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

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

I don't think anybody actually defended Clinton's pardons other then to say that it was a common occurence at the end of a Presidents tenure. I actually think he did abuse his power but what Bush did was pretty much unprecedented AFAIK and the righties have come out of the woodwork defending the commutation without Libby ever having spent even one measley little day in jail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...pr/on_the2008_trail_14

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence "reasonable."

Hypocrits all. As a matter of fact I think Romney made his remarks about Clinton the day before Clinton made his remarks about Libby. Maybe he was dragged into it? 😛

Edit: Bill Clinton blasts Libby clemency, says his pardons ?different?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Hacp

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.

In what way? Did you bother reading my response at all? I bolded a key part for you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

My concern with the Libby commutation is not that it was a political favor, though it certainly was, but more that it looks like a conflict of interest, in that Libby is a person who could quite likely testify in a harmful way against the Vice President, and quite possibly the President as well. It's very reminiscent of the pardons of the Iran-Contra cast of characters in that respect.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

My concern with the Libby commutation is not that it was a political favor, though it certainly was, but more that it looks like a conflict of interest, in that Libby is a person who could quite likely testify in a harmful way against the Vice President, and quite possibly the President as well. It's very reminiscent of the pardons of the Iran-Contra cast of characters in that respect.

Of course, I think most presidential pardons have these conflict of interests. And this is where the potential for abuse arises. I am sure the founding fathers had good intentions for the right to pardon. However like anything political, it ends up being a reach around for some crook.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

My concern with the Libby commutation is not that it was a political favor, though it certainly was, but more that it looks like a conflict of interest, in that Libby is a person who could quite likely testify in a harmful way against the Vice President, and quite possibly the President as well. It's very reminiscent of the pardons of the Iran-Contra cast of characters in that respect.

Of course, I think most presidential pardons have these conflict of interests. And this is where the potential for abuse arises. I am sure the founding fathers had good intentions for the right to pardon. However like anything political, it ends up being a reach around for some crook.

The problem is that Bush through the Libby pardon (without even serving one lousy day in jail) might be actually pardoning himself and/or Cheney.

 

[Gaard]

Why do we even have it? Does it serve a purpose? It's like a GET OUT OF JAIL free card.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Why do we even have it? Does it serve a purpose? It's like a GET OUT OF JAIL free card.

I wouldn't take it away all together, but I would eliminate pardoning people in your own administration (as Bush did) and doing like Clinton did, pardoning a boatload on his last day.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Why do we even have it? Does it serve a purpose? It's like a GET OUT OF JAIL free card.

I don't really know the rationale behind them in the Constitution, but it seems to me they offer the one opportunity for the Executive Branch to override the Judicial, and in that sense they are a check and balance. Unfortunately they are often used for political reasons rather than as legitimate clemency.

 

[Gaard]

It kinda seems like a lottery...without having to buy a ticket.

Does anyone deserve to be pardoned? If someone was tried and convicted, shouldn't that be that? We have appeals, afterall.

Oh well. I'm probably just not seeing the positives about having it.