Roxxxanne wrote: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?
How do you intend to prove legally that commuting Libby's sentence is obstruction of justice?
I have been laboring mightily to keep this thread on topic. Can you take that particular squabble to one of the many other Shrub/Libby threads?
Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: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
Typo, sorry. And you would prove that that was his intent how?
Setanta wrote:I have been laboring mightily to keep this thread on topic. Can you take that particular squabble to one of the many other Shrub/Libby threads?
Well, I want to respect your wishes for your thread, but it isn't completely clear that it's not on topic. If someone says that impeachment is a likely consequence, it's logical to ask what the grounds are or to argue whether the suggested grounds are valid. It seems like kind of a narrow interpretation of the topic. You really think it's an off topic discussion?
Well, to the extent that i don't think the Democratic leadership, for whatever one may allege their faults to be, are idiotic enough to attempt impeachment, yes, i consider it somewhat off topic.
But if you dangle that bait, and get a bite, i won't complain any longer.
if bush takes libby to a full pardon, there would be some sort of guilt by association that hangs around those who are propping the whole thing up. fred thompson has come out as very supportive of libby and the bush commutation, complete with the "decent american" spiel, for instance.
running for office with the last "8" years hanging around your neck will probably be a albatross.
to folks like us who are real political junkies, a full pardon would really stir the pot. but for the average person, the war and quality of life issues will be on the mind more than anything else.
a chicken in every pot is much more timely than a pol in every jail these days, i think....
We all know now that Bush isn't a conservative, and conservatives (new-school not dys' old-skool conservatives) will be running as Republicans next time round.
I'd be amazed, and impressed, if the Libby commutation had any long-term effect.
cicerone imposter wrote:Set, Thanks for your mention of "Godwin's Law." I learned something new today. :wink:
"Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf-lovers/msg/84426456ad1724f2
(At the time, USENET was pretty much the only thing like a worldwide messageboard, though there were some messageboards on places like CompuServe I think.)
As for consequences of the Libby fuss, I say: none of any significance.
Here's a section of an article in the Washington Post that shows what a perfect bunch of horseshit everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is.
Quote:Tony Snow, in his briefing, made the following points about Libby's case:
"· That Bush wasn't 'granting a favor to anyone' but that the case got his 'special handling.'
"· That it was not done for 'political reasons' even though 'it was political.'
"· That it was handled 'in a routine manner,' yet it was also 'an extraordinary case.'
"· That 'we are not going to make comments' on the case, even though Bush had already issued a 655-word statement commenting on the case."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/05/BL2007070500940_4.html
I mean, what the hell is wrong with you Bush supporters?
There is no ethical or moral defense of this, unless you are really so authoritarian to believe that the President has no moral or ethical duties to use his power in a responsible fashion whatsoever.
Cycloptichorn
Using the words ethical and moral as it relates to Bush Jr is an oxymoron. What is more important is the way he trashes the Constitution and our democratic republic. That the congress and supreme court is mum shows how rotten our government has gotten in the past dacade.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:if bush takes libby to a full pardon, there would be some sort of guilt by association that hangs around those who are propping the whole thing up.
Not if Bush pardons Libby during the transition period to Bush's successor. That's why I said I expect a January 19th pardon.
***
Come to think of it, here's another possible consequence of the partial pardon: It sends a signal to those involved in any future prosecutions similar to Libby's. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants know that if push comes to shove, the defendant will be pardoned. This discourages Democrats from prosecuting, and encourages Bush staffers not to rat out their bosses.
Disclaimer for Brandon: I cannot prove that any Bush/Cheney staffers know anything with which to rat their bosses out. But I have my assumption about probabilities, which I'll happily agree to disagree about.
Even Rich Lowry at NRO is questioning the wisdom of Bush's indefensible move:
Quote:The administration's middle ground can't hold. A pardon would have better, and more defensible.
07/05 05:39 PM
He's exactly right, and that's why this story won't go away any time soon - the position chosen by the Admin. is so blatantly false, it cannot hold up to even cursory examination. So they come off as extremely hypocritical, and unable to answer pointed questions about their actions.
That's like dropping a dripping side of beef in to a tank full of sharks - the feeding frenzy will continue apace for some time, and it won't be to the benefit of Bush or the Republicans in general.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, You have too much confidence that the American people understand the legalities and the consequences of Bush's decision; they don't. Also, as somebody already mentioned, Americans have short memory spans.
This issue is a non-event that will die on the vine.
cicerone imposter wrote:Cyclo, You have too much confidence that the American people understand the legalities and the consequences of Bush's decision; they don't. Also, as somebody already mentioned, Americans have short memory spans.
This issue is a non-event that will die on the vine.
You say that about all the issues, lol.
But they add up over time. You're correct that Bush won't get run out of office for this. But it helps build the narrative that either will run him out, or will ensure that he isn't replaced.
There aren't any legalities to understand; Bush used his powers to protect either his ass or his friends' ass. It's wrong either way. Simple.
In other news, the DC Madam has been allowed to release her list, and has vowed to do so immediately. So I suspect we will see some bigger scandals coming down the pipe soon enough.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo: There aren't any legalities to understand; Bush used his powers to protect either his ass or his friends' ass. It's wrong either way. Simple.
Some of us understand how Bush used his powers to protect his own and friend's asses, and that it's wrong, but many support what Bush did - as evidenced by some of the posters on a2k. They don't seem to care that Bush's actions show he's above domestic and international laws.
White House chides Clintons over Libby By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.
Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.
"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"
In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.
The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.
"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."
... meanwhile, somewhere in Canada, a desperate Setanta is crying his heart out. He had insisted with usual clarity and unusual niceness that we stay on topic. It was a simple, common sense request. Yet most posters here have proved too rude or too dumb to heed it.
