Scooter Libby

[vraiblonde]

He wasn’t pardoned. Bush commuted his sentence, the prison part. The fine and probation stand and the conviction stays on his record.

Bush should give him a full pardon and stick it in the eye of the Democrats. I thought perjury wasn't a crime anymore, anyway.

 

[awpitt]

Ironic that Libby was convicted of the same thing as Clinton, isn't it?

Clinton was never convicted.

 

[SamSpade]

You mean exactly like Kenneth Starr and His Merry Band of Knuckletards did in the 90's?

Three things -

First - it's massively hypocritical of libs to *defend* Clinton because they thought he was the victim of a witch hunt but attack Libby for the same thing. If you thought that Starr went on a fishing expedition then certainly this one was worse. It was known before the investigation began that Armitage was the "leak" and he's not convicted of anything - because it wasn't a crime. You just can't defend one but attack the other.

Secondly - the Starr investigation at least was partially connected to an actual lawsuit regarding something that actually was a crime. Personally, from what I know of the case, she never really had a chance.

Thirdly - Unlike anyone higher up in this administration - Clinton himself did knowingly lie before a grand jury, obstructed justice by hiding evidence and suborned perjury - he got other people to lie to back up his story. Although senators such as Robert Byrd went on record as saying it was a crime worthy of removal from office, they refused to do it. Unlike Libby - Clinton didn't get convicted. He got off scot-free. Until yesterday Libby was facing jail.

Personally - I think libs have NO right to complain. None.

 

[Kerad]

Gee, looky how Clinton operated..........These are just a FEW of his pardons.




That's quite a list, having nothing to do with my original post.

Most of us stated all along Scooter wasn't going to serve his time. True to form, Bush comes through.

While I've never approved of Clinton's "Pardon Fest '01", the trademark "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense from the right is so worn, it has lost any effect.

 

[itsbob]

Bush shouldn't have bothered commuting Scooter's sentence.

I'm not to sure, I think this speaks volumes of the man.

If I went to bat for my boss, time and again.. was purely supportive of my boss and in the course of my duties to him I screwed up, I would hope I had a supportive boss that would back me up.

Bush is the kind of man we would all want for a Boss in that situation.

I thought it immensely hypocrtical for Hillary to be bashing Bush for this. Does she remember who her husband pardoned? Or how many people he pardoned in his 8 years? Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence pales in comparison.

 

[vraiblonde]

Clinton was never convicted.

Well, he was impeached, anyway.

The double-standard of the Democrats is fascinating.

 

[Fubar]

I thought it immensely hypocrtical for Hillary to be bashing Bush for this. Does she remember who her husband pardoned? Or how many people he pardoned in his 8 years? Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence pales in comparison.

Maybe this will help refresh some folks memory-

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

 

[vraiblonde]

the trademark "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense from the right is so worn, it has lost any effect.

It never had any effect in the first place, that I'm aware of. The Democrats have always closed their eyes to Clinton's more unsavory activities.

 

[awpitt]

First - it's massively hypocritical of libs to *defend* Clinton because they thought he was the victim of a witch hunt but attack Libby for the same thing. If you thought that Starr went on a fishing expedition then certainly this one was worse....

How is it worse? Libby was prosecuted by a republican appointee. He was tried and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced by a judge who was appointed by Bush. Actually, I sort of felt sorry for the guy as he was the scapegoat covering for Cheney’s azz.

 

[Lilypad]

Gee, all I ever wanted was for Pres Bush to pardon Martha

 

[Kerad]

Personally - I think libs have NO right to complain. None.

:shrug:

I'm not complaining. I'm not even upset or disappointed. I'm more "amused" then anything else.

For one, it's amusing that Bush is so predictable. Keeping Libby out of jail is exactly what this President would do. I don't get upset when a dog barks...that's what dogs do. Therefore, I don't get upset when Bush decides the laws of America don't apply to his administration.

Secondly, it's amusing how fast the "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense was whipped out by some. Also, easily predicted.

 

[MMDad]

While I've never approved of Clinton's "Pardon Fest '01", the trademark "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense from the right is so worn, it has lost any effect.

When we have comments lie this:

This is actually great news. It's better to have this done before the next elections take place. Now we can link all Republicans to Bush and tar and feather them all.

It is appropriate to show that it goes both ways. If the whacko left wants to link all Republicans to Bush it is only fair to link all of the Clintonistas to his pardons.

 

[SamSpade]

How is it worse? Libby was prosecuted by a republican appointee. He was tried and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced by a judge who was appointed by Bush. Actually, I sort of felt sorry for the guy as he was the scapegoat covering for Cheney’s azz.

Worse in the respect that this investigation could ONLY be called a fishing expedition - and it served to unearth nothing pertaining to an actual crime.

What were they actually investigating? Who leaked Valerie Plame's covert status? They knew that before they started, although that wasn't publicly known. Where else in the world do you get to subject people to investigation that you already know aren't necessary?

And to top it off - the guy who is "guilty" - Armitage - isn't tried for anything - because the whole purpose of the investigation - "who outed Plame?" - is deemed to not even be a crime in the first place.

I'm still wondering why it makes any difference if he lied or not. They were never going to find anyone who was guilty, because they already knew who the culprit was.

 

[itsbob]

Among the criminals Clinton pardoned was his own brother Roger, who had been convicted of drug trafficking. Susan McDougal, who was linked to the Clintons through the Whitewater scandal, also received a pardon. So did another Whitewater aide, Stephen Smith, though he said he didn't want one. Many of the pardoned criminals had personal connections to Clinton or had donated money to his or Hillary's campaigns. Clinton pardoned Jack Williams, for instance, who had been convicted of making false statements to Federal agents. Williams was a lobbyist for Tyson Foods, the company in which Hillary Clinton invested $1,000 and miraculously made $100,000 in a single year. Another last-minute pardon recipient was Tansukhlal Bhatka, who had been convicted of tax evasion. Bhatka not only gave $5,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign, he hired her brother Hugh to lobby for his pardon. Hugh Rodham worked as a "consultant" to help other criminals gain pardons as well. For instance, Rodham received $245,000 in "consultant fees" from Allen and Vonna Jo Gregory, who had been convicted of bank fraud, but they had trouble describing his duties to Federal prosecutors when asked. The "Pardongate" irregularities were no sudden, short-lived phenomenon, either. Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali also hired Rodham to present their applications and were pardoned for bank fraud in March 2000. Rodham gave back most of the money, but the pardons were not reversed. It was always good, it seems, to be a friend of the Clintons... or at least a contributor.

SO if you donated funds to HILLARY's campaign for Senate you could buy a pardon.. and now she's running for President and raking Bush across the polls for pardoning Libby??

Somewhere in the horde of Clinton pardon recipients was financier Marc Rich. In 1983, Rich was indicted on evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and making illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis. Rich suffered terribly for his crimes... if you call living well on one's ill-gotten gains in Switzerland while fighting extradition proceedings "suffering." Denise Rich, now his ex-wife, donated an estimated $1 million to Democrat causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library fund. Denise Rich was called to testify before Congress as to whether her donations and contributions were in fact payment for her husband's pardon. She pleaded the Fifth Amendment, under which "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Rich's pardon was so obviously undeserved that former President Carter criticised Clinton for it. "I don't think there's any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon was attributable to large gifts, some of which he gave to Israel, other benefactors and the influence of his former wife, so I think that was, in my opinion, disgraceful," Carter said, adding that Clinton had "brought discredit to the White House because of it."

 

[SamSpade]

Secondly, it's amusing how fast the "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense was whipped out by some. Also, easily predicted.

Of course it is - it's exactly the same thing. Hell, libs were SAYING it was the same kind of thing when it was going on.

Mainly because they were SURE it was Cheney who did it. Outed Plame that is.

When it became known it was Armitage - all of a sudden, it wasn't important anymore?

 

[Kerad]

It never had any effect in the first place, that I'm aware of. The Democrats have always closed their eyes to Clinton's more unsavory activities.

All I'm saying is that if I get pulled over for speeding, I know I'm not reaching for the "But the Porsche was going faster than I was!!!" defense.

 

[vraiblonde]

Mainly because they were SURE it was Cheney who did it. Outed Plame that is.

And they were all over Karl Rove about it, too, remember?

 

[itsbob]

:shrug:



Secondly, it's amusing how fast the "But Bill Clinton!!!" defense was whipped out by some. Also, easily predicted.

ACTUALLY I think it's more Hillary.. as she is the one curretnly running for president, and it was her Senate campaign that the pardonee's were contributing to get their pardons.

Even though Bill signed the pardons, it's apparent that a current presidential nominee was involved, so comparing the two has merit TODAY.

 

[awpitt]

Well, he was impeached, anyway.

The double-standard of the Democrats is fascinating.

No more double standard than what has been displayed by the GOPers. Impeachment is the equivalent of being charged or indicted. It just takes the person to trial. The trial is where guilt or acquittal is decided. In the case of the Prez, the Senate is the jury. In the case of one of us, we get a regular jury. When there’s an acquittal, the original charge/impeachment no longer matters.

 

[awpitt]

Maybe this will help refresh some folks memory-

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Here’s some interesting stats on presidents going back to Truman.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm