posted on July 2, 2007 03:15:06 PM new
Yep... now notice how many neofascists show up here and talk about how his original sentance was too harsh without any regard for the law. You hear them whine on and on about how illegal immigrants did this, a pot smoker did that, and that they deserve the punishment they got, if not more... but b/c it is their guy they will rejoice.
Again, Bush proves he looks out for his buddies and could care less about the law.
posted on July 2, 2007 04:26:12 PM new
It didn't take long before Clinton's name was brougt up. Can't you make an argument on the facts of this case? If one bank robber gets away with a crime and a second bank robber is caught, should the police release the second bank robber because the first got away with it?
posted on July 2, 2007 09:15:00 PM new
Quicker than I could say hypocrite... you prove my argument to the tee. Did anyone here mention Clinton? This isn't about Clinton, but if you want to talk about Clinton, then let's talk about Clinton.
You and the rest of you lemmings wanted Clinton's head for lying under oath. He didn't break the law for getting a hummer. He broke the law while under oath, and he was punished for it. However, what you see here is the exact same crime and Bush stepping in to let him off the hook. So, if you care so much about what Clinton lying under oath, why should there be any difference for the same crime committed by one of the Bush/Cheney cronies? Or are you just proving your hypocrisy for everyone to see???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 3, 2007 01:03 AM ]
posted on July 3, 2007 12:46:16 AM new
If bushit's pardon doesn't bother you then Clinton's shouldn't either. Quit WHINING about "Clinton did it, too" , Clinton did it, too, he did it first, Mom!!!!
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 2, 2007
Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby
White House News
Grant of Executive Clemency
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.
After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.
This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.
Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.
Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.
Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.
------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html
posted on July 3, 2007 01:28:56 AM new
And after all YOUR president said, in part and while explaining HIS pardons actions of clemency:
"Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "to the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "a pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich)."
"A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances."
"The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. ~ bill clinton
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 3, 2007 01:30 AM ]
posted on July 3, 2007 07:41:26 AM new
It's interesting that once again all the Bushies can do is point at Clinton. It's just like when a child is accused of misbehavior and his first reaction is to whine that "so and so did it TOO".
Who cares really, the people Scooter lied for are still walking around free.
posted on July 3, 2007 07:44:50 AM new
"""posted on July 3, 2007 12:46:16 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If bushit's pardon doesn't bother you then Clinton's shouldn't either. Quit WHINING about "Clinton did it, too" , Clinton did it, too, he did it first, Mom!!!!"""
OK, now MAYBE bushit or some other obsfucating mealy mouthed coward could give an explanation of the POINT.....
That has to be the most absurd statement yet. To think this had nothing to do with money??? Come on now... the entire Iraq War has to do with money, Haliburton no bid contracts??? the entire coverup by the Bush Administration has to do with money, all of the death and murder going on in Iraq has to do with money. Oil has to do with money. BearPorn obviously lives in a dream world to think this had nothing to do with money.
As Fitzgerald said, there was so much coverup going on he couldn't get to the truth, so he did what he could do.
Blame it on Clinton all you want. This has nothing to do with Clinton. I don't agree with many of Clinton's pardons either, so your argument falls apart the moment you bring him up.
Linduh seems to be focused on what the legalities of this decision was. We all know that a President can issue pardons, change legal decisions, etc. The point wasn't whether Bush had a right do to what he did... it was the simple fact that he did it. If you don't think there won't be any ramifications for it, think again.
Note: the only people defending his decision are the wacked out radical right neochristofascists like Linduh and BearPorn... and FOX Noise.
Do they actually tell us what they think about breaking the law? Do they tell you whether they think it is right for someone to lie under oath? They sure did when it was Clinton, but now??? How about whether someone should serve their punishment?
No. We know they love to preach about the law- the law this, the law that. How it should apply to anyone who breaks the law... but when it comes down to it, when it is one of their guys, the law simply doesn't matter.
They can continue to throw Clinton and Bush's legal right to grant pardons and commuting sentances, etc... but they never get to the root of what everyone really wants to know.
So Linduh and BearPorn...
Should anyone get away with lying under oath to obstruct justice?
Should criminals be punished for their crimes and serve full sentances?
Do you agree that any president can give pardons and/or commute sentances for their buddies?
posted on July 3, 2007 08:09:08 AM newShould criminals be punished for their crimes and serve full sentances?
They should no matter who they are.
2 1/2 years is not an excessive sentence. It could have been worse. Martha did her time why can't Libby.
Even though Chimpy McFlightsuit commuted his prison sentence, Libby is still a convicted felon. He will always have to check that box : Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 3, 2007 08:30:11 AM new
We all know that the president has the right to commute or pardon, but was it the right thing to do for this country? IMO presidential pardons are overused and used for wrong reasons---and that includes Clinton's, Linda and Bear. This sends a message to the American people that, for certain people, crime does pay. Whether it is true or not, it gives the impression that Scooter took the fall and was rewarded for his perjury and obstruction by a commutation.
It gives the impression of coverup, lies, good ol' boys sticking together, damn the laws of this country. It gives the impression that the Bush administration thinks that the American people are idiots and will believe anything. It gives the American people a feeling of helplessness. We have no influence in our government. Libby was convicted in a fair trial, sentenced by a fair law-and-order judge within the guidelines of the law---commuted by the president. Congress tries to pass a bill to get us out of this war, which the majority of Americans want----vetoed by the president. No matter what the American people want, they have little power. We can vote for our candidate, but the majority of politicians, Republicans and Democrats, are corrupted by power. We are left to choose between the lesser of two evils.
posted on July 3, 2007 08:55:20 AM new
MSM Ignores Higher Placed Clinton Officials' Conviction to Tout Libby's
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 2, 2007 - 23:30.
I keep seeing this talking point phrase in multiple MSM stories about the Libby conviction; "Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s."(emphasis, mine) This is a misleading statement that makes the reader imagine that no high-ranking Presidential appointee, adviser, or member of the White House has been convicted of anything or sentenced to anything since Reagan's era. But, at least one past official's name should be placed above that of Libby's. Henry Cisneros was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton. Cisneros, it should be remembered, was indicted in 1995 on 18 counts of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of justice. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI. Now, I'd dare say that Libby, who only worked in the office of the Vice President, was a minnow in the pond in which Cisneros swam. Cisneros was the Secretary of HUD, a presidential cabinet member, after all!
Naturally, on his way out of the White House in 2001, Clinton pardoned Cisneros.
Yet, here we have the MSM constantly calling Libby the "highest White House official" convicted, completely ignoring the fate of a much, much higher official with Cisneros. Of course, that this man was a member of Clinton's cabinet pretty much explains why the MSM is conveniently forgetting the fact that Libby is a small fish in this conviction game compared to Cisneros. And, Cisneros was certainly a member of the White House having been a Clinton appointee.
Still, this claim of Libby being "highest official" is everywhere. An MSM talking point, for sure. And a misleading one, at that.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 3, 2007 08:58:49 AM new
I find it ironic that Bush was pushing this 2 weeks ago, but then has the gall to commute the sentence of a convincted felon. I guess Bush thinks his friends are above the law.
Administration pushes for mandatory sentences
By Lara Jakes Jordan and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press | June 17, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals.
The Justice Department is offering the plan as an opening salvo in a larger debate about whether sentences for crack cocaine are unfairly harsh and racially discriminatory.
Republicans are seizing the administration's crackdown, packaged in legislation to combat violent crime, as a campaign issue for 2008.
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts -- and not let judges consider such penalties "merely a suggestion."
Such an overhaul, in part, "will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006.
Judges, however, were livid over the proposal to limit their power. "This would require one-size-fits-all justice," said US District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body.
"The vast majority of the public would like the judges to make the individualized decisions needed to make these very difficult sentencing decisions," Cassell said. "Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors."
The debate, pitting prosecutors against jurists, has been ongoing since a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that declared the government's two decades-old sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The ruling in United States v. Booker said judges are not required to abide by the federal guidelines -- which set mandatory minimum and maximums on sentences -- but could consider them in meting out prison time.
The Justice Department wants to return to the old system of mandatory minimum sentences, under which judges could grant leniency only in special cases. Without those required floors, Justice officials maintain that different judges could hand out widely varying penalties for the same crime.
Justice officials also point to a growing number of lighter sentences as possible proof that crime is rising because criminals are no longer cowed by strict penalties.
In the two years since the ruling, federal judges have become three times more likely to hand down prison sentences below the suggested levels, according to 2006 US Sentencing Commission data.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 3, 2007 09:01:18 AM new
Let's not forget it runs in the family.
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'
Lawrence E. Walsh's Statement on the Pardons
Six years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan's Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.
Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.
In one remaining facet of the inquiry, the independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush. Mr. Walsh has characterized the President's failure to turn over the diary until now as misconduct.
Decapitated Walsh Efforts
But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.
Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."
Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President.
'Evidence of Conspiracy'
Mr. Walsh hinted that Mr. Bush's pardon of Mr. Weinberger and the President's own role in the affair could be related. For the first time, he
charged that Mr. Weinberger's notes about the secret decision to sell arms to Iran, a central piece of evidence in the case against the former Pentagon chief, included "evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public."
The prosecutor charged that Mr. Weinberger's efforts to hide his notes may have "forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan" and formed part of a pattern of "deception and obstruction." On Dec. 11, Mr. Walsh said he discovered "misconduct" in Mr. Bush's failure to turn over what the prosecutor said were the President's own "highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents."
The notes, in the form of a campaign diary that Mr. Bush compiled after the elections in November 1986, are in the process of being turned over to Mr. Walsh, who said, "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations."
In an interview on the "McNeil-Lehrer Newshour" tonight, Mr. Walsh said for the first time that Mr. Bush was a subject of his investigation. The term "subject," as it has been used by Mr. Walsh's prosecutors, is broadly defined as someone involved in events under scrutiny, but who falls short of being a target, or a person likely to be charged with a crime. In the inquiry into the entire Iran-contra affair, a number of Government officials have been identified as subjects who were never charged with wrongdoing.
What Charges Are Unlikely
The prosecutor said he would take appropriate action in Mr. Bush's case, implying he might contemplate future legal action against the President for withholding relevant documents. But prosecutors have said in the past that charging a President or former President with wrongdoing would be highly unlikely without overwhelming evidence of a serious crime.
C. Boyden Gray, the White House counsel, said today that Mr. Bush had voluntarily supplied the disputed material to Mr. Walsh, asserting that the notes contained no new information about the affair. Mr. Gray said Mr. Bush wanted make the notes public, but did not say when.
President-elect Bill Clinton, at a news conference in Little Rock, Ark., to announce his remaining Cabinet selections, said he wanted to learn more about the pardons, adding, "I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the Government, you're beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath."
Mr. Bush, in a statement accompanying the pardon, seemed to anticipate his critics, acknowledging that his decision might be interpreted as an effort to "prevent full disclosure of some new key fact to the American people." He said, "That is not true."
Asserting that "no impartial person has seriously suggested that my own role in this matter is legally questionable," the President sought to position himself on the side of greater openness. Mr. Bush said he had asked Mr. Walsh to provide him with a copy of his testimony to the prosecutor, which he would make public.
Lobbying by Ex-Reagan Aides
Today's action followed intensive lobbying by former Reagan aides to pardon Mr. Weinberger and a series of meetings in recent days at the White House, culminating with the President's decision this morning. Republicans, long angered by the prosecution, were incensed by the new indictment of Mr. Weinberger four days before the election. The indictment said Mr. Weinberger's notes contradicted Mr. Bush's assertions that he had only a fragmentary knowledge of the arms secretly sold to Iran in 1985 and 1986 in exchange for American hostages in Lebanon.
Mr. Weinberger was also charged with testifying falsely to Congress that he did not recall whether Saudi Arabia had ever contributed to the contras. Prosecutors said his notes showed that he had known of the Saudi contributions.
Records made public over the years included no evidence that Mr. Bush knew about he secret efforts to arm the Nicaraguan rebels, but they did suggest he knew of Iran operation almost from its inception in 1985 and took part in crucial meetings where the arms sales were openly discussed as an arms-for-hostages swap. The Reagan Administration's public policy was never to bargain for the freedom of hostages.
Mr. Bush said today that the Walsh prosecution reflected "a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences."
Question of Politics
He added: "These differences should have been addressed in the political arena without the Damocles sword of criminality hanging over the heads of some of the combatants. The proper target is the President, not his subordinates; the proper forum is the voting booth, not the courtroom."
In his comments, Mr. Bush said he was trying to "put bitterness behind us," asserting that each of the men he was pardoning had a long record of public service and had already paid a heavy price for their involvement in the affair in damaged careers, hurt families and depleted savings.
The Iran-contra affair, the worst scandal of Mr. Reagan's Presidency, came into the open in the fall of 1986 with the disclosure of two intertwined secret operations: the arms sales to Teheran, and the diversion of profits from those sales to help finance a covert weapons supply network to the contras, set up in 1985, after Congress barred direct aid to the rebels.
Besides Mr. Weinberger, the President pardoned Robert C. McFarlane, the former national security adviser, and Elliott Abrams, the former assistant Secretary of State for Central America. Both officials had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about support for the contras.
Others Who Are Pardoned
The President also pardoned Clair E. George, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine services, who was convicted earlier this month, at his second trial, of two felony charges of perjury and misleading Congress about both the contras and the Iran initiative -- crimes for which he faced up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Two other intelligence officials were granted clemency, Duane R. Clarridge, the former head of the C.I.A.'s European division, who was awaiting trial on charges that he misled Congressional investigators about a missile shipment to Iran in 1985.
The other was Alan D. Fiers Jr., once a rising star with the agency, who had pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contras from Congress and who later decided to cooperate with the prosecution, becoming Mr. George's chief accuser at both his trials.
Mr. Bush described Mr. Weinberger as a "true American patriot" and he said clemency was granted both to spare him torment and cost of lengthy legal proceedings as well as out of a concern for the health of Mr. Weinberger, who is 75 year old.
Mr. Weinberger, who was asked at a news conference today whether his notes contained any entries that might be embarrassing to Mr. Bush, replied: "No, certainly not. There's nothing in those notes that in any way contradicts what President Bush said, or what President Reagan said."
But not since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of whether the President was trying to shield officials for political purposes. Mr. Walsh invoked Watergate tonight in an interview on the ABC News program "Nightline," likening today's pardons to President Richard M. Nixon's dismissal of the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, in 1973. Mr. Walsh said Mr. Bush had "succeeded in a sort of Saturday Night Massacre."
Democratic lawmakers assailed the decision. Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the Democratic leader, called the action a mistake. "It is not as the President stated today a matter of criminalizing policy differences," he said. "If members of the executive branch lie to the Congress, obstruct justice and otherwise break the law, how can policy differences be fairly and legally resolved in a democracy."
The main supporters of the pardon were Vice President Quayle, the Senate Republican leader, Bob Dole, and Mr. Gray, one senior Administration official said today. The decision, discussed in private, seemed to coalesce in the last three weeks although Mr. Bush was said to believe that Mr. Weinberger had been unfairly charged ever since the former Reagan Cabinet officer was first indicted in June.
Throughout the deliberations, Mr. Bush consulted with Attorney General William P. Barr and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser, who had sat on a Presidential review panel that examined the affair in early 1987.
In lengthy Oval Office meetings in the last week, Mr. Bush and his advisers, none of whom offered a sharp dissent, discussed how to balance their desire to grant a pardon with their realization that such an act would almost certainly provoke hostility.
In the end, Mr. Bush's advisers decided he could surmount his critics by expressing, as did in his statement, his willingness to make public additional documents about the affair, like his statement to the prosecutors and Mr. Weinberger's notes.
Independent Counsel's Statement on the Pardons
By REUTERS
Following is a statement by the independent counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, regarding pardons granted today by President Bush.
President Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-contra defendants undermines the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office -- deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence.
Weinberger, who faced four felony charges, deserved to be tried by a jury of citizens. Although it is the President's prerogative to grant pardons, it is every American's right that the criminal justice system be administered fairly, regardless of a person's rank and connections.
The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.
Weinberger's early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. Because the notes were withheld from investigators for years, many of the leads were impossible to follow, key witnesses had purportedly forgotten what was said and done, and statutes of limitation had expired.
Weinberger's concealment of notes is part of a disturbing pattern of deception and obstruction that permeated the highest levels of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on December 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents. The production of these notes is still ongoing and will lead to appropriate action. In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 3, 2007 09:07:03 AM newKeep flapping those shaggy lips rusty, your have gore after you next.
Rusty got you good Bear. You are to busy researching what Clinton did and didn't do. You and Linda are to busy trying to paint Libby as the innocent victim. You forget he was convicted of a felony.
You still haven't answered the questions that were presented to you:
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?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 3, 2007 09:17:42 AM new
An interesting side note to all this.
Did anyone know that the lawyer for Marc Rich was Scooter Libby
In 1983, Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Both of them fled to Switzerland before a court appearance, and they remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.
During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2].
In a strange twist of circumstance, in 2007 Libby himself received a presidential commutation of sentence following his perjury conviction in the so-called Plame affair.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 3, 2007 01:43:12 PM new
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 is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 3, 2007 01:56:39 PM new
And since you gutless wonders are still crying about Libbys pardon, it didnt happen, he was granted clemency.
The difference you ask?
PARDON VS. COMMUTATION
Unlike a pardon, a commutation does not forgive the underlying offense.
Publicly, the idea to commute rather than pardon appears to have first been floated in an op-ed article by William Otis, a former federal prosecutor.
In the article, which ran June 7 in The Washington Post, Otis wrote that commuting the sentence "would leave Libby with the disabilities of a convicted felon -- no small matter for a lawyer and public figure." At the same time, he wrote, "a partial commutation would send the message that we insist on being truthful, but in the name of a justice that still cares about individual circumstances, we will not insist on being vindictive."
In choosing to commute the sentence, Bush opted for the lesser of his two major constitutional powers of clemency. A pardon would have wiped out all of Libby's penalties. Now the fine and probation would be erased only if Libby were to prevail on appeal.
Unlike klinton who granted afull pardon to Soros and drug dealers.
.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jul 3, 2007 01:57 PM ]
posted on July 3, 2007 02:20:51 PM new
Again, Bear, you are misreading. In my OP, I stated it was a commutation, not a pardon.
It was originally reported as a pardon, but then corrected. I believe the other posters also refer to it as a commutation. You are not the only one who understands the difference between a pardon and commutation. You are really grasping at straws here.
posted on July 3, 2007 02:25:31 PM new
So did more harm, Libby who was convicted of perjury or 16 terrorists that killed four New Yorkers and set off 130 bombs?
Guess who pardoned these 16 terrorists?
By JAMES TARANTO
Clemency for Terrorists
In August 1999 President Clinton granted executive clemency to 16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terror group behind some 130 bombings, including one that killed four people at New York's Fraunces Tavern in 1975. Even the ultraliberal New York Times looked askance:
To be sure, an American President has an absolute power to pardon. But that does not relieve him of the obligation to defend any and every decision to intervene in the criminal justice system. Indeed, this President's rare use of the pardoning power makes it all the more important for him to reveal his reasoning. Of more than 3,000 applications for clemency filed since 1993, he has granted only 3. The suspicion is rampant that his motivation was a political effort to please the Puerto Rican community that is crucial to Mrs. Clinton's hopes in the coming Senate race from New York.
The House voted 311-41 for a nonbinding resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to terrorists." All 41 of those voting "no" were Democrats, as were 71 of the 72 members who voted "present" (the other was a self-styled socialist who abjured formal membership in the party).
Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House, did not vote. But the Congressional Record reveals that was only because she showed up late;
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted "no."
Pelosi was unwilling to criticize a president of her own party when he turned loose terrorists convicted of such crimes as seditious conspiracy, possession of unregistered firearms and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. Keep that in mind as you read her statement yesterday:
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 3, 2007 02:51:06 PM new
I know it was Clinton, Bear. Congress condemned Clinton for this action at the time--Senate 95-2 and House 311-41. Why not do the same for Bush? I have already said the presidential tradition of pardon/commutation is not a good one, IMO.
So, because Clinton granted clemency to terrorists, that means Libby should receive clemency? It does not matter which was worse.
Neither should have happened.
posted on July 3, 2007 03:21:46 PM new
My gawd, COIN!!! Can't you get it through your thick liberal skull that Bear is confused, typing in circles (I actually didn't think it could be done, but he proved it could).
BearPorn simply made things up. NOT ONE Person here has said that Clinton was right for pardoning any and/or all of the people whom he did in fact pardon.
In fact, BearPorn was the first to even mention Clinton..."So do you want to talk about all the hundreds of paid for pardons clinton granted in his eight years of abusing the office?"
Then Lindumb@ass chimed in with the list of pardons that Clinton gave.
Nobody here disagreed with the fact that Clinton's pardons were inexcusable. BearPorn... call your English teacher and have them reread and explain all of the comments to you... because it is obvious you need help understanding this.
Bear, we have all asked you:
Should anyone get away with lying under oath to obstruct justice?
Should criminals be punished for their crimes and serve full sentances?
Do you agree that any president can give pardons and/or commute sentances for their buddies?
I know you don't want to answer the questions, because you know the truth. In fact, we all know the truth about you. You, like us want accountability. Even though you don't want to admit it, you know full well that what Bush did went against everything you are sick of here in America. This is why your only argument is Bill Clinton 24/7.
Clinton was wrong for his pardons, nobody cares to argue that. How many years ago was that? We can go back and forth about which Democrat pardoned this person, and which Republican pardoned that person. It goes much further back than Clinton. What everybody is telling is that Clinton has nothing to do with Bush or any other presidency.
If you truly want justice in America, how can you argue that b/c one person did something, someone else should do it? You didn't like it when Clinton did it, why should you like it now???
