Bush statement on Libby order

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
More on clemencies being issued throughout a presidency:
COMMUTATIONS, REMISSIONS, AND REPRIEVES
GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
Table of Contents
November 23, 1994
April 17, 1995
August 21, 1995
August 11, 1999
March 15, 2000
July 7, 2000
August 2, 2000
November 21, 2000
December 11, 2000
December 22, 2000
January 20, 2001
usdoj.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm

Fireworks Or Fortitude
Interesting how those stats only include a Democratic President. For a more balanced look, see this link.

usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm

John
 
I don’t need to justify the verdict decided by a jury of his peers after a fair trial presided over by an experienced and conservative federal judge who was appointed by President Reagan.

Libby lied under oath just like Pres. Clinton. He was convicted of perjury, not for exposing a covert operative. It was wrong to lie under oath in both instances. Clinton got impeached and Libby got 30 months plus a fine.

I don’t change my stance on law and order depending on the political leanings of the person involved. I spent most of my adult years working in law enforcement first as an officer and then as an attorney. I believe Libby should do the time that he was given just like the ordinary citizens who get sentenced under the same federal guidelines. I don’t like 2 levels of justice with special privileges for the elite and their friends.

You don’t have to agree with my statements or opinions because luckily in this country every citizen gets their own vote at the polls. I also get my own say in the GOP which does not solely belong to one viewpoint either, so hurrah for the USA.
And luckliy the president has the power to right wrongs. In a way this thread is very similar to the one we had on Tom Delay, You know the one where everyone assured us he was going to jail and was gulity (like Libby) of nefarius deeds. Of course ALL charges were thrown out but only after a partisan DA had forced him out of office. Libby will win on appeal and save this country the embrassment of having an innocent man spend time in jail
 
in his own words from sept. 30, 2003:

"there’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

:eek:
 
in his own words from sept. 30, 2003:

"there’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

:eek:
Large fine and he lost his ability to practice law.
 
I don’t think the president should have intervened in the Scooter Libby case. As a political conservative I believe that the US justice system, though not perfect, is the law of the land and all of the citizenry should hold to it. All the more should our governmental representatives. It doesn’t matter that I don’t like that Scooter was investigated, it doesn’t matter that I think it’s unfair and it stinks. What matters is that the rule of law was applied and now has been relaxed by the President.

If the law was circumvented and there was no legal ways to fix the problem then I can see the President stepping in to fix an injustice followed immediately by a plan to fix it so it didn’t happen again. But that’s not what we have here.

I don’t like that Scooter was going to go to jail, but that’s what the legal system that we have came up with. So he should go. If that same legal system says you have to be behind bars while the appeals are ongoing then so be it. If acquitted on appeals he’d have recourse to redress his grievances.

Are political conservatives for the rule of law? Is that a maxim? I think it is and as such then all the more to stand by the rule of law when it’s hard to do, like in this case.
 
Apparently, Republican appointed judges (4 of 5 I believe) thought he should go to jail. Saddly, the big D got off Scott free.
And, Bob, the case transcript is easily available…he lied, under oath, about a matter of potential national security.

John
Indeed, the transcript is available. The only problem is that the crime which was being investigated did not happen in the executive branch of the government. No one in the executive leaked the name of Valerie Plame. Someone else (Richard Armitage) had admitted that he did it prior to the start of the grand jury. Fitzgerald was determined to get Cheney and when he couldn’t he went for Libby. Libby lied under oath, to questions that never should have been asked in the first place.
 
Did he actually out right lie or did he say he didn’t recall? I’m not sure that is why I’m asking. I think it makes a difference.
 
Are political conservatives for the rule of law? Is that a maxim? I think it is and as such then all the more to stand by the rule of law when it’s hard to do, like in this case.
The rule of law was followed to the letter.
 
Libby lied under oath, to questions that never should have been asked in the first place.
Gee, where have I heard that before? Seems it came from the other side of the aisle some years ago. Whitewater investigation failed…go after his sex life.

Sound familiar?

And since when is the Deputy Secretary of State not a member of the Executive branch?

John
 
Gee, where have I heard that before? Seems it came from the other side of the aisle some years ago. Whitewater investigation failed…go after his sex life.

Sound familiar?

And since when is the Deputy Secretary of State not a member of the Executive branch?

John
Sorry, I did not realize that Condoleesa Rice was part of the discussion. We don’t know whether Whitewater failed or nor. No one had any recall on what happened. And lest you forget, our former president was accused of several very serious crimes that got swept under the rug. But in the grand scheme of things, our Congress is a tit for tat bunch.
 
Sorry, I did not realize that Condoleesa Rice was part of the discussion.
Nor was I…I was referring to Richard Armitage.
And lest you forget, our former president was accused of several very serious crimes that got swept under the rug.
Is that the new term for insufficient evidence…or innocent…or nonsense?

John
 
Nor was I…I was referring to Richard Armitage.

Is that the new term for insufficient evidence…or innocent…or nonsense?

John
Whatever. You have your digs, I have mine. Probably neither are correct as far as the law is concerned.
 
Nor was I…I was referring to Richard Armitage.

Is that the new term for insufficient evidence…or innocent…or nonsense?

John
He was found in comtemp of court fro lying to the Court as I recall. Now if we really want to get into slaps on the wrists for serious crimes we’ll start with Sandy Berger
 
Berger was a fool for what he did and should have been more vigorously prosecuted.

John
 
Berger was a fool for what he did and should have been more vigorously prosecuted.

John
Now how are we going to argue about itr if we agree?

There is one thing we know for sure-every Presdient is going to use the Pardon power and the oppostion party is always going to complain about it as if it had ever happened before.

Ar least we are not seeing people caned nearly to death on the floor of the House.
 
in his own words from sept. 30, 2003:

"there’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

:eek:
And it looks like Libby was, indeed, taken care of.
 
He was found in comtemp of court fro lying to the Court as I recall. Now if we really want to get into slaps on the wrists for serious crimes we’ll start with Sandy Berger
I have never understood how that got swept under the rug so fast. The man admittedly took secret documents and then they disappeared and they would have us believe Berger is a bumpling boob who does stuff like this because he is not organized. SURE! Unfortunately we will never know the extent of what is now missing, but I think we have a pretty good idea what it is.
 
He was found in comtemp of court fro lying to the Court as I recall. Now if we really want to get into slaps on the wrists for serious crimes we’ll start with Sandy Berger
I have never understood how that got swept under the rug so fast. The man admittedly took secret documents and then they disappeared and they would have us believe Berger is a bumpling boob who does stuff like this because he is not organized. SURE! Unfortunately we will never know the extent of what is now missing, but I think we have a pretty good idea what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top