IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

woiyo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Given that Clinton was not convicted of anything, there was no sentence to commute--so why does Clinton enter into the discussion?

Given that Clinton was the President, there was no one with authority to pardon him for anything, even had he been convicted of anything, which he wasn't--so why does Clinton enter into the discussion?

Don't know. Ask Parados who seems to forget Clinton WAS Impeached for perjury.

I would refer to the prior post concerning Clintons pardons specificlly his brother and Mr. Rich as a basis for comparison to Bush commuting Libby's sentance.

Please update on your location i.e. Reality, Earth. You are obviously residing somewhere else.

0 Replies

Re: IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

Setanta wrote:

You should have stopped after you wrote: "Don't know."

In the first place, the Shrub didn't pardon Libby, he commuted his sentence, which, in the context of someone who was convicted for lying to investigators and therefore obstructing justice in the investigation of a cover up, is a significant and suspicious move on the part of the Shrub.

In the second place, the topic of this thread is what the likely reaction would have been had the Shrub pardoned Libby--it was never about "oh yeah, well look how bad your guy was." In that the Shrub commuted Libby's sentence, rather than pardon him, one might allege that the titular question of this thread is not longer operative. However, the idea of the thread is still very à propos--what will the likely consequences be as a result of the Shrub's action? This is the opening post, following upon the title, If the Shrub pardons Libby . . . :

Setanta wrote:
What do you think the consequences would be?

Do you think the Shrub could pull it off?

If not, why?

Um...I've already stated in my prior post that GW commuted Libby. Not pardon.

Seems there are other people who want to change facts.

WHEN GW Pardons Libby, no one will hear about it since it will happen on his way out of office. Just like every other President.

0 Replies

That's nice.

Now, you wouldn't be interested, perchance, in offering an opinion on what the likely political consequences of the Shrub's decision to commute Libby's sentence will be? Or did you just want to show up and whine about Clinton?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That's nice.

Now, you wouldn't be interested, perchance, in offering an opinion on what the likely political consequences of the Shrub's decision to commute Libby's sentence will be? Or did you just want to show up and whine about Clinton?

How sarcastic of you. Take your arrogance and go play with the other little boys and girls who pretend to be objective.Yet, like you, the transparency is laughable to me.

I will leave you to your little sand box. Play nice!

0 Replies

So, is that a case of not wanting to venture an opinion on the likely political consequences of the Shrub's decision to commute Libby's sentence; or is it just that you're too stupid to form one?

(That's a question, you know--i'm not saying you're stupid, i'm asking.)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So, is that a case of not wanting to venture an opinion on the likely political consequences of the Shrub's decision to commute Libby's sentence; or is it just that you're too stupid to form one?

(That's a question, you know--i'm not saying you're stupid, i'm asking.)

He is my opinion, you arrogant little effing toad.

You do not have the objectivity to understand how irrelevant this issue is to me since you are just another tout for blame bush gang. I should be surprise that a President commuted a sentance of a buddy? This has NEVER been done before?

I find you irrelevant, but fun to tease.

Go back to your friends in the sand box little one!

0 Replies

"He" is your opinion?

Do you suppose you could translate that into English?

Does that perhaps mean that you identify so strongly with the Shrub that his opinions are your opinions?

The question is to what extent, if any, this will have political consequences. I realize that you've been doing your damnest to dodge the question, but it still remains the question, whether or not you're capable of answering it.

Personally, given the polls which have been released recently, i think it could have harmful consequences for the Republicans. They suffered badly in the last mid-term elections because of a perception that they are corrupt. It may be possible to exploit this move on the part of the Shrub to claim that this is just more evidence of the corruption of the Republican Party.

The question of whether or not the Democrats can benefit from this move breaks down into at least two parts. The first is whether or not it can be exploited at all--does the issue have legs? The second part is whether or not the Democrats can successfully exploit it--can they keep this issue before the public for another year and three months.

See, Woiyo, that's how one might answer the question embodied in this thread. I realize, of course, that all you claims in the past about being non-partisan are horseshit, and that you're now incensed that you've been called for attempting to introduce partisan bile into a discussion in which your remarks were irrelevant. Nevertheless, i'm going to insist on a discussion of the thread topic, rather than your puerile attempts to slander others.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
So, is that a case of not wanting to venture an opinion on the likely political consequences of the Shrub's decision to commute Libby's sentence; or is it just that you're too stupid to form one?

(That's a question, you know--i'm not saying you're stupid, i'm asking.)

He is my opinion, you arrogant little effing toad.

You do not have the objectivity to understand how irrelevant this issue is to me since you are just another tout for blame bush gang. I should be surprise that a President commuted a sentance of a buddy? This has NEVER been done before?

I find you irrelevant, but fun to tease.

Go back to your friends in the sand box little one!

Actually, this is somewhat unique - a president has never commuted the sentence of his assistant, who is impeding a federal investigation into his and the VP's office. It was an effective pardon, as Libby will neither have to serve parole nor pay the fine; also unique, pardoning by another name.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In fairness, Cyclo, you're off topic, too.

The question is, to what extent, if any, there will be political consequences arising from the Shrub's action.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In fairness, Cyclo, you're off topic, too.

The question is, to what extent, if any, there will be political consequences arising from the Shrub's action.

Fair enough.

I do believe there will be consequences, in that this really drives forward the 'corrupt Bush WH meme' in the media, and gives them an opportunity to latch on to that story fully. I noticed that last week's WaPo expose of Cheney got good play in both newspapers and on television, and several TV hosts were pissed - abrams, KO (of course), Tweety, even Wolfie seemed angry when talking about it.

What that telegraphs, to me, is that the producers of these shows (Dan Abrams runs MSNBC, if I remember correctly) think that there's money and ratings in continuing this story. And they're probably right. Polling has indicated that more then twice as many Americans think Bush is doing bad, then think he's doing good. Dems are trusted on each and every single issue polled, over Republicans. It doesn't take a genius to see that in an election year in which the war is going bad, the corruption angle isn't going away, and the Dems are outraising the Republicans almost 2 to 1, there most likely will be a Dem president in the WH.

The 'media angle' is a critical component of impeachment, or, moving forward with subpoenas for WH members. For every person like us who follows politics, there are ten who learn about it in the paper or the evening news, and only have a little while to pay attention to it (sadly enough). If these people start hearing, all summer, that the corruption angle is getting worse and worse, it will have an effect on already low ratings.

Even if there isn't much reprecussion on the WH itself, there are spending bills and the Iraq issue coming up in Congress; the more heat the Prez takes, the less palatable it is for Senators and Congressmen to support his positions, including on Iraq. They saw what happened in '06, and NONE of them wants to be voted out of office for supporting a lame duck. So they will begin to break from the prez.

Additionally, this story just won't die, b/c Scooter is kind of in limbo. He is pardoned, but only half-way. The story won't fade as quick as normal pardons, b/c there are questions about what will happen right now. Will Scooter win his appeal? Will he be called in to Congress to testify? How can he serve his parole, as he didn't do time in prison (which is against Federal guidelines)? Will his rich friends pay his fines for him?

I look forward to the WH briefing today. Snow was clearly caught flat-footed and was rude and insulting to several pool reporters on Tues. That doesn't go over well, I guarantee. Expect more combative questions to start coming.

I predict that this event will later be seen as one which gave the media cover to turn on Bush.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If there's ever been a case for impeachment, this tops the list, but the democrats will not forward one, because they're afraid of their own shadows. This administrations chutzpah to circumvent the laws of this land are now legend; and it seems only the future wide-eyed historians who has 20/20 vision will be the arbiter.

Yes, the president has the "authority" to commute or pardon, but there's more to this story than the president's power. It's about national security and the maintenance of democracy by the other branches of our government.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If there's ever been a case for impeachment, this tops the list, but the democrats will not forward one, because they're afraid of their own shadows. This administrations chutzpah to circumvent the laws of this land are now legend; and it seems only the future wide-eyed historians who has 20/20 vision will be the arbiter.

Yes, the president has the "authority" to commute or pardon, but there's more to this story than the president's power. It's about national security and the maintenance of democracy by the other branches of our government.

The Dems in Washington don't want impeachment, b/c to them, they will get control in 18 months anyways. Impeachment is a wild-card, who knows how the country will react?

It's all a power game; they don't give a f*ck about the fact that Bush and others are breaking the law, not the way that we do. All they care about is being in the majority and getting their ends met.

They will have to be lead by the nose by the American people if there's going to be any action.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Setanta wrote:
In fairness, Cyclo, you're off topic, too.

The question is, to what extent, if any, there will be political consequences arising from the Shrub's action.

Fair enough.

I do believe there will be consequences, in that this really drives forward the 'corrupt Bush WH meme' in the media, and gives them an opportunity to latch on to that story fully.

This is where I see the effort to split Bush from the Republicans, and Conservatives/conservatives from Republicans as very important.

The language at places like Newsmax has changed remarkably in the past 6 - 10 months. It's about conservatives/conservatism/conservative values now - not about Republicans - and Mr. Bush has almost completely been scrubbed from their headlines.

George Bush may be corrupt - but can that be extrapolated to mean Republicans or Conservatives are corrupt? It's a great game of political language out there, and there are some sterling players.

The effort to separate conservatives from George Bush (by means of language) is interesting to watch.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If there's ever been a case for impeachment, this tops the list, but the democrats will not forward one, because they're afraid of their own shadows. This administrations chutzpah to circumvent the laws of this land are now legend; and it seems only the future wide-eyed historians who has 20/20 vision will be the arbiter.

Yes, the president has the "authority" to commute or pardon, but there's more to this story than the president's power. It's about national security and the maintenance of democracy by the other branches of our government.

I think that it was very wrong for the president to pardon Libby, but your idea that his lawful exercise of his constitutional powers is impeachable is absurd.

0 Replies

No it isn't; they are sworn to protect the Constitution.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
If there's ever been a case for impeachment, this tops the list, but the democrats will not forward one, because they're afraid of their own shadows. This administrations chutzpah to circumvent the laws of this land are now legend; and it seems only the future wide-eyed historians who has 20/20 vision will be the arbiter.

Yes, the president has the "authority" to commute or pardon, but there's more to this story than the president's power. It's about national security and the maintenance of democracy by the other branches of our government.

I think that it was very wrong for the president to pardon Libby, but your idea that his lawful exercise of his constitutional powers is impeachable is absurd.

It isn't one hundred percent clear that it's lawful to impede an investigation into your own office by pardoning someone.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
If there's ever been a case for impeachment, this tops the list, but the democrats will not forward one, because they're afraid of their own shadows. This administrations chutzpah to circumvent the laws of this land are now legend; and it seems only the future wide-eyed historians who has 20/20 vision will be the arbiter.

Yes, the president has the "authority" to commute or pardon, but there's more to this story than the president's power. It's about national security and the maintenance of democracy by the other branches of our government.

I think that it was very wrong for the president to pardon Libby, but your idea that his lawful exercise of his constitutional powers is impeachable is absurd.

Since when is Obstruction of Justice a lawful act?

0 Replies

Let me try this once again.

The topic is, what are the probable political consequences of the Shrub's action in commuting Libby's sentence.

Although a claim that he will be impeached as a result might just barely qualify as an answer, it is a sufficiently silly claim not to merit clogging this thread with it, given that there are several other threads in which the partisans may indulge in slanging one another.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Let me try this once again.

The topic is, what are the probable political consequences of the Shrub's action in commuting Libby's sentence.

Although a claim that he will be impeached as a result might just barely qualify as an answer, it is a sufficiently silly claim not to merit clogging this thread with it, given that there are several other threads in which the partisans may indulge in slanging one another.

I answered!

Lol

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I appreciate that, too, Cyclo. I also appreciate eBeth's observation on conservative rhetoric. Although it is always a faint hope at discussion boards, perhaps we actually can stay on topic. I note with satisfaction that Godwin's Law has not yet been demonstrated.

0 Replies

IF THE SHRUB PARDONS LIBBY . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know