UPDATE: BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S SENTENCE -Courts can't touch Libby.

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
Originally posted by: brandonbull
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Hacp

Another croney trying to detract the thread. If we had kept using past standards to justify current wrongdoings, slavery would still exist today.</end quote></div>


A few of Dubya's biggest critics are the ones involved with past presidentional pardons.

Isn't Dubya pretty low on the number of pardons and commutations list as compared with past administrations?


..most certinly. Among the 396 pardons clinton made were 16 south american terrorists.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
The way I see it? Isn't like lying one of the top 10 worst things you can do in the ten commandments? To turn a blind eye and agree with the president on this means you are guilty of lying yourself and you'll pay for it sooner or later....

Oh well this evil act will surface and the whole ship may go down over this...
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
The way I see it? Isn't like lying one of the top 10 worst things you can do in the ten commandments? To turn a blind eye and agree with the president on this means you are guilty of lying yourself and you'll pay for it sooner or later....

That argument only works for you if you also broke out the pitchforks and torches when Clinton lied


 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
The vast majority of the pro-Libby commute/soon to be pardon posts are "but Clinton" nonsense.

libs pull the "All Bush's Fault" card whenever something bad happens or "Bush is worse" card when a dem is shown to be a crook/idiot.

Likewise, Conservatives will bring up clinton when libs wag their fingers at what they percieve to be morally reprehensible.



 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
..most certinly. Among the 396 pardons clinton made were 16 south american terrorists.

More right ring rhetoric. What really happened? Cheny ordered Libby to take the fall for this whole investigation, and then promised him a pardon.I'm sure all of you have already skimmed through this NY times article, but here's a link if you haven't. The consequences of this pardon might destroy our legal system, and finally overthrow American Rule of Law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...gton/04commute.html?hp
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I don't see where the outrage is coming from. Scooter is being severely punished. His legal defense fund will have to pay a $250K fine, and his conviction bars him from continuing his career until after his pardon. Until then, he'll be forced to support himself doing $10K speaking engagements, and shilling on Faux News. Can you imagine a more demeaning fate?
Yeah shilling for this Administration here at ATP&N!
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
Karla Fay Tucker just wanted "life" in prison when 43 was governor of Texas...


"<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Crime.htm">Karla Faye Tucker did not argue that she was innocent or that she had been deprived of her legal rights.
She asked for mercy as reward for a life redeemed through faith.

Bush cited his duty to carry out the execution: ?My responsibility is to ensure our laws are enforced fairly and evenly without preference or special treatment,? he said.</a>"
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Looks like Libby can get out of his probation too: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...html?eref=rss_politics

Can we just end the farce and have the president issue the pardon already? It's not like libby is actually getting punished in any material way. He'll be treated as a folk hero of the RNC and will be gainfully employed wherever he wants because of his loyalty to the president.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: daveymark
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GrGr
The vast majority of the pro-Libby commute/soon to be pardon posts are "but Clinton" nonsense.
libs pull the "All Bush's Fault" card whenever something bad happens or "Bush is worse" card when a dem is shown to be a crook/idiot.

Likewise, Conservatives will bring up clinton when libs wag their fingers at what they percieve to be morally reprehensible.

More fallacious nonsense. Fallacious reasoning is par of the course for the Bushbots here, it always has been.

Yes, Clinton lied under oath. Yes, he should have faced the consequences for his lie. Does that have a bearing on this case? None at all.

Bush with his actions has, yet again, undermined the rule of law. The US is now a nation where some men, by no means all, are above the law. Bush has done it before when he broke international (and US law). He should have been impeached then. But the Dems chose to cave in to him, and now the Dems are asking their constituents to write letters to Bush saying how outraged they are at his action of commuting (soon to be pardoned) Libby. How utterly pathetic is that.

This is Exceptionalism. Some men, according to Bush, and some nations, according to Bush, are above the Law. And this Exceptionalism is only serving Bush's interests, and the interests of those behind him. So it is Selective Exceptionalism enjoyed by the Select few.

That is a different issue from the Clinton Lied crap. Impeach Bush and Cheney. If they are allowed to get away with what they are doing to the US Executive branch, and the US Constitution, the damage is irreparable.

This is food for thought on this 4th of July when Americans like to think the US is the Exceptional nation above all nations, not the least because it is a nation of laws, where each man is equal before the Law, and none above it.

Impeach Bush. Never has the US had a more anti-American President. He is a mockery to the flag.











 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Hacp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
..most certinly. Among the 396 pardons clinton made were 16 south american terrorists.
</end quote></div>

More right ring rhetoric. What really happened? Cheny ordered Libby to take the fall for this whole investigation, and then promised him a pardon.I'm sure all of you have already skimmed through this NY times article, but here's a link if you haven't. The consequences of this pardon might destroy our legal system, and finally overthrow American Rule of Law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...gton/04commute.html?hp

Yer teh funnay!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger......and the question should never have been asked in the first place. It was nobody's business except Hillary's.

This outta be fun. Please explain to us poor ignorant souls who find the intarnets to be hard why "the question" shouldn't have been asked or was not relevant in a sexual harassment civil trial.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger......and the question should never have been asked in the first place. It was nobody's business except Hillary's. </end quote></div>

This outta be fun. Please explain to us poor ignorant souls who find the intarnets to be hard why "the question" shouldn't have been asked or was not relevant in a sexual harassment civil trial.

Actually I'd argue that his consensual sexual relationship with a completely different person was totally irrelevant to a deposition for alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones. In any event, it certainly wasn't a matter of national security.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger......and the question should never have been asked in the first place. It was nobody's business except Hillary's. </end quote></div>

This outta be fun. Please explain to us poor ignorant souls who find the intarnets to be hard why "the question" shouldn't have been asked or was not relevant in a sexual harassment civil trial.

It's a legal explanation why the question was improper. And of course, it comes down to a matter of opinion, when you hear the reasons.

You can research it, such as in one of the books on the issue, like Joe Conason's or Sidney Blumenthal's.

I'll defer the half hour of looking it up again for now, but I might be persuaded if there's a reason to do so.

I don't recall being 100% convinced it was improper, but I recall it being probably improper.

You have to remember, it wasn't an accident - there was a large legal team of right-wing lawyers who were secretly using the issue to try to 'get Clinton' and pushing things like this.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Looks like Libby can get out of his probation too: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...html?eref=rss_politics

Can we just end the farce and have the president issue the pardon already? It's not like libby is actually getting punished in any material way. He'll be treated as a folk hero of the RNC and will be gainfully employed wherever he wants because of his loyalty to the president.


<SNARK>Can't until the Wilson's civil lawsuit has been desimated and destryed by the forces of goodnes and writeousness<?SNARK>

Pardoned "Scooter" would have to testify in the civil case, commutated he doesn't because of the on going appeal testifying in the civil case might compromise his 5th amendment rights.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Ah, the moral compass...

In "defense" of this action, I keep hearing about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Are we going with "two wrongs make a right!" or "ah, who needs CIA agents and their associates to believe they won't be outed at the convenience of the US Government!"

Moral compass indeed.

The talking heads are out in full force bringing up Clinton and his pardons.

I think we need to remind them that Clinton and what the other 40+ presidents have done has nothing to do with this case. It's a red herring on the part of those who know they cannot defend what Bush has done, which is indirectly committing obstruction of justice.

Clinton did a dastardly deed by pardoning Marc Rich. A real sleazebag move.

I'm afraid the Marc Rich pardon and other cheesy behavior on the part of Clnton are not relevant to this particular ethical issue. But, I see that that doesn't stand in the way of making this another us vs. them debate (rep. vs. dem); The Marc Rich spin is just the latest diversion tactic that goes nowhere. Spare us and everybody else the whining excuse of "He/She did it so it's okay if I do it too!"

Again the sole defense is "Clinton did it, too".

Which leaves one question: why are the people who support this always happy to admit that the Cheney/Rove administration is, in their opinion, in every way just like Clinton's?

Aren't they supposed to hate Clinton? Just how stupid do you have to be to think that argument makes sense?

Never mind , that last question was rhetorical.

Now this is interesting...

From the 'Marc Rich' wikipedia entry:

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.





 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Actually I'd argue that his consensual sexual relationship with a completely different person was totally irrelevant to a deposition for alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones. In any event, it certainly wasn't a matter of national security.
So? you?re suing your boss for sexual harassment and then you find out that your boss has a history of sexual relationships with people who have worked for him and in fact at the moment your law suit is going on you find out that he is involved in an affair with an underling of his.

Do you not think that would be germane to your case?
At this point in time Clinton was still publicly denying that he had ever had any kind of affair with anyone at all. If Paula Jones could prove that Clinton had a history of affairs then she had a far greater chance of winning her court case than if it was just her word verse his.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: brandonbull
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Hacp

Another croney trying to detract the thread. If we had kept using past standards to justify current wrongdoings, slavery would still exist today.</end quote></div>


A few of Dubya's biggest critics are the ones involved with past presidentional pardons.

Isn't Dubya pretty low on the number of pardons and commutations list as compared with past administrations?
</end quote></div>


..most certinly. Among the 396 pardons clinton made were 16 south american terrorists.
16 FALN memners where pardoned by President Clinton. The FALN in question is the Puerto Rican terrorist group not the Venezualian group/splinter gorup.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Ah, the moral compass...

In "defense" of this action, I keep hearing about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Are we going with "two wrongs make a right!" or "ah, who needs CIA agents and their associates to believe they won't be outed at the convenience of the US Government!"

Moral compass indeed.

The talking heads are out in full force bringing up Clinton and his pardons.

I think we need to remind them that Clinton and what the other 40+ presidents have done has nothing to do with this case. It's a red herring on the part of those who know they cannot defend what Bush has done, which is indirectly committing obstruction of justice.

Clinton did a dastardly deed by pardoning Marc Rich. A real sleazebag move.

I'm afraid the Marc Rich pardon and other cheesy behavior on the part of Clnton are not relevant to this particular ethical issue. But, I see that that doesn't stand in the way of making this another us vs. them debate (rep. vs. dem); The Marc Rich spin is just the latest diversion tactic that goes nowhere. Spare us and everybody else the whining excuse of "He/She did it so it's okay if I do it too!"

Again the sole defense is "Clinton did it, too".

Which leaves one question: why are the people who support this always happy to admit that the Cheney/Rove administration is, in their opinion, in every way just like Clinton's?

Aren't they supposed to hate Clinton? Just how stupid do you have to be to think that argument makes sense?

Never mind , that last question was rhetorical.

Now this is interesting...

From the 'Marc Rich' wikipedia entry:

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.

QFT.

The neocon mindset when dealing with these issues is completely unfathomable. Given the following statements:

1. Bush pardoned a guilty person.
2. Clinton pardoned a guilty person.
3. We hate Clinton.

The logical step to make is "We hate Bush." And yet, the evil Clinton's actions are used as a defense of the righteous Bush's actions. It's traditional neocon logic; attack anyone who opposes you with such blindingly stupid arguments and venemous hatred that they are forced to conclude you have nothing to offer, then call them cowards for refusing to stoop to your level of "debate."
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Since the Plame affair ultimately is about the Bush administrations lies to promote a war against Iraq, Bush in effect is protecting himself by silencing Libby. If it is established that Bush manipulated the US into war against Iraq he could face the gallows as a war criminal (if the Nuremberg standard is applied). That is a whole other ballgame than Bill Clinton lying about his sex life.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: DonVito
Actually I'd argue that his consensual sexual relationship with a completely different person was totally irrelevant to a deposition for alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones. In any event, it certainly wasn't a matter of national security.</end quote></div>
So? you?re suing your boss for sexual harassment and then you find out that your boss has a history of sexual relationships with people who have worked for him and in fact at the moment your law suit is going on you find out that he is involved in an affair with an underling of his.

Do you not think that would be germane to your case?
At this point in time Clinton was still publicly denying that he had ever had any kind of affair with anyone at all. If Paula Jones could prove that Clinton had a history of affairs then she had a far greater chance of winning her court case than if it was just her word verse his.</end quote></div>

Wrong-o. Clinton never denied that he had had affairs - remember him and Hilary on 60 Minutes in 1992, discussing the Gennifer Flowers affair?

A consensual affair with an underling has NOTHING to do with the kind of sexual harassment alleged by Paula Jones. Had I been representing President Clinton in that deposition, I would have directed him not to answer the questions regarding Monica Lewinsky, on the basis that they were irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. If the judge felt differently, fine, but I still am not convinced this is relevant or discoverable information under the circumstances.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I hate bumping dead threads, but I thought eugene robinson made a pretty great point in an op-ed he wrote about this...

What led us to this point -- when a lifestyle maven, a bling-bedecked rapper and a table-dancing celebrity are held more accountable than a powerful member of the White House inner circle who functioned as Dick Cheney's right-hand man -- was an abuse, or at least a misuse, of presidential power.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2007070501823.html
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
I hate bumping dead threads, but I thought eugene robinson made a pretty great point in an op-ed he wrote about this...

What led us to this point -- when a lifestyle maven, a bling-bedecked rapper and a table-dancing celebrity are held more accountable than a powerful member of the White House inner circle who functioned as Dick Cheney's right-hand man -- was an abuse, or at least a misuse, of presidential power.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2007070501823.html

I have always felt the presidential pardon had the potential for abuse, and I think it has been abused in the past. But I wonder where these people were when other presidents, noteably democrats, were pardoning people who have done far worse. Including drug dealers, con artists, theives, and murderers. I say noteably, because I have a feeling if this person was writing and editorial after a democrat pulled the same stunt, he would be praising the action.

 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: loki8481
I hate bumping dead threads, but I thought eugene robinson made a pretty great point in an op-ed he wrote about this...

What led us to this point -- when a lifestyle maven, a bling-bedecked rapper and a table-dancing celebrity are held more accountable than a powerful member of the White House inner circle who functioned as Dick Cheney's right-hand man -- was an abuse, or at least a misuse, of presidential power.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2007070501823.html

I have always felt the presidential pardon had the potential for abuse, and I think it has been abused in the past. But I wonder where these people were when other presidents, noteably democrats, were pardoning people who have done far worse. Including drug dealers, con artists, theives, and murderers. I say noteably, because I have a feeling if this person was writing and editorial after a democrat pulled the same stunt, he would be praising the action.

You're just making an excuse for cronyism.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
We definitely needed Bill Clinton in this thread.
Well Clinton actually chose to inject himself into the discussion by publicly criticizing Bush's decision to commuty Libby's statement...Clinton, who has no moral high ground to stand on when it comes to handing out pardons as political favors.