owed him the commutation.

Libby gets to remain a felon, ineligible to vote, disbarred, banned from possessing guns, out of a job.

You're not suggesting that this is ok, surely.

While I admit this is bad, it's not like the democrats don't do the same. To say that they don't do similar things is simply unreasonable.

Don't worry, the Democrats always pounce on an opportunity to make the Republicans look bad.

You're not suggesting that this is ok, surely.

If you make a list of all the bad things Jaw Bush and the republican government have done in the past six years, this is pretty much at the bottom.

Expected, harmless, politics-as-usual.

Blah blah, bunch of crooks, old news, who cares.

At any rate, be happy Bush doesn't have the common decency to actually pardon him, instead he gets to live the rest of his days as a felon, with all the unpleasantness that that entails.

While I admit this is bad, it's not like the democrats don't do the same. To say that they don't do similar things is simply unreasonable.
Have they ever done this?
If you make a list of all the bad things Jaw Bush and the republican government have done in the past six years, this is pretty much at the bottom.

Expected, harmless, politics-as-usual.

Blah blah, bunch of crooks, old news, who cares.

True, I guess.

fantastic lesson in civics that....

Not to b...b...but Clinton,

BUT

Clinton pardoned people involved with such crimes as racketeering, drug smuggling, and Susan McDougal, a person connected with the Whitewater scandal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

Both parties can abuse the power.

Don't worry, the Democrats always pounce on an opportunity to make the Republicans look bad.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "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 thirty months in prison."

Why pounce when it is served to you, cut up and marinated, on a silver platter?

And commuting the sentence right at it's outcome is far different than the sweeping wave of outgoing pardons.

Not to b...b...but Clinton,

BUT

Clinton pardoned people involved with such crimes as racketeering, drug smuggling, and Susan McDougal, a person connected with the Whitewater scandal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm


And your point is? Wrong is wrong, regardless of which party it is. Im tired of this BS "the dems/republicans/ insert other group here" did something similar. This isn't about what they did wrong, its about what the president did wrong this time around. Its about his fudge up, not anyone elses.

Why pounce when it is served to you, cut up and marinated, on a silver platter?

:confused:

Clinton isn't President anymore. I wish the Democrats had the guts to impeach President Bush, but I know they won't. Republicans are bold morons, and Democrats are intelligent cowards.

Another ass-backwards screw-up by George W. Bush, whose life motto seems to be "if you're going to do it, you may as well do it wrong."

Everyone expected him to let Libby off the hook, but because of public sentiment against Libby, Bush, Cheney, Bush/Cheney cronyism, and the Republican party, he was not expected to do it until after the election. Doing it now will throw the pols into a tizzy and the campaigns into dissarray, making the Reps look even crookeder than before (if possible). The party will not be pleased with this (though I am ;))

In addition, the way he did it makes no sense at all. Granted, this commutation is nonsense -- there was nothing at all wrong with Libby's sentence; it was well within the federal sentencing guidelines -- but still, as president, Bush has the absolute right to commute any sentence of any person he likes. So he could have just announced this decision and carried on. Instead, he slipped it in like some big secret in the short time he was without his WH press corps entourage -- he had already returned to the Whitehouse while they were still packing up after his Kennebunkport summit with Putin. Everybody is working on their Putin reports, and bang, out of the blue, Libby isn't going to jail after all. Why all the cloak-and-dagger? Is it that he is so used to sneaking around, doing stuff he isn't supposed to do, that he has forgotten how to do things openly, even when he's totally allowed to do them?

Amazing that in something so relatively minor (compared to all the other horrors going on in the world), Bush manages to make trouble and controversy even out of this.

And your point is? Wrong is wrong, regardless of which party it is. Im tired of this BS "the dems/republicans/ insert other group here" did something similar. This isn't about what they did wrong, its about what the president did wrong this time around. Its about his fudge up, not anyone elses.

Point is, right now, as far as pardons go, Bush is hardly the worst example of it. If you're going to be mad at that, be angry that it's been abused in the past even worse, helping to entrench the precedent that it's okay for a sitting President now. I'm almost certainly sure the same people crawling out of the shadows to once again bash Bush did little when Clinton made the list of pardons. It's hypocrisy on a grandiose scale.

Not to b...b...but Clinton,

BUT

Clinton pardoned people involved with such crimes as racketeering, drug smuggling, and Susan McDougal, a person connected with the Whitewater scandal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

Both parties can abuse the power.

Commuting a sentence right at its outcome is far different than your standard wave of outgoing pardons.

b...b...but Clinton,

"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon."

Pardons are supposed to be reserved for people who go though a process and show remorse.
Libby has never done so.
He was covering for another crime within the administration, who in turn covered for him.


It's pretty easy to win when you're both the player and the dungeon master.

Clinton isn't President anymore. I wish the Democrats had the guts to impeach President Bush, but I know they won't. Republicans are bold morons, and Democrats are intelligent cowards.
Exactly, democrats are intelligent. Cheney would no longer have to relay his commands through Bush, he could destroy the country by himself.

"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon."

Pardons are supposed to be reserved for people who go though a process and show remorse.
Libby has never done so.
He was covering for another crime within the administration, who in turn covered for him.


It's pretty easy to win when you're both the player and the dungeon master.
LIBBY WASN'T PARDONED

His sentence was commuted hours after it was passed.

"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon."

Pardons are supposed to be reserved for people who go though a process and show remorse.
Libby has never done so.
He was covering for another crime within the administration, who in turn covered for him.


It's pretty easy to win when you're both the player and the dungeon master.

He wasn't pardoned.

He wasn't pardoned.

In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:

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

The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.
.

.

What don't you understand?

He was not pardoned.

There is a difference between commuting a jail sentence and pardoning someone.

Look it up on wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Niraqa
b...b...but Clinton,
"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon."

Pardons are supposed to be reserved for people who go though a process and show remorse.
Libby has never done so.
He was covering for another crime within the administration, who in turn covered for him.


It's pretty easy to win when you're both the player and the dungeon master.
For the record, Libby has not been pardoned. As I heard it explained about half an hour ago on CNN, the difference is:

Pardon = totally wiping clean the slate as if there was never a trial. If asked in a legally binding context (like background check) if you were ever convicted of a crime, you can honestly answer "no."

Commutation = conviction remains on the books, but your punishment is lessened. Libby will be a convicted felon all his life. He just won't serve jail time for it.

With that made clear, it was still a stupid thing for Bush to do, both because there was nothing wrong with Libby's sentence and because Bush's timing was bad for his own party. But if he had waited to do what was good for the Republicans, Libby would already have done some jail time before Bush could let him out, and apparently, taking care of his personal buds is more important to him than anything, even the future of his political "legacy" that people seem to think he cares about. (EDIT: And way more important than respecting the law and the courts, of course.)

Could someone please explain to me why the President was granted powers like this?

And who cares if the Republicans did anything wrong? The Dems have done stuff wrong in the past too so that makes it okay for the Republicans to do whatever they want, whenever they want. :D

Look it up on wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Did you even read what I posted?

Did you even read what I posted?

Keep digging.

Want to bet a hundred dollars on it?

.

Let's try this again.
HE WASN'T FUCKING PARDONED.

His sentence was commuted, not same thing.

Let's try this again.
HE WASN'T FUCKING PARDONED.

His sentence was commuted, not same thing.

Quiet you.

I might make 100 dollars off of this

Could someone please explain to me why the President was granted powers like this?

Let's say, there is a law that says homosexuals caught giving oral sex between 7am and 9pm, should be arrested, tortured, and shot.(yes its a a stupid example) Now, its not really upheld, but its there just because. So lets say John Doe gets caught, and is sentenced and such. The president can hand down a pardon to protect that man from the sentence.

Mainly though, its used for political gains, and not in a case as listed above. However, you see pardons like that(used in a good, non political way) being used by governors all the time.


And who cares if the Republicans did anything wrong? The Dems have done stuff wrong in the past too so that makes it okay for the Republicans to do whatever they want, whenever they want. :D


Too bad some people actually believe that.:(

Point is, right now, as far as pardons go, Bush is hardly the worst example of it. If you're going to be mad at that, be angry that it's been abused in the past even worse, helping to entrench the precedent that it's okay for a sitting President now. I'm almost certainly sure the same people crawling out of the shadows to once again bash Bush did little when Clinton made the list of pardons. It's hypocrisy on a grandiose scale.

How on earth does the fact that Clinton or any other President pardoned someone who deserved jail in any way excuse the fact that Bush did what he did today? "The other guy did it too" is an excuse unworthy of anyone over the age of 5.

How on earth does the fact that Clinton or any other President pardoned someone who deserved jail in any way excuse the fact that Bush did what he did today? "The other guy did it too" is an excuse unworthy of anyone over the age of 5.
Are you trying to imply that wrong + wrong =/= right? What are you, anti-American or something?! ;)

He wasn't pardoned.

What don't you understand?

He was not pardoned.

There is a difference between commuting a jail sentence and pardoning someone.

Look it up on wikipedia. :rolleyes:

And this makes it ok in what way?

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

How about getting your facts straight before posting?

Libby in fact did not "out" Valerie Plame. The Justice Department already knew it was Robert Armitage who leaked her name to Bob Novak prior to going after Libby. The case should never have been filed, let alone brought to trial. Had it never been filed, Libby would never have been questioned and thus never been in a position where he could be accused of misstatements.

Valerie Plame was in fact well-known as a CIA employee who rode a desk. She was no covert field operative, and nobody was "endangered".

Furthermore, Libby wasn't pardoned. He still has to pay a $250K fine and serve probation. Much more than that pantload from Little Rock ever paid or served for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Props to the President for commuting Libby's sentence and at least partially redressing this miscarriage of justice.

So let me put this in perspective. Bush believes that sentencing a retarded man to death (look it up) is just fine but a mentally competent man who willingly commits a felony should not serve a day in jail? I am not so mad about this because Bush has pretty much guaranteed a Democratic victory in 2008 in all cases. The message is clear, if you put your life on the line for this country we appreciate your service. However, Dick says that if his friend is on the line you can "go f*** yourself" like Leahy. Well, this shouldn't be a surprise to any of us at this point. Let's just pray for God to make time go faster so we can get this stain off our country. Now since there's no more trial Bush and his administration can answer any and all questions regarding the incident. Remember, "we won't discuss an ongoing investigation?" Bush just put the nail in the coffin for almost all Republicans running for federal office.

The Republican party didn't do anything, the President did.

How about getting your facts straight before posting?

Libby in fact did not "out" Valerie Plame. The Justice Department already knew it was Robert Armitage who leaked her name to Bob Novak prior to going after Libby. The case should never have been filed, let alone brought to trial. Had it never been filed, Libby would never have been questioned and thus never been in a position where he could be accused of misstatements.

Valerie Plame was in fact well-known as a CIA employee who rode a desk. She was no covert field operative, and nobody was "endangered".

Furthermore, Libby wasn't pardoned. He still has to pay a $250K fine and serve probation. Much more than that pantload from Little Rock ever paid or served for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Props to the President for commuting Libby's sentence and at least partially redressing this miscarriage of justice.

Miscarriage of justice?

Libby perjured himself, and was convicted of perjury, no? I don't see any miscarriage of justice here.

How about getting your facts straight before posting?

Libby in fact did not "out" Valerie Plame. The Justice Department already knew it was Robert Armitage who leaked her name to Bob Novak prior to going after Libby. The case should never have been filed, let alone brought to trial. Had it never been filed, Libby would never have been questioned and thus never been in a position where he could be accused of misstatements.

Valerie Plame was in fact well-known as a CIA employee who rode a desk. She was no covert field operative, and nobody was "endangered".

Furthermore, Libby wasn't pardoned. He still has to pay a $250K fine and serve probation. Much more than that pantload from Little Rock ever paid or served for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Props to the President for commuting Libby's sentence and at least partially redressing this miscarriage of justice.

But he was convicted on four felony counts by a jury of his peers. That's the rule of law which Bush clearly doesn't give a flying F about. As for her not being covert, shove the talking points up your arse. Everyone has admitted she was a NOC otherwise there would be no investigation. The CIA and DOJ conducted and brought the charges. Are you a smarter legal scholar than they?

And this makes it ok in what way?

I want you to quote the post where I said it was OK that scooter libby had his sentence commuted. I think that you should have to give me twenty dollars as a punitive award if you can't, to dissuade this kind of bullshit in the future.

That dishonesty aside, a commutation is *better* in terms of justice being done than a pardon.

If scooter were pardoned, it would be as though he was never tried or convicted.

A commutation just spares him jail time, he is still a felon, and should still liable for all the misery that comes with that.

Reading comprehension shows that the above discussion, which you quoted out of context for some reason, was about whether or not he was pardoned, not whether or not his commutation was just.

The commutation was expected, is crooked, isn't the end of the world, who cares.

The Republican party didn't do anything, the President did.

And as president, he is the leader of his party.

Let's say, there is a law that says homosexuals caught giving oral sex between 7am and 9pm, should be arrested, tortured, and shot.(yes its a a stupid example) Now, its not really upheld, but its there just because. So lets say John Doe gets caught, and is sentenced and such. The president can hand down a pardon to protect that man from the sentence.

Mainly though, its used for political gains, and not in a case as listed above. However, you see pardons like that(used in a good, non political way) being used by governors all the time.




Too bad some people actually believe that.:(

As far as I am concerned then, there should not be full pardons... only the ability to say "hey this law is messed up and I want it reviewed" or "I believe this guy was unfairly prosecuted and deserves to have his sentence reconsidered"

Miscarriage of justice?

Libby perjured himself, and was convicted of perjury, no? I don't see any miscarriage of justice here.


The miscarriage of justice lay in bringing the charges against him in the first place, when the Justice Department already knew it wasn't Libby who leaked to Novak, but Armitage.

But he was convicted on four felony counts by a jury of his peers.

And the conviction stands, in case you have overlooked that fact.

That's the rule of law which Bush clearly doesn't give a flying F about.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, begs to differ, since it specifically grants to the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons (Article II, Section 2; see the post above on this point).

As for her not being covert, shove the talking points up your arse. Everyone has admitted she was a NOC otherwise there would be no investigation. The CIA and DOJ conducted and brought the charges. Are you a smarter legal scholar than they?

I might make the same request and ask the same question.

I want you to quote the post where I said it was OK that scooter libby had his sentence commuted. I think that you should have to give me twenty dollars as a punitive award if you can't, to dissuade this kind of bullshit in the future.

That dishonesty aside, a commutation is *better* in terms of justice being done than a pardon.

If scooter were pardoned, it would be as though he was never tried or convicted.

A commutation just spares him jail time, he is still a felon, and should still liable for all the misery that comes with that.

Reading comprehension shows that the above discussion, which you quoted out of context for some reason, was about whether or not he was pardoned, not whether or not his commutation was just.

The commutation was expected, is crooked, isn't the end of the world, who cares.


Thank you for admitting at least that it was crooked. And I'll show you the post you asked for when you show me where I said you siad it was ok. I never said you said it, but it certainly looked to me as if that was what you were implying. If that was an incorrect assumption, then I apologize for that, but I will thank you not to put words in my mouth, either. And welcome to my ignore list.

I have to admit I'm a bit suprised. I would have thought the Pretzlenit would have waited for the end of his term. I won't be shocked if a full pardon does come through at the end of his term. As it is, I'm pissed, but I expected a pardon. Why should anyone beleive that GWB will do the right thing about anything.

Of course, it has convinced me that my reservations about impeachment need to go away. I have decided that since GWB does not respect our country's system of justice, I shall not bother to worry about whether or not impeachment would be a disjustice for him.

I might make the same request and ask the same question.


You might, but then that would be a dumb question since Luizzo isn't challenging their legal knowledge.

Bush just put the nail in the coffin for almost all Republicans running for federal office.

Your heavy breathing is fogging up your crystal ball.

Better save those words, because you'll be eating them next November :p

If that was an incorrect assumption, then I apologize for that, but I will thank you not to put words in my mouth, either. And welcome to my ignore list.

Hey, can I be on your ignore list too? :D

The miscarriage of justice lay in bringing the charges against him in the first place, when the Justice Department already knew it wasn't Libby who leaked to Novak, but Armitage.

What does it matter than he was mistakenly charged? He didn't get convicted of leaking information to Novak, he got convicted of perjuring himself.

Thank you for admitting at least that it was crooked. And I'll show you the post you asked for when you show me where I said you siad it was ok. I never said you said it, but it certainly looked to me as if that was what you were implying. If that was an incorrect assumption, then I apologize for that, but I will thank you not to put words in my mouth, either. And welcome to my ignore list.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12839525&postcount=39

I don't believe for a minute that you are too stupid to understand that

"And this makes it ok in what way?"

means the same thing as

"And why do you think that this makes it OK"

which contains the assertion

"you think it is OK."

Not for one minute.

Putting words in your mouth indeed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As far as I am concerned then, there should not be full pardons... only the ability to say "hey this law is messed up and I want it reviewed" or "I believe this guy was unfairly prosecuted and deserves to have his sentence reconsidered"

well you can alway amend the constitution, i suppose.

And as president, he is the leader of his party.

But he isn't the party as a whole.

The republican party does NOT coddle criminals! This is a clear fact! Haven't you ever heard of all the great strides towards law and order the republicans have made!

Jesus people, learn the difference between coddling criminals and BEING criminals.

:p

Much more than that pantload from Little Rock ever paid or served for his high crimes and misdemeanors.


WHAT high crimes and misdemeanors?

Oh, and don't pull out that lying under oath bullshit every "Boohoo Bill Clinton ruined America!" right-winger pulls out when you ask this. He did not lie under oath. Admittedly, he found a loophole (Under the definition of sex the Grand Jury had given him, Monica Lewinski had had sex with him but he hadn't had sex with her.), but come on, at least he had the decency to come up with a loophole, rather than just lying like our current administration. Bill Clinton brought us almost a decade of economic growth and a budgetary surplus, which then our Clueless Leader (Say this the same way Boris says "fearless leader" in Rocky and Bullwinkle.) squandered in his idiotic and illegal war.

And the conviction stands, in case you have overlooked that fact.



The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, begs to differ, since it specifically grants to the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons (Article II, Section 2; see the post above on this point).



I might make the same request and ask the same question.

The power to but was it right in this case? I'm just trying to get you to stop lying about the facts of the case. Valerie Plame was NOC for the CIA, fact. Valerie Plame was outed for political reasons, fact. Lewis Libby lies and was convicted by a jury of his peers on four felony counts. I never said he was pardoned, just said that this commutation is a miscarriage of the rule of law. Bush believes it's ok to send a mentally retarded man to death but not to have a competent man serve time for crimes he did in fact commit with willful knowledge and foresight. The key now is for the Democrats to push for investigation into overdrive on the original charge of leaking a CIA agent's name for purely political purposes. So stop lying about her being a desk jockey and I'll stop calling your a talking points memo following hack. Agreed?

The miscarriage of justice lay in bringing the charges against him in the first place, when the Justice Department already knew it wasn't Libby who leaked to Novak, but Armitage.

and then libby lied to cover it all up and that's what he was charged for. He wasn't charged with leaking her name, he was charge with perjury and obstruction of justice. Crimes he did in fact commit. Name me another time in history when a sitting president has pardoned a man before the finality of the trial had come, please. Then I'll say it is the same as any other case. Libby was still working on appeals and it looked like he'd fail, which he should have. But when has a President stepped in before all legal means have been exhausted? When has it been done to protect a member of that President's very own administration. Find me the precedent for that and I'll concur that you are right and poor Scooter got the shaft.

Your heavy breathing is fogging up your crystal ball.

Better save those words, because you'll be eating them next November :p

Doubt it, and you should check the R next to my voter registration ID card. I am a Republican of traditional values, not moral flip flopping like the current administration. I like GHWB, even liked Reagan, but Junior is the pits. Don't believe me, look at his ratings on every issue, in the crapper. Look at how he affected the 06 midterms, Republicans got hammered and he was a big reason. I refuse to bow to moral relativity like this man has done, and it appears you have too. I'll still be voting for a Republican, but not anyone like the current inhabitant of the white house.

and then libby lied to cover it all up and that's what he was charged for. He wasn't charged with leaking her name, he was charge with perjury and obstruction of justice. Crimes he did in fact commit. Name me another time in history when a sitting president has pardoned a man before the finality of the trial had come, please. Then I'll say it is the same as any other case. Libby was still working on appeals and it looked like he'd fail, which he should have. But when has a President stepped in before all legal means have been exhausted? When has it been done to protect a member of that President's very own administration. Find me the precedent for that and I'll concur that you are right and poor Scooter got the shaft.

He wasn't fucked pardoned. His sentence was commuted hours after it was passed. It wasn't a pardon but it was still a mockery of the legal system.

Doubt it, and you should check the R next to my voter registration ID card. I am a Republican of traditional values, not moral flip flopping like the current administration. I like GHWB, even liked Reagan, but Junior is the pits. Don't believe me, look at his ratings on every issue, in the crapper. Look at how he affected the 06 midterms, Republicans got hammered and he was a big reason. I refuse to bow to moral relativity like this man has done, and it appears you have too. I'll still be voting for a Republican, but not anyone like the current inhabitant of the white house.

Aren't they all basically Bush clones with minor variations? McCain, the only one that bordered on not being an idiot, banked HARD to the right to try an appeal to the party's hard-line base.

He wasn't fucked pardoned. His sentence was commuted hours after it was passed. It wasn't a pardon but it was still a mockery of the legal system.

MY apology for using the term pardoned. Name me a time when the President has commuted someone's sentence before all legal challenges possible have been heard. My apologies for twisting your panties into a wad. My original challenge still stands. Find the precedent where a President has pardoned or commuted the sentence of someone who was still appealing please.

WHAT high crimes and misdemeanors?

Oh, and don't pull out that lying under oath bullshit every "Boohoo Bill Clinton ruined America!" right-winger pulls out when you ask this. He did not lie under oath.

Actually, he did lie under oath. And as a direct result of his untruthfulness, he was suspended for five years by the Arkansas Supreme Court and disbarred by the United States Supreme Court.

Admittedly, he found a loophole (Under the definition of sex the Grand Jury had given him, Monica Lewinski had had sex with him but he hadn't had sex with her.),

He was a liar even using his own pretzel logic. According to the definition he attempted to hide behind:

[A] person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -- contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

Since Bubba is a lawyer, he no doubt studied tort law at one time, and thus knows about "cause in fact." Cause in fact can be shown by recourse to the "but-for" test: if, but for action A, result B would not have occurred, then A is a cause in fact of B. Bubba dropped trou and allowed his intern/humidor to contact his genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. But for Bubba's action, said contact would not have occurred. Thus, Bubba's action was a cause in fact of the intern/humidor's contacting his genitalia. Thus, Bubba caused the contact, therefore engaging in sexual relations with "that woman." So much for his playing word-games.

You can try arguing that tort-law definitions of cause can't be imported into this definition, but I will be unimpressed.

Bubba lied. End of issue.

Bill Clinton brought us almost a decade of economic growth and a budgetary surplus

Go back and check your stock reports. The stock market and the economy in general didn't pick up until after the November '94 elections. Thank the Republican Congress and Senate for forcing Bubba's acquiescence in economic reforms.

, which then our Clueless Leader (Say this the same way Boris says "fearless leader" in Rocky and Bullwinkle.) squandered in his idiotic and illegal war.

The war is neither idiotic nor illegal, despite the whining and crying of you, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Rosie O'Fat and any other crybaby who cares to chime in.

The war is neither idiotic

How so?

This is not a flamebait, just an honest question.

The power to but was it right in this case? I'm just trying to get you to stop lying about the facts of the case. Valerie Plame was NOC for the CIA, fact. Valerie Plame was outed for political reasons, fact. Lewis Libby lies and was convicted by a jury of his peers on four felony counts. I never said he was pardoned, just said that this commutation is a miscarriage of the rule of law.

Again, you are factually and legally wrong. You may disagree with the President's decision, but his decision was within the scope of his authority and in full accordance with the powers accorded him by the Constitution, and therefore fully in accordance with the "rule of law." The fact that you don't like the outcome of a proper excercise of a Constitutionally-defined Presidential power does not render that outcome contrary to the "rule of law."

Bush believes it's ok to send a mentally retarded man to death but not to have a competent man serve time for crimes he did in fact commit with willful knowledge and foresight.

And the two are related how?

The key now is for the Democrats to push for investigation into overdrive on the original charge of leaking a CIA agent's name for purely political purposes.

For someone who claims to be a Republican, your concern for and advice to Democrats is disturbing.

So stop lying about her being a desk jockey and I'll stop calling your a talking points memo following hack. Agreed?

Plame was not covert, Libby was never proven to have known she was covert, and I do not follow "talking points".

And btw: ad hominem attacks generally indicate an inability to logically refute an assertion.

At any rate, be happy Bush doesn't have the common decency to actually pardon him...
...yet.

Just wait til his last day in office.

Doubt it, and you should check the R next to my voter registration ID card. I am a Republican of traditional values, not moral flip flopping like the current administration. I like GHWB, even liked Reagan, but Junior is the pits. Don't believe me, look at his ratings on every issue, in the crapper. Look at how he affected the 06 midterms, Republicans got hammered and he was a big reason. I refuse to bow to moral relativity like this man has done, and it appears you have too. I'll still be voting for a Republican, but not anyone like the current inhabitant of the white house.

As someone who claims to be a Republican, you should be one of the first to recognize that this entire case was a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars, that it was politically motivated, and that it should never have been pursued. Assuming that Libby in fact lied (and having followed the case, I'm far from convinced), then an appropriate sanction should be imposed. Jail time, in the President's judgment (with which I agree), was not appropriate, and thus the sentence was commuted.

And please, spare me the "more-Republican-than-thou" attitude. I bow to no one in my GOP credentials. The first campaign I participated in was Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election, I worked on both of Ronald Reagan's campaigns, as well as both of the current President's campaigns.

And I don't even agree with many of the President's policies, especially prescription drugs and amnesty for illegal aliens.

I suggest you focus your disapproval on Harry Reid, San Fran Nan and the others Congressional Democrats, whose current approval rating is threatening to fall right off the page and is less than half that of the President.

Go back and check your stock reports. The stock market and the economy in general didn't pick up until after the November '94 elections. Thank the Republican Congress and Senate for forcing Bubba's acquiescence in economic reforms.
1992: Dow Jones rose by 4.17%
1993: Dow Jones rose by 13.72%
1994: Dow Jones rose by 2.14%

If we have the GOP-controlled Senate and Congress to thank for 8 years of sustained growth between 1993 and 2000 (where the Dow Jones rose 348.43%), then I assume you're more than happy to lay the blame for the abyssmal failure of the 5 of the last 7 years (where the Dow Jones fell by 1.56% from 2001 to 2006) firmly at the feet of the GOP-controlled Senate, Congress and Presidancy.
In addition, I can safely assume you're trumpeting the positive effects of the Dem-controlled Senate and Congress in the last year, during which time has seen the Dow Jones rise by 23%.

How so?

This is not a flamebait, just an honest question.

The war was launched and is being fought for good reasons, only one of which was Saddam's MWD program. Progress has been made and continues to be made. The President warned us that we'd be in it for the long run. And in the long run, the situation will be stabilized and he will be proved to have been correct. That's my view.

Drinking beer in the hot sun... I fought the law and I won
I fought the law and I won

The law don't mean shit if you've got the right friends... that's how this country's run
Bushes are the best friends I ever had
I fought the law and I won, I fought the law and I won

Bush broke the Presidential record for vacation days, shattered the previous record for signing statements, and eked out the all-time record low-approval rating honors.

Does anyone doubt he'll also make a stab at the all-time "pardoning of cronies" record in the waning days of his term?

Bush broke the Presidential record for vacation days, shattered the previous record for signing statements, and eked out the all-time record low-approval rating honors.

Does anyone doubt he'll also make a stab at the all-time "pardoning of cronies" record in the waning days of his term?

Clinton still wins at getting it in the Oval Office.

So let me put this in perspective. Bush believes that sentencing a retarded man to death (look it up) is just fine but a mentally competent man who willingly commits a felony should not serve a day in jail?

After 6 years of Bush, I am starting to flip-flop on my stand of not executing criminal retards.

What kind of separation of powers allows the head of the executive to overrule the judiciary?

Clinton still wins at getting it in the Oval Office.
No way. JFK holds that record.

Actually, he did lie under oath. And as a direct result of his untruthfulness, he was suspended for five years by the Arkansas Supreme Court and disbarred by the United States Supreme Court.

No, he didn't, and the only reason for those things is bullshit political posturing.




Since Bubba is a lawyer, he no doubt studied tort law at one time, and thus knows about "cause in fact." Cause in fact can be shown by recourse to the "but-for" test: if, but for action A, result B would not have occurred, then A is a cause in fact of B. Bubba dropped trou and allowed his intern/humidor to contact his genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. But for Bubba's action, said contact would not have occurred. Thus, Bubba's action was a cause in fact of the intern/humidor's contacting his genitalia. Thus, Bubba caused the contact, therefore engaging in sexual relations with "that woman." So much for his playing word-games.

You can try arguing that tort-law definitions of cause can't be imported into this definition, but I will be unimpressed.

Bubba lied. End of issue.

Eh. Wrong. Sorry, you can twist all you want, but by law, he didn't lie.

Go back and check your stock reports. The stock market and the economy in general didn't pick up until after the November '94 elections. Thank the Republican Congress and Senate for forcing Bubba's acquiescence in economic reforms.

Oh, so the Republican Congress is responsible when things to right, and Clinton is responsible when things go wrong? Good to know.

Perhaps it would do you good to get your information from somewhere other than "The O'reilly Factor".

The Republican Congress allocated more money to investigate Whitewater than they did to investigate 9/11.


The war is neither idiotic nor illegal, despite the whining and crying of you, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Rosie O'Fat and any other crybaby who cares to chime in.

The war is stupid, unwinnable, and according to the UN, the arbiter of international law, it is also illegal.

Also, "Whining and crying"? "Crybaby"? Because we don't agree with you? Grow up.

This commutation comes as no surprise to me. I am very pleased by the timing, it makes Republicans look even worse as the leader of their party has just gone and given all kinds of ammunition to the oppostion.

I could care less about his wife and kids, Lewis Libby should have gone to jail. He broke the law and was found guilty, two of Bush's handpicked courts refused to delay his reporting time to prison, so Bush had to jump in and save Scooter from minimum security, country club prison.

The only reason Bush commuted instead of pardoned Libby is that he knew he would drive the stake even deeper into the party's heart if he did it.

Oh...and the jury is still out on the pardon too. He might intervene later, in his final days when there can be no political blowback for his party.

~S

I just read about this. Damnit.


here is a link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_TRIAL?SITE=INKEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

How is $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby still "a harsh punishment", as mr. bush claims? This only shows big time crooks that if they have the right friends, they can do anything illegal that they want to, and get away without sitting behind bars. This clearly shows the lack of leadership on part of Bush, and shows that Cheney really is controlling the president like a puppet.

What Bush has really done is expunge it from his record. If I remember how such things work, correctly.

The war was launched and is being fought for good reasons, only one of which was Saddam's MWD program. Progress has been made and continues to be made. The President warned us that we'd be in it for the long run. And in the long run, the situation will be stabilized and he will be proved to have been correct. That's my view.

In my opinion, being stable in the long run doesn't matter worth shit if you have enough American corpses to build Bush a new house.

Hey, you suppose that's the point of the war?

What really pisses me off about this is that it was in no way illegal for Bush to do this. He was completely within his Constitutional powers to commute Libby's sentance. Even when the Administration doesn't get away with something, they get away with it.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

Corrupt politicians?

IN AMERICA???

GTFO of here.

[/SARCASM]

Seriously...

Why the f**k is this news?

This is why I hate congress. Seriously, if Bush just decided to go out and start slaughtering endangered species, congress would probably respond by giving him a permit, taking those species off the endangered species list, and calling it "An excellent compromise".

This is why I hate congress. Seriously, if Bush just decided to go out and start slaughtering endangered species, congress would probably respond by giving him a permit, taking those species off the endangered species list, and calling it "An excellent compromise".

What does Congress have to do with it?

What does Congress have to do with it?

Congress's failure to impeach him.

Congress's failure to impeach him.

Let's also not forget Congress bending over and taking it up the ass from Beloved Dear Leader when it came to the Iraq timeline.

Why should anyone beleive that GWB will do the right thing about anything.
That sums it up right there.

Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in Americas' history, if not THE worst.

It is amazing to see the die hard Busheviks continue to support this lame duck President. :(

And for those who are saying Scooter was commuted instead of pardoned, I say wait until the pretzelnit is about to leave office. Then we'll see if Scooter does any semblance of justice at all.

The miscarriage of justice lay in bringing the charges against him in the first place, when the Justice Department already knew it wasn't Libby who leaked to Novak, but Armitage.

Miscarriage my ass! The man perjured himself. Nobody MADE him lie to federal investigators. He tried to cover the ass of his boss, Dick Cheney, and he's succeeded. Meanwhile, Plame's career is ruined, and nobody's going to be seriously punished for it. It just goes to show that Democrats and Republicans are not judged to the same standard, in the eyes of the Republicans.

What's more, it is outrageous for you to compare Clinton's flurry of outgoing pardons to this situation right here. There are few similarities.

The war is neither idiotic nor illegal, despite the whining and crying of you, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Rosie O'Fat and any other crybaby who cares to chime in.
It was and remains.....idiotic, illegal and I will toss out the word immoral.

I imagine that the next eight years of Democrat rule will cause you immense anguish. I can well imagine who will be crying and whining the most. :p

I imagine that the next eight years of Democrat rule will cause you immense anguish. I can well imagine who will be crying and whining the most. :p

As a Democrat, this will not happen. If we win this upcoming election, I will be surprised. The Democrats are pussies who will fuck up enough in order to screw it up. America is too rascist for a mulatto with Hussein in his name and too sexist for a woman, let alone the wife of He Who Caused All Ills. No one else has spine.

Thank you, Democratic congress, for fucking the opportunity to stop the neoconservative tidal wave.

Fred Thompson wins.

Your heavy breathing is fogging up your crystal ball.

Better save those words, because you'll be eating them next November :p

Is that prediction like the predictions you made LAST November about the accursed Republicans keeping their majorities at the houses?

Again, you are factually and legally wrong. You may disagree with the President's decision, but his decision was within the scope of his authority and in full accordance with the powers accorded him by the Constitution, and therefore fully in accordance with the "rule of law." The fact that you don't like the outcome of a proper excercise of a Constitutionally-defined Presidential power does not render that outcome contrary to the "rule of law."



And the two are related how?



For someone who claims to be a Republican, your concern for and advice to
Democrats is disturbing.



Plame was not covert, Libby was never proven to have known she was covert, and I do not follow "talking points".

And btw: ad hominem attacks generally indicate an inability to logically refute an assertion.

so both DOJ and the CIA said she was in fact covert thereby making an investigation necessary doesn't convince you? Bush and Cheney have both themselves said that she was covert, but this doesn't convince you? It is not a waste of time and money to investigate why the shite house decided it'd be a good time to out a NOC in a time of war? Who was it that said that was the act of a scoundrel...oh right George HW Bush. I guess father truly does know best. Further, if you interpret the information regarding the congress ratings and look at the parties as a whole it would be the Republicans who are dragging down the average at the moment. I wish I could find the link to the polls that verify this but I'll look. We cannot debate anything until you admit she was a cvoert agent in the CIA or had been in the past 5 years which the law states makes it a crime to out her. Really, I read drudge too and I've seen all of his " she wasn't covert crap." Answer me this, if she wasn't covert then why did CIA go to DOJ and then based on evidence an investigation started? It would seem if she wasn't covert under the statute then there'd be no reason to investigate right? And the.. he did it too defense just makes you look silly. Call that Ad Hom if you want but really, it never worked with my mother either.

Further, your desire to make up little names for Pelosi and Reid just makes you look childish and petty. I'd expect that from the likes of Limbaugh and the dittoheads, but are you really on that level? Finally, I suggest you look at the approval ratings for congress over the past 60 years and take note there is not much of a change in the entirety of that volume of statistics.

This thread needs to figure out that Clinton pardoned lots of felons as well, most notably Sandy Berger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

Further, your desire to make up little names for Pelosi and Reid just makes you look childish and petty. I'd expect that from the likes of Limbaugh and the dittoheads, but are you really on that level? Finally, I suggest you look at the approval ratings for congress over the past 60 years and take note there is not much of a change in the entirety of that volume of statistics.

That's how a Bushevik works. Accept no reality except that which Beloved Dear Leader approves of.

too sexist for a woman, let alone the wife of He Who Caused All Ills.


It's not just sexists and right-wingers who don't like Hillary. The far left doesn't like her either. Seriously, just take a look around these forums. Hillary's views are rather pro-censorship, she voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot act, and she's generally not a very good candidate.

This thread needs to figure out that Clinton pardoned lots of felons as well, most notably Sandy Berger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

"They did it too!" is not a valid method of debate. Sorry.

It's not just sexists and right-wingers who don't like Hillary. The far left doesn't like her either. Seriously, just take a look around these forums. Hillary's views are rather pro-censorship, she voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot act, and she's generally not a very good candidate.

At least she has legit true political obstacles to the presidency. Barack? ""liek OMG hes got HUSSEIN in his name!!!!! WTF?!?!? terrorist muslims cant be president!!!!! and hes black to?!!!"

"They did it too!" is not a valid method of debate. Sorry.

It is when outrage exists when Bush pardons and commutes, but not when Clinton does so.

It's not just sexists and right-wingers who don't like Hillary. The far left doesn't like her either. Seriously, just take a look around these forums. Hillary's views are rather pro-censorship, she voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot act, and she's generally not a very good candidate.

I think the far left will realize that she beats the hell out of any Republican.

I think the far left will realize that she beats the hell out of any Republican.

I wouldn't use "beats the hell out of". I'd use a term more like "slightly better than".

If she gets the nomination, we're fucked.

It is a sad fact that pretty much every modern president has pardoned or commuted the sentences of many persons in their last few days in office. Reagan did so, including some Iran-Contra folks. Clinton did so, including some Whitewater folks.

I agree that "you did it to, hah hah!" is not a good debate tactic. But it does point out the hypocricy of a thread calls "Republican Party Coddles Criminals!". Perhaps a better thread would be "The two party system does not work, here is yet ANOTHER example".

There's probably very few people who would disagree Bush acted very improperly here.

But let's be honest with ourselves. This type of cronyism and hypocrisy is hardly limited to Republicans. Historically, Democratic presidents have exhibited these traits in equal measure to Republican presidents.

So rather than screaming that the Republicans are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the world today, how about you all just say Bush is a complete dipshit. Not many of us would disagree with you.

This thread needs to figure out that Clinton pardoned lots of felons as well, most notably Sandy Berger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

Or we could look at GHWB's list from DOJ and not stupid Wiki
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm

Don't get me wrong, I like poppy Bush but if you, dear puppet, want to fight on the side of your overlord we'll have to fight fire with... fire?

let's look at clemency standards and see if they fit
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

and now let's look at Clinton's all done on one single day (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm). Hmmm, Sandy Berger anywhere in there? I was wondering how Berger would have been pardoned by Clinton when he was already out of office when Berger's offenses came to light. Hmmm, nope, still no Berger so you're either lying or just flat out wrong. Good try puppet.

Or we could look at GHWB's list from DOJ and not stupid Wiki
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm

Don't get me wrong, I like poppy Bush but if you, dear puppet, want to fight on the side of your overlord we'll have to fight fire with... fire?

let's look at clemency standards and see if they fit
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

and now let's look at Clinton's all done on one single day (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm). Hmmm, Sandy Berger anywhere in there? I was wondering how Berger would have been pardoned by Clinton when he was already out of office when Berger's offenses came to light. Hmmm, nope, still no Berger so you're either lying or just flat out wrong. Good try puppet.
Those links aren't working for me.
So we'll have to go back to stupid wiki.
Following the wiki link I came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush
People pardoned by GWB. He's already pardoned 113 people thus far into his presidency and commuted the sentences of 4 others.
Clinton pardoned 140 (Daddy Bush pardoned 75 btw), but as Baby Bush still has 18 months left, I'm sure he'll eclipse Clinton's tally.

So this whole, "But but but....he did it too!" defence doesn't really work. Baby Bush's being doing the whole pardon/commution thing on the sly ever since he got into office. This is just one that finally came to the attention of the media.

There's probably very few people who would disagree Bush acted very improperly here.

But let's be honest with ourselves. This type of cronyism and hypocrisy is hardly limited to Republicans. Historically, Democratic presidents have exhibited these traits in equal measure to Republican presidents.

So rather than screaming that the Republicans are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the world today, how about you all just say Bush is a complete dipshit. Not many of us would disagree with you.

Yes, but this spat of corruption is highlighted by the hooplah around the Republican's sanctimonious impeachmeant crusade against Bill Clinton followed by the sheer administrative incompetence and nepotism that lead to such wonders as the national debt going at a record high in order to fuel the boondoggle known as Iraq.

At the very least it reeks of hypocrisy. At worst, it'll be talked about in history books.

Stealing documents from the national archives is o.k. Burning civilians to death in a horribly botched raid is o.k. Selling years of nuclear secrets to the chinese is o.k. Sending a little boy back to a horrible commie regime at gunpoint is o.k. Establishing a communications "wall" between intelligence agencies that makes information gleaned by those agencies to be applied in a piecemeal unproductive manner is o.k. Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k. Supporting and authoring a bill that converts 12 million criminal invaders into legal occupants is just dandy. Driving a young woman to a watery grave and not reporting it for a full day is supercool. Rape accusations come up again and again and you skate every time, thats just fabulous. Bombing Bosnia into such complete ruin that to this day almost no infrastructure remains is all good. Handing over individual property rights to local entities that want to use eminent domain to build a strip mall is superb. Wanting to give in state tuition to illegal aliens is very nice. Politics in a church is fine so long as your Hilary Clinton or Al "shady" Sharpton, but conservatives better be ready to answer to the IRS. Illegal futures trading is not a problem for some people, but it is for others. Going on an unsanctioned and illegal diplomatic mission to a known terrorist sponsoring nation is kosher so long as your name is Nancy P. Taking 90 thousand dollars in a FBI bribery sting and then using a national guard unit to help you recover it in a disaster area is not a problem for certain people. You can be in a hopeless vegetative state and still be a US senator and no one questions it, while other people get their feeding tube pulled. Dodging the Vietnam war draft is honorable, so long as your name is Bill C., but its cowardice to hide out in the national guard if your name is Geo W. You can be a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and still be a prominent senator if your name is Rob "sheets" B. But don't make jokes about segragation if your name is Trent L. Eight years just wasn't long enough for one guy to get UBL, but the next guy was a moron for not stopping him in eight months. Perpetuating a massive hoax about man made climate change due to pollution in the last century is not a way to consolidate power. Never mind that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Krakatoa put more sulphur, co2, carbon monoxide and dust particulates into the atmosphere, than man has in the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE!! We all know that republicans are involved in criminal activities, But all the above mentioned lies, crimes, and power grabs are or were democrats. But its alright, after all they meant well. I am sure they were all honest mistakes. You idiots. Republicans coddle criminals? They should get along great with the dems, except that rival mob factions don't tend to get along. What is amusing is watching all the slack jawed american idol watching paris hilton worshipping ignorant buffoons tell me who the bad guys are. Stick to something you know, pulling your pud, taking big hooka hits and pursuing your useless liberal arts degrees. Limp wristed little girly men.

Stealing documents from the national archives is o.k. Burning civilians to death in a horribly botched raid is o.k. Selling years of nuclear secrets to the chinese is o.k. Sending a little boy back to a horrible commie regime at gunpoint is o.k. Establishing a communications "wall" between intelligence agencies that makes information gleaned by those agencies to be applied in a piecemeal unproductive manner is o.k. Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k. Supporting and authoring a bill that converts 12 million criminal invaders into legal occupants is just dandy. Driving a young woman to a watery grave and not reporting it for a full day is supercool. Rape accusations come up again and again and you skate every time, thats just fabulous. Bombing Bosnia into such complete ruin that to this day almost no infrastructure remains is all good. Handing over individual property rights to local entities that want to use eminent domain to build a strip mall is superb. Wanting to give in state tuition to illegal aliens is very nice. Politics in a church is fine so long as your Hilary Clinton or Al "shady" Sharpton, but conservatives better be ready to answer to the IRS. Illegal futures trading is not a problem for some people, but it is for others. Going on an unsanctioned and illegal diplomatic mission to a known terrorist sponsoring nation is kosher so long as your name is Nancy P. Taking 90 thousand dollars in a FBI bribery sting and then using a national guard unit to help you recover it in a disaster area is not a problem for certain people. You can be in a hopeless vegetative state and still be a US senator and no one questions it, while other people get their feeding tube pulled. Dodging the Vietnam war draft is honorable, so long as your name is Bill C., but its cowardice to hide out in the national guard if your name is Geo W. You can be a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and still be a prominent senator if your name is Rob "sheets" B. But don't make jokes about segragation if your name is Trent L. Eight years just wasn't long enough for one guy to get UBL, but the next guy was a moron for not stopping him in eight months. Perpetuating a massive hoax about man made climate change due to pollution in the last century is not a way to consolidate power. Never mind that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Krakatoa put more sulphur, co2, carbon monoxide and dust particulates into the atmosphere, than man has in the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE!! We all know that republicans are involved in criminal activities, But all the above mentioned lies, crimes, and power grabs are or were democrats. But its alright, after all they meant well. I am sure they were all honest mistakes. You idiots. Republicans coddle criminals? They should get along great with the dems, except that rival mob factions don't tend to get along. What is amusing is watching all the slack jawed american idol watching paris hilton worshipping ignorant buffoons tell me who the bad guys are. Stick to something you know, pulling your pud, taking big hooka hits and pursuing your useless liberal arts degrees. Limp wristed little girly men.

Let me introduce you to my friends Mr. Paragraph and Mrs. Coherency.

Let me introduce you to my friends Mr. Paragraph and Mrs. Coherency.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/grammartime.gif

Stealing documents from the national archives is o.k. Burning civilians to death in a horribly botched raid is o.k. Selling years of nuclear secrets to the chinese is o.k. Sending a little boy back to a horrible commie regime at gunpoint is o.k. Establishing a communications "wall" between intelligence agencies that makes information gleaned by those agencies to be applied in a piecemeal unproductive manner is o.k. Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k. Supporting and authoring a bill that converts 12 million criminal invaders into legal occupants is just dandy. Driving a young woman to a watery grave and not reporting it for a full day is supercool. Rape accusations come up again and again and you skate every time, thats just fabulous. Bombing Bosnia into such complete ruin that to this day almost no infrastructure remains is all good. Handing over individual property rights to local entities that want to use eminent domain to build a strip mall is superb. Wanting to give in state tuition to illegal aliens is very nice. Politics in a church is fine so long as your Hilary Clinton or Al "shady" Sharpton, but conservatives better be ready to answer to the IRS. Illegal futures trading is not a problem for some people, but it is for others. Going on an unsanctioned and illegal diplomatic mission to a known terrorist sponsoring nation is kosher so long as your name is Nancy P. Taking 90 thousand dollars in a FBI bribery sting and then using a national guard unit to help you recover it in a disaster area is not a problem for certain people. You can be in a hopeless vegetative state and still be a US senator and no one questions it, while other people get their feeding tube pulled. Dodging the Vietnam war draft is honorable, so long as your name is Bill C., but its cowardice to hide out in the national guard if your name is Geo W. You can be a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and still be a prominent senator if your name is Rob "sheets" B. But don't make jokes about segragation if your name is Trent L. Eight years just wasn't long enough for one guy to get UBL, but the next guy was a moron for not stopping him in eight months. Perpetuating a massive hoax about man made climate change due to pollution in the last century is not a way to consolidate power. Never mind that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Krakatoa put more sulphur, co2, carbon monoxide and dust particulates into the atmosphere, than man has in the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE!! We all know that republicans are involved in criminal activities, But all the above mentioned lies, crimes, and power grabs are or were democrats. But its alright, after all they meant well. I am sure they were all honest mistakes. You idiots. Republicans coddle criminals? They should get along great with the dems, except that rival mob factions don't tend to get along. What is amusing is watching all the slack jawed american idol watching paris hilton worshipping ignorant buffoons tell me who the bad guys are. Stick to something you know, pulling your pud, taking big hooka hits and pursuing your useless liberal arts degrees. Limp wristed little girly men.

I can see you're insane.... but are you too crazy for paragraphs?

I apologize for poor diction, treat it as one long Dennis Miller type rant. Crazy and incoherent? I can live with that. Thats life.

And thank you for posting my brilliant rant again and again. More people will see it now.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.
Did anyone really expect any different?

The war was launched and is being fought for good reasons, only one of which was Saddam's MWD program.

Which never existed.

Progress has been made and continues to be made.

Yes, the situation is getting progressively worse.

The President warned us that we'd be in it for the long run.

Oh? Didn't he envision it being a relatively quick and painless job (and say so)?

And in the long run, the situation will be stabilized and he will be proved to have been correct. That's my view.

I'm no fortune teller, but I wouldn't bet on that.

I apologize for poor diction, treat it as one long Dennis Miller type rant. Crazy and incoherent? I can live with that. Thats life.

Well, Dennis Miller did turn into a Bushevik fellator...

Actually, he did lie under oath.
But he did not commit perjury. His sexual relationship with Lewinsky had no relevance to Whitewater, and as such he was legally allowed to lie about it under oath. That trial was a mockery. But go on thinking that he committed a crime despite reality being against it. I know you will.

Did anyone really expect any different?

And people thought Paris Hilton had a legion of blind and dense tools stepping up to her defense... Beloved Dear Leader has a cult of personality, sorta like Kim Jong-Il, Original Recipe Dear Leader.

Well, Dennis Miller did turn into a Bushevik fellator...

And forgot how to be funny along the way, more's the pity. He turned chickenshit, and said as much when he talked about in interviews.

Stealing documents from the national archives is o.k. Burning civilians to death in a horribly botched raid is o.k. Selling years of nuclear secrets to the chinese is o.k. Sending a little boy back to a horrible commie regime at gunpoint is o.k. Establishing a communications "wall" between intelligence agencies that makes information gleaned by those agencies to be applied in a piecemeal unproductive manner is o.k. Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k. Supporting and authoring a bill that converts 12 million criminal invaders into legal occupants is just dandy. Driving a young woman to a watery grave and not reporting it for a full day is supercool. Rape accusations come up again and again and you skate every time, thats just fabulous. Bombing Bosnia into such complete ruin that to this day almost no infrastructure remains is all good. Handing over individual property rights to local entities that want to use eminent domain to build a strip mall is superb. Wanting to give in state tuition to illegal aliens is very nice. Politics in a church is fine so long as your Hilary Clinton or Al "shady" Sharpton, but conservatives better be ready to answer to the IRS. Illegal futures trading is not a problem for some people, but it is for others. Going on an unsanctioned and illegal diplomatic mission to a known terrorist sponsoring nation is kosher so long as your name is Nancy P. Taking 90 thousand dollars in a FBI bribery sting and then using a national guard unit to help you recover it in a disaster area is not a problem for certain people. You can be in a hopeless vegetative state and still be a US senator and no one questions it, while other people get their feeding tube pulled. Dodging the Vietnam war draft is honorable, so long as your name is Bill C., but its cowardice to hide out in the national guard if your name is Geo W. You can be a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and still be a prominent senator if your name is Rob "sheets" B. But don't make jokes about segragation if your name is Trent L. Eight years just wasn't long enough for one guy to get UBL, but the next guy was a moron for not stopping him in eight months. Perpetuating a massive hoax about man made climate change due to pollution in the last century is not a way to consolidate power. Never mind that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Krakatoa put more sulphur, co2, carbon monoxide and dust particulates into the atmosphere, than man has in the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE!! We all know that republicans are involved in criminal activities, But all the above mentioned lies, crimes, and power grabs are or were democrats. But its alright, after all they meant well. I am sure they were all honest mistakes. You idiots. Republicans coddle criminals? They should get along great with the dems, except that rival mob factions don't tend to get along. What is amusing is watching all the slack jawed american idol watching paris hilton worshipping ignorant buffoons tell me who the bad guys are. Stick to something you know, pulling your pud, taking big hooka hits and pursuing your useless liberal arts degrees. Limp wristed little girly men.
For the record, there is a grand total of one phrase in that entire wankfest that is true.

For the record, there is a grand total of one phrase in that entire wankfest that is true.

I thought about fisking that thing but decided it wasn't worth the effort. Anyone who hasn't dismissed it out of hand by "Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k." is too stupid to benefit from the debunking anyway.

Stealing documents from the national archives is o.k. Burning civilians to death in a horribly botched raid is o.k. Selling years of nuclear secrets to the chinese is o.k. Sending a little boy back to a horrible commie regime at gunpoint is o.k. Establishing a communications "wall" between intelligence agencies that makes information gleaned by those agencies to be applied in a piecemeal unproductive manner is o.k. Illegal filibustering of federal judicial appointments is o.k. Supporting and authoring a bill that converts 12 million criminal invaders into legal occupants is just dandy. Driving a young woman to a watery grave and not reporting it for a full day is supercool. Rape accusations come up again and again and you skate every time, thats just fabulous. Bombing Bosnia into such complete ruin that to this day almost no infrastructure remains is all good. Handing over individual property rights to local entities that want to use eminent domain to build a strip mall is superb. Wanting to give in state tuition to illegal aliens is very nice. Politics in a church is fine so long as your Hilary Clinton or Al "shady" Sharpton, but conservatives better be ready to answer to the IRS. Illegal futures trading is not a problem for some people, but it is for others. Going on an unsanctioned and illegal diplomatic mission to a known terrorist sponsoring nation is kosher so long as your name is Nancy P. Taking 90 thousand dollars in a FBI bribery sting and then using a national guard unit to help you recover it in a disaster area is not a problem for certain people. You can be in a hopeless vegetative state and still be a US senator and no one questions it, while other people get their feeding tube pulled. Dodging the Vietnam war draft is honorable, so long as your name is Bill C., but its cowardice to hide out in the national guard if your name is Geo W. You can be a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and still be a prominent senator if your name is Rob "sheets" B. But don't make jokes about segragation if your name is Trent L. Eight years just wasn't long enough for one guy to get UBL, but the next guy was a moron for not stopping him in eight months. Perpetuating a massive hoax about man made climate change due to pollution in the last century is not a way to consolidate power. Never mind that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Krakatoa put more sulphur, co2, carbon monoxide and dust particulates into the atmosphere, than man has in the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE!! We all know that republicans are involved in criminal activities, But all the above mentioned lies, crimes, and power grabs are or were democrats. But its alright, after all they meant well. I am sure they were all honest mistakes. You idiots. Republicans coddle criminals? They should get along great with the dems, except that rival mob factions don't tend to get along. What is amusing is watching all the slack jawed american idol watching paris hilton worshipping ignorant buffoons tell me who the bad guys are. Stick to something you know, pulling your pud, taking big hooka hits and pursuing your useless liberal arts degrees. Limp wristed little girly men.

Gee, other than, you know, not getting one of those points right, do you think you could show your self to be any more out of touch? NSG is about as far as you can get from an American Idol fan forum. Besides which, talk shit as much as you want, parrot, it's the people with Liberal Arts degrees who own the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but (going back to my post before), did Bush not say Iraq would be a quick job?

While I admit this is bad, it's not like the democrats don't do the same. To say that they don't do similar things is simply unreasonable.Bingo.

Both parties do it. Clinton was actually one of the worst offenders when it came to protecting cronies. Bush is just acting as every other politician from any party would.

Bingo.

Both parties do it. Clinton was actually one of the worst offenders when it came to protecting cronies. Bush is just acting as every other politician from any party would.

Hmmm. How many members of Clinton's administration were convicted of crimes? Find that number, get back to me, and then look up the definition of false equivalency. I'll wait.:rolleyes:

Perhaps a better thread would be "The two party system does not work, here is yet ANOTHER example".

Why not "The failure of checks and balances, here's why"?

Frankly, I get the feeling the only way to keep politics relatively clean is to institute thorough purging of all politicians every 30-40 years to keep the system fresh.

Preferably with fire.

Both parties do it. Clinton was actually one of the worst offenders when it came to protecting cronies. Bush is just acting as every other politician from any party would.

Agreed, but "He does it, too!" is not an excuse.

Have you ever heard of Sandy Burger? If you have you would realize your hypocracy (please forgive my spelling). Sandy Burger is a member of the CIA who was caught taking files from the CIA, putting them in his pants, taking them out of the CIA, and destroying them. The files he destroyed showed that Bill Clinton had a chance to kill Osama Bin Laden before 9/11, but decided not to. You know what happened to Burger? Nothing. He never even showed up for his polygraph test. You know where he works now? He still works with the CIA. And all Libby was commited for perjury. The same thing Clinton was trialed for, but nothing ever happened to Clinton. And Libby still has to serve his sentence, he just doesnt have to serve it in jail.

Clinto did not commit perjury. I explained why several posts up.

The files Berger removed dealt with Whitewater. The whole "Clinton had a chance to kill Osama but didn't" was a myth made up by an analyst for Fox News who claimed he could give Clinton the location of Osama. Clinton followed up on it, and didn't get the location from him, since he didn't know it.

In short, you're wrong on every count.

Clinto did not commit perjury. I explained why several posts up.

The files Berger removed dealt with Whitewater. The whole "Clinton had a chance to kill Osama but didn't" was a myth made up by an analyst for Fox News who claimed he could give Clinton the location of Osama. Clinton followed up on it, and didn't get the location from him, since he didn't know it.

In short, you're wrong on every count.

No, Clinton did commit perjury. He told everyone in the United States, and a court that he didnt have sex with that women whos name escapes me, but he did. He admitted that he did. Berger removed files that proved that Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, we know because we caught in the act with those files in his pants. It had nothing to do with Whitewater. That is absolutly not true Clinton did know where Osama was and had a chance to kill him but refused. So in short you're wrong on every count.

Many Presidents have pardoned many convicted persons in the last few days of thier term in office, including President Clinton.

LOL, I love it, he pardoned Libby right in the Democrats face, with still some time left on his term in office, LOL.

No, Clinton did commit perjury. He told everyone in the United States, and a court that he didnt have sex with that women whos name escapes me, but he did. He admitted that he did. Berger removed files that proved that Clinton had a chance to kill Osama, we know because we caught in the act with those files in his pants. It had nothing to do with Whitewater. That is absolutly not true Clinton did know where Osama was and had a chance to kill him but refused. So in short you're wrong on every count.

I give you a 0.5/10. While the "that women whos name escapes me" was a stroke of brilliance, the nuh-uh sort of thing in the rest of it was quite awful.

I give you a 0.5/10. While the "that women whos name escapes me" was a stroke of brilliance, the nuh-uh sort of thing in the rest of it was quite awful.

If Clinton didnt have sex with her, why did he later admit to it?

Ah, but Fox Noise IS Fair and Balanced <tm>, hell it must be true they trademarked it.

Not a worse bunch of hacks, yellow journalists exist in the sad wreckage of American Journalism.

The apologists are crawling out of the woodwork now. It's not enough that they sit idly by and allow the Us Constitution to be ass raped by reactionists and common thieves, they have to invoke the name of "Satan" in their defense of their sad, reprehensible puppet of a man who wears the tired regalia of a formerly respectable party.

<snort> No, what Bush did was not illegal, but it sure wasn't moral.

If Clinton didnt have sex with her, why did he later admit to it?

It wasn't relevant to Whitewater, so it wasn't perjury. It's that simple.

It wasn't relevant to Whitewater, so it wasn't perjury. It's that simple.

But Nixon quit, Clinton didnt. Clinton did commit perjury, and ADMITTED TO IT.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

If your done ranting you may want too examine the case itself. He was charged with obstructing and lying.....and was NEVER PROVEN TOO BE GUILTY OF HIS INITIAL CRIMES..... In essence, the reason he is being fined, is because the trial itself took place. This is beyond riddiculous. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious... But he wasnt found guilty of his crimes. Its like being called into court for stealing a bicycle. Though you were never convicted of theft, you commited perjury by lying about your whereabouts on that day.

So before we hit 30+ pages of "OmFg dos Stooopid repiblcans omfgI hate Bushsh!!!!11111" Lets examine the judges sentence. 2 1/2 years and a quarter of a million dollars for perjury, in a federal investigation, when the trial itself caused the crimes too happen. The indictment itself acted as juror, judge, and excecutionor. He deserves his jail sentence commuted.

But Nixon quit, Clinton didnt. Clinton did commit perjury, and ADMITTED TO IT.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

Perjury does not mean "lying under oath," it means "lying about something relevant to the legal matter at hand, under oath"

If I were sworn in to testify, say, about a car accident I witnessed, and I told the court that I had once, many years ago, found a unicorn, and that I had ridden the unicorn to the moon where I discovered the cure for AIDS, I would not be committing perjury, even though I would be lying.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

Perjury does not mean "lying under oath," it means "lying about something relevant to the legal matter at hand, under oath"

If I were sworn in to testify, say, about a car accident I witnessed, and I told the court that I had once, many years ago, found a unicorn, and that I had ridden the unicorn to the moon where I discovered the cure for AIDS, I would not be committing perjury, even though I would be lying.

But it was the matter at hand. Clinton was in court about the Lewinski scandle. He had sex with Lewinski, said he didnt, then said he did. So he did commit perjury, because he lied about something relevan to the legal matter.

When Clinton told the Federal Grand Jury he didn't have sex with Monica, he perjured himself.

If your done ranting you may want too examine the case itself. He was charged with obstructing and lying.....and was NEVER PROVEN TOO BE GUILTY OF HIS INITIAL CRIMES..... In essence, the reason he is being fined, is because the trial itself took place. This is beyond riddiculous. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious... But he wasnt found guilty of his crimes. Its like being called into court for stealing a bicycle. Though you were never convicted of theft, you commited perjury by lying about your whereabouts on that day.

So before we hit 30+ pages of "OmFg dos Stooopid repiblcans omfgI hate Bushsh!!!!11111" Lets examine the judges sentence. 2 1/2 years and a quarter of a million dollars for perjury, in a federal investigation, when the trial itself caused the crimes too happen. The indictment itself acted as juror, judge, and excecutionor. He deserves his jail sentence commuted.

He was found guilty of what he was charged with. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this. The underlying crimes were never charged because Libby impeded the investigation. You might try actually learning something about the case before you speak. We know you're ignorant, but you don't have to be.

But it was the matter at hand. Clinton was in court about the Lewinski scandle. He had sex with Lewinski, said he didnt, then said he did. So he did commit perjury, because he lied about something relevan to the legal matter.

Wrong. Clinton was being deposed, for starters--he wasn't in court. And Lewinsky was never a central part of the discussion. The case was Whitewater. The Paula Jones case grew out of that somehow--even people close to the case aren't sure how Starr managed to finagle that out of the Whitewater investigation--and Lewinsky came out of that. Lewinsky was not material to the Whitewater investigation; therefore there was no perjury. Like New Ausha, you might want to actually learn something about the case before proving your ignorance to everyone else on the board.

And thank you for posting my brilliant rant again and again. More people will see it now.
They quoted your full text so that everyone can be reminded how silly your rant is. :D

I should note that if Democrats somehow fail to take advantage of this situation, then the whole lot of them should be charged with the crime of stupidity. This is a legal and moral outrage in every possible sense.

agreed.

But it was the matter at hand. Clinton was in court about the Lewinski scandle. He had sex with Lewinski, said he didnt, then said he did. So he did commit perjury, because he lied about something relevan to the legal matter.

When was President Clinton convicted of perjury? He never had sexual relations, as that term was used in his deposition, with Monica Lewinsky.

Wrong. Clinton was being deposed, for starters--he wasn't in court. And Lewinsky was never a central part of the discussion. The case was Whitewater. The Paula Jones case grew out of that somehow--even people close to the case aren't sure how Starr managed to finagle that out of the Whitewater investigation--and Lewinsky came out of that. Lewinsky was not material to the Whitewater investigation; therefore there was no perjury. Like New Ausha, you might want to actually learn something about the case before proving your ignorance to everyone else on the board.

The case originated as whitewater, but as you said the Paula Jones case grew out of that. But Clinton was asked questions about Lewinsky, and lied about them to the nation, and the court.

When was President Clinton convicted of perjury? He never had sexual relations, as that term was used in his deposition, with Monica Lewinsky.

If he didnt have sexual relations with Lewinsky then why did he later admit to having them?

If he didnt have sexual relations with Lewinsky then why did he later admit to having them?

He didn't. He said (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/) "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false." He used the term "sexual relations" deliberately because to him it meant intercourse, which he never engaged in with Lewinsky. (It should be noted that Gingrich was using the same dodge at the same time he was going after Clinton.) But he did acknowledge that he intended to mislead by using that term.

But it's still not perjury, because it wasn't germane to the investigation.

If he didnt have sexual relations with Lewinsky then why did he later admit to having them?

When did he have sexual intercourse with lewinsky?

For the purposes of his testimony, "sexual relations" referred to penetrating her genitals with his.

Where and when did he admit to this?

When did he have sexual intercourse with lewinsky?

For the purposes of his testimony, "sexual relations" referred to penetrating her genitals with his.

Where and when did he admit to this?

Sorry it took me so long but you'd be amazed how hard it is to find these things on the internet.


Clinton Admits To 'Wrong' Relationship With Lewinsky
President reverses earlier denial; asks the matter be ended

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 17) -- Breaking seven months of near silence, President Bill Clinton admitted Monday night that he did, in fact, have an inappropriate and "wrong" relationship with ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but insisted he did nothing illegal. (512K wav sound)

"I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife," Clinton said, his voice breaking slightly. "I deeply regret that." (320K wav sound)

Clinton's four-minute address to the nation followed an afternoon of closed-door testimony for a federal grand jury looking into how Clinton answered questions about his relationship with Lewinsky in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case last January.

"While legally accurate, I did not volunteer information," Clinton said.


Watch Clinton's speech in its entirety in: Real: Windows Media 28K | 56K or read a complete transcript
Clinton Deposition In Jones Case: 'I've Never Had An Affair With Her'

"Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible," he said.

The president gave his televised address from the Map Room in the private residence of the White House, where he had faced prosecutors from Independent Counsel Ken Starr's office for more than four hours earlier in the day. During his testimony, sources tell CNN the president did admit to having sex with Lewinsky.

Now that you people have your proof, Im going to bed.

Sorry it took me so long but you'd be amazed how hard it is to find these things on the internet.


Clinton Admits To 'Wrong' Relationship With Lewinsky
President reverses earlier denial; asks the matter be ended

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 17) -- Breaking seven months of near silence, President Bill Clinton admitted Monday night that he did, in fact, have an inappropriate and "wrong" relationship with ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but insisted he did nothing illegal. (512K wav sound)

"I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife," Clinton said, his voice breaking slightly. "I deeply regret that." (320K wav sound)

Clinton's four-minute address to the nation followed an afternoon of closed-door testimony for a federal grand jury looking into how Clinton answered questions about his relationship with Lewinsky in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case last January.

"While legally accurate, I did not volunteer information," Clinton said.


Watch Clinton's speech in its entirety in: Real: Windows Media 28K | 56K or read a complete transcript
Clinton Deposition In Jones Case: 'I've Never Had An Affair With Her'

"Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible," he said.

The president gave his televised address from the Map Room in the private residence of the White House, where he had faced prosecutors from Independent Counsel Ken Starr's office for more than four hours earlier in the day. During his testimony, sources tell CNN the president did admit to having sex with Lewinsky.


Clinton admitted to recieving fellatio from lewinsky, but he did not have sexual intercourse with her, which is what he denied doing to begin with.

That's some good amnesty right there.

Now that you people have your proof, Im going to bed.

You proved our point, and you apparently didn't even realize it. Wow.

Now that you people have your proof, Im going to bed.

i see you're doing the standard tactic from someone who's been caught out and proven wrong - posting something then running away.

I also notice that this has skewed off and degenerated into yet another 'Bash Clinton' thread. All the dittoheads must be reading from the same book - anytime their Dear Leader (TM) just dodge the issue by continually bringing up Clinton and demanding people justify his actions until the thread's OP has been totally forgotten.
One way - perhaps the only way - of defending the indefensible.

remember? We were talking about GWB and his morality, not Clintons.

Bush spares Libby from Jail (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070703/tpl-uk-usa-crime-libby-bush-47c7853.html)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday spared former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby from prison, enraging Democrats who accused Bush of abusing power in a case that has fuelled debate over the Iraq war.

Stalwart conservatives in Bush's Republican party had pressured him to pardon Libby -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff -- and saw him as the victim of an overly zealous prosecutor. He was sentenced last month to 2-1/2 years in prison for obstructing a CIA leak probe and his imprisonment was imminent.


My thread title is slightly misguiding. This is not an official full pardon for Scooter from Bush, but a commutation of his sentence, going above the courts, the jury and judge. Whilst it is the President's constitutional prerogative to grant this under Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution, I can't help but feel the moral deficiency inherent.

Hmm... Perhaps Bush could make the argument that he is a member of the judiciary? ;)

Democrats swiftly condemned Bush's decision. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called it "disgraceful" and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont said it was "emblematic of a White House that sees itself as being above the law."

Bush stopped short of an outright pardon, leaving intact a $250,000 (125,000 pound) fine and Libby's two-years' probation. Libby still plans to appeal the conviction, his lawyer William Jeffress said.

Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, running for his party's presidential nomination, called on Americans "to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law."

Quickly! Heed the battle call my American brethren, wield your handsets, dial, and then show the White House interns no quarter for this gross misconduct of justice!

As I said on the other thread about this--is anyone shocked? Really?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531794

You people are stupid and I hate you.
not only is there another thread on this but HE WASN'T FUCKING PARDONED. It was equally bad, but he STILL WASN'T PARDONED.

Well, Bush is "The Decider," no?

You people are stupid and I hate you.
not only is there another thread on this but HE WASN'T FUCKING PARDONED. It was equally bad, but he STILL WASN'T PARDONED.

My thread title is slightly misguiding. This is not an official full pardon for Scooter from Bush, but a commutation of his sentence

Ok, calm down, he already pointed out his title was misleading.

Ok, calm down, he already pointed out his title was misleading.

Don't give a fuck.

Don't give a fuck.

Don't much care if you do.

You people are stupid and I hate you.
not only is there another thread on this but HE WASN'T FUCKING PARDONED. It was equally bad, but he STILL WASN'T PARDONED.
Exactly.

Libby had the actual prison sentence commuted... meaning he doesn't have to serve it.

And the fucker still plans to appeal? They should make him pay more god damn money.

And the fucker still plans to appeal? They should make him pay more god damn money.

Oh, but he's a poor politician. He only committed perjury... it's not like he had sex in the oval office. :p

Wow. I see what some posters mean when they say the forums have become unnecessarily and increasingly hostile.

I scanned to see if there was already a thread, but I must have missed it.

Wow. I see what some posters mean when they say the forums have become unnecessarily and increasingly hostile.

I scanned to see if there was already a thread, but I must have missed it.

You missed the last thread indeed.

Wow. I see what some posters mean when they say the forums have become unnecessarily and increasingly hostile.

I scanned to see if there was already a thread, but I must have missed it.

Maybe you have your settings on 4-page, like I do (meaning, I can only see the last 4 pages of threads). Some of them seem to come out of nowhere when you only look to the first few pages. :p

Ahhhh, Nixon is pardoned once again.

Does outrage over Libby have an outlet? Commutation of sentence seems unlikely to have consequences for Bush says Tom Curry, National affairs writer for MSNBC.


It is obvious that Bush thinks he is above the Law. However he is only if the we allow it. I say lets send this president another message, because I don't think he got the idea the first time.

Discuss .....

Okay, there's outrage over this, and rightly so, but Bush is already at 26% in approval ratings, so who's left to piss off? He may have come to the realization that all he has left in his last two years is the veto pen (or rather, someone may have explained it to him after he couldn't get any Senators to move on the immigration bill), so he can basically act with impunity.

And the reason he can act with impunity is that he knows that even on the worst of days, he has 34 Senators who will never vote to remove him from office. He could wipe his ass with the Declaration of Independence, and burn the Constitution to cut the smell and there are still 34 Senators who won't vote to remove him. He'll still be there come January 2009, unless he dies before then.

unless he dies before then.

Pied to death by angry mob? :p

Exactly.

Libby had the actual prison sentence commuted... meaning he doesn't have to serve it.

It's great that Libby can appeal without being subjected to an excessively harsh prison sentence. The beauty of this is that after he appeals, he can still be pardoned if he loses...

It's great that Libby can appeal without being subjected to an excessively harsh prison sentence.
A whole 30 months for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The beauty of this is that after he appeals, he can still be pardoned if he loses...
Are you still pretending to claim your are a "moderate"?

A whole 30 months for perjury and obstruction of justice.


Are you still pretending to claim your are a "moderate"?
I'm saying this is an excellent strategy to combat a conviction for a non-crime.

I never claimed to be moderate in anything. I'm just not a Republican. I'm a conservative.

I'm saying this is an excellent strategy to combat a conviction for a non-crime.
Both perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes.

I'm saying this is an excellent strategy to combat a conviction for a non-crime.



If you're talking about Valerie Plame, he wasn't convicted of ousting her. His crimes were perjury and obstruction of justice.

God damn it.

I also notice that this has skewed off and degenerated into yet another 'Bash Clinton' thread. All the dittoheads must be reading from the same book - anytime their Dear Leader (TM) just dodge the issue by continually bringing up Clinton and demanding people justify his actions until the thread's OP has been totally forgotten.
One way - perhaps the only way - of defending the indefensible.
They are taking their queues from Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and any number of local conservapundit asshats who go "Well, remember when Clinton did..."

The two local conservapundits with their heads up Hannity's ass always suffix any headlines about something Bush did wrong with "Well when Clinton was in office, no one had any problem with *something only even remotely related to what Bush did*"

Bush spares Libby from Jail (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070703/tpl-uk-usa-crime-libby-bush-47c7853.html)



My thread title is slightly misguiding. This is not an official full pardon for Scooter from Bush, but a commutation of his sentence, going above the courts, the jury and judge. Whilst it is the President's constitutional prerogative to grant this under Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution, I can't help but feel the moral deficiency inherent.

Hmm... Perhaps Bush could make the argument that he is a member of the judiciary? ;)

Quickly! Heed the battle call my American brethren, wield your handsets, dial, and then show the White House interns no quarter for this gross misconduct of justice!

Dude, it will never stop. It goes on and on and on...it's heaven and hell, oh, well.

Pied to death by angry mob? :p

Do you have any idea how many pies it takes to kill a man?

I do. To be honest, timing and accuracy are more important than sheer volume. *nod*

Wow, this happened even quicker then I expected. Not that it really matters, nothing will happen, Bush has a free pass to act however he wishes and no one will stop him. Democracy in action I tell you...

They are taking their queues from Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and any number of local conservapundit asshats who go "Well, remember when Clinton did..."

The two local conservapundits with their heads up Hannity's ass always suffix any headlines about something Bush did wrong with "Well when Clinton was in office, no one had any problem with *something only even remotely related to what Bush did*"

Sad thing is that for the people who listen to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh, that actually makes sense.

Both perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes.

If you're talking about Valerie Plame, he wasn't convicted of ousting her. His crimes were perjury and obstruction of justice.

His conviction was a non-crime in that there was no "outing" to begin with. The grand jury was not able to pin the rap on Armitage or Wilson and Libby's lousy memory had nothing to do what that. He was convicted of having a bad memory and not stating so -- "I don't recollect..." is the favorite phrase, I believe.

His conviction was just a "sour grapes" sort of a thing for Fitzgerald.

So maybe it is time to remove powers like this from the President of the United States. I don't see a good reason for him/her to have them anyway.

I could see maybe a request to revisit a case or review a law, but not ultimate authority over something like this.

His conviction was a non-crime in that there was no "outing" to begin with. The grand jury was not able to pin the rap on Armitage or Wilson and Libby's lousy memory had nothing to do what that. He was convicted of having a bad memory and not stating so -- "I don't recollect..." is the favorite phrase, I believe.

His conviction was just a "sour grapes" sort of a thing for Fitzgerald.

Stop it. You're not fucking stupid. You know that Plame was CIA and that she was outed. Libby was charged with obstruction because he impeded the investigation into who was behind the outing, which is why the outing was never charged.

Do you have any idea how many pies it takes to kill a man?

I do. To be honest, timing and accuracy are more important than sheer volume. *nod*

Yes, but with Shrubya, you simply have all the pies made with a Pretzel Crust. One good hit in the old exhaust port is all it takes.

His conviction was a non-crime in that there was no "outing" to begin with. The grand jury was not able to pin the rap on Armitage or Wilson and Libby's lousy memory had nothing to do what that. He was convicted of having a bad memory and not stating so -- "I don't recollect..." is the favorite phrase, I believe.

His conviction was just a "sour grapes" sort of a thing for Fitzgerald.

And nobody would have made a big deal about it either.

Except The C.I.A. said it was an outing and made a request to the Department of Justice for an investigation of the outing.

Really I have to hand it to you Busheviks, being able to constantly live a lie in the face of adverse reality. And you all make fun of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf? The guy ought to be your hero.

His conviction was a non-crime in that there was no "outing" to begin with.
Still making him guilty of perjury and obstruction, try again.

But he did not commit perjury. His sexual relationship with Lewinsky had no relevance to Whitewater, and as such he was legally allowed to lie about it under oath.

Much to my surprise :rolleyes: you are factually incorrect. Bubba lied under oath while being deposed in Paula Jones' civil suit against him for sexual harassment. He lied in order to keep out evidence against him pertaining to his harassing conduct directed toward other women to show a pattern of conduct. His lies under oath directly influenced the outcome of that case and thwarted Paula Jones' efforts to prove her case. That, my friend, is black-letter-law perjury.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

But go on thinking that he committed a crime despite reality being against it. I know you will.

Yes, I will. So will the Arkansas Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, who suspended his law license for 5 years and disbarred him, respectively, precisely because of his lies under oath. That is the reality.

Yes, I will. So will the Arkansas Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, who suspended his law license for 5 years and disbarred him, respectively, precisely because of his lies under oath. That is the reality.
That came as a result of a negotiation, not as a result of a conviction. Clinton's guilt was never established and he never admitted to it. He negotiated that so as to get closure. If he'd fought it, there's no guarantee he'd have suffered any penalty whatsoever.

In my opinion, being stable in the long run doesn't matter worth shit if you have enough American corpses to build Bush a new house.

Hey, you suppose that's the point of the war?

You are entitled to your opinion. However, statements like that suggest to me that you either went to public school, or are now or at one time were a grad student.

The 3000 or so dead or however many it is that we've lost in four years is less than the number of dead taking Iwo Jima. It's less than the number killed during training for D-Day, as anyone who has ever studied history would know. Not to minimize the value of the lives lost, but that is a miniscule number of casualties.

When the crybaby left becomes unnerved by this low level of losses, they do the work of the enemy.

If you make a list of all the bad things Jaw Bush and the republican government have done in the past six years, this is pretty much at the bottom.

Expected, harmless, politics-as-usual.

Blah blah, bunch of crooks, old news, who cares.

At any rate, be happy Bush doesn't have the common decency to actually pardon him, instead he gets to live the rest of his days as a felon, with all the unpleasantness that that entails.

The only reason he didn't fully pardon him is because this way, he can't be questioned on it. There's no hearing, there's no veto, no vote, no anything - the president chooses to do it, and it's done, and there's no balance for it at all.

A pardon, however, can be questioned, and is generally a bigger deal. A pardon would get too much attention, and have the possibility of something actually happening to Bush if it comes out that it's unjust.

And of course nobody's going to do anything to Bush. If someone were to, they would've done it by now for things much worse than this.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, statements like that suggest to me that you either went to public school, or are now or at one time were a grad student.

The 3000 or so dead or however many it is that we've lost in four years is less than the number of dead taking Iwo Jima. It's less than the number killed during training for D-Day, as anyone who has ever studied history would know. Not to minimize the value of the lives lost, but that is a miniscule number of casualties.

When the crybaby left becomes unnerved by this low level of losses, they do the work of the enemy.

You know, it's funny you mention numbers, because the 3K dead on 9/11 wasn't much in terms of overall numbers, but it managed to turn this country into a bunch of scaredy-cat pussies who are convinced that the evil Muslims are going to invade and overthrow us. You want to talk about people losing their nerves? Look in the mirror, bucko. I didn't shit my pants in fear after 9/11, and I certainly didn't think it was necessary for us to fight a war against a nation that had nothing to do with it in order to prove I had a sack.

When you mention learning from history, I laugh. I mock you openly.

The 3000 or so dead or however many it is that we've lost in four years is less than the number of dead taking Iwo Jima.
Editor's Note: The Battle of Iwo Jima took place during World War II against an entrenched Japanese army.

It's less than the number killed during training for D-Day,
Training for D-Day being what? Other minor invasions of entrenched Nazi positions?

Not to minimize the value of the lives lost,
Maybe you should stop doing it then.

but that is a miniscule number of casualties.
For a real war against trained and well-armed soldiers of an enemy state.

When the crybaby left becomes unnerved by this low level of losses, they do the work of the enemy.
So you support our troops driving around the desert getting blown up by homemade bombs in the pursuit of "peace" and "democracy" for a volatile 3-way region only kept together by a dictator's iron fist? Unlike Vietnam, we arn't even fighting an army - we are target practice for insurgent guerrillas.

The only reason he didn't fully pardon him is because this way, he can't be questioned on it. There's no hearing, there's no veto, no vote, no anything - the president chooses to do it, and it's done, and there's no balance for it at all.

A pardon, however, can be questioned, and is generally a bigger deal. A pardon would get too much attention, and have the possibility of something actually happening to Bush if it comes out that it's unjust.

And of course nobody's going to do anything to Bush. If someone were to, they would've done it by now for things much worse than this.

It's more than that. If Libby was pardoned, he could be compelled to testify before Congress or another grand jury investigating the Plame leak. He wouldn't be in jeopardy any longer. But he still has an appeal going on the conviction itself and the fine, so this way, he can still plead the Fifth and avoid testifying.

When did he have sexual intercourse with lewinsky?

For the purposes of his testimony, "sexual relations" referred to penetrating her genitals with his.

Where and when did he admit to this?

You are completely wrong about that definition.

Read post #67, which includes the definition of sexual relations Bubba tried to hide behind. The definition absolutely does not limit "sexual relations" to "penetrating her genitals with his."

You are completely wrong about that definition.

Read post #67, which includes the definition of sexual relations Bubba tried to hide behind. The definition absolutely does not limit "sexual relations" to "penetrating her genitals with his."
I would love to tell you that pointing to your own posts as "proof of fact" for later posts is ok and fine, but I can't because it isn't. Provide a link to a legal definition, the end.

Cronyism is cronyism and bush owed him the commutation.

Libby gets to remain a felon, ineligible to vote, disbarred, banned from possessing guns, out of a job.

Unfortuantly none of that will come to pass since his appeals will drag out until after the election when Bush will officially pardon him as was planned the minute the verdict came in. The only reason they commuted the sentence now was to keep him out of jail and take less of a political hit after the judge forced thier hand.

Meanwhile he will go on a 10K a day speaking tour while collecting a check as a consultant or board member for some big Rep donor.

So you support our troops driving around the desert getting blown up by homemade bombs in the pursuit of "peace" and "democracy" for a volatile 3-way region only kept together by a dictator's iron fist?

Nice spin, but it won't work. I support achieving victory, by whatever means expedient.

Unlike Vietnam, we arn't even fighting an army - we are target practice for insurgent guerrillas.

"Insurgent guerrillas" can be, and have been, defeated. Malaysia in the 50's-60's and the Philippines in the 1900's come to mind. The myth of the invinceable guerrillas is long overdue for termination.

And beyond that, most of the provinces of Iraq are in fact stabilized or stabilizing, and even in Anbar province the local population is gradually turning against the terrorists.

Nice spin, but it won't work. I support achieving victory, by whatever means expedient.That's a nice line there, slick. Define the victory conditions in achievable terms.

"Insurgent guerrillas" can be, and have been, defeated.
By a military not trained in urban warfare nor against a non-uniformed fighting force?

And beyond that, most of the provinces of Iraq are in fact stabilized or stabilizing, and even in Anbar province the local population is gradually turning against the terrorists.
Of course that makes the absurd assertion that everyone we are fighting in Iraq are "terrorists."

And nobody would have made a big deal about it either.

Except The C.I.A. said it was an outing and made a request to the Department of Justice for an investigation of the outing.

Really I have to hand it to you Busheviks, being able to constantly live a lie in the face of adverse reality. And you all make fun of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf? The guy ought to be your hero.

Reality has a well-known left-wing bias and can be safely ignored in favour of blind prejudice and partisan nonsense.

I would love to tell you that pointing to your own posts as "proof of fact" for later posts is ok and fine, but I can't because it isn't. Provide a link to a legal definition, the end.

The definition I quoted appears in the Starr Report, section XIV.A. See http://icreport.loc.gov/icreport/6narrit.htm#L110, see also note 1002.

And Bubba was in fact found to have provided intentionally false testimony:

“U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition”

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones and references cited therein.

Links provided. The end.

*snip*
Ehhhhhh, wrong.

Provide a link to a legal definition of sexual relations.

And nobody would have made a big deal about it either.

Except The C.I.A. said it was an outing and made a request to the Department of Justice for an investigation of the outing.

Really I have to hand it to you Busheviks, being able to constantly live a lie in the face of adverse reality. And you all make fun of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf? The guy ought to be your hero.
Then the Grand Jury should have indicted Richard Armitage. Especially since he admitted it. Or did Fitzgerald stay away from Armitage because he wasn't a Bush staffer?

Reality has a well-known left-wing bias and can be safely ignored in favour of blind prejudice and partisan nonsense.

Wow. Can you say that three times fast?

Wow. Can you say that three times fast?

I don't type with my mouth full.

His conviction was a non-crime

Perjury and obstruction of justice are both crimes. Even if the underlying investigation goes nowhere, it's still illegal to commit perjury and obstruction of justice. You can't lie to the police just because you think nothing happened.

It's still illegal.

It's more than that. If Libby was pardoned, he could be compelled to testify before Congress or another grand jury investigating the Plame leak. He wouldn't be in jeopardy any longer. But he still has an appeal going on the conviction itself and the fine, so this way, he can still plead the Fifth and avoid testifying.

I guess I don't understand what the point would be. Richard Armitage admitted exposing Plame. If anyone should be held accountable, it should be him.

I don't type with my mouth full.

Indeed. Multitasking can be hard! :D

*throws pudding and runs*

Then the Grand Jury should have indicted Richard Armitage. Especially since he admitted it. Or did Fitzgerald stay away from Armitage because he wasn't a Bush staffer?

I'm curious as to what relevance whether or not a grand jury indicts for an investigated crime has to do with whether or not lying in the course of that investigation is illegal.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are both crimes. Even if the underlying investigation goes nowhere, it's still illegal to commit perjury and obstruction of justice. You can't lie to the police just because you think nothing happened.

It's still illegal.
And that isn't the real topic. His excessive sentence and the denial of bond until the appeal is heard is the real wrong that has been righted.

And that isn't the real topic. His excessive sentence
2 and a half years isn't even the maximum for either crime he was convicted of, much less both together.

denial of bond until the appeal is heard
"You broke the law, you have been sentenced now go to jail."
"I'm appealing."
"So? You've already been convicted, go to jail."
"I'm going to go tell Bush on you!"

I guess I don't understand what the point would be. Richard Armitage admitted exposing Plame. If anyone should be held accountable, it should be him.

Of course you don't understand what the point would be. It's inconvenient for you. It was more than Armitage--Rove was involved too, and admitted it--but the question really was who was behind it all? Cheney? Dubya? We won't know because Libby took the hit and obstructed the investigation, which is why he was sentenced to jail time.

I'm curious as to what relevance whether or not a grand jury indicts for an investigated crime has to do with whether or not lying in the course of that investigation is illegal.
Libby incorrectly recalled events. I don't see that there was any intent to do anything but provide information. Clearly, he should have "failed to recall" these events and he would not have been placed in this spot.

And that isn't the real topic. His excessive sentence and the denial of bond until the appeal is heard is the real wrong that has been righted.

excessive? 30 months for perjury and obstruction of justice are EXCESSIVE?

You do realize that in many states the maximum penalty for perjury is 5 years for EACH count? You do realize that in certain circumstances that maximum can even be exceeded to create a mandatory LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE in certain instances of perjury?

If shrub really believed this to be an excessive sentence, why isn't he commuting every sentence for perjury of this length or longer? And why, if Bush, who has no legal degree, had concernes as to whether this was an excessive sentence under the law, did not consult the justice department.

Any believe that bush did this in the interests of justice, and rather in the interests of protecting his administration is a lie. It's not even ignorance, because you can't possibly ACTUALLY believe it, it's too stupid.

It is a lie.

Just to put all this in perspective of some other presidential pardons/commutations here's some that caught my eye.

Bush Senior pardoned Orlando Bosch convicted of taking part in a bazooka attack on a Polish Freighter bound for Havana. He was also accused of taking apart in several major terrorist attacks including the bombing of a Cuban airliner which left 73 people dead.

Papa Bush also pardoned half a dozen people involved with Iran-Contra Affair. Those pardoned had been convicted of perjury (21 counts total), withholding information, and obstruction.

Bill Clinton pardoned his brother after he was convicted of cocaine possession; he pardoned Marc Rich who was convicted of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis; he pardoned Susan McDougal who was a partner in the Watergate deal; he commuted the sentences of 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 160 bombs in the USA and were convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition; also Clinton issued 140 pardons and commutations on the final day of his presidency alone.

Gerald Ford of course famously pardoned Richard Nixon, Robert E. Lee, and Tokyo Rose.

George Washington pardoned the leadership of the Whiskey Rebellion.

In total U.S. Presidents issued 20,000 pardons and clemencies in the 20th century alone. You can bet that a lot of these weren't just, you can bet a lot these weren't fair, and you can also bet that a lot of these also awarded cronyism.

I don't like to get into political debates too much I just wanted to add some interesting info on presidential pardons.

Libby incorrectly recalled events.

No, he did not. A jury of his peers concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did not incorrectly recall. A jury of his peers concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he willingly, and purposefully lied.

And as much as you keep saying otherwise, it is time you accept that. As a matter of law, he lied. He didn't incorrectly recall. he didn't forget. He didn't mispeak. It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he lied.

It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he perjured himself.

It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he obstructed justice.

As much as you want to clamor that he forget, that too, is a lie.

No, he did not. A jury of his peers concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did not incorrectly recall. A jury of his peers concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he willingly, and purposefully lied.

And as much as you keep saying otherwise, it is time you accept that. As a matter of law, he lied. He didn't incorrectly recall. he didn't forget. He didn't mispeak. It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he lied.

It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he perjured himself.

It has been proven, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he obstructed justice.

As much as you want to clamor that he forget, that too, is a lie.
There's one other good thing that came out of all this -- aside from any personal benefit to Libby.

I get to read all the Democrats complain endlessly and without recourse.

And that makes me happy.

There's one other good thing that came out of all this -- aside from any personal benefit to Libby.

I get to read all the Democrats complain endlessly and without recourse.

And that makes me happy.
You should apply to replace Alan Colmes, you are almost as full of hateful shit and misdirection as Hannity himself.

I am still waiting for Iraqi victory conditions to be defined as achievable goals.

There's one other good thing that came out of all this -- aside from any personal benefit to Libby.

I get to read all the Democrats complain endlessly and without recourse.

And that makes me happy.

Oh we have PLENTY of recourse. Keep your eye out for it. It'll be in the first tuesday following the first monday of November 2008. Thing is I don't give a fuck about Libby. I don't care if he's in jail or not. It doesn't matter ot me, it doesn't affect me.

But if you think the stink that's coming of Bush for continually going against the will of the people isn't going ot stick lies flies on shit to the rest of the 08 GOP candidates...well....you'll get another shot in 2012 though.

So Scooter Libby parachuted into Iraq with a knife clenched in his teeth and singled-handedly started the current war? Was he yelling "Yearrrghhhh!" all the way down? Or have I skimmed posts too quickly?

And what of Slim Pickins? He did not need a pardon (Dr Strangelove nod)

The character was not called Slim Pickens.

But Nixon quit, Clinton didnt. Clinton did commit perjury, and ADMITTED TO IT.

legal sources please? The Clinton could have had Osama is debunked by the 9/11 commission. I've already link it for others but it's on my work puter which I am not using. Please find me where Clinton was found guilty of perjury by a legal proceeding. He was disbarred for ethics violations due to the case but was not charged with a crime and was not even found guilty during impeachment proceedings. You really should research a little harder if you want to come here and debate. As was explained to you before Clinton did not commit perjruy in the legal sense because what he lied about did not have anything to do with the investigation itself. He was being investigated for whitewater which he was found to not even have enough evidence for a trial. Did the case get to trial? No, because there wasn't enough evidence to do so. No matter how many times you repeat this lie will not make it all right and true.

If he didnt have sexual relations with Lewinsky then why did he later admit to having them?

was he charged and convicted? If not then your weak argument is closed.

Oh we have PLENTY of recourse. Keep your eye out for it. It'll be in the first tuesday following the first monday of November 2008. Thing is I don't give a fuck about Libby. I don't care if he's in jail or not. It doesn't matter ot me, it doesn't affect me.

But if you think the stink that's coming of Bush for continually going against the will of the people isn't going ot stick lies flies on shit to the rest of the 08 GOP candidates...well....you'll get another shot in 2012 though.
Haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter which party is in office. The country keeps going to hell -- a little faster if the Dems are in power, a little slower when the Reps(except GWB) dominate. GWB has set new records and charted new territory, even for the most die-hard spendthrift, anti-individual Democrats, for sending the country down the tubes.

He's done exactly two things right in 6 years. The first was to cut taxes and the second was to fight terrorism in SWA, rather than NYC. I guess he's appointed some constructionist judges and that's got to count for something. But that's it.

He's done exactly two things right in 6 years. The first was to cut taxes and the second was to fight terrorism in SWA, rather than NYC. I guess he's appointed some constructionist judges and that's got to count for something. But that's it.
Ok, that's it. I havn't ignored you yet because you at least shut the hell up when you lose, or otherwise go away for some reason, but that's fucking it. "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." BULLSHIT. That is so factually and logically wrong I can't even find the best place to start a tirade about how wrong it is. Go play in your little neocon play pen with the rest of the Republican idiots who sit around parroting the same patently wrong bullshit day after day, I'm done listening to it.

They're only doing this because he's part of their administration. Who knows what would happen if he was a Democrat? (But I'm probably just stating the obvious)

Oh yeah, like that horrible outcome for Sandy Berger... he only stole original documents from the national archives, hid them and destroyed them.

And for the genius comparing Slick Willy's perjury to Libby, not even close. Clinton deliberately LIED to a grand jury. Flat out lied. So, he wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached for demonstrably lying to a grand jury. Libby was grilled about minutia, and may have been a bit inconsistent in his recollections. And if Plame was indeed covert (she wasn't) why hasn't the actual leaker been brought to (Armitage) justice? Why did this trial even continue? Oh right, to appease the frothing far-left lunatic fringe with *some* pelt.
Yep, poor, poor democrats.

The hypocrisy is beyond laughable.

Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court, not foudn guilty of perjury. Thanks New Mittani for providing that link to prove our case when you thohgh you were proving yours. Clinton had his law license suspended for 5 years as a result but I ask you yet again, please provide links that show Clinton was tried and convicted for perjury. If you cannot do so then admit your defeat and crawl back into the hole from which you came. Clinton DID lie. Clinton DID NOT commit perjury. In order to commit perjury you must lie regarding something that is "material to the case." He did not do so and was NOT charged with perjury nor was he convicted of it. Game, set, and match unless you can link to legal proceedings which prove otherwise.

Oh yeah, like that horrible outcome for Sandy Berger... he only stole original documents from the national archives, hid them and destroyed them.

And for the genius comparing Slick Willy's perjury to Libby, not even close. Clinton deliberately LIED to a grand jury. Flat out lied. So, he wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached for demonstrably lying to a grand jury. Libby was grilled about minutia, and may have been a bit inconsistent in his recollections. And if Plame was indeed covert (she wasn't) why hasn't the actual leaker been brought to (Armitage) justice? Why did this trial even continue? Oh right, to appease the frothing far-left lunatic fringe with *some* pelt.
Yep, poor, poor democrats.

The hypocrisy is beyond laughable.

1. She was covert within legal standards otherwise DOJ and the CIA would not have started an investigation

2. WJC was found in contempt of court. He was not charged nor was he found guilty of committing perjury unless you can link to legal decisions otherwise admit your fault and move on.

3. Fitzgerald was a Republican set up by a Republican. Your whoah is me is all for naught.

4. It was proven time and time again by a jury of his peers that Libby lied and obstructed justice. He was found guilty on 4 out of 5 counts you know? Was Clinton ever found guilty of these crimes? No, unless you can link to them you are wrong. He committed a "contempt of court" violation which is a misdemeanor and only subject to a fine. The Arkansas bar suspended his law license as a result, but no crime was committed.

5. WJC lied and was a scumbag for doing so, but did he commit a crime? The answer to that is no unless you can show where he was indicted and convicted as such. What he did was unethical, sort of like Bush commuting the sentence of a man convicted on 4 felony counts. Bush was within his legal rights to do so, but he'll pay political consequences for doing so. He just hurt all Republican candidates for Prez by his actions.

6. What was the result of those impeachment proceedings? Was he found guilty on either count? I already know the answer so save your energy.

*pawnage*

Treason is pretty hard to defend. It's hard to believe anyone finds it acceptable, no matter how deep they're into the Republicans. That takes a special kind of blindness usually reserved for members of the Moonies.

The CIA agent should have been reprimanded in service, quietly, for trying to influence policy, right or wrong. The CIA is like any part of the civil service and supposed to carry out the will of their political masters, no matter how insane.

But a political hack outed a CIA agent and last I checked treason was still a bad thing. People talk about being in a war, as the justification for their acts, seem to have their patriotism on a light switch setting for traitors from their own camp. If you're in a war, Scooter's up against the wall facing a firing squad. When you're fighting an international campaign against terrorists, betraying the people doing the work probably isn't the best strategy for success.

Ok, that's it. I havn't ignored you yet because you at least shut the hell up when you lose, or otherwise go away for some reason, but that's fucking it. "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." BULLSHIT. That is so factually and logically wrong I can't even find the best place to start a tirade about how wrong it is. Go play in your little neocon play pen with the rest of the Republican idiots who sit around parroting the same patently wrong bullshit day after day, I'm done listening to it.
Damn, now I've hurt your feelings and I feel bad about it. But then you'll never know...

Damn, now I've hurt your feelings and I feel bad about it. But then you'll never know...

It's a shame this forum doesn't have custom titles, or else our bawling friend could be officially awarded "#1 Tantrum Baby."

Oh yeah, like that horrible outcome for Sandy Berger... he only stole original documents from the national archives, hid them and destroyed them.

And for the genius comparing Slick Willy's perjury to Libby, not even close. Clinton deliberately LIED to a grand jury. Flat out lied. So, he wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached for demonstrably lying to a grand jury. Libby was grilled about minutia, and may have been a bit inconsistent in his recollections. And if Plame was indeed covert (she wasn't) why hasn't the actual leaker been brought to (Armitage) justice? Why did this trial even continue? Oh right, to appease the frothing far-left lunatic fringe with *some* pelt.
Yep, poor, poor democrats.

The hypocrisy is beyond laughable.

Well, if you see it that way.

I misread the title as "Scooter Libby is Poland". :(

Anyway... this is wrong. Bush just went against judge and jury and pardoned a felon. Libby deserved his term and Bush got him out of him. Sickening.

Gee, other than, you know, not getting one of those points right, do you think you could show your self to be any more out of touch? NSG is about as far as you can get from an American Idol fan forum. Besides which, talk shit as much as you want, parrot, it's the people with Liberal Arts degrees who own the world.

People with liberal arts degrees only believe other liberals, hence your disbelief of any information not supplied to you by cbs cnn etc. So of course my facts are fiction when you take on faith anything the new york times tells you. In case you didn't notice I said it was clear that the republicans are criminals as well, so in your mind I must at least have one point like uh you know? That doesn't change the fact that the dems are a bunch of race baiting, lying socialists. That includes the media. Further, people with guns run the world. Never forget, no one inherited the land from their forefathers, they took it from those who defended it poorly. Continue to blindly believe anything your favorite news outlet tells you about evil republicans, and yes they are, but ignore the criminals with a D in front of their name. You sir are the parrot, a weak willed sycophant zombie, chanting your moronic mantra, vote dem in 08!! I don't pretend to defend republicans, they are unworthy. Don't be a dupe for the dems.

Why should the President be able to grant pardons anyway?

Why should the President be able to grant pardons anyway?Because sometimes citizens find themselves in a situation where they do something beneficial to the society, by breaking the law. Enabeling someone to pardon them means the legal system won't have to be scrapped, and the citizen not sacrificed.

Whether it makes sense, is a good question. Whether the Prez is the right guy to give that kind of powers, is at least as good - as this Scooter shit illustrates.

Why should the President be able to grant pardons anyway?

It's one of the checks and balances.

Hmmm interesting.....

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014992.php

Ok, that's it. I havn't ignored you yet because you at least shut the hell up when you lose, or otherwise go away for some reason, but that's fucking it. "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." BULLSHIT. That is so factually and logically wrong I can't even find the best place to start a tirade about how wrong it is. Go play in your little neocon play pen with the rest of the Republican idiots who sit around parroting the same patently wrong bullshit day after day, I'm done listening to it.

Again the Busheviks like Myrmi are missing out on the phenomenon I've coined World of Jihadcraft. What they claim is "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is really "We're training them over there so they can kill lots and lots of American civilians when they can be arsed to getting over here." Sort of like how training the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fuck over the Soviets came back to bite the U.S. in the ass a la Osama Bin Ladin?

When the crybaby left becomes unnerved by this low level of losses, they do the work of the enemy.
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
low level of losses?
As at July 2, 2007:
3586 US soldiers killed (including 111 from suicide). That's not counting the407 dead in Afghanistan btw
284 Soldiers from other countries killed
7101 Iraqi soldiers and policemen killed
404 "Contractors" (which means everything from truck drivers to mercs) killed
127 Journalists killed
73120 Iraqi civillans killed due to the military action
To date, 84622 perople have been killed from direct military action in Iraq.

And that above list doesn't include the numbers injured.
25830 US soldiers have been wounded (of which 11831 did not return to action) If we extrapolate that ratio (of 7 injuries: 1 fatality), we come up with ~600000 injuries in Iraq from military action.
This figure is open to debate of course - civillan injury: death ratio no doubt being much lower as they don't have the protection of bodyarmour and armoured vehicles. But even if we use 7:1 ratio for the soldiers and, say, 3:1 for civillans, we still end up with ~300 000 wounded as a result of military action.

85000 dead and ~300000 wounded from direct military action.

And let's not forget the Lancet Journal report that found around 1/2 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.

yup. low level losses indeed.

when the obsessive right accept and dismiss the killing of tens of thousands of civillans, they do the work of the enemy.

Bush spares Libby from Jail (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070703/tpl-uk-usa-crime-libby-bush-47c7853.html)

My thread title is slightly misguiding. This is not an official full pardon for Scooter from Bush, but a commutation of his sentence,

So, you admit to being a troll. How refreshing. :(

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
low level of losses?
As at July 2, 2007:
3586 US soldiers killed (including 111 from suicide). That's not counting the407 dead in Afghanistan btw
284 Soldiers from other countries killed
7101 Iraqi soldiers and policemen killed
404 "Contractors" (which means everything from truck drivers to mercs) killed
127 Journalists killed
73120 Iraqi civillans killed due to the military action
To date, 84622 perople have been killed from direct military action in Iraq.

And that above list doesn't include the numbers injured.
25830 US soldiers have been wounded (of which 11831 did not return to action) If we extrapolate that ratio (of 7 injuries: 1 fatality), we come up with ~600000 injuries in Iraq from military action.
This figure is open to debate of course - civillan injury: death ratio no doubt being much lower as they don't have the protection of bodyarmour and armoured vehicles. But even if we use 7:1 ratio for the soldiers and, say, 3:1 for civillans, we still end up with ~300 000 wounded as a result of military action.

85000 dead and ~300000 wounded from direct military action.

And let's not forget the Lancet Journal report that found around 1/2 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.

yup. low level losses indeed.

when the obsessive right accept and dismiss the killing of tens of thousands of civillans, they do the work of the enemy.

And let's forget that we're still dragging our asses and getting them blown away in Iraq and Afghanistan for a time period much longer than the entire United States involvement in World War 2. So much fuuun!

blahblahRush told me to say this blahblah
You know you're hitting a raw nerve when people start creating puppet accounts just to troll within a thread.
How many accounts with just 1 or 2 posts are there in this thread now?


Trying to swing this back to the OP:
Has anyone else thought upon what Bush said to justify his commution edict?
"I respect the jury's verdict, but I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive."
If 30 months is "excessive", then what is 0 months?
Are we to now take it that any time in prison for perjury offences is excessive? What does this say about Bush's attitude towards such offences?
How is that "respecting the juries verdict"?

Reducing the sentence to no prison time at all is not defensible. It's that simple. He ran roughshod over the American judicial system. It was about about protecting the secrets of his inner circle, not showing respect to the jury.

I am still waiting for Iraqi victory conditions to be defined as achievable goals.

Don't hold your breath, Tph.