|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
03 Jul 2007 12:35:01 AM |
|
|
Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
I don't think anyone is surprised by The Great Decider
to Decide to take care of the man that covered for him,
Cheney and Rove after outing a covert agent for
nothing more than political revenge.
I'm surprised, and unless all the commentators I saw on
TV were lying, they're suprised too.
Most of the talking heads didn't think Bush would do it,
and I thought he'd wait until Libby had been in prison for
a short while.
Who could have ever imagined: Paris Hilton spent more
time in jail than Scooter Libby!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
03 Jul 2007 03:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:35:01 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
I don't think anyone is surprised by The Great Decider
to Decide to take care of the man that covered for him,
Cheney and Rove after outing a covert agent for
nothing more than political revenge.
I'm surprised, and unless all the commentators I saw on
TV were lying, they're suprised too.
Bush expects (and rewards) complete and total loyalty from his close
associates (hence the consistency in the lies put forth). Bush also
believes that he is above the law. Heck, he acts like his thinks he's a
dictator! Of course he wouldn't have Libby serve any jail time!
Most of the talking heads didn't think Bush would do it, and I thought
he'd wait until Libby had been in prison for a short while.
That the talking heads didn't think Bush would do it explains a lot about
the failures of the fifth estate in the U.S.
Who could have ever imagined: Paris Hilton spent more time in jail than
Scooter Libby!
I wouldn't have imagined ever knowing that "Paris Hilton" wasn't
necessarily the name of a hotel in Paris. *sigh*
Our news media is in a very sad state, IMHO. I shouldn't be wasting brain
cells on retaining stuff like that! ;-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
03 Jul 2007 05:01:14 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:16:32 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
What a fucking joke and waste of time and money it is trying to make
politicians live to the same standard of the law Joe Fuckin-Six-Pack
is held to.
C'mon and impeach these criminals!!
Cheers !
--Marvin
I don't think anyone is surprised by The Great Decider to Decide to take
care of the man that covered for him, Cheney and Rove after outing a
covert agent for nothing more than political revenge.
Woods
I was surprised by the degree of disrespect he displayed to the American
people and the justice system (although he's clung to Gonzo while others
around Gonzo at DoJ have quit).
If you look at Bush's record for executions in Texas, he's not much of
one who cares about the suffering of others. He mocked Karla Faye
Tucker, a woman convicted of murder who became a born-again Christian
while in prison ...
[quote]
In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race,
conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk
Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted
below:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters
came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet
with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I
didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the
dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry
King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with
Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would
you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'"
Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I
must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has
since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops
smirking.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
The man is scum and he's protecting his own. He cares about no one else.
Even Nixon didn't commute any of the sentences handed down to any of
those found guilty during the Watergate break-in or it's subsequent
cover up.
Cheers,
Marvin
--
I don't smoke. I smell like bread. Life is Good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
03 Jul 2007 07:59:10 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:16:32 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
What a fucking joke and waste of time and money it is trying to make
politicians live to the same standard of the law Joe Fuckin-Six-Pack
is held to.
C'mon and impeach these criminals!!
Cheers !
--Marvin
I don't think anyone is surprised by The Great Decider to Decide to take
care of the man that covered for him, Cheney and Rove after outing a
covert agent for nothing more than political revenge.
Woods
I was surprised by the degree of disrespect he displayed to the American
people and the justice system (although he's clung to Gonzo while others
around Gonzo at DoJ have quit).
If you look at Bush's record for executions in Texas, he's not much of
one who cares about the suffering of others. He mocked Karla Faye
Tucker, a woman convicted of murder who became a born-again Christian
while in prison ...
[quote]
In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race,
conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk
Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted
below:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters
came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet
with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I
didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the
dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry
King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with
Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would
you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'"
Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I
must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has
since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops
smirking.
[/quote]
Whimsical might be a good way to describe Bush. He does things on
a whim without any time spent thinking about consequences.
I think at some level Bush knows everyone despises him and there is
nothing he can do to change it. He is what he is.. an idiot who was
in over his head the day he was shot our of his mother. You can't
expect a dog to be something other than a dog.
Worst case scenario now is that Bush in his simplistic way of seeing
the world (along with a little encouragement from Cheney) decides that
he's got nothing to lose, locks up Congress for their own protection,
and imposes marshall law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
The man is scum and he's protecting his own. He cares about no one else.
Even Nixon didn't commute any of the sentences handed down to any of
those found guilty during the Watergate break-in or it's subsequent
cover up.
That was back in the day when being a democracy meant something to
most Americans. Today greed, lust for power, and cronyism have usurped
equality of opportunity. Look at a guy like stephen douglas.. a guy who
might otherwise represent something good and pure, and rightfully being
proud of his country, but after 6 years he still hasn't figured out that
he's been supporting a despot who has lined his own pockets by destroying
his country.. talk about the meek becoming unwitting accomplices to the
devil.
You can take trailer-trash like Bush out of the gutter, dress him up in
nice clothes, but you've still got trailer-trash.
Cheers,
Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
03 Jul 2007 08:21:41 PM |
|
|
On Jul 3, 5:59 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Worst case scenario now is that Bush in his simplistic way of seeing
the world (along with a little encouragement from Cheney) decides that
he's got nothing to lose, locks up Congress for their own protection,
and imposes marshall law.
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton -- now it's left-wing kooks saying things like that
about Bush. Kooks are kooks, no matter which political fringe they're
from.
Look at a guy like stephen douglas..
Did you miss me?
a guy who might otherwise represent something good and pure,
and rightfully being proud of his country, but after 6 years he still
hasn't figured out that he's been supporting
I don't support Bush. I've been saying for at least two years that I
don't support Bush. But I don't really expect a left-wing kook to
understand that it's possible to agree with someone on some things,
and disagree on others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 01:10:24 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 04:00:14 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 01:07:45 PM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 2:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
No, Randy, I don't claim to hate Bush. That's your thing. Remember?
And I also did not condemn Clinton. You're very confused, aren't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 08:56:56 AM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 01:26:29 PM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 6:56 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons.
What? Please show where I did anything of the sort.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 09:12:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows. This way, he can't be
forced to testify about anything he knows/knew - including how much he
knows about the involvement of Cheney, Bush and Rove in the outing of a
political opponent.
I consider that significant.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 01:08:51 PM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 3:12?pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
...."including how much he knows about the involvement of Cheney, Bush
and Rove in the outing of a political opponent."
Woodsy. I can't follow any of this thread at all. In fact, I have no
idea what anyone is talking about. Is something going to happen on the
5th? (July?)
Is a holiday or a visit to the seaside planned for 'a political
opponent'?
Werewolfy...;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 05:45:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:08:51 -0700, Werewolfy wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:12?pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
..."including how much he knows about the involvement of Cheney, Bush
and Rove in the outing of a political opponent."
Woodsy. I can't follow any of this thread at all. In fact, I have no
idea what anyone is talking about. Is something going to happen on the
5th? (July?)
Yeah, we're all going back to work tomorrow. :-(
Is a holiday or a visit to the seaside planned for 'a political
opponent'?
Heh.
Woods
Werewolfy...;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 08:06:14 PM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 11:45?pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
Is a holiday or a visit to the seaside planned for 'a political
opponent'?
Heh.
--------------------
You mentioned something about having an 'outing'. To me, that means a
sort of holiday, a break from work.
Ricky
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 01:11:57 PM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 7:12 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows.
Do you have a cite that shows where you got this information?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
04 Jul 2007 05:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:11:57 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:12 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows.
Do you have a cite that shows where you got this information?
MSNBC had a Constitutional Law expert on that stated that. I don't recall
the show, sorry. (I don't watch enough TV to recognize the interviewers,
either - but I just asked Mr. Woods, and he thinks it was Countdown with
Keith Olbermann - which would make my credibility diminish somewhat, but
this would be a basic rule of law, so I can't see it getting screwed up).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
05 Jul 2007 07:55:33 AM |
|
|
On Jul 4, 3:44 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:11:57 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:12 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows.
Do you have a cite that shows where you got this information?
MSNBC had a Constitutional Law expert on that stated that. I don't recall
the show, sorry. (I don't watch enough TV to recognize the interviewers,
either - but I just asked Mr. Woods, and he thinks it was Countdown with
Keith Olbermann - which would make my credibility diminish somewhat, but
this would be a basic rule of law, so I can't see it getting screwed up).
I'd like to know what this supposed "Constitutional Law expert" was
getting at. A full presidential pardon would not remove Libby's Fifth
Amendment rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a full
presidential pardon "restores him to all his civil rights":
[quoting] Article II, section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the
President "to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (the "Pardon Clause").
In Ex Parte Garland, the Supreme Court summarized the reach of a
presidential pardon as follows:
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence
and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it
releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that
in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never
committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it
prevents . . . the penalties and disabilities consequent upon
conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights;
it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and
capacity.
Garland, 71 U.S. at 380-81. This broad interpretation of the effect of
a pardon was affirmed in Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877),
in which the court stated:
A pardon is an act of grace by which an offender is released from
the consequences of his offense, so far as such release is practicable
and within control of the pardoning power, or of officers under its
direction. It releases the offender from all disabilities imposed by
the offense, and restores to him all his civil rights. In
contemplation of law, it so far blots out the offence, that afterwards
it cannot be imputed to him to prevent the assertion of his legal
rights. [end quoting]
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/pardon3.19.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
05 Jul 2007 04:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:55:33 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:44 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:11:57 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:12 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows.
Do you have a cite that shows where you got this information?
MSNBC had a Constitutional Law expert on that stated that. I don't recall
the show, sorry. (I don't watch enough TV to recognize the interviewers,
either - but I just asked Mr. Woods, and he thinks it was Countdown with
Keith Olbermann - which would make my credibility diminish somewhat, but
this would be a basic rule of law, so I can't see it getting screwed up).
I'd like to know what this supposed "Constitutional Law expert" was
getting at. A full presidential pardon would not remove Libby's Fifth
Amendment rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a full
presidential pardon "restores him to all his civil rights":
They would not be applicable. You can't be incriminating yourself if you
can't be prosecuted.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
05 Jul 2007 09:30:27 PM |
|
|
On Jul 5, 2:36 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:55:33 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:44 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:11:57 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:12 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:56 -0700, John Lemke wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
I remember when the right-wing kooks were saying things like that
about Clinton --
They did say those things, true, but they were basing it on the
great economy, the balanced budget turned surplus, the
unprecedented economic growth & all the respect from the world
community.
The people you say it about Bush base it on the fact that he stole
at least one election (in 2000), cashed in on the deadliest
terrorist attack in history (after denouncing Bill Clinton for
"focusing"
on the man behind the attack), lied his way into war, violated the
constitution on numerous occasions and just rewarded Scooter Libby
for treason.
Stevie isn't trying to apply a double-standard, is he ?
Stevie would never condemn Clinton, then praise Bush using the
same measure, especially after claiming he hates Bush.
Stevie doesn't like Bush but has supported him at virtually every
turn. More blind, delusional hypocrisy.
It's also nice of Stevie to put Libby's commutation in the same fetid
context as Clinton's pardons. Every now and then an ideologue's
stupidity reveals a simple truth.
What nobody seems to be catching is that if Bush had given him a pardon,
the Fifth would no longer apply to him ..... so he could have been ordered
back to the courts to tell everything he knows.
Do you have a cite that shows where you got this information?
MSNBC had a Constitutional Law expert on that stated that. I don't recall
the show, sorry. (I don't watch enough TV to recognize the interviewers,
either - but I just asked Mr. Woods, and he thinks it was Countdown with
Keith Olbermann - which would make my credibility diminish somewhat, but
this would be a basic rule of law, so I can't see it getting screwed up).
I'd like to know what this supposed "Constitutional Law expert" was
getting at. A full presidential pardon would not remove Libby's Fifth
Amendment rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a full
presidential pardon "restores him to all his civil rights":
They would not be applicable.
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could you at least
direct me to the precedent on which you base your claim? Or is it
simply that you believe everything you hear on Countdown with Keith
Olbermann?
You can't be incriminating yourself if you can't be prosecuted.
Can't be prosecuted for what? Obstruction and perjury? Would that mean
he'd be free to commit obstruction and perjury all over again, with no
fear of prosecution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 12:24:16 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself. Telling the truth would not
and could not get him into trouble. So, he can't "invoke
the 5th" because it would no longer apply to him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 05:26:05 PM |
|
|
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself.
If he is pardoned, for which particular crimes would he be pardoned?
Telling the truth would not and could not get him into
trouble. So, he can't "invoke the 5th" because it would
no longer apply to him.
What, exactly, do you base that on? Is there some precedent you can
cite that would back up your assertion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 06:51:46 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
What, exactly, do you base that on?
The constitution. There is no "Right" to plead the
5th. There is however a right to not incriminate
himself. As Libby would not be able to incriminate
himself -- BECAUSE OF THE PARDON -- he can
not invoke his right to not incriminate himself.
Duh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 09:13:57 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
What, exactly, do you base that on?
The constitution. There is no "Right" to plead the
5th. There is however a right to not incriminate
himself. As Libby would not be able to incriminate
himself -- BECAUSE OF THE PARDON -- he can
not invoke his right to not incriminate himself.
Duh.
Stevie's been watching too many law and disorder movies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
07 Jul 2007 07:01:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:26:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself.
If he is pardoned, for which particular crimes would he be pardoned?
Telling the truth would not and could not get him into
trouble. So, he can't "invoke the 5th" because it would
no longer apply to him.
What, exactly, do you base that on? Is there some precedent you can
cite that would back up your assertion?
Here's a pretty simplistic description of how this works, from
http://www.answers.com/topic/self-incrimination?cat=biz-fin
"When the state wants or needs the testimony of individuals who assert
their privilege against self-incrimination, particular inducements can
be exercised. These include two grants of immunity, transactional and use.
The former guarantees that the witness will not be prosecuted for anything
that transacts from his or her testimony, while the latter protects the
witness against prosecutorial use of any evidence drawn from his or her
testimony (see Fifth Amendment Immunity)."
So, in the case of a full pardon, there is nothing against which Libby
would need to be immune, since he is already immune.
However, Bush, Cheney and Rove COULD be incriminated for anything Libby
says as a witness if Libby were pardoned. This is why the choice of
commuting Libby's sentence - and action which is not even applicable,
since he has not served any portion of his sentence - would make in the
case of Bush. He can reward his "team player", while guaranteeing that
Libby continues to keep his mouth shut. Otherwise, it makes no sense to
commute the sentence instead of granting Libby a full pardon.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
07 Jul 2007 11:30:36 AM |
|
|
On Jul 7, 5:01 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:26:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself.
If he is pardoned, for which particular crimes would he be pardoned?
Telling the truth would not and could not get him into
trouble. So, he can't "invoke the 5th" because it would
no longer apply to him.
What, exactly, do you base that on? Is there some precedent you can
cite that would back up your assertion?
Here's a pretty simplistic description of how this works, from http://www.answers.com/topic/self-incrimination?cat=biz-fin
"When the state wants or needs the testimony of individuals who assert
their privilege against self-incrimination, particular inducements can
be exercised. These include two grants of immunity, transactional and use.
The former guarantees that the witness will not be prosecuted for anything
that transacts from his or her testimony, while the latter protects the
witness against prosecutorial use of any evidence drawn from his or her
testimony (see Fifth Amendment Immunity)."
Nice try, but this says nothing about pardons.
So, in the case of a full pardon, there is nothing against which Libby
would need to be immune, since he is already immune.
For some reason you're confusing pardons with the granting of
immunity, and I have no idea why you're doing that. Do you? If so,
please explain.
However, Bush, Cheney and Rove COULD be incriminated for anything Libby
says as a witness if Libby were pardoned. This is why the choice of
commuting Libby's sentence - and action which is not even applicable,
since he has not served any portion of his sentence - would make in the
case of Bush. He can reward his "team player", while guaranteeing that
Libby continues to keep his mouth shut. Otherwise, it makes no sense to
commute the sentence instead of granting Libby a full pardon.
You're just jumping to all sorts of conclusions with nothing to back
it up. Apparently Bush thought he could keep the left from becoming
too angry by keeping the verdict intact, along with the fines and
probation. But the angry left wants jail time for Libby, though they
would *never* have wanted jail time for Clinton (and I wanted jail
time for neither). As it is, Libby is paying a higher fine than
Clinton paid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
07 Jul 2007 11:44:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:30:36 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 7, 5:01 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:26:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself.
If he is pardoned, for which particular crimes would he be pardoned?
Telling the truth would not and could not get him into
trouble. So, he can't "invoke the 5th" because it would
no longer apply to him.
What, exactly, do you base that on? Is there some precedent you can
cite that would back up your assertion?
Here's a pretty simplistic description of how this works, from http://www.answers.com/topic/self-incrimination?cat=biz-fin
"When the state wants or needs the testimony of individuals who assert
their privilege against self-incrimination, particular inducements can
be exercised. These include two grants of immunity, transactional and use.
The former guarantees that the witness will not be prosecuted for anything
that transacts from his or her testimony, while the latter protects the
witness against prosecutorial use of any evidence drawn from his or her
testimony (see Fifth Amendment Immunity)."
Nice try, but this says nothing about pardons.
Actually, that pretty much defines pardons.
So, in the case of a full pardon, there is nothing against which Libby
would need to be immune, since he is already immune.
For some reason you're confusing pardons with the granting of
immunity, and I have no idea why you're doing that. Do you? If so,
please explain.
A pardon *is* immunity! Or did you think that Congress just decided to be
really nice to Nixon and not charge him with anything?!? They couldn't -
and boy, did they ever want to - but, he'd been pardoned!
However, Bush, Cheney and Rove COULD be incriminated for anything Libby
says as a witness if Libby were pardoned. This is why the choice of
commuting Libby's sentence - and action which is not even applicable,
since he has not served any portion of his sentence - would make in the
case of Bush. He can reward his "team player", while guaranteeing that
Libby continues to keep his mouth shut. Otherwise, it makes no sense
to commute the sentence instead of granting Libby a full pardon.
You're just jumping to all sorts of conclusions with nothing to back it
up. Apparently Bush thought he could keep the left from becoming too
angry by keeping the verdict intact, along with the fines and probation.
You're embarrassing yourself here. A pardon would not wipe Libby's record
clean - do some research.
But the angry left wants jail time for Libby, though they would *never*
have wanted jail time for Clinton (and I wanted jail time for neither).
As it is, Libby is paying a higher fine than Clinton paid.
You're jumping to conclusions. Those who are not in the Right Wing are
simply pointing out that Bush selected an option that would protect
himself, Cheney, Rove, and anyone else involved - by making sure Libby had
something to lose if he ever decided to open his mouth about how Plame
came to be outed by the White House.
Everyone knows that Libby was the sacrificial lamb in this.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
07 Jul 2007 12:28:07 PM |
|
|
On Jul 7, 9:44 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:30:36 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 7, 5:01 am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:26:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself.
If he is pardoned, for which particular crimes would he be pardoned?
Telling the truth would not and could not get him into
trouble. So, he can't "invoke the 5th" because it would
no longer apply to him.
What, exactly, do you base that on? Is there some precedent you can
cite that would back up your assertion?
Here's a pretty simplistic description of how this works, fromhttp://www.answers.com/topic/self-incrimination?cat=biz-fin
"When the state wants or needs the testimony of individuals who assert
their privilege against self-incrimination, particular inducements can
be exercised. These include two grants of immunity, transactional and use.
The former guarantees that the witness will not be prosecuted for anything
that transacts from his or her testimony, while the latter protects the
witness against prosecutorial use of any evidence drawn from his or her
testimony (see Fifth Amendment Immunity)."
Nice try, but this says nothing about pardons.
Actually, that pretty much defines pardons.
If you really believe that, your level of competence to engage in this
discussion is even lower than I thought.
So, in the case of a full pardon, there is nothing against which Libby
would need to be immune, since he is already immune.
For some reason you're confusing pardons with the granting of
immunity, and I have no idea why you're doing that. Do you? If so,
please explain.
A pardon *is* immunity! Or did you think that Congress just decided to be
really nice to Nixon and not charge him with anything?!? They couldn't -
and boy, did they ever want to - but, he'd been pardoned!
Just as I suspected -- you don't know the difference between
"immunity" and "pardon".
However, Bush, Cheney and Rove COULD be incriminated for anything Libby
says as a witness if Libby were pardoned. This is why the choice of
commuting Libby's sentence - and action which is not even applicable,
since he has not served any portion of his sentence - would make in the
case of Bush. He can reward his "team player", while guaranteeing that
Libby continues to keep his mouth shut. Otherwise, it makes no sense
to commute the sentence instead of granting Libby a full pardon.
You're just jumping to all sorts of conclusions with nothing to back it
up. Apparently Bush thought he could keep the left from becoming too
angry by keeping the verdict intact, along with the fines and probation.
You're embarrassing yourself here. A pardon would not wipe Libby's record
clean - do some research.
I did some research -- I posted a couple of Supreme Court rulings,
which you swept away as insignificant. You should go back and read
them. Talk about embarrassing -- you're clueless and oblivious at the
same time.
But the angry left wants jail time for Libby, though they would *never*
have wanted jail time for Clinton (and I wanted jail time for neither).
As it is, Libby is paying a higher fine than Clinton paid.
You're jumping to conclusions. Those who are not in the Right Wing are
simply pointing out that Bush selected an option that would protect
himself, Cheney, Rove, and anyone else involved - by making sure Libby had
something to lose if he ever decided to open his mouth about how Plame
came to be outed by the White House.
Everyone knows that Libby was the sacrificial lamb in this.
Really? Then why didn't Fitzgerald grant Libby immunity?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 04:43:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:24:16 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself. Telling the truth would not
and could not get him into trouble. So, he can't "invoke
the 5th" because it would no longer apply to him.
I think he just can't stand the fact that by commuting Libby's sentence,
it's quite clear that Bush has something to hide in the Plame case. The
best Steven can hope for is to try to deflect the focus off Bush's
motivation and onto something that has nothing to do with reality.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush commutes Libby sentence -- 'Rule Of Law' Repugs rejoice |
06 Jul 2007 05:37:19 PM |
|
|
On Jul 6, 2:43 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:24:16 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
If you're going to overrule the Supreme Court, could
you at least direct me to the precedent on which
you base your claim?
You're confused, to say the least.
You don't have a constitutional right to not testify in court.
What you have is a constitutional right to not incriminate
yourself in court. Once Libby is pardoned he will no longer
be able to incriminate himself. Telling the truth would not
and could not get him into trouble. So, he can't "invoke
the 5th" because it would no longer apply to him.
I think he just can't stand the fact that by commuting Libby's sentence,
it's quite clear that Bush has something to hide in the Plame case. The
best Steven can hope for is to try to deflect the focus off Bush's
motivation and onto something that has nothing to do with reality.
Unreal. Talk about lack of reality. You haven't shown me anything to
back up your claim that Libby would lose his Fifth Amendment rights
under a full pardon. You can only cite some nameless guy you heard on
some leftist TV show. What would you say to me if this was all in
reverse -- let's say you had cited a Supreme Court ruling, and I
dismissed it because I heard some guy on TV say something else? Would
you just accept that? Of course you would!!! ......And then you have
the audacity to mention *reality*? You need a big dose of reality!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
