Scooter Scoots - A George Dubya first
Danbob
telegraph sound they used to make in the old movies when there was
breaking news . . .
George W. has pardoned Scooter Libby for all of his jail time. The
fine remains intact.
Carol and I discussed this last week and she asked if I thought he
would, to which I replied, "Naw . . . he never met a pardon he liked.
In all his years in Texas as governor there were more executions than
any other governor. I don't think he knows how to spell the word."
BUT . . . I was wrong. He HAS met a pardon he liked. Perhaps if all
the people in death row in Texas had been named Scooter, or Buffy, or
Chads, or Brownie . . .
And now we'll return you to your regularly scheduled chat group.
db
p.s. has Scooter been in the calaboose, or dies this mean that Paris
Hilton actually did more time than he did?
Danbob
Here's a clip from the Austin Statesman:
"Of 154 capital cases presented to Gov. Bush for possible commutation
of sentence, W. sent 151 men and two women to their deaths. In the
154th case, that of serial murderer Henry Lee Lucas, the governor
relented only because two attorneys general confirmed that he was on a
job in Jacksonville, Fla., when he was supposed to be in Williamson
Co. committing the crime for which he was sentenced to die."
Wow . . . I got a feeling this one's not going to sit well with a lot
of people.
dan
Gene
he say he would do?
Gene
Danbob
Hey Gene,
Well, they got their spin meisters on it big time. The dominant theme
seems to be: "Clinton did it, too! Clinton did it, too!" Gosh, I
thought the Republicans were big on being responsible for your own
actions. "Billy did it first. Billy started it!"
Apparently the thinking at the White House is that most of the
Congress and Senate are out of town for the 4th of July, and they're
hoping it'll all blow over by the end of the holiday. Once again,
not, "Is this right or wrong," but, "How can we maximize our chances
of getting away with it?"
Saw one analyst tonight who said, "The President is within his rights
to do this and there's nothing the Democrats can do about it." Once
again, not, " Is this right or wrong," but, "We can do it whether you
like it or not."
Just keep tying those tin cans to your own tail, George.
dan
Valeria Palmer
Charming phraseology, Gene.
I don't think Libby should have been found guilty - it's quite clear
that half of DC knew and was talking about Ms. Plame's occupation,
mostly because her husband had been blabbering about it to anyone who
had ears.
I find this less problematic than pardons with pricetags hanging off them.
Gene
>
>>>
>> This shows just how low the draft dodger, oath breaker can go. What
>> did he say he would do?
>> Gene
>
>
> Charming phraseology, Gene.
>
> I don't think Libby should have been found guilty - it's quite clear
> that half of DC knew and was talking about Ms. Plame's occupation,
> mostly because her husband had been blabbering about it to anyone who
> had ears.
>
> I find this less problematic than pardons with pricetags hanging off them.
>
Two words:
bull shit.
The shrub has once more gone back on what he said. This is not surprising.
You might stop listening to Rush, Ann, Mike, etc, and see what is closer
to reality.
You may be right, Libby was a fall guy. But Dick and George don't seem
to want to step forward and put their necks on the block - where they
should rest. CHUNK
Gene
Valeria Palmer
I don't listen to any of the above. Rush is ridiculous, Ms Coulter is
too fond of outragous hyperbole, and I don't know who you refer to as
Mike. The only talk radio I listen to is Dave Ramsey.
However, I did carefully read the proceedings of the investigation ans
it was pungently obvious that Ms. Plame's occupation was a> no secret
and b> that she was not endangered. They prosecuted Libby under the
same vindictive logic as that used to prosecute Martha Stewart - if you
can't prove anything real, prosecute for inconsistencies between
interviews and testimony. In fact, I consider her prosecutuion on those
flimsy charges to be one of the most dangerous examples of prosecution
run amok.
H
> However, I did carefully read the proceedings of the investigation ans
> it was pungently obvious that Ms. Plame's occupation was a> no secret
> and b> that she was not endangered. They prosecuted Libby under the
> same vindictive logic as that used to prosecute Martha Stewart - if you
> can't prove anything real, prosecute for inconsistencies between
> interviews and testimony. In fact, I consider her prosecutuion on those
> flimsy charges to be one of the most dangerous examples of prosecution
> run amok.
It is abundantly clear that at the time that Libby testified, the
prosecutor knew who the leaker was - Richard Armitage, in the State
Department. I've read that the prosecutor asked Armitage and his boss,
Colin Powell, not to reveal Armitage's confession. The only reason I can
think of for this is that the prosecutor might have believed that
despite Armitage's confession, someone else did something illegal in
connection with the leak. So his bringing Libby before the grand jury
makes sense.
The thing is, the leak itself was not illegal - otherwise, Armitage
would have been indicted. In fact, the claim that there had been a
criminal leak aimed at "outing" Valerie Plame is simply not true. But
don't expect that to change the public perception. The media decided to
play Plame & Wilson's version of the story as the truth, and are
continuing to do so. For example, in the Reuter's newstory
<http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSWAT00783220070702>
Plame's allegations are repeated, without a word about the fact that the
allegations are not true.
That Libby's testimony before the grand jury was not correct seems to me
to be likely. Whether he lied - that is, delliberately misled the grand
jury - is a little less clear. On the one hand, he was convicted by a
jury. On the other, from what I've read, the jury seems to have been
less than unbiased.
It looks to me like Bush was prepared to wait & see what the Court of
Appeals said before acting himself, but when the Court decided not to
stay Libby's jail time while the case was on appeal, Bush's hand was
forced - it's clear he was trying to wait until all the proceedings were
over before deciding what to do, but now he had to make some kind of
decision or let Libby go to jail. The irony is that I'd bet that if the
Court of Appeals had let Libby wait to serve his time, and then upheld
the sentence, Bush might not have done anything for Libby at all in the
end.
What puzzles me is why Libby was even prosecuted. The only thing I can
figure is that Fitzgerald believed that even though Armitage was the
actual leaker, there was other stuff going on in Cheney's office that
Libby was trying to hide. Whether any other stuff was actually going on
will have to wait for Libby's book deal.
--
Harmon is at mac.com
Gene
branch, so Mr. Libby's sentence couldn't be executed.
I have to agree with Harmon. Libby was small fish compared to the real
culprits.
I'd like to know the source of the story that a covert CIA agent was
well known to be a covert CIA agent. I knew a guy who worked for the
CIA in civilian life - he was on the Artillery Team in the military. He
told me that overt CIA employees are wide open, but the covert ones are
very, very secret. It's possible that Ms. Plume was a covert agent
whose cover was that she was an overt CIA employee. Purloined Letter,
if you will.
Gene
Danbob
>
> I don't listen to any of the above. Rush is ridiculous, Ms Coulter is
> too fond of outragous hyperbole, and I don't know who you refer to as
> Mike. The only talk radio I listen to is Dave Ramsey.
>
> However, I did carefully read the proceedings of the investigation ans
> it was pungently obvious that Ms. Plame's occupation was a> no secret
> and b> that she was not endangered. They prosecuted Libby under the
> same vindictive logic as that used to prosecute Martha Stewart - if you
> can't prove anything real, prosecute for inconsistencies between
> interviews and testimony. In fact, I consider her prosecutuion on those
> flimsy charges to be one of the most dangerous examples of prosecution
> run amok.
Hey Valeria,
I actually agree with you about the Martha Stewart prosecution, but I
sure don't see how the outcomes compare. Stewart did her time and
this guy skated.
How we feel about the outcome isn't really the point to me. The point
is: he was tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty. He was
sentenced by an elected judge. Unlike most of us, he had enough money
to avail himself of the appeals process. The President of the United
States steps into the middle of it and basically says, "I don't care
what the judge and the jury thought, this is what I think."
Bush's little rap about how he's still got to pay a fine is bogus,
too. The Republican right has already deposited millions in the guy's
defense fund. 250 thou is NOTHING to him. He walked on his
conviction - completely and totally.
db
I repeat what I've said before: neither party is getting it. Why do
you think people were so pissed off about the Paris Hilton deal?
They're sick and tired of the perception that normal people get
chopped by the justice system and rich, connected people just call
their friends.
Danbob
Hey Harmon,
Yup, it's hard to know what goes on behind the scenes. Here are a
couple of things that've come out today:
Bush and Putin and the entire White House press corps were in
Kenneybunkport yesterday and Bush didn't mention a word about this at
their press conferences. Bush suddenly flies back to Washington
without telling the press corps that he's going. Bush releases his
statement about the pardon just before news time on the east coast.
The entire press corps is sitting in Maine with their thumbs up their
butts, going, "Whaaaaat? What's he doing in Washington?"
And - I'm sure you know about this - there's apparently a section of
the justice department that deals exclusively with pardons and
appeals. Bush didn't bother to consult with them or any other member
of the justice department according to Tony Snow's morning briefing.
BUT . . . he only made the decision after, "long and careful
consideration."
So . . . appearances, appearances, appearances . . . if it was such an
up front, compassionate decision, why did he run away from all of the
reporters and release the news just before the 4th? If he considered
it so carefully, why didn't he talk to anyone in the JD about it? It
has the appearance of a sleazy, back door deal to protect his own ass.
Once again, he's playing to the extreme right wing of the Republican
party. And, at one point or another, it's going to occur to the
middle of the road Republicans that he's destroying their chances for
reelection.
What's his approval rating now? 24%? Go George, go!!!
db
Valeria Palmer
Danbob wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:33 pm, Valeria Palmer <valeriapal...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't listen to any of the above. Rush is ridiculous, Ms Coulter is
>>too fond of outragous hyperbole, and I don't know who you refer to as
>>Mike. The only talk radio I listen to is Dave Ramsey.
>>
>>However, I did carefully read the proceedings of the investigation ans
>>it was pungently obvious that Ms. Plame's occupation was a> no secret
>>and b> that she was not endangered. They prosecuted Libby under the
>>same vindictive logic as that used to prosecute Martha Stewart - if you
>>can't prove anything real, prosecute for inconsistencies between
>>interviews and testimony. In fact, I consider her prosecutuion on those
>>flimsy charges to be one of the most dangerous examples of prosecution
>>run amok.
>
>
> Hey Valeria,
>
> I actually agree with you about the Martha Stewart prosecution, but I
> sure don't see how the outcomes compare. Stewart did her time and
> this guy skated.
>
> How we feel about the outcome isn't really the point to me. The point
> is: he was tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty. He was
> sentenced by an elected judge. Unlike most of us, he had enough money
> to avail himself of the appeals process. The President of the United
> States steps into the middle of it and basically says, "I don't care
> what the judge and the jury thought, this is what I think."
Dan, that's fine. He has not been pardoned. He had his sentence
commuted. He's still a felon pending appeal.
Compare that to the Marc Rich PARDON and the other bought and paid for
pardons from the last administration and your eyes will bug out.
Additionally, I fail to see why someone should be compelled to
incriminate themselves in front of a grand jury. I'm sure there is some
fancy pants legal reason, but it doesn;t seem right to me. Frankly, I
don't see how they convicted Martha of lying to investigatos - it's not
like they had her under oath or anything. Misleading coppers shouldn;t
get you federal prison time.
>
> Bush's little rap about how he's still got to pay a fine is bogus,
> too. The Republican right has already deposited millions in the guy's
> defense fund. 250 thou is NOTHING to him. He walked on his
> conviction - completely and totally.
He's still a felon.
>
> I repeat what I've said before: neither party is getting it. Why do
> you think people were so pissed off about the Paris Hilton deal?
> They're sick and tired of the perception that normal people get
> chopped by the justice system and rich, connected people just call
> their friends.
I agree with you there. But I put it to you that Mr. Libby was a
scapegoat because the Dems where trying to get Cheney or Rove and
settled for that cheesy little conviction when they couldn't get the
larger prey.
Valeria Palmer
Danbob wrote:
I think he's sick of the press and their reflexive LibUrb biases. I
know I am. I don;t mind an honest liberal, but the LibUrbs are reallt
cheesing me.
Gene
>
>
> Compare that to the Marc Rich PARDON and the other bought and paid for
> pardons from the last administration and your eyes will bug out.
>
While I'm not sure I agree with all the Clinton end of term pardons, I'd
like you to cite evidence to support the above comment. This is right
wing speculation at best.
Here's the deal. Did Cheney and Bush buy Libby's silence with the
pardon? The finger points towards their being involved.
As Danbob points out, the action of Bush in the matter of this
commutation is suspicious.
Gene
Danbob
>
> Dan, that's fine. He has not been pardoned. He had his sentence
> commuted. He's still a felon pending appeal.
Well, realistically, though, Valeria, what does that mean to this
guy? He's right at the point in life where you'd expect him to be
retiring and going in to lobbying. So . . . he's a felon . . . so he
can't practice law (maybe) and he can't vote. If you or I lied to a
grand jury and obstructed justice, would they just say, "Hey, we're
not letting you vote in the next election?"
>
> Compare that to the Marc Rich PARDON and the other bought and paid for
> pardons from the last administration and your eyes will bug out.
> Additionally, I fail to see why someone should be compelled to
> incriminate themselves in front of a grand jury. I'm sure there is some
> fancy pants legal reason, but it doesn;t seem right to me. Frankly, I
> don't see how they convicted Martha of lying to investigatos - it's not
> like they had her under oath or anything. Misleading coppers shouldn;t
> get you federal prison time.
I agree with you on a gut level on that, but that is the way it is.
And you may remember that the Republicans didn't go after Slick Willy
because of his extracurricular activities, they went after him for
lying about it. I hope that at some time or another we can get over
this, "Well, they did it first," mentality that we've all got now a
days, and start demanding more from these jerks, no matter which party
they belong to.
>
>
> > I repeat what I've said before: neither party is getting it. Why do
> > you think people were so pissed off about the Paris Hilton deal?
> > They're sick and tired of the perception that normal people get
> > chopped by the justice system and rich, connected people just call
> > their friends.
>
> I agree with you there. But I put it to you that Mr. Libby was a
> scapegoat because the Dems where trying to get Cheney or Rove and
> settled for that cheesy little conviction when they couldn't get the
> larger prey.
I agree. The question at hand, though, is whether the Prez should be
handing out get out of jail free cards to his political cronies once
the criminal justice system has spoken. I don't think so and I
suspect a lot of moderate Republicans don't think so, either. You may
remember that Susan McDougal did ALL of her time and a bunch more when
she was the political scapegoat for Clinton.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. It may be that they're
right and we as a nation don't have the attention span to remember a
story 3 days after it occurs.
db
H
> So . . . appearances, appearances, appearances . . . if it was such an
> up front, compassionate decision, why did he run away from all of the
> reporters and release the news just before the 4th?
Because the simple fact of the matter is that he has pleased no one with
this decision, & he damn well knew he wouldn't. He knew that the
Democrats would lambaste him, he knew that the Republicans would think
that he had not done enough, and he knew that the press would
misrepresent what he had done. Perfectly predictable.
> If he considered it so carefully, why didn't he talk to anyone in the JD
> about it?
See my other email. DJ has no role in the prosecution nor in the
execution of presidential powers in situations like this.
> It
> has the appearance of a sleazy, back door deal to protect his own ass.
Could be - except exactly how is he protecting himself? Even in the most
paranoid expectations of the looney left, he is just protecting Cheney.
And from what - Armitage made the disclosure.
Nope, that dog won't hunt.
H
> What's his approval rating now? 24%? Go George, go!!!
Yep. Only ten points higher than Congress. Who are, as Mark Twain
observed, our only native criminal class.
Where is Ross Perot now that we need him?
H
> And - I'm sure you know about this - there's apparently a section of
> the justice department that deals exclusively with pardons and
> appeals. Bush didn't bother to consult with them or any other member
> of the justice department according to Tony Snow's morning briefing.
> BUT . . . he only made the decision after, "long and careful
> consideration."
The criteria used by DJ to judge whether pardons or commutations should
be issued apply to your standard DJ prosecutions. This was a special
prosecutor situation, and the DJ criteria are not the ones that should
be used.
Not exactly apples & oranges, but perhaps peaches & nectarines. What I
mean by that is that the DJ criteria are part of a bureaucratic process
that every president uses to systemitize the process by which the iron
rule of law is softened by human experience & judgement, in connection
with normal DJ prosecutions.
But what is going on with Libby does not fit into that framework. The
Founders gave the president the exclusive power to pardon - they did not
condition it on, for example, on the advice & consent of the Senate, or
the recommendation of the Attorney General. The president's ability to
pardon is subject to abuse - as when Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican
terrorits. But the commuting of Libby's sentence is exactly what the
power to pardon & commute is intended to foster.
A man gets a $250,000 fine, and two and a half years imprisonment, &
loses his law license for lying to a grand jury about a crime that did
not occur? No crime, no jail time - makes sense to me. Losing your law
licence for lying to the grand jury - makes sense to me. Getting hit
with a fine? Probably irrelevant if he gets a book deal, which he might
not now that he's not going to jail - & anyway, someone else will pay it
for him.
(Want some irony? Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer when Rich got the Clinton
pardon.)
Let me tell you, I had a case against an accountant who set up a tax
shelter scheme that my guys proved was fraudulent, & we hit him with the
civil fraud penalty. He spent the next ten years trying to reverse the
decision - includingg accusing me - and utterly failed. (I got a nice
compliment in a footnote in the 7th Circuit opinion.) I had another case
where we did much the same thing against a lawyer who was forced to
resign from some prestigious positions - he went all the way to the
Supreme Court, but we still nailed him. (I formulated the theory of the
case which the judge sustained.) Reputation is everything, even to
crooks, particularly to lawyer crooks. Bush left Libby with a conviction
- he will bear that for the rest of his life.
But anyway, if you are looking to bash Bush for not using the DJ
procedures & criteria you are simply wrong in your assumption that they
are applicable in this situation. But you are not alone. You have the
same opinion as some reporters. That should give you pause.
H
> Once again, he's playing to the extreme right wing of the Republican
> party.
No, you are wrong about that. The extreme right wing is POed because it
wasn't a total pardon. If he were playing to them it would have been a
full pardon.
>And, at one point or another, it's going to occur to the
> middle of the road Republicans that he's destroying their chances for
> reelection.
Nope. He did that with the immigration fiasco.
-------
Harmon is at mac.com
H
> I think he's sick of the press and their reflexive LibUrb biases. I
> know I am. I don;t mind an honest liberal, but the LibUrbs are reallt
> cheesing me.
Never heard that term "LibUrb." It pretty much stumped Google. But it
has a certain onomatopoeic ring to it.
H
> And - I'm sure you know about this - there's apparently a section of
> the justice department that deals exclusively with pardons and
> appeals. Bush didn't bother to consult with them or any other member
> of the justice department according to Tony Snow's morning briefing.
> BUT . . . he only made the decision after, "long and careful
> consideration."
The criteria used by DJ to judge whether pardons or commutations should
be issued apply to your standard DJ prosecutions. This was a special
prosecutor situation, and the DJ criteria are not the ones that should
be used.
Not exactly apples & oranges, but perhaps peaches & nectarines. What I
mean by that is that the DJ criteria are part of a bureaucratic process
that every president uses to systemitize the process by which the iron
rule of law is softened by human experience & judgement, in connection
with normal DJ prosecutions.
But what is going on with Libby does not fit into that framework. The
Founders gave the president the exclusive power to pardon - they did not
condition it on, for example, on the advice & consent of the Senate, or
the recommendation of the Attorney General. The president's ability to
pardon is subject to abuse - as when Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican
terrorists. But the commuting of Libby's sentence is exactly what the
--
Harmon is at mac.com
H
>
> Well, realistically, though, Valeria, what does that mean to this
> guy? He's right at the point in life where you'd expect him to be
> retiring and going in to lobbying. So . . . he's a felon . . . so he
> can't practice law (maybe) and he can't vote. If you or I lied to a
> grand jury and obstructed justice, would they just say, "Hey, we're
> not letting you vote in the next election?"
Hey, I just answered your question in another post! Please don't ask
your questions after I've answered them. It upsets the space-time
continuum.
H
> And - I'm sure you know about this - there's apparently a section of
> the justice department that deals exclusively with pardons and
> appeals. Bush didn't bother to consult with them or any other member
> of the justice department according to Tony Snow's morning briefing.
> BUT . . . he only made the decision after, "long and careful
> consideration."
The criteria used by DJ to judge whether pardons or commutations should
be issued apply to your standard DJ prosecutions. This was a special
prosecutor situation, and the DJ criteria are not the ones that should
be used.
Not exactly apples & oranges, but perhaps peaches & nectarines. What I
mean by that is that the DJ criteria are part of a bureaucratic process
that every president uses to systemitize the process by which the iron
rule of law is softened by human experience & judgement, in connection
with normal DJ prosecutions.
But what is going on with Libby does not fit into that framework. The
Founders gave the president the exclusive power to pardon - they did not
condition it on, for example, on the advice & consent of the Senate, or
the recommendation of the Attorney General. The president's ability to
pardon is subject to abuse - as when Clinton pardoned the Puerto Rican
terrorists. But the commuting of Libby's sentence is exactly what the
power to pardon & commute is intended to foster.
A man gets a $250,000 fine, and two and a half years imprisonment, &
loses his law license for lying to a grand jury about a crime that did
not occur? No crime, no jail time - makes sense to me. Losing your law
license for lying to the grand jury - makes sense to me. Getting hit
with a fine? Probably irrelevant if he gets a book deal, which he might
not now that he's not going to jail - & anyway, someone else will pay it
for him.
(Want some irony? Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer when Rich got the Clinton
pardon.)
Let me tell you, I had a case against an accountant who set up a tax
shelter scheme that my guys proved was fraudulent, & we hit him with the
civil fraud penalty. He spent the next ten years trying to reverse the
decision - including accusing me - and utterly failed. (I got a nice
compliment in a footnote in the 7th Circuit opinion.) I had another case
where we did much the same thing against a lawyer who was forced to
resign from some prestigious positions - he went all the way to the
Supreme Court, but we still nailed him. (I formulated the theory of the
case which the judge sustained.) Reputation is everything, even to
crooks, particularly to lawyer crooks. Bush left Libby with a conviction
- he will bear that for the rest of his life.
But anyway, if you are looking to bash Bush for not using the DJ
procedures & criteria you are simply wrong in your assumption that they
are applicable in this situation. But you are not alone. You have the
same opinion as some reporters. That should give you pause.
--
Harmon is at mac.com
Valeria Palmer
From Wikipedia:
#
# 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. Clinton agreed to a
pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he
could return to the United States. 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]
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]
# 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. 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]
Examples of financial irregularities?
As for for ciommuting Libby's sentence, is it and has it not been normal
for administrations to pardon/commute those who "fall on their swords"
for the administration. Libby wasn't convicted of doing what he was
prosecuted for - they Marthaed him.
Valeria Palmer
Danbob wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:38 pm, Valeria Palmer <valeriapal...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan, that's fine. He has not been pardoned. He had his sentence
>>commuted. He's still a felon pending appeal.
>
>
> Well, realistically, though, Valeria, what does that mean to this
> guy? He's right at the point in life where you'd expect him to be
> retiring and going in to lobbying. So . . . he's a felon . . . so he
> can't practice law (maybe) and he can't vote. If you or I lied to a
> grand jury and obstructed justice, would they just say, "Hey, we're
> not letting you vote in the next election?"
I don't think a felon can register as a lobbyist. I may be mistaken.
And hey, if someone wanted me to tell a grand jury about shit I might be
prosecuted for? Ain't that covered by the 5th?
>>I agree with you there. But I put it to you that Mr. Libby was a
>>scapegoat because the Dems where trying to get Cheney or Rove and
>>settled for that cheesy little conviction when they couldn't get the
>>larger prey.
>
>
> I agree. The question at hand, though, is whether the Prez should be
> handing out get out of jail free cards to his political cronies once
> the criminal justice system has spoken. I don't think so and I
> suspect a lot of moderate Republicans don't think so, either. You may
> remember that Susan McDougal did ALL of her time and a bunch more when
> she was the political scapegoat for Clinton.
And then she got a full pardon.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. It may be that they're
> right and we as a nation don't have the attention span to remember a
> story 3 days after it occurs.
Possibly. I am noting though again, that the conviction was not set
aside, just the sentence. You might want to research perjury dsentences
... and see if Libby's sentence is consistent?
Valeria Palmer
H wrote:
Not to mention that some democrat heads are going to roll. I think some
of the African American vote is perturbed byt ther pro amnesty votes of
their reps becvause the blacks know that the Mexicans are undercutting
them in the entry level labor area and lowering wages.
Valeria Palmer
H wrote:
My coinage, I suppose, for the coastal Liberal types who think that
anyone in "flyover country" is a retarded child who must be led to the
light.
Danbob
H
> My coinage, I suppose, for the coastal Liberal types who think that
> anyone in "flyover country" is a retarded child who must be led to the
> light.
Kind of sounds like a burp a fish might make....liburb, liburb...you can
almost see the bubbles...
H
> Not to mention that some democrat heads are going to roll. I think some
> of the African American vote is perturbed byt ther pro amnesty votes of
> their reps becvause the blacks know that the Mexicans are undercutting
> them in the entry level labor area and lowering wages.
Maybe. But OTOH, it might just be wishful thinking among us right wing
types. I think that blacks, for historical reasons, are always going to
be attracted to the party of Big Government, & despite Bush's attempt to
establish a Republican version of Big Government, in the end, blacks are
going to vote Democrat because they know that Big Government is the main
point in every Democratic policy. They can't trust the Republicans, who
claim to believe in quaint notions of liberty, economic freedom,
individual responsibility, free speech &c. Somehow, those notions have
never done blacks much good in the past.
Valeria Palmer
Works for me ....
Danbob
Hey Harmon,
I think your new Apple computer has dyslexia or something. I've read
this same post in three different sections now.
So . . . boiling it all down, Harmon . . . do you think that it's
appropriate for a member of the executive branch to override the
decisions of a judge and jury simply because he disagrees with those
decisions?
And, remember, you're the same guy who was saying last week that you
really didn't care if the Mexican lettuce pickers were nice guys or if
they were taking care of their families - what matters is that they're
breaking the law.
So, if you're a friend of the Prez and you lie to federal
investigators, that's okay. On the other hand, if you're a poor
Mexican who only wants to work, you should be shot at the border?
They're both breaking the law. Why should one be punished and not the
other?
db
Danbob
>
> I don't think a felon can register as a lobbyist. I may be mistaken.
> And hey, if someone wanted me to tell a grand jury about shit I might be
> prosecuted for? Ain't that covered by the 5th?
Hey Valeria,
Nope, it's not covered by the 5th because of the way the questions
were structured. And I notice that Harmon isn't jumping in here to
tell you that it's not covered by the 5th, even though he knows it's
not. If I had suggested it was covered by the 5th, there would have
been a 15 page legal brief posted immediately, with references all the
way back to Henry the 8th, ending with the sentence, "But of course,
as a liberal, you wouldn't know that."
By the way, if you want to talk about rights we're supposed to have
that we don't, how about protection against double jeopardy? How many
times a day do the feds reprosecute someone for the exact same offense
that they've already been convicted and punished for on the state
level? Happens to people on drug offenses all the time.
>
. You may
> > remember that Susan McDougal did ALL of her time and a bunch more when
> > she was the political scapegoat for Clinton.
>
> And then she got a full pardon.
After she'd been in jail for months and months and months. Hell,
she'd already served more time on the contempt citation than if she'd
been tried and convicted.
>
>
>
> Possibly. I am noting though again, that the conviction was not set
> aside, just the sentence. You might want to research perjury dsentences
> ... and see if Libby's sentence is consistent?
Valeria, I worked in a law office for 16 years and I'm no shrinking
virgin about perjury. People commit perjury in this country thousands
of times a day, every day of the year, except court holidays. The
judges know it and the lawyers know it, I'm not saying that the
offense was laughable or serious, and I'm not saying that the sentence
was right, wrong or in the middle. I AM saying that I don't think it
was appropriate for the Prez to commute his sentence and there is NO
possible explanation for that happening except political cronyism.
dan
Valeria Palmer
Danbob wrote:
Danbob, d00d, the Founding Fathers thought it was important for the
executive branch to have that power, you know?
Valeria Palmer
H
> So . . . boiling it all down, Harmon . . . do you think that it's
> appropriate for a member of the executive branch to override the
> decisions of a judge and jury simply because he disagrees with those
> decisions?
I think it is the president's absolute power under the Constitution. In
fact, I *know* that it is. So your question about appropriateness is, on
one level, meaningless - the Founders obviously thought it was
appropriate, put it in the Constitution, and that *makes* it
appropriate.
If you are asking me whether I personally think the president should
have the power to pardon, my response would be "yes." The power to
pardon has a long history in English law. Alexander Hamilton covered
some of the rationale for presidential pardons in Federalist 74,
<http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed74.htm>
If you are asking me if I think Bush should have commuted - not
pardoned, commuted - Libby's sentence, I tend to think he was right. I
don't like the idea of sending someone to jail for covering up a crime
that didn't occur. OTOH, I don't like the idea of someone getting away
with lying to a grand jury, so I think that leaving his conviction
intact while commuting the jail portion of the sentence makes sense.
And if you are asking whether I think that the president should be
required to have anything other than his own opinion to support his
decision, I would say that it is precisely that his opinion that the
power to pardon is based on - as Hamilton points out.
Frankly, my only objection to Bush's use of the pardon power is that
there are at least two other cases of which I am aware in which the
facts as I understand them should result in a full presidential pardon,
which he has not given.
> And, remember, you're the same guy who was saying last week that you
> really didn't care if the Mexican lettuce pickers were nice guys or if
> they were taking care of their families - what matters is that they're
> breaking the law.
Well, the president could pardon them all, even before they were
convicted - viz Ford pardoning Nixon. Might get a bit of writer's cramp,
though.
But if you can't see the difference between prosecuting people for
breaking the law and commuting a sentence that is too harsh, I can only
repeat what Samuel Johnson once said: "Sir, I have found you an
argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
> So, if you're a friend of the Prez and you lie to federal
> investigators, that's okay. On the other hand, if you're a poor
> Mexican who only wants to work, you should be shot at the border?
If we aren't prepared to shoot people who intentionally violate our
borders, we don't have any borders. I think we should have borders, and
I think that people who intentionally violate thm should understand that
we will shoot at them when they try. I don't think that we can enforce a
border like the Mexican border, when tens or hundreds of thousands of
people are violating it, if we aren't prepared to shoot violators.
You got a better idea? "We'd all like to hear your plan." What we are
doing now sure ain't working.
Incidentally, Libby did not lie to federal investigators. He lied to the
grand jury. And he has wound up with pretty much the same punishment as
Clinton did for lying during the judicial process. Do you think that
Clinton should have gone to jail?
> They're both breaking the law. Why should one be punished and not the
> other?
Dan, Bush did NOT eliminate Libby's conviction nor his punishment. He
merely *reduced* part of the punishment. They are both being punished -
assuming that you can call being deported back to where you belong a
"punishment."
BTW, I didn't post the "same" post several times, but I did make the
same point more than once, because it is relevant in response to several
different approaches you have been taking on this topic. Plus, it is so
well worded, and persuasive to the open minded, and laden with wisdom &
common sense that it should not only be posted several times, but
memorized by schoolchildren not yet born, and passed on to their
grandchildren as an example of the giants who were on the internet in
our day...
H
> Nope, it's not covered by the 5th because of the way the questions
> were structured. And I notice that Harmon isn't jumping in here to
> tell you that it's not covered by the 5th, even though he knows it's
> not.
I don't tend to jump in to comment on posts until I've read them. Bad
habit on the internet, I know, but there it is...
> If I had suggested it was covered by the 5th, there would have
> been a 15 page legal brief posted immediately, with references all the
> way back to Henry the 8th, ending with the sentence, "But of course,
> as a liberal, you wouldn't know that."
As a matter of current law, IIRC, it is not covered by the 5th but only
if the witness is given immunity from prosecution, or if the judge
determines that the witness is not, in fact, in a position where he is
imperiled if he answers.
As far as I know, the structure of the questioning is not relevant. I'm
not saying catgegorically that this is the case, because I don't know.
But I don't think it is. Unless by "structure" you are referring to
exactly how close the prosecutor can cut it in his questioning, in which
case it does have some bearing.
And listen, I can't help it if you are a liberal. You will have to deal
with that defect yourself. It does not help that you live in California,
but I was actually BORN there, & managed to escape the contagion, so I
am sure that with an effort, you will succeed.
> By the way, if you want to talk about rights we're supposed to have
> that we don't, how about protection against double jeopardy? How many
> times a day do the feds reprosecute someone for the exact same offense
> that they've already been convicted and punished for on the state
> level? Happens to people on drug offenses all the time.
Technically, it's not double jeopardy if the prosecution is being made
by a different soveriegn - i.e, by the feds after the states mucked the
case up, or vice versa. However, if the argument about the 14th
amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states is correct - and on
the whole I think it is - I don't really see how the technical argument
can be correct.
But remember - the decision that double prosecution by the state & the
feds was Constitutional was made in the context of southern state juries
letting racist criminals off in the face of overwhelming evidence of
their guilt. Just another example of how our national original sin,
slavery, has resulted in damage to our Constitution in our necessary
pursuit of racial justice.
H
> Nope, it's not covered by the 5th because of the way the questions
> were structured. And I notice that Harmon isn't jumping in here to
> tell you that it's not covered by the 5th, even though he knows it's
> not.
I don't tend to jump in to comment on posts until I've read them. Bad
habit on the internet, I know, but there it is...
> If I had suggested it was covered by the 5th, there would have
> been a 15 page legal brief posted immediately, with references all the
> way back to Henry the 8th, ending with the sentence, "But of course,
> as a liberal, you wouldn't know that."
As a matter of current law, IIRC, it is not covered by the 5th but only
if the witness is given immunity from prosecution, or if the judge
determines that the witness is not, in fact, in a position where he is
imperiled if he answers.
As far as I know, the structure of the questioning is not relevant. I'm
not saying catgegorically that this is the case, because I don't know.
But I don't think it is. Unless by "structure" you are referring to
exactly how close the prosecutor can cut it in his questioning, in which
case it does have some bearing.
I would never have said "but of course, as a liberal, you wouldn't know
that." I would have said "but of course, as a liberal, you wouldn't care
about that." This would not only zing you more correctly, but contain a
double-zing in that it would present you as "uncaring." I would then be
two points ahead, & have the ball.
And listen, I can't help it if you are a liberal. You will have to deal
with that defect yourself. It does not help that you live in California,
but I was actually BORN there, & managed to escape the contagion, so I
am sure that with an effort, you will succeed.
(swish - 3 points!)
> By the way, if you want to talk about rights we're supposed to have
> that we don't, how about protection against double jeopardy? How many
> times a day do the feds reprosecute someone for the exact same offense
> that they've already been convicted and punished for on the state
> level? Happens to people on drug offenses all the time.
Technically, it's not double jeopardy if the prosecution is being made
Gene
Funny thing, our local paper, as it does every year on the Fourth, turns
the editorial page over to voices of the past, to include printing the
Declaration of Independence. NPR last night, as it does every year,
broadcast the DC Fourth program.
Harmon, you sound like one of those folks in the Middle East who gets
quoted as saying "Well, the terrorists aren't really Muslim. They have
perverted Islam." I know some fundamentalists very well. They are
POSITIVE they, and only they, are right. My thouight is that if you are
not God, they you have no idea if a person is or is not a Christian, or
a Jew, or a Muslim, or a believer in the Great Spaghetti Monster, when
that person proclaims a belief.
You remind me of my father saying that there was no good science
fiction, so BRAVE NEW WORLD is not science fiction.
Gene
Gene
Gene
>
> BTW, I didn't post the "same" post several times, but I did make the
> same point more than once, because it is relevant in response to several
> different approaches you have been taking on this topic. Plus, it is so
> well worded, and persuasive to the open minded, and laden with wisdom &
> common sense that it should not only be posted several times, but
> memorized by schoolchildren not yet born, and passed on to their
> grandchildren as an example of the giants who were on the internet in
> our day...
Thou must cast thy scribings in verse blank, fair sir. And children yet
unborn will curse thy name and call thee all manner of foul beasts for
taking their time from their uter.
Actually, I'm receiving several identical posts from many(?) posters.
Has anybody noticed that brat activity seems to have gone down in the
last few years? Ac-mb is now a political junkie discussion group. My
old brat yahoo group is being excavated by paleontologists, Ann's group
is very quiet, and the Dallas Homecoming seems to have small numbers.
There does seem to be a chance that the Footlocker is going to be in a
young adult novel. But if it is, it will have something stolen from it.
Gene
Gene
>
>
> Gene wrote:
>
>> Valeria Palmer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Compare that to the Marc Rich PARDON and the other bought and paid
>>> for pardons from the last administration and your eyes will bug out.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I'm not sure I agree with all the Clinton end of term pardons,
>> I'd like you to cite evidence to support the above comment. This is
>> right wing speculation at best.
>> Here's the deal. Did Cheney and Bush buy Libby's silence with the
>> pardon? The finger points towards their being involved.
>> As Danbob points out, the action of Bush in the matter of this
>> commutation is suspicious.
>
>
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> #
> Valeria, citing Wikipedia in a case like this is akin to accepting
Heinrich Himmler's word that Auschwitz was a fun resort destination.
Anybody can post anything to Wikipedia and you have to know which
articles are based on fact and which are based on opinion.
In this case, the Wikipedia article reads like text from any one of
several conservative sources. It is common for a Wikipedia article to
be lifted directly from a source and posted - I just saw one concerning
the German heavy cruiser PRINZ EUGEN.
BTW, please do not construe my use of either Himmler or PRINZ EUGEN to
infer the direction the Bush administration is going.
As Danbob pointed out, the commutation by Bush of Libby smells off for
several reasons. The first is that Mr. Bush has a well-earned
reputation for paroning nobody for nothing. The second, it was
delivered with the same degree of openness as that employed by Lee
Harvey Oswald. Third, there is no question that anybody could see that
this is an excellent prospect for "I scratched your back; now scratch
mine."
Gene
Gene
Gene
>
> But remember - the decision that double prosecution by the state & the
> feds was Constitutional was made in the context of southern state juries
> letting racist criminals off in the face of overwhelming evidence of
> their guilt. Just another example of how our national original sin,
> slavery, has resulted in damage to our Constitution in our necessary
> pursuit of racial justice.
>
Why is slavery our national original sin? Saudia Arabia had legal
slavery until 1969. About the only country I can think of that did not
have slavery at one time or another would be Canada.
You are correct that our trampling double jeopardy has its origins in
the desire to prosecute bigots who were aquited by an all white, all
male jury despite the showing of 8mm footage of the actual crime.
Gene
Danbob
>
> > If he considered it so carefully, why didn't he talk to anyone in the JD
> > about it?
>
> See my other email. DJ has no role in the prosecution nor in the
> execution of presidential powers in situations like this.
>
> Nope, that dog won't hunt.
>
> --
> Harmon is at mac.com
Hey Harmon,
>From Wikipedia:
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who
grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are
referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of
the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice.
So . . . DJ has nothing to do with pardons?
db
Kar...@nospammindspring.com
"Slavery Not Just American Shame"
Additionally, Gene, just a comment about the fact that many of us
aren't posting much these days. I find I get ready to make a comment,
and read where someone has already made the point I want to make
before I finish typing/sending.
While I generally am not crazy about "political" discussions in groups
that are not designed primarily for such discussions, I really enjoy
the give and take on this group. We have such a wide variety of
opinions, but somehow we still seem to respect each other in the
process of making our points. Is that a brat thing? I tend to think
so.
People call the USA a melting pot, and it is, but in the population at
large, differing political/religious/racial beliefs and customs tend
to polarize folks to the point they won't socialize with each other,
or live near each other, or step foot in another's place of worship.
We couldn't get away with that as brats. Our military sponsors
couldn't change jobs or job locations that easily. If you lived in
quarters, you didn't get to move to another set just because you
didn't like your neighbors, whatever the reason. While I was raised
"Protestant," our Post Sunday School program participated in a program
which involved exposure to the services/beliefs of other faiths. The
DODDS schools, particularly in other countries, made a point of
teaching us about the people, customs, and culture of that country, so
we wouldn't be afraid of the "unknown." Well, you get my point.
OK, off the soapbox and stepping back to the sidelines . . . .
KarenF
Danbob
> We couldn't get away with that as brats. Our military sponsors
> couldn't change jobs or job locations that easily. If you lived in
> quarters, you didn't get to move to another set just because you
> didn't like your neighbors, whatever the reason. While I was raised
> "Protestant," our Post Sunday School program participated in a program
> which involved exposure to the services/beliefs of other faiths. The
> DODDS schools, particularly in other countries, made a point of
> teaching us about the people, customs, and culture of that country, so
> we wouldn't be afraid of the "unknown." Well, you get my point.
>
> OK, off the soapbox and stepping back to the sidelines . . . .
>
> KarenF
Hey Karen,
I agree with you. Military posts were too small for the kind of
vitriol that's entered our political dialogue. I've seen that a lot
since we moved up here to the boonies. There's a lot of spirited
debate in the editorial section of the newspaper, but very little name
calling. You don't tend to call someone an idiot when you know you're
likely to run in to them at the grocery store.
db
Danbob
>
> Danbob, d00d, the Founding Fathers thought it was important for the
> executive branch to have that power, you know?
Hey Valeria,
Lots of interesting reading on that on the web, both at wikipedia and
other sites. Apparently the pardon powers were first pushed by
Alexander Hamilton, who also advocated an elected monarch, so he may
have been envisioning a slightly stronger executive than we find
palatable.
Also, apparently it was originally a power to grant pardons, period,
and was later interpreted by the courts as implying commutations,
clemency, etc. One more example of the fed power growing beyond the
founding fathers, I think.
I saw an interesting conservative commentator on the CNN evening
edition. Said he was against the Prez on this one. "I believe that
conservatives should have consistent ideals. If it was wrong for Bill
Clinton to commit perjury, it was wrong for Scooter Libby, too."
db
Danbob
> And I think lying to the coppers is fair game <g>.
>
Danbob
Valeria Palmer
Gene wrote:
> Valeria Palmer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Gene wrote:
>>
>>> Valeria Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Compare that to the Marc Rich PARDON and the other bought and paid
>>>> for pardons from the last administration and your eyes will bug out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I'm not sure I agree with all the Clinton end of term pardons,
>>> I'd like you to cite evidence to support the above comment. This is
>>> right wing speculation at best.
>>> Here's the deal. Did Cheney and Bush buy Libby's silence with the
>>> pardon? The finger points towards their being involved.
>>> As Danbob points out, the action of Bush in the matter of this
>>> commutation is suspicious.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From Wikipedia:
>>
>> #
>> Valeria, citing Wikipedia in a case like this is akin to accepting
Gene, my mother complains that Wikipedia is a den of liberals. However,
in the case of a list of verifiable facts, I don;t see any interpretive
issues.
Clinton DID make those pardons and the relatives were involved enough
tio have been forced to return "retainers".
H
> my mother complains that Wikipedia is a den of liberals.
They really do try to maintain an objective neutrality. The problem, as
your mother detects, is that most stuff that gets reported in print is
biased toward liberalism, and Wikipedia's terms of use require that
anything that is posted be cited to some third party source - such as
what gets reported in print.
H
> So . . . DJ has nothing to do with pardons?
I don't see what is so difficult about this. The president simply has no
responsibility to defer to DJ recommendations - he doesn't need them. He
can take them, leave them, ignore them, or act based on what he reads in
the paper or sees on television. His authority is personal and absolute.
Nobody can overrule him. Nobody can limit him. He can pardon anyone who
is convicted under any federal statute, for any reason, any time - with
the sole exception of cases of impeachment. He can say that all left
handed redheads are pardoned. I don't even think that he can be
impeached for doing that. If there is any absolute power that anyone has
under the Constitution, it is the president's power to pardon.
So, yes, in short, DJ has nothing to do with pardons - except to the
extent that the president tells them that they can recommend pardons to
him if they want, & he'll think about it.
That's not to say that there might not be independant statutory
authority for DJ to do something with pardons. Could be - I just don't
know. That's an interesting question - could Congress give DJ authority
to issue pardons without the agreement of the president? I kind of think
not, but I can see the argument that it could.
But that's totally independant of the president's power, which is in NO
WAY WHATSOEVER dependent on what DJ has to say.
H
> So, is that a, "yes?"
Don't you recognize a "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is" when
you see it?
H
> I saw an interesting conservative commentator on the CNN evening
> edition. Said he was against the Prez on this one. "I believe that
> conservatives should have consistent ideals. If it was wrong for Bill
> Clinton to commit perjury, it was wrong for Scooter Libby, too."
Absolutely....uh...exactly what happened to Clinton? Did he go to jail?
or did he just lose his law license? Isn't it funny how Bush's action
kind of puts Libby in the same place, more or less, that Clinton wound
up in? Doesn't that suggest that it's the right result?
H
> Also, apparently it was originally a power to grant pardons, period,
> and was later interpreted by the courts as implying commutations,
> clemency, etc. One more example of the fed power growing beyond the
> founding fathers, I think.
I haven't read the cases, but I would expect them to say that the power
to pardon includes lesser powers, like commutation, clemency, etc.
It's sort of like with your kids. You can spank them. Or you can give
them a timeout. Or you can withhold their allowance. Or you can shake
your head sadly & say that you are terribly disappointed. The greater
power implies the lesser power.
H
> OK, off the soapbox and stepping back to the sidelines . . . .
I think your observation about the impact of our lack of control over
the changing situations we found ourselves in makes a lot of sense. It's
something that hadn't occured to me.
Valeria Palmer
And, amusingly, Gene finds the cite of fact - i.e., the Clinton pardons
and the subsequent issues about money given to Clinto relatives etc. to
be proof that it's the spawn of Limbaugh or something.
Valeria Palmer
H wrote:
When will that uncultured arse realize that former presidents DO NOT
criticize sitting presidents? Jimmy and Billy are utter disgraces in
this regard. NO sense of decorum. None.
Danbob
Hey Harmon,
Sometimes your replies make my brain swell up and I get these strange
shooting pains behind my eyes
db
H
> Sometimes your replies make my brain swell up and I get these strange
> shooting pains behind my eyes
Hmm. Sounds like nicotine withdrawal to me....
Personally, I never feel that way, but then, I've never withdrawn from
nicotine, and don't plan to.
Rick Terry
wrote:
they Marthaed him.
I like that.