Pardon Me ??

[Woody]

What do you think of the Scooter Pardon?

[lazarus]

I guess you know that it wasn't a pardon.

This administration......."Corrupt to the Core"( Joe Wilson)

[Woody]

Corrupt ???

Should we compare it to the Clinton pardons of terrorists rapists and drug dealers?

[Woody]

I will admit that with Clinton ... he lost his license to practice law. Scooter did not. But I think the reason was that the President of the United States SHOULD be held to a higher level.

[Woody]

As far as the "pardon" ... it may not be a full pardon but it he IS experiencing Pardon. Much of the most severe punishment is being "pardoned" or forgiven. And Bush has not ruled out a full "pardon".

[lazarus]

Paris Libby!

http://bp2.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RopaBGYa9XI/AAAAAAAAAdA/7uP0S4UZkJc/s1600-h/parislibbyfinal.jpg

[Amelia]

[Woody]

Quote:

Paris Libby!

Was this a typo and you meant "perish" ?

By the way ... Hiltons trash from Jail ... has been sold on Ebay for hundreds of thousands of dollars. She will profit greatly from going to Jail.

[Woody]

I should point out that while Scooter did not have his law license taken away like Clinton ... Scooter like Clinton does have a felony on his record unless Bush "fully" pardons him. And this will impact his ability to practice law.

Another way to put it ... They are both felons

[there buster]

ONe other tiny little distinction. Clinton actually did perjure himself, while Libby was convicted for what Richard Armitage actually did.

[Woody]

Good Point ED.

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/07/03/noah/index.html

(one mild rude word near the start of the article)

[John317]

I guess you know that it wasn't a pardon.

This administration......."Corrupt to the Core"( Joe Wilson)

You have to understand the history of American president's use of the pardon, which I'm sure you do. It goes all the way back to George Washington, John Adam's and Thomas Jefferson. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pardons. Presidents can use them for any reason they want to, political as well as personal. Remember that Bill Clinton himself gave quite a few political pardons. It is totally up to a President to decide when and how to use it. Libby's conviction and sentence was politically motivated to begin with.

But in any case, the fact that American presidents give pardons is not a sign of corruption. It is simply a perogative the American people have chosen to give their presidents, and for good reasons. I have no reason to criticize any pardons, even those that Bill Clinton gave during his last month in office. And some of those were doozies if ever there have been any.

[John317]

What do you think of the Scooter Pardon?

Only right thing to do, politically. Just like Reagan pardoned Casper Weinberger to protect him from a politically motivated prosecution.

Hillary is totally wrong about why Bush pardoned Scooter. She said it was in order to protect the White House against Scooter's telling the truth about Bush's reason's for going to war. What's the evidence of that? Nothing.

[lazarus]

But in any case, the fact that American presidents give pardons is not a sign of corruption.

But it wasn't a pardon!

[lazarus]

ONe other tiny little distinction. Clinton actually did perjure himself, while Libby was convicted for what Richard Armitage actually did.

Actually no he wasn't.

This was what Libby was convicted of:

1 count of obstruction of justice

1 count of false statements

2 counts of perjury

Did Armitage do any of the above?

Here's the point of the case: (from the transcipt of Fitzgerald's news conference in '05.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340_pf.html

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: John317

But in any case, the fact that American presidents give pardons is not a sign of corruption.

But it wasn't a pardon!

The sentence was "commuted", and he still has to pay the fine of $250K...And, yes, he is a felon...one who can still do a job in politics ...as a fall guy...And now, there is no reason for Scooter to give any information to prosecutors....

[Woody]

I will be interested in Hillary's response to the Scooter deal. Hillary was found to have done the same thing regarding the travel office firings. Her testimony was found to be "inaccurate". And they would have prosecuted her except they stated that they couldn't because the witnesses worked for her husband ... the president.

So "justice" is Blind?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

But it wasn't a pardon! [/quote']

The sentence was "commuted", and he still has to pay the fine of $250K...And, yes, he is a felon...one who can still do a job in politics ...as a fall guy...And now, there is no reason for Scooter to give any information to prosecutors....

Bush is said to be considering a full pardon.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But in any case, the fact that American presidents give pardons is not a sign of corruption.

But it wasn't a pardon!

But the power he used in keeping Libby out of jail was the ability of presidents to grant pardons. The last I heard Bush may well still give Libby a full pardon. Considering the political nature of the prosecution, many are in favor of it.

Now please consider just a few of Clinton's pardons:

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.[9] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.[10]

[edit]Pardons and commutations signed on final day in office

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 cocaine 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.

[Woody]

Quote:

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.

Oh MY !!! I prefer Scooters resume ... over these guys. What are the Democrats complaining about? I just don't understand. Why would you let out a guy like Reynolds ?? Politics by any chance?

[K]

We Christians are funny about stuff. Sin is sin is sin no matter what party they belong. I think nobody wins with this continual badgering of what I consider to be enquirer stuff.

We should be crying for justice if you have been convicted and sentenced. Instead we cry he did it too and so and so did it and on and on and on.

[Woody]

Quote:

Sin is sin

I think I agree with this thought. Thanks 'K'.