Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

McGentrix wrote:

right verdict, wrong sentence.

In that case, I assume you wouldn't agree if the President was to pardon Libby, maybe 18 months from now...?

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

It's not quite as simple as that

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

Quote:

Presidential Clemency Actions, 1789-2001
"Clemency actions" include pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, remissions, etc.

Quote:

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3687

Quote:

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1157

Quote:

Richard Nixon 926

Quote:

Bill Clinton 456

Quote:

Gerald Ford 409

Quote:

Ronald Reagan 406

Quote:

George Bush 77

Quote:

George Washington 16

and many more presidents to admire and consider

(Gerald Ford's the one that puzzles me. Seems to have got in quite a few in a very short period of time.)

Time.com's assessment of the ten most notorious presidential pardons.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

Thanks for the correction - Reagan pardons averaged around 51 per year.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
old europe wrote:
HokieBird wrote:
I've already stated my thinking on why Bush commuted the sentence. I see no reason the judge wouldn't allow Libby to remain free while he sought to appeal.

But the judge saw a reason.

<shrugs>

There must be countless cases were you or the President don't agree with the judge. But either the judicial system is working, or it isn't (and has to be micromanaged by the President).

Otherwise - why intervene in this case?

Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

I guess they had their reasons for intervening, as well. Do you think they were micromanaging the judicial system?

Yes, I think they were. The United States currently have a prison population of roughly 2.3 million people. If you're saying that the judge was wrong in this case, or in Reagan's 51 cases or Clinton's 456 cases, wouldn't that suggest that there are considerable doubts about whether the rest of the convictions are right?

On the other hand, if it turns out that all the pardons (or commuted sentences) benefited some close friends or political allies of the respective president, wouldn't that suggest that the institution of presidential pardons is prone to misuse and abuse?

Just wondering...

Some would see it that way, I suppose. With all that the application process includes, you'd probably have to take it case by case to determine (in your own mind) if it suggested abuse or misuse. Read the Federalist Paper 74 if you'd like to know what the founding fathers had in mind.

In the case of Libby - if he'd have gone to prison immediately and subsequently wins his appeal, I think it would be a travesty of justice to have served a prison sentence for a charge that was later overturned.

0 Replies

The judge called for the rapid jailing of Libby because the former saw little hope of success in the appeal.

What is wrong is to damage the country just to piss off the libs. This happens a lot.

If Clinton had choked Monica, would that make it right for Bush to do this?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

If Clinton had choked Monica, would that make it right for Bush to do this?

yep, it sure would. all that's required is to measure it against something that clinton did or didn't do.

there's something ironic about the clinton haters using a man who they so deeply despise as their moral barometer of right and wrong.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

(Gerald Ford's the one that puzzles me. Seems to have got in quite a few in a very short period of time.)

I would imagine that Ford's total includes all of the pardons he issued to Vietnam War draft dodgers.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
right verdict, wrong sentence.

In that case, I assume you wouldn't agree if the President was to pardon Libby, maybe 18 months from now...?

Now theres a question...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra. [..]

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

Btw, was there anybody here who actually made that claim? Or is it more one of those things where you bring up some claim nobody here made, just so you can then shoot it down again?

Since you dont know how to look things up,I will do it for you this time.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3246090

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-05-voa35.cfm

THere are just 2 examples.
If you google "Highest ranking White house official since Iran-Contra",you will see that there are 167,000 listings.

So,yes the claim was made,and it was wrong.
Unless you think the VP's chief of staff is a higher positionthen a cabinet secretary.

Quote:

Now what about you? Do you have the same problem with the Libby commution as with the Cisneros thing?

Yes,I do.
I dont think anyone convicted of a crime should get a pardon or a commuted sentence.
If the jury convicted you,then you should do your entire sentence in prison.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes,I do.
I dont think anyone convicted of a crime should get a pardon or a commuted sentence.
If the jury convicted you,then you should do your entire sentence in prison.

Boy oh boy. Talk about tough love.

Well, it is the way they do it in China and Russia.

Joe(Must be okay then)Nation

0 Replies

We all know Clinton is a murderer, he killed Vince Foster and a bunch of other people, right? Clinton did this and Clinton did that. That is all these fools have to harp on. Like what Ted Bundy did was OK because Jeffrey Dahlmer did this or Jeffrey Dahlmer did this.

Grow up!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The judge called for the rapid jailing of Libby because the former saw little hope of success in the appeal.

What is wrong is to damage the country just to piss off the libs. This happens a lot.

If Clinton had choked Monica, would that make it right for Bush to do this?

I think it was Monica who choked...oh never mind...

0 Replies

what does any of this have to do with the fact that Libby is a scumbag, Cheney is a bigger scumbag and bush is the biggest scumbag of the bunch? His commuting of Libby was wrong, wrong, wrong and would be if Clinton had pardoned Ted Bundy and Adolph Hitler.

Clinton and bush both are just politicians. Quit blowing them.

Having said that, I would jump over an infinite amount of bushs' on the sharpest day of his life to get to Bill Clinton on his most stupid, but that's beside the point.

0 Replies

Red Herrings, Strawmen is All the Right Here Has Lately
I must ask why the progressives here allow the few Bush apologists left to derail topics with their ridiculous Red Herrings and strawman arguments. Why even address stuff like whether or not Libby was the highest ranking official...yada, yad, yada, or how many people Clinton pardoned, etc.

When the right attempts this tactic, they should just be told it is irrelevant and a Red Herring and to address the issue not what Clitnon did or whether or not Libby is the highest ranking, etc. It is irrelevant. They cannot address the heart of the topic because they have don't have a leg to stand on.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra. [..]

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

Btw, was there anybody here who actually made that claim? Or is it more one of those things where you bring up some claim nobody here made, just so you can then shoot it down again?

Since you dont know how to look things up,I will do it for you this time.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3246090

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-05-voa35.cfm

THere are just 2 examples.
If you google "Highest ranking White house official since Iran-Contra",you will see that there are 167,000 listings.

So,yes the claim was made,and it was wrong.
Unless you think the VP's chief of staff is a higher positionthen a cabinet secretary.

Who the **** cares, it is irrelevant and really a matter of opinion. Highest ranking is a subjective term.

0 Replies

Of this entire group... bushco, I would be hard pressed to decide who is the most rank.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra. [..]

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

Btw, was there anybody here who actually made that claim? Or is it more one of those things where you bring up some claim nobody here made, just so you can then shoot it down again?

Since you dont know how to look things up,I will do it for you this time.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3246090

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-05-voa35.cfm

THere are just 2 examples.
If you google "Highest ranking White house official since Iran-Contra",you will see that there are 167,000 listings.

So,yes the claim was made,and it was wrong.
Unless you think the VP's chief of staff is a higher positionthen a cabinet secretary.

Quote:
Now what about you? Do you have the same problem with the Libby commution as with the Cisneros thing?

Yes,I do.
I dont think anyone convicted of a crime should get a pardon or a commuted sentence.
If the jury convicted you,then you should do your entire sentence in prison.

Maybe you should READ the links before you attempt to use them as suppoprt for your claim... they both say the following:

Quote:

The highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra affair, Libby has steadfastly maintained his innocence.

The only thing I am seeing is your claim is false MM.
The following statements are all true.

Libby is the highest ranking official convicted of a felony since Iran-Contra
Libby is the highest ranking official convicted in a government scandal since Iran-Contra
Libby is the highest ranking official ordered to prison since Iran-Contra.

The RW blather that these statements are lies ignores reality. But if you have anything to show that these statements are not true or that the media has ever said what your original claim is we will be happy to examine it.

0 Replies

mysteryman to nimh wrote:

Since you dont know how to look things up,I will do it for you this time.

Hilarious.

0 Replies

I think there's way too much "Well, Clinton did this." And, "Well this person did that."

Let's stick to the facts.

What the president did was within his powers as written in the Constitution. I don't like it. I don't like him. But he has the right, as much as I think his use of it demonstrates he is totally devoid of morals. (And how being a born-again Christian does not give one superior ethical insight.)

But what makes you think that Bush is not going to abuse power that he has legally, when he's clearly gone beyond the line in other regards? (i.e. sanctioning torture)

I'm no expert on Constitutional law, so my question to someone who is familiar with Constitutional law is this. Can you legally ammend the constitution to strip the president of the powers of pardon under certain conditions (i.e. when the crimes themselves have direct ties to the executive branch)?

He doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of him at this point, so the only solution is to make it so future presidents can't do this anymore. In the meantime, in true Dubya fashion, he thinks it's good to be King.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

I think there's way too much "Well, Clinton did this." And, "Well this person did that."

Let's stick to the facts.

What the president did was within his powers as written in the Constitution. I don't like it. I don't like him. But he has the right, as much as I think his use of it demonstrates he is totally devoid of morals. (And how being a born-again Christian does not give one superior ethical insight.)

But what makes you think that Bush is not going to abuse power that he has legally, when he's clearly gone beyond the line in other regards? (i.e. sanctioning torture)

I'm no expert on Constitutional law, so my question to someone who is familiar with Constitutional law is this. Can you legally ammend the constitution to strip the president of the powers of pardon under certain conditions (i.e. when the crimes themselves have direct ties to the executive branch)?

He doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of him at this point, so the only solution is to make it so future presidents can't do this anymore. In the meantime, in true Dubya fashion, he thinks it's good to be King.

ditto

0 Replies

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know