Question for Iraq war supporters

[maineman]

Last I read Bush did NOT pardon Libby, if that changed can I have a link to it?

he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.

do you need a link for THAT?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.

do you need a link for THAT?

In other words he is still convicted of the crime, yes?

 

[maineman]

In other words he is still convicted of the crime, yes?

IN other words, he is convicted of a crime but doesn't have to do the time.

Shit.... I bet OJ wouldn't have minded being convicted of killing his wife if he had being given that level of consideration!

 

[jillian]

he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.

do you need a link for THAT?

Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm

30 months for a non crime? Sure thing. It was all political. Remind me how many months Bill Clinton got for ADMITTING he lied to a Judge under oath.

 

[Annie]

and like I said to Warner many posts ago, the executive has the power to pardon and waive away the sentencing, with no reason given. No one said anyone had to like it, rarely are they popular moves.

 

[trobinett]

and like I said to Warner many posts ago, the executive has the power to pardon and waive away the sentencing, with no reason given. No one said anyone had to like it, rarely are they popular moves.

Of course, that matters little to those with an agenda................

 

[mattskramer]

Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm

Each managed to weasel his way out of paying the piper in full one way or another. Clinton practically bribed Paula to drop the case. Bush managed to get Libby to avoid jail time.

Don’t let your political biases cloud you from the facts though. Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby were both convicted by the courts. Both paid a legal price. We can go on debating whether or not the conviction was correct and/or whether or not the ultimate penalties that they had to pay were sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones#Conclusion_of_case

Paula Jones V Bill Clinton

On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. All but $151,000 went to pay, what were by then, considerable legal expenses.

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years....

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

Scooter Libby

Charges:
Obstruction of Justice
Perjury
Making False Statements

Penalty:
30 months in prison (granted clemency by GWB)
$250,000 fine
Two years of supervised release, with 400 hours of community service

Status:
Convicted (of four of five charges)

 

[Warner]

Wow, he has the power of pardons and commutations, which I said. You repeat about impeachment, please what is your point on this?

I'm sorry I thought that it was obvious. The Libby commutation is clearly means by which the White House shields itself from investigation, in this case regarding the Valarie Plains (sorry if I mis-spelled her name) outing. If the President is going to utilize his power to pardon and to commute sentences to stifle such investigations of White House wrong doing then the appropriate course of action for congress is to initiate impeachment proceedings. This would deny the President the ability to offer pardons or commutations to such witnesses in exchange for their silence or purjery.

Much as I hate to say it, President Bush should be impeached as a matter of principal.

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry I thought that it was obvious. The Libby commutation is clearly means by which the White House shields itself from investigation, in this case regarding the Valarie Plains (sorry if I mis-spelled her name) outing. If the President is going to utilize his power to pardon and to commute sentences to stifle such investigations of White House wrong doing then the appropriate course of action for congress is to initiate impeachment proceedings. This would deny the President the ability to offer pardons or commutations to such witnesses in exchange for their silence or purjery.

Much as I hate to say it, President Bush should be impeached as a matter of principal.

I'm unsure what you don't understand about how the system works. The President doesn't have all the powers that a monarch does, which Federalist 69 aptly explains. On the other hand, there are powers, two of which you brought up. There are no exceptions to these, save one, cases of impeachment, which was not Libby. He was NOT being impeached.

If Nixon had not resigned prior to impeachment charges being sought, Ford would not have been able to pardon him. But those charges were not brought, so he could. Did many dislike that act, yes. We got Jimmy C instead of a full term for Ford.

 

[Warner]

Each managed to weasel his way out of paying the piper in full one way or another. Clinton practically bribed Paula to drop the case. Bush managed to get Libby to avoid jail time.

Don’t let your political biases cloud you from the facts though. Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby were both convicted by the courts. Both paid a legal price. We can go on debating whether or not the conviction was correct and/or whether or not the ultimate penalties that they had to pay were sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones#Conclusion_of_case

Paula Jones V Bill Clinton

On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. All but $151,000 went to pay, what were by then, considerable legal expenses.

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years....

I believe individuals should not be allowed to bring such charges against a President while he is in office. Charges such as those brought by Paula Jones should have to be brought either before the President takes office or after he leaves office. This would not include crimes where the President was not identified until after he'd taken office nor those committed while in office, only those which could have been brought to court before he was elected.

 

[Annie]

I believe individuals should not be allowed to bring such charges against a President while he is in office. Charges such as those brought by Paula Jones should have to be brought either before the President takes office or after he leaves office. This would not include crimes where the President was not identified until after he'd taken office nor those committed while in office, only those which could have been brought to court before he was elected.

Well what YOU think should be allowed and what is according to law, are different things altogether. The statute of limitations would have run out on her bringing the case, something that would NOT fit in with our system of justice. If there were a 'Paula Jones' around now, somehow I doubt you'd think the same way.

 

[Warner]

I'm unsure what you don't understand about how the system works. The President doesn't have all the powers that a monarch does, which Federalist 69 aptly explains. On the other hand, there are powers, two of which you brought up. There are no exceptions to these, save one, cases of impeachment, which was not Libby. He was NOT being impeached.

If Nixon had not resigned prior to impeachment charges being sought, Ford would not have been able to pardon him. But those charges were not brought, so he could. Did many dislike that act, yes. We got Jimmy C instead of a full term for Ford.

No, I think it is clear that the President is denied the power of pardons or commutations with respect to impeachment proceedings. This is specifically intended to prevent him from shielding witnesses against his office and thus to allow a proper investigation to proceed. Otherwise, no impeachment proceeding could ever extract meaningful testimony from unwilling witnesses. They would know in advance that Congress and the grand jury would have no power to compel testimony nor to punish perjury.

 

[Annie]

No, I think it is clear that the President is denied the power of pardons or commutations with respect to impeachment proceedings. This is specifically intended to prevent him from shielding witnesses against his office and thus to allow a proper investigation to proceed. Otherwise, no impeachment proceeding could ever extract meaningful testimony from unwilling witnesses. They would know in advance that Congress and the grand jury would have no power to compel testimony nor to punish perjury.

Impeachment charges against Libby were not brought, nor from what I can find, ever considered. Sorry, your reference to Federalist 69 most definately does not bolster your arguments.

 

[Warner]

Well what YOU think should be allowed and what is according to law, are different things altogether. The statute of limitations would have run out on her bringing the case, something that would NOT fit in with our system of justice.

Good point. Statutes of limitations would have to also be extended by the length of the term.

If there were a 'Paula Jones' around now, somehow I doubt you'd think the same way.

What? Do you mean if there was such a woman in Bush's past? Of course I would feel the same! She should either have made her case before he was elected or have to wait till his Presidency is over to do so, preferably the former.

The problem is that such people are easily used by others to try to derail a President. If Paula Jones had such a big problem with her encounter with Clinton years before he became President, why did she wait until well into his Presidency to seek redress?

Lets be clear Kat, I didn't like Clinton, and I don't like Bush. The last decent President we had was Reagan, and before him JFK. The last good President we had was Harry S. Truman. Other than that we've had a bunch of loosers.

 

[Warner]

Impeachment charges against Libby were not brought, nor from what I can find, ever considered. Sorry, your reference to Federalist 69 most definately does not bolster your arguments.

Grrrr...

No Kat, I'm saying that had impeachment charges been brought against the white house (Bush or Cheney) in the Plains case, they would not have been able to commute Libby's sentence, nor to Pardon or Commute the sentences of any witnesses called in such an investigation.

Thus, in response to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, Congress should institute impeachment proceedings and re-open the investigation.

 

[Annie]

Good point. Statutes of limitations would have to also be extended by the length of the term.



What? Do you mean if there was such a woman in Bush's past? Of course I would feel the same! She should either have made her case before he was elected or have to wait till his Presidency is over to do so, preferably the former.

The problem is that such people are easily used by others to try to derail a President. If Paula Jones had such a big problem with her encounter with Clinton years before he became President, why did she wait until well into his Presidency to seek redress?

Lets be clear Kat, I didn't like Clinton, and I don't like Bush. The last decent President we had was Reagan, and before him JFK. The last good President we had was Harry S. Truman. Other than that we've had a bunch of loosers.

While I became very tired of all the allegations raised against Clinton, I did understand part of her case was intimidation by the governor at the time and state troopers at his beck and call. I suppose that would have made bringing charges against him quite intimidating prior to his move to D.C.?

I understand your not respecting GW, you're not alone. Yet, even then impeachment has certain rules, unclear though they may be. Other than the kookiest in Congress, impeachment has been off the table, even though many of the base of the party beg for it. Another Johnson/Clinton scenario is more than unlikely.

 

[Annie]

Grrrr...

No Kat, I'm saying that had impeachment charges been brought against the white house (Bush or Cheney) in the Plains case, they would not have been able to commute Libby's sentence, nor to Pardon or Commute the sentences of any witnesses called in such an investigation.

Thus, in response to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, Congress should institute impeachment proceedings and re-open the investigation.

Again, the 'rule of law' that most on the left worry about with GW. You can't retro charges because of something that went before. Congress can investigate all they like, but it's not going to lead to impeachment from Libby, that's done.

 

[Warner]

Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.

It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment. About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing. Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!

It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal. But she would not do so. One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.

 

[Annie]

Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.

It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment. About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing. Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!

It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal. But she would not do so. One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.

I think you are indulging in wishful thinking. Granted my powers to search may be rusty, but if you can find something that has traction against Bush or Cheney, please post a link. I found Kucinich's attempt at Cheney and McKinney's swipe at Bush, but neither has had luck getting out of committee.