Matt,

You can not compare Bush to Clinton. Those that Clinton pardoned did not committ felonies for his administration. Bush did it as a cover up(pay back)for services rendered (falling on the knife).

That is the part that is wrong. It had nothing to do with how bad the crime was, but he was convicted and was let off because he was part of Cheney's fourth branch of government.

I am completely done with this topic.

"If Democrats care so much about the alleged abuses of power and subverting of the rule of law, why don't they investigate every single pardon and commutation made by President Clinton. When they're done with those, maybe then they'll have a little bit of standing to question the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence."

Congress held a hearing on Clinton's pardons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/pardonshearingtext030101.htm

President Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed his aides who participated in the Rich pardon discussion to testify, no holds barred.

As for Scooter Libby, there are a lot of us that disagreed with Clinton's pardons, that also disagree with Libby's commutation.

As for the trial, I have a hard time believing that charges brought by a republican appointed USA, in a trial presided by a republican appointed judge in which the defendant was defended by some of the best lawyers in the country resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Add in the fact that two other republican appointed judges on the appeals court agreed with the ruling and the sentence. Libby is guilty and should be in jail.

I do agree with you on one point. Those democrats who defended Clinton's pardons and now attack Bush for the same thing are hypocrites. Just as those republicans who complained about Clinton's pardons and now defend what Bush did are also hypocrites.

One other point Mark. You are always talking about how we need more republican judges. What is point,if the president is going to overrule them to protect someone who worked for him?

Uh, Margolis?

First off, Plame WAS covert.

Second, you're crying fowl over Clinton's pardons (which were wrong as well) but there should be a commutation to someone who was convicted of LYING to a prosecutor (a REPUBLICAN prosecutor, by the way), and charged with perjury and obstruction of justice? Just where are you playing at?

Rockville, don't even bother with Matt. Like his buddy Mark, he's a partisan hack who places his party and his lame-duck presidnet before real patriotism and his country.

Just pathetic.

Sorry Mark, I meant Mark.

I mean Matt.

"If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty....
"
-James Madison from the Constitutional Convention

Anyone remember that Scooter Libby had lied to the grand jury AFTER the outing and that he was exonerated of any wrong doing BEFORE the investigation????

From Michael Isikoff: "In the end, he (Fitzgerald)didn't charge Libby with violating that law—because as he acknoweledged, there was no evidence that Libby knew of her covert status at the time he disclosed her identity to reporters (mainly Judy Miller of the New York Times.) But as Walton pointed out today, there was also no evidence that Libby took any steps to ascertain her status before disclosing it and he considered that reckless and irresponsible on his part."

Yeah, I can't help point out the hypocrisy of people who defended this commutation and are also against the Clinton ones, which were done more "by the book" than Bush's under the table commutation.

Libby's guilt was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of his peers and a Bush appointed judge. That pretty much makes your claim of "no concrete evidence" look somewhat silly. Oh, and his "excessive sentence" was well within established guidelines...

Funny story: Throughout the Mark Rich, one person stood by him the whole time... That man was his lawyer, a man by the name of I. Lewis Libby...

That should be:

Throughout the Mark Rich scandal

And you kooks look at the Libby case as more serious than Sandy Burglar....laughable and frightening at the same time.

RQ, please explain...in detail, what Scooter Libby being Rich's attorney has to do with anything.

I can't wait to hear this one!

Here are some irrefuatable facts. Libby was one of Marc Richs' attourneys. Clinton was aquited. Libby was convicted by the same rule of law we have been told we are trying to instill in desert bedoins. Bush didn't consult the DOJ nor the prosecutor and essentialy said that his judgement was superior to that of the judge and jury. Bush undermined the bedrock of our judicial system in order to protect not Libby, but Cheney and himself because Cheney was the original sourse of the leak. Bush and Cheney could not care less about Libby. They only care about themselves.
The sentencing guidelines admonish that anyone given a commutation of sentence serve at least some jail time and express remorse for their actions. None of these things has applied to Libby though. The guidelines also require that the appeals process has been exhausted. Again, this does not apply to Libby. Libby has not qualified for any of these narrow requirements to exempt him from jail time and using the Republicans own arguements against commutation any one else would have been directed straight to prison.
What we have witnessed is the presidents contempt for our judical sysytem when an acolyte is the convict. Bushs' commutation of sentence for Libby fatally undermines the very concept of equal treatment under the law which is the mark of a monarchy, not a republic.
Bush is intellectally and emotionally incapable of coming to grips with the fact that the center piece of his presidency; Iraq, is a faliure and by allowing Libby to go to prison and perhaps getting angry and a conscious, he would expose Cheney and Bush for what everyone knows that they are already.
Delusional liars who misrepresent themselves and the truth.

It's not directly related to anything... It's just funny how intertwined different stories in Washington get...

A bit angry there robin'big?

So, what we're hearing is that simply put, you hate America, George Bush, VP Cheney, our military and all republicans...correct? And that the Clintons can do no wrong...correct?

Sounds like you and Dennis Kookspinach should be cell mates at Atascadaro.

Then why bring it up RQ? Are we to assume that everything you post is for "shock value"?

Wow... I can't bring up funny coincidences without being accused of some ulterior motive? Jeeze, navy, do you wear a foil hat or something?

The document that alleges Plame was covert is questionable at best

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAzZWQ4Y2U1MTY0YzIyMjQ3NTUxYmZlY2IyMWY4ODc=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTJmNWMxZGMyNDI1Y2YzODE2ZTRiMjhiZTk2N2E0OGQ=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThlNmVjMWI5NzMzMjBjN2I4M2NmYjIzY2JlNGMzZmE=

Nice try libs.

"And you kooks look at the Libby case as more serious than Sandy Burglar....laughable and frightening at the same time."
I don't. Sandy Berger should have done time. Can you say the same about Libby?

Rana,
If you read the transcript on Clinton's pardons 9check my link above), the last couple of pages are of the interview with Libby. If nothing else it is ironic.

the one person in this that isn't a hypocrite is Libby, He defended Clinton's pardons, and I'm sure he is defending his own.

Bush is sending a strong message. Commit a crime for my administration and I will have your back. This act will give confidence to all the criminals in the White House who lie to Congress, Grand Juries, Special Investigators, ect to cover the Administration's crimes.

Chaney learned alot from his stint with the Nixon/Ford Administration.

I cannot wait until they are all tried for war crimes in the Hague.

robin'the'big'liar,

So may lies, distortions, and unrelated opinions. Where do I start?

"Libby was one of Marc Richs' attourneys."

And Fitzgerald was one of the prosecutors frustrated with the inability to get Marc Rich. But I'm sure that it didn't have any affect on his judgement to continue an investigation in an alleged "leak" after the "leaker" had been identified.

"Clinton was aquited."

Actually, President Clinton was found in contempt of court for committing perjury and was fined $90,000 and was disbarred. If you mean acquitted by the Senate in his removal trial, yes every Democrat voted out of party loyalty and voted for acquittal. President Clinton could have raped someone and every Democrat Senator would have voted for acquittal. Wait....he was accused of rape.

"Libby was convicted by the same rule of law we have been told we are trying to instill in desert bedoins."

Actually, we have allowed the Iraqis and Afghans to develop their own constitution and rule of law based on their culture, customs, and legal background.

"Bush didn't consult the DOJ nor the prosecutor and essentialy said that his judgement was superior to that of the judge and jury."

Actually, the request for the commutation came through the Department of Justice. And he specifically said that he was not pardoning Libby since the jury had found him guilty. Besides, the jury had no say in the sentencing, only the judge.

"Bush undermined the bedrock of our judicial system in order to protect not Libby, but Cheney and himself because Cheney was the original sourse of the leak."

The President's actions didn't undermine anything, except in the partisan minds of anti-American, anti-Bush, left wing liars. And I suppose have proof that the Vice-President was the original source? That would be interesting since Richard Armitage has admitted to being the original "source of the leak". That's quite a wild conspiracy theory you have going there.

"The sentencing guidelines admonish that anyone given a commutation of sentence serve at least some jail time and express remorse for their actions. None of these things has applied to Libby though. The guidelines also require that the appeals process has been exhausted. Again, this does not apply to Libby. Libby has not qualified for any of these narrow requirements to exempt him from jail time and using the Republicans own arguements against commutation any one else would have been directed straight to prison."

Please provide a link to these sentencing guidlines, or are you just making things up?

"What we have witnessed is the presidents contempt for our judical sysytem when an acolyte is the convict."

You mean when President Clinton PARDONED two of his Cabinet members?

"Bushs' commutation of sentence for Libby fatally undermines the very concept of equal treatment under the law which is the mark of a monarchy, not a republic."

Equal treatment? So you would have been 100% behind removal from office for President Clinton who was accused of Lying to a Grand Jury, was held in Contempt of Court for Perjury, had Suborned Perjury, and Obstructed Justice? So you are 100% in support of a prison sentence for President Clinton for these high crimes and misdemeanors? And you would be 100% in support of a much stronger sentence for Sandy Berger who stole highly classified documents from the National Archives under orders from former President Clinton. These documents probably incriminated President Clinton regarding his lack of action against terrorism. Berger lied about what he did to investigators. He then destroyed the documents and all copies of the documents. I'm sure you would also be 100% behind indicting former President Clinton as an accessory in ordering Berger to commit these crimes.

The fact remains that Mr. Libby will still pay a
$250,000 fine (which is more than twice the fine President Clinton paid for a simliar offense and President Clinton also did not serve any time in prison for a similar offense. It is 5 times the fine Sandy Berger paid for stealing and destroying vital National Security documents, forever damaging our National Security). He will also serve two years probation.

"Delusional liars who misrepresent themselves and the truth."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

May I remind you of this quote: "I am a life long Republican". Posted by: robin'big at July 4, 2007 11:32 AM

You are a life long delusional liar who misrepresents himself and the truth.

Casper,

Except, of course, Mr. Libby did not receive a pardon, part of his sentence was commuted.

What is it with you liberals always twisting the facts to meet your agenda?

"As for Scooter Libby, there are a lot of us that disagreed with Clinton's pardons, that also disagree with Libby's commutation."

A-10,
If you read my first post or any of the posts from the last thread on this you will see I said commutation. So I messed up on one.
As for calling me a liberal, if liberals believe that people that break the law such as Libby, Berger, and Clinton, should go to jail for it, then I guess I'm a liberal.
Since you think a convicted felon such as Libby should go free, what does that make you?

A-10,

Wonderful post.

You know how it goes, a liberal has never met a fact he couldn't twist to suit his own world view...

KCJ

The document that alleges Plame was covert is questionable at best

Are you calling Gen Hayden, the head of the CIA and Bush appointee, a liar?

Why isn't the White House calling for an investigation of Hayden for perjury?

Willem van Oranje,
Since I know someones going to demand it, here is a link documenting what you said.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/

So, if Plame wasn't covert, why did Hayden lie? I mean he's only the head of the CIA. And wasn't he appointed by Bush?

Deleted - off topic

A10:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20070705.html

All the cries of Plame being covert or not are maningless. As the presiding Judge told the jury, “No evidence will be presented to you with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson’s status. That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them.” He later added, “I’m going to give you another cautionary. The truth of whether someone could be harmed based upon the disclosure of people working in a covert capacity is not at issue in this case. Remember what I have told you several times. Mr. Libby is not charged with leaking classified information.”

Of course, none of this stopped Fitzgerald from making his closing argument a scathing condemnation of Cheney, who wasn't even on trial.

Also escaping the left is that Libby was not pardoned, he is still convicted awaiting appeal.

A nation ruled by laws is rigid and can't acomplish much. A nation ruled by men can do bold things like invade Iraq. If this requires some people in an elite inner circle to have special priveliges, so be it. As to if you're in the inner circle, if you have to ask, your not.

GOP4ME: You know how it goes, a liberal has never met a fact he couldn't twist to suit his own world view...

I'd say that's true of any ideologue, not just liberal ones.

Lew

Of course, none of this stopped Fitzgerald from making his closing argument a scathing condemnation of Cheney, who wasn't even on trial.

That cloud hanging over the VP has immensely increased after Libby's sentence was commuted. Cheney and Bush were afraid Libby would start to sing like a jailbird when in jail, they didn't trust him.
They didn't grant him a full pardon either because then he couldn't have pleaded the fifth. He could be forced to testify about Cheney's role and would only have two options: keep lying (and risk being tried and convicted for perjury and obstructing justice anew) or start telling the truth.
Bush/Rove/Cheney couldn't risk that either. That's why his sentence was commuted under extraordinary circumstances in an obvious attempt to keep him out of jail. He still can plead the fifth, the fine was peanuts.

robert

A nation ruled by laws is rigid and can't acomplish much. A nation ruled by men can do bold things like invade Iraq. If this requires some people in an elite inner circle to have special priveliges, so be it.

Bush:

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.""Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.""Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Robert, why do you hate America?

Bush's rant is here

And this is the man that wants to change the gd piece of paper to support his agenda.

This is great for our sole patriot!

Right you are Rico!

WVO, don't you find it more than a little curious that a statement as outrageous as "The Constitution is just a Goddamned piece of paper," can only be found on Leftist web sites and blogs. Neither Snopes.com nor Factcheck.org recognizes the statement, nor have I ever found it cited in any credible news source. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the loony Left made something up about George Bush. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to be part of the "repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it" cabal?

Lew-

Just watch, when Libby's appeal fails (or Bush starts packing up), he'll get pardoned. Bush wanted the appeals process to work, he just didn't want a former White House staffer to be paraded on the cable news networks in an orange jump suit...

rana, I hope he does get pardoned. If for no other reason than to irritate Democrats. Don't be too surprised if he wins his appeal, though, that will frost your butts even more.

wilhelm, it is only your assumption and greatest desire that Cheney is dirty. What you all miss is that the leak, what was supposed to be being investigated, was by Armitage, with Powells knowledge that was kept from Bush and Cheney.

Remember David Boies? Chief attorney for Al GOre during the 2000 Florida recount fiasco. Of this trial and verdict he said, "Whether or not she was covert, I think that's an open question. But I think the prosecutor did understand early on that there was not an underlying crime here. From the outside, that's the way it looks."

"And under those circumstances, I think it's very troubling to use the criminal justice system to proceed in what is essentially a political case. I thought that way in the Clinton case. This is the same thing. This is the same thing. This is criminalizing the political process. And it's wrong, whether it's done on one side or on the other."

"And if you're conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime."

"But that's not really the situation here, as I see it, because, from the outside, it looks like the prosecutor knew before some of this testimony was taken that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that is what's troubling here."

(As expressed on Fox News's Hannity & Colmes, March 07, 2007)

All the nonsense about the sentence being commuted to prevent Libby from implicating Cheney is pure Bovine Scatology. He is still convicted, at this time and if there was any implicating to do it would have been used by now. After all, that is what Fitzgerald was digging for anyways. He already knew who leaked Plames name and that there was no malicious intent in it.

It has all been more Bolshevik rhetoric by the Socialist Democrat party and their zombie eyed followers.

Lew-

I couldn't care too much less about what happens to Scooter. He won't see jail either way, and it's just more of presidents getting their buddies off. On scale of things that have happened in this country, this is pretty low on the list of things that I care about...

I am completely done with this topic.

Damn, and I missed all your posts. Could you please repeat them, rocksmoker?

teenagelisper, I checked out your blog. You need to edit your poor writing, Jonathan. What a bunch of tin-foil hat tripe, boy...

Its interesting that with over 40 posts now, not one single liberal has explained why Scooter should go to jail for leaking Plames name and Armitage shouldnt.

The question was posed in the original post.

No partisan liberals here. Nope none at all.

Holy crap keefer! This kid, the lisper can't be over 16!

He'll never make it past Cisco porbation once they find out he's illiterate.

Holy crap keefer! This kid, the lisper can't be over 16!

He'll never make it past Cisco probation once they find out he's illiterate.

Let's see if he can find the mistake.

Neocons make me laugh. Fifty years from now we will still hear; but but Clinton.....

I couldn't care too much less about what happens to Scooter.

Rana, I imagine 99.99% of you on the left don't care what happens to Libby. It is Bush, Cheney, Rove et al you all want, we can see that. Libby is just the means ya'll are using to get to them.

In Congress, this is just one more example of the childishness we keep seeing in the left's Bolshevik style effort at a total power grab of America.

Libby's commutation is proper and above board, but that won't stop the Conyers of the country from trying to paint it as a corrupt and improper act, just as they are doing over the Attorney's firings, while totally ignoring much worse offenses and obvious corrupt acts by the darlings of their own party (See Matt and Marks book, Caucus of Corruption).

Great link Willem,

Did you read the proceeding paragraph?

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee

No bias there!

And yet the patriot Act violates no constitutional laws and still stand today.

hmmmmm.....

Talk about hypocracy:

Monday, July 09, 2007
Associated Press
"HOUSTON — A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday."...

"Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1."

But he's OK with using deadly force HIMSELF. Reminds me of anti-gun Rosie O'Donnell wanting her bodyguards to be able to bring guns into the elementary school her kids go to.

It also reminds me of the hoopla Democrats made about the DC gun laws - but when Freshman senator Webb's aid brought a gun to the capital, they dropped the case for lack of evidence. Later, Webb admitted the gun was his. But note, he didn't admit it while charges were pending.

Thought I'd throw these in, since we're on the hypocrit theme.

teenagelisper, I checked out your blog. You need to edit your poor writing, Jonathan. What a bunch of tin-foil hat tripe, boy...

Posted by: keefer at July 9, 2007 04:49 PM

Ya know keefer, I'm going to get myself a diet coke and I'll try to give a rat's ass over your criticism of my blog.

*leaves computer to fetch diet coke and tries to give a rat's ass about keefer's criticism of my blog..........

comes back and still doesn't give a rat's ass over keefer's criticism......*

Turns out that I really don't give a rat's ass what you say about my blog.

Better luck next time.

Lispturd

It appears no one else gives a rat's ass either, considering there are only one or two responses to your topics.....Bwhaaaaaaaaa!

Maybe try posting topics grown-ups consider interesting such as politics, biz or home ownership......instead of Disneyland and, oh...look, the grass is taller today.

Lispturd

It appears no one else gives a rat's ass either, considering there are only one or two responses to your topics.....Bwhaaaaaaaaa!

um, navydad, I'm not trying to go for a crooks and liars blog where i get 100 + strangers blogging on one topic. I'm fine with the responses I recieve.

Maybe try posting topics grown-ups consider interesting such as politics, biz or home ownership......instead of Disneyland and, oh...look, the grass is taller today.

I actually do post stuff on politics, showbiz and whatnot. I just decide not to do as much blogging about politics because it just gets me all worked up more.

it just gets me all worked up more? Thats as Fu%^ed up as a football bat.

"I'm not trying to go for a crooks and liars blog......"

Are you insinuating BEL? If so, why do you come here?

BTW, "I'm fine with the responses I recieve" is a crock-O-crap! No one starts a blog with the intention of poor viewership.....and if so, why promote it here at B4B?

BTW, "I'm fine with the responses I recieve" is a crock-O-crap! No one starts a blog with the intention of poor viewership.....and if so, why promote it here at B4B?

I'm not promoting my blog. I just chose to have a url added under my name.

The whole resaon I started a blog is becasue my psychologist suggesterd it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you insinuating BEL? If so, why do you come here?

Uh, no, i'm not insinuating BEL. And I come here see what the other side's perspective is.

I meant LT....sorry for calling you such a disgusting name...moron.

I meant LT....sorry for calling you such a disgusting name...moron.

Whatever. If you're going to act like a dick, fine. Just don't expect me to sink to your level.

"um, navydad, I'm not trying to go for a crooks and liars blog where i get 100 + strangers blogging on one topic. I'm fine with the responses I recieve."

So...what's this considered...moron? This isn't sinking to the lowest level by insinuating others have produced blogs for "crooks & liars"?

Tisk...tisk, aren't we sensitive for such a young tyke.