It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NOW Bush claims his authority to pardon Libby comes from the Constitution.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:26 PM
[edit on 7/6/2007 by Togetic]

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:34 PM
There isn't nor will there be one...

Just another fanciful tale, kind of like that Karl Rove indicted and frog marched thread... It was guaranteed... Until it turned out to be nothing more than one pathetic blogger's wishful thinking. So was Dan rather's memo... I could go on, but you get the picture.

I'm always of the mind, that if it's what you wish would happen, and then someone claims it happened... They might have just had the same wish as you... Unless you're Marc Rich of course...

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Yeah like there is a big difference there

More than a difference... It's a chasm.

A Chasm? There is no 'chasm' of difference mirthfulme.
The fact is that cooter wont serve one day in jail, which is the same as a pardon.

A commuted sentence means scooter doesn't go to jail,


but still pays his fine ($250,000)

Which cooter wrote a check for....if you can imagine that......I cant.

and is a convicted felon who will have to report to a parole officer.

Oh poor scooter. I bet his parole officer will be Dick, since he is in that squishy area between legislative and executive which happens to include the subtitle 'parole officer to convicted aids'.

A pardon... Well you're walking on the sunny side of the street... Slate is wiped clean and you can go back to life as it was. Think Marc Rich (who was interestingly enough, represented by Scooter Libby

Well scooter IS walking on the sunny side of the street, when he should be sitting in a dark cell.
He was able to simply write a check for a quarter of a million dollars and walk away scott free. He will recoup that money in his first book deal, which is probably in the works as we chat. As far as his 'parole officer', big freaking deal. That is little more than an inconvenience. His conviction stands you say? So what.
For you or me, convicted of a felony, it would be a big deal. We would be hardpressed to find a job, or a place to rent, or any number of other things. For Scoots it is an assured book deal, like I mentioned, and it is also quite likely a future as a 'consultant' for some mindless news show on FOX.

For those still struggling with the nuances:

Wait a second here Mirthful.
Initially you claim there is a 'chasm' of difference.
Then in conclusion you call them nuances.\
Who is the one struggling now?

You doublespeak well.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:18 PM
Bush and Cheney are criminals plain and simple. They have been criminals in almost every affair they have participated in while in office. If you don't think they were involved in anything regarding to 9/11, do your own research. And let's assume they didn't set it up, let's just assume they knew about it and we know Cheney was running the pilot exercises that day. They were told about it by the FAA and they did nothing, and Bush just sat there without a care in the world reading his goat story as they told him a jet hurled into the WTC. These men should be tried, convicted, and hung for treason, END OF STORY! The incidence with Scooter Dee Doo is just more icing on the cake.

[edit on 7/6/2007 by pjslug]

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:22 PM
.....And because they're criminals, they will continue with criminal activities until such a day when they are gone.

That remains to be seen. Them gone.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:40 PM

Idk about anyone else but...I just feel shocked Bush would say that...I mean, wow, I've been relatively lenient towards him...and it just crazy to me.


posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:21 AM
Just to put it in perspective...

Clinton PARDONED 211 [Two Hundred and Eleven] Criminals, REAL CRIMINALS, including DRUG DEALERS and CONVICTED FRAUDS, in his LAST NINE DAYS IN OFFICE...................

He PARDONED 134.... [ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR] in the last 24 HOURS in office...

He commuted the sentence of 34 convicted criminals...

President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for some pardons and other acts of executive clemency [1]; collectively, this controversy has sometimes been called Pardongate in the press.[2] Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardons. She was later replaced by James Comey. Comey found no grounds to indict Clinton.


n August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials."


In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf


Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[11] When a sentence is commuted, the conviction remains intact, but the sentence can be altered in a number of ways. Some controversial actions include the following:

* Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for coc aine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
* Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[12] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.[citation needed] Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[13]
* Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]
* Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
* Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.
* Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted on the bank fraud charged and was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a half way house. He had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions.
* Roger Clinton, the president's half-brother, on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade before. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[15] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.


HE lied and was convicted of that as well...

ANYONE want to come out in the same outrage over his actions that have been HUNDREDS of times more audacious than President Bush??????


What??? Are you all hypocrites?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis

ANYONE want to come out in the same outrage over his actions that have been HUNDREDS of times more audacious than President Bush??????


What??? Are you all hypocrites?



????? ???? ??? ? !!! Man you went punctuation happy there!

I love it when the only defense the Bush-lovers (
) have is "look what that other guy did, it was worse!"

I was equally appaulled by Clintons actions Semper, but incase you didnt notice, that is water under the bridge, milk spilt, and ancient histrory in the political landscape.

For you and your ilk to continue to defend this man and his actions borders on fanatical behavior.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:15 AM
Pointing out hypocrisy IS perfectly acceptable.

The same people in Congress wanting to crucify Bush for certain things, didn't even raise an eyebrow when Clinton did the same or worse.

The biggest hypocritial issue lately have been the fired attornys...Clinton fired 96, Bush fired 8, and Democrats thought the world was ending.

As Semper pointed out, Clinton's pardoned far more people, and had a "fireSALE" in his last week in office. I empasized SALE because Mrs. Bill Clinton's brother brokered alot of these pardons. $$$! Democrats saw this and shrugged, yet they are freaking out when Bush commutes an egregious prison sentence in a case where no crime was committed.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by RRconservative]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Clinton PARDONED 211...

Why has this turned into a comparison? The fact that politicians are despicable people does not diminish the severity of this current issue.

This current jail commutation involves a person convicted of crimes in connection with an investigation of White House Staff. If pressured with jail time, "Scooter" may provide testimony that implicates the offices of the Vice President, or President. Now that pressure has been removed.

Trying to compare this to Clinton's shenanigans is a detestable partisan game of deflection. If we don't call to task these deplorable actions of our selected leaders, no matter what the flavor of the politics, it will only continue.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Trying to compare this to Clinton's shenanigans is a detestable partisan game of deflection. If we don't call to task these deplorable actions of our selected leaders, no matter what the flavor of the politics, it will only continue.

Exactly! We are placing our way of government into peril...

It seems to me we are at another crossroads in American history. As we are assailed from abroad, will we also fend off the dangers presented from within?

America is not two nations, corresponding to its respective parties, but a single nation governed by the Constitution of the United States!

A failure to agree on that ensures our eventual demise.

I have written much on the subject of Bush's excesses in that past few days. Rather than rehash the material I've posted in other threads, I'll merely link to some of it here:

Why I think impeachment is necessary.

See also, Madison's view.

And, more.

Our nation may be able to survive the temporary wrongdoing and incompetency of it's public officials. But it can not survive the negligence of its own people to hold such wrongdoing to account.

What kind of country do you want for our children's future?

Think about that...

[edit on 7-7-2007 by loam]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:54 AM
The "comparison" was used in a perfectly acceptable manner indicating the hypocrisy of those so vehemently opposed to any action this particular administration takes...

The "comparison" is legitimate in that it exemplifies the presidential power to pardon and commute that has been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States..

The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[1] All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year[3] and have granted around ten percent of these[4], although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II),[5]

It is the blatant disregard for the rule of law that some expound on anytime that rule disagrees with what "they" think is right....

The very simple and not difficult to understand concept of a President, any President, using powers granted to him, is not illegal, immoral or confusing in any manner....

The entire concept being discussed here is because some people just hate the man and every time he goes to the bathroom you complain about how much toilet paper he uses...

The comparison to Clinton was quite simply using the most recent example of Presidential pardons, any of the past presidents could have made an equally accurate example..

I voted for Clinton the first time, and other than the left raising him on some pedestle that he clearly does not belong on, I have no problem with him, especially in his using HIS Presidential powers to pardon or commute...

I think some were fishy, yes, but he had every right to pardon whomever he chose to..

As does President Bush


posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:14 PM
What makes no sense to me is that if one argues Clinton's pardons were an abuse of power (as many claim), how does one now convert to a position that says it's ok for Bush?

But more to your point, if a President can 'protect' his insiders, how would any 'abuse' ever come to light under your view of the legality of the President's commutation or pardon powers? As I have written here and elsewhere, clearly our forefathers disagreed with your position.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by loam]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
I think some were fishy, yes, but he had every right to pardon whomever he chose to..

As does President Bush

The ability for a sitting president to dispense a pardon stops where impeachment of that sitting president is involved. This conviction of Scooter stems from an investigation that was headed perilously close to the administration... and potential impeachment proceedings.

Comparing the rotten apples and moldy oranges of various administrations only proves we have an epidemic of ethical deficiencies. With such an epic problem, these partisan knee-jerk responses of shifting focus from the problem to the "other party" smacks of brain-washed mindless parroting of spoon-fed talking points.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2
1. That this is just a 'hate' thread to bash President Bush

No, while he deserves to be bashed, I believe this thread's purpose is to state that when the Constitution is inconvenient to what Bush has in mind, he ignores it and places himself above it. However, when it's convenient to support his actions and wishes, he USES it.

This thread points out yet another point of hypocrisy in the current administration. I admit, it's one point on the heels of a hundred other marks against BushCo, but it's a valid thread and a good point.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 02:17 PM

he ability for a sitting president to dispense a pardon stops where impeachment of that sitting president is involved. This conviction of Scooter stems from an investigation that was headed perilously close to the administration... and potential impeachment proceedings.


And that is exactly my point...

An independent investigation concluded two very important things...

1. No crime was ever committed as Plame was NOT a covert operative..


2. Richard Armitage is the guy that put it out there to Robert Novak. Everybody knew this. There was no underlying crime. No offense by the White House at all...

Libby was convicted of giving false information under oath, and that conviction currently stands. He gave that false information in reference to an investigation that determined NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED.

The potential impeachment proceedings are, so far, figments of the imagination of those that hate President Bush.

If impeachment were to evolve, remember that we have had a President fully impeached and allowed to remain in office and... I STRESS AND... allowed to pardon his proverbial butt off even under impeachment...

Again, the example is not to facilitate aggression in the thread, but to illustrate that a precedent has been set and that Bush is no where near the lines that have been crossed by previous presidents..

Yet the "tone" taken in discussion in this regard is such that would make one think that President Bush is "breaking ground" on some new and unheard of Presidential authority.

Such is clearly not the case.


posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The ability for a sitting president to dispense a pardon stops where impeachment of that sitting president is involved.

Exactly. That is the whole point. It ultimatly benefits BUSH and CHENEY.

'nuff said.

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:51 AM
[edit on 8-7-2007 by dgtempe]

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:01 PM
So... Since another president pardoned people it makes it ok for Bush to pardon his crony?

Gee, FDR nuked two cities and didn't get in trouble, I guess I can nuke Houston and Dallas and not get in trouble. What? FDR did it before me and didn't get in trouble.

I guess I can kill anyone I want since Ted Bundy(Republican, worked for them) and Ike and George H.W. Bush killed People. Sure Ike was a general and GHWB was in the air force but hey, they still killed people and got away with it. So I guess I can to.

See how stupid that sounds? That's exactly how all you Bush Bots sound when you pull the "But Clinton did something about a third as bad! SO its ok for Bush!" Or what I really love is when they do the "Clinton wanted to do it so its ok for Bush TO do it!" Like wait, he WANTED to do something so that makes it ok for Bush to do something? So since some guy wanted to kill Rupert Murdoch that makes it ok for me to kill him?

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:10 PM
It's called a precedent Lightsorm..

It is the standards that are set by previous administrations that are taken into account by the courts to determine the accepted behavior of any elected official as balanced by the Constitution...

When you remove the emotional "fall-der-all" then you have to address any action within the boundaries of

1. Legality


2. Precedent

The use of any previous administrations actions to illustrate the accepted behavior of a sitting official is not only perfectly acceptable, it is common use.

There is no more effective way to evaluate any actions taken by an elected official then to compare them to other elected officials...

Just because it does not agree with your assessment, does not make it wrong..

His actions were completely within the guidelines established by ALL other sitting Presidents and upheld through many Supreme Court challenges.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in