posted on July 3, 2007 04:40:55 PM new
Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials.[108] The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[109] In October 2001, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and, facing disbarment from the high court as well, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.
posted on July 3, 2007 05:00:20 PM new
I know that he was barred from practicing law in his own state and the Supreme Court. As well as should have been?? Do you call that punishment?? Do you think that he would ever want to practice law in Arkansas after serving as president??
I can just hear him, Whoa, I can't practice law in Arkansas, the state that my wife left near the bottom in education after serving as chairperson of the Arkansas State Education Standards Committee.
Did Clinton serve time?? Prison is the sentence that Libby received. Why not Clinton??
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 3, 2007 05:01 PM ]
posted on July 3, 2007 08:09:23 PM new
MANY of us Democrats were angry with Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich. Many! And we said so, publicly.
Linda may be afraid to disagree with anything at all that Bush says or does, needing to save face. We all need to condemn what we consider wrong, whether it's be Republicans or Democrats.
And, again, I'm reminded of my teaching days, with the playgrounds at recess resounding with "You shouldn't do that." "Well, YOU did it." Childish stuff.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If a neighbor in his car deliberately plows down a bystander, is it okay then for you to do the same?
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on July 3, 2007 10:55:39 PM new
roadsmith - SPEAK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE.
GAWD you go on and on about ME, my positions, thoughts etc. You're becoming as obsessed as mingtotree/crowfarm/sybil. Must be a progressive trait.
TRY just ONCE to speak for yourself. You boring progressive, blathering liberal.
=======================================
Bear we KNEW the liberals would be having FITS....and as we see here, they ARE. It's FUN to watch the hypocrites have hissy fits. Everything is okay when their party does it....but people should be HUNG by the nearest tree when any republican does EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
You have to find this so humourous....because it is. Their phony indignation is hysterical to me.
"So if I.m reading all of you gutless hypocritical leftists correctly, it was ok for heir klinton to pardon the hundreds in his terms in office, while it isnt permissible for Pres Bush to grant clemency to Libby?"
"All of you are sure living up to Waco's standards."
It's because they're all sheep....and they follow the leader. Yes, they're just like waco, just normally not as verbal.
=================
Imo, I think liberals had better read some HISTORY on all the presidents who have granted pardons or clemency......they might actual learn something for a change.
But all their 'Bush HATRED' has never lessened...it's only grown. And who cares that they're upset about this....they've been upset at every BREATH he's taken since he first won the election in 2000.
I expected nothing different. They haven't been called the 'angry left' for nothing.
posted on July 3, 2007 11:03:40 PM new
Because it is a little harder to indict a sitting president than an aide. In any case, just because he was never indicted, convicted and sentenced does not mean that Libby should not have been. Some people get away with it and others don't. The majority of criminals are caught, tried and sentenced, but a percentage will escape arrest or conviction (see OJ & Robert Blake.) Should men accused of murdering their wives use OJ as a defense? He didn't get convicted, so why should I?
posted on July 3, 2007 11:27:47 PM new
Linda, I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension. Most of the posters in this thread, myself included, have already said they did not approve of what Clinton did, either then or now. You are beating a dead horse. Give it up already!
posted on July 3, 2007 11:31:58 PM new
Not what they were saying THEN.
Now they're pretending it bothered them SOoooo much when clinton got away with all he did. But go back to the archives and learn much differently, CC.
LOL.....no pretending to be so 'fair minded'....they're phonies. They ALL defended clinton to the hilt. Accused the right of a 'witch hunt'. But don't see this as being exactly the same thing.
I think it's hysterical.
President Bush did what the LAW, constitution allows him and every president EVER - to do. And he IS a very moral man. Not that any progressive would ever recognize THAT fact.
posted on July 3, 2007 11:33:42 PM newroadsmith - SPEAK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE.
Roadsmith did just that. She gave her opinion which she has every right to do, like it or not.
Bush doesn't have a lot of support left so he has to keep those few around him happy. It's a tradition rewarding the good ol' boys that lie for the head liar. And others that see nothing wrong with telling lies will all approve and cheer him on - just showing more of those moral values that they flaunt so proudly.
posted on July 3, 2007 11:48:29 PM new
Instead of allowing the opinions of others to cause you such temper tantrums, Linda_K, perhaps you could try to gain enough control over your emotions to answer the questions instead.
Should anyone get away with lying under oath to obstruct justice?
Should criminals be punished for their crimes and serve full sentences?
Do you agree that any president can give pardons and/or commute sentences for their buddies?
posted on July 3, 2007 11:50:51 PM new
This will give the wacko progressives even MORE to whine about. LOL LOL LO
Today: July 03, 2007 at 22:20:5 PDT
Bush Won't Rule Out Full Libby Pardon
By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -
0702dv-libby-sentence President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, leaving open the chance he may wipe away the former White House aide's criminal record after already erasing his prison sentence.
"I rule nothing in or nothing out," Bush said when asked about whether he might pardon Libby before leaving office in January 2009.
The president's stance, on one level, was merely practical. When he commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case on Monday, a court ruling had made jail time imminent. Bush has plenty of time to consider a pardon, depending on how Libby's appeals go.
Bush's words had political significance, too. By keeping his options open, he offered hope to the conservative members of his own party who believe he should go further in pardoning Libby. He also kept alive a controversy that could follow him to the last day of his presidency.
Libby, who once wielded enormous influence as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The long-running case meant the end of Libby's government career and dovetailed with the broader troubles of Bush's second term in office.
Bush abruptly commuted Libby's prison sentence - an unusual step, given that it had not yet begun - five hours after a federal appeals court panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. Bush left intact the sentence of two years probation and a $250,000 fine, citing a need for some accountability.
In his first public comments on the matter on Tuesday, Bush defended his rationale.
"I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand," Bush said after visiting wounded soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe."
"I made a judgment, a considered judgment," the president added. "I stand by it."
Bush took heat from the left and the right.
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page said Bush's unwillingness to pardon Libby was "another profile in non-courage."
On the other side, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of the prospect of eventual pardon for Libby: "The motto of this administration seems to be: When you're in a hole up to your neck, keep digging."
Unlike the commutation, a pardon would wipe away Libby's felony conviction.
White House officials cautioned against reading too much into Bush's comment that he wouldn't rule out a pardon. Spokesman Tony Snow - directly addressing those arguing for a pardon - said the jury system must be respected.
The commutation created confusion about whether Libby could still serve his two-year term of supervised release - a form of probation available only to people who have completed their prison term. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered prosecutors and attorneys to suggest how to continue.
Under supervised release, Libby would have to submit written reports to probation officers each month and secure full-time employment. He would be prohibited from traveling without permission.
Libby is not yet eligible to apply for a pardon under the Justice Department's guidelines. Criminals must wait at least five years after completing their sentences before they can apply for presidential pardons, although Bush could unilaterally issue him one.
Some lawyers said Bush's statement about Libby's harsh sentence showed that the administration was out of touch with today's federal sentencing guidelines. People like Libby - first-time, nonviolent offenders - receive lengthy sentences every day, they said.
"This was a very common sentence, not a startling sentence," said former federal prosecutor Scott L. Fredericksen, who has served under ever president since Ronald Reagan.
Defense attorney and former prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella noted that politicians keep making sentencing guidelines stricter. "Nothing turns a conservative into a liberal faster than a conviction. It's amazing how quickly they actually start thinking about people's civil liberties," he said.
Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data. The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.
Libby, 56, is the only person charged in the leak scandal, which erupted after CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity was revealed in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column. Libby was not the source for that leak and neither of the two Bush administration officials who provided the information were ever charged.
Left open is whether Bush will pardon Libby on his way out the door.
"To do a pardon at the moment in which the president is the least accountable of his entire term - that's problematic," said Brian Kalt, a law professor who studies presidential pardons at Michigan State University. "It's also very tempting, which is why it has happened."
President Clinton pardoned 140 people on his last day in office, including fugitive financier Marc Rich - whose lawyer was Libby.
On Christmas Eve in 1992, just before he left office, the first President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and a CIA official as they awaited trial on Iran-Contra charges, as well as four other administration officials who had pleaded or been found guilty in the affair.
posted on July 4, 2007 12:06:23 AM new
Any idiot SHOULD know that it's not a matter of childhood play grounds.
Thank God roadsmith no longer teaches children.
It's that when it's okay for ONE party to do things but then they cry and whine and snivel when the other party does the exact same thing.....it doesn't WORK that way.
This issue is no different than MOST of the garbage the dems/liberals try to pull. What clinton did....and in other areas of politics...NOT in pardoning/etc these people....they allow under the clinton admins. But when a republican admins does the same they they SCREAM from the rooftops that they can't do it.
There are hundreds of examples of the liberal hypocrisy that is always being mentioned in the press. LOL Denial for the liberals is SO gross that they just can't see it being done over and over, time and time again. Why? I personally believe because they're to DENSE to notice. lol
Just like the above...the dems/ liberals didn't mind at all when clinton did it. But they are fighting this admins. tooth and nail for wanting to do the same thing. Just like clinton using 'no bid contracts from haliburton', just like clinton using executive powers to 'spy' on people to protect America, just like the clinton admin. additions to the patriot act, ALL was okay...UNTIL this administration did the same thing.
It's nothing but liberal/progressive hypocrisy. NOTHING.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 4, 2007 12:07 AM ]
posted on July 4, 2007 12:17:03 AM new
Some of you guys imagine all these far out things about the left so you can have an agenda to spend your days ranting about.
I can see why - if you stopped ranting for any time at all, the reality of the mess that Bush has caused would hit you head on and you'd never recover.
So each time any facts or logic start to seep in, such as the left saying it wasn't right when Clinton did it either, your brain automatically reacts by running for the nearest C & P and starting the chant, including the nonstop Clinton one.
Denial causes so much pent up anger and rage to spill out. It's not good for your health to keep doing it.
posted on July 4, 2007 12:20:06 AM new
Kiara, did you mention HEALTH? Which would lead to Health Care which would lead to why linduh and the other fascist neocons in here haven't addressed the thread on why Universal health care isn't socialism.....
OOOpps! Forgot....that OP had big words and TRUTH in it !
It's odd because linduh usually responds two or three times to my posts while I'M, according to the Liarlinduh, "stalking" HER
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 4, 2007 12:22 AM ]
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 4, 2007 12:30 AM ]
posted on July 4, 2007 12:50:24 AM new
Here's another good example of what I'm saying when all the progressives/liberals go NUTS over us bringing up what clinton did.....to use him as a comparison to what they accepted when HE was in office - but just can't accept from this President. lol lol lol
It happens all the time. It's called POLITICS, children. lol lol lol
Here, Romney is defending President Bush's decision. And what is the first thing the press does? They bring up Romney's PAST statements on the subject of pardons.
See...it's allowed/overlooked when they do it...NEVER a word.....but when the 'right' does it...."hang them all". ROFLOL
Their double standards are just TOO funny. As is their whining.
========================
Romney Defends Bush Decision on Libby
Jul 3, 5:50 PM (ET)
By AMY LORENTZEN
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence "reasonable."
Defending Bush, Romney said at a campaign stop that "the president looked very carefully at the setting" before deciding to commute the 2 1/2-year sentence of Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in the CIA leak case.
The prosecutor in the case "went after somebody even when he knew no crime had been committed," Romney said. "Given that fact, isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?"
As governor, Romney twice rejected a pardon for Anthony Circosta, who at age 13 was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun - a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.
In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.
In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.
During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.
While campaigning Tuesday, Romney also threw a barb at former President Bill Clinton, who issued 457 pardons during his two terms in the White House.
"Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was handing out pardons like lollipops?" Romney said.
===========
Oh yes, he SURE was.
Comparisons are JUST that.....comparisons. So SUCK IT UP liberals....clinton's actions will LONG be mentioned each time you try and use your silly double standards on ME. LOL
posted on July 4, 2007 01:00:33 AM new
from the LA Times, summed public reaction up well, imo:
"He won't antagonize anyone who didn't already hate him, and he will give solace and encouragement to the people who like him but are having doubts about his resolve," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster".
====
And not ONE of the whiners here EVER liked anything he's EVER done. Deny THAT.
So...nothing has changed by him taking this action.
posted on July 4, 2007 01:05:42 AM new
See, they continue to DENY the truth.
It's really pretty sad. Because no one said it in THIS thread doesn't mean that wasn't the position MOST liberals/progressives took in DEFENSE of clinton at that time.
Give me a break. Because some of YOU have such faulty memories...doesn't mean we all do.
In a few years, you'll probably be denying you didn't support the Iraq war too. LOL LOL LOL
And more questions from the left.....who rarely ANSWER questions themselves.
And of course, we just HAVE to put up with rusty's FILTHY, un-necessary garbage as he TRIES to make points. tsk tsk tsk
posted on July 4, 2007 01:09:59 AM new
"Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was handing out pardons like lollipops?"
Yes, it WAS. lol lol lol
But the liberals, progressives would LIKE to PRETEND THAT doesn't matter. ROFLOL
sure it does. It always has and it always will....to most honest, fair minded people. Not wackos though, for SURE. To them double standards that they TRY to enforce on others just aren't working...and it pisses them off. LOL LOL
posted on July 4, 2007 01:12:49 AM new
"""See, they continue to DENY the truth.
It's really pretty sad. Because no one said it in THIS thread doesn't mean that wasn't the position MOST liberals/progressives took in DEFENSE of clinton at that time.
Give me a break. Because some of YOU have such faulty memories...doesn't mean we all do.
In a few years, you'll probably be denying you didn't support the Iraq war too. LOL LOL LOL
And more questions from the left.....who rarely ANSWER questions themselves.
And of course, we just HAVE to put up with rusty's FILTHY, un-necessary garbage as he TRIES to make points. tsk tsk tsk
Always the same. VULGAR.""""
My GAWD! YOU need some rest....you are truly babbling like a fool......
""See, they continue to DENY the truth.""
Who? What? Where? LIAR
""And more questions from the left.....who rarely ANSWER questions themselves.""
Liar....many have answered YOUR questions but you have NEVER had the backbone to answer questions put to you, a proven liar.
YOU have been vulgar in the past....but with the Alzheimers you seen to conveniently forget ....
posted on July 4, 2007 09:08:29 AM new
"LOL.....no pretending to be so 'fair minded'....they're phonies. They ALL defended clinton to the hilt."
Just like you do with Bush, Linda? He could walk up to Hillary Clinton and shoot her in the head and you would defend him. Why should we be different? At least we admit Clinton did some things not on the up and up. You have never done that.
All presidents use pardon/commutations --some more than others. Reagan pardoned over 900 people. Bush has been very parsimonious with pardons/commutations, but was just compelled to commute Libby's sentence. He had every right to do so; however, the message it sends is something is being hidden from us, cronyism, the appearance of something illegal.
Must be a progressive trait.
