Rice hints at Libby pardon.
By on Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Rice hints at Libby pardon.
Meeting with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that Scooter Libby “served the country really well” and hinted that a presidential pardon was in order. “Asked for her views on a pardon, Rice demurred but then came to the strong defense of Libby, stating that he should be treated ‘in accordance’ with his public service.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He should be treated in accordance to the crime he was convicted of, you loser!!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:29 amWhy not? Law & Order mean nothing in this country any longer so go ahead and pardon the traitorious criminal!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:30 amMemo to Rice: Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury WERE part of his public service, so jail time is certainly "in accordance". Go buy some shoes that fit and don't squeeze your brain so much.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:31 amIf a pardon occurs, then it's clear that this country has descended into total "anarchy".....and it will be every man for himself.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:31 amPRESIDENTIAL PARDON!!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am“Asked for her views on a pardon, Rice demurred but then came to the strong defense of Libby, stating that he should be treated ‘in accordance’ with his public service.â€
This is busyco code for "We can never be held accountable because we're in charge."
June 12th, 2007 at 10:31 amIf Scooter is "treated in accordance with his public service," he'll be strung up by the balls on the Washington Mall.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:32 amFor the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich's pardon.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:32 amPRESIDENTIAL CONVICTION!!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:32 amFor the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich’s pardon.
Comment by Jake
For the record, TP wasn't around back then. Keep up, please!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:33 amGiven that his "public service" was lying to keep the Vice President out of prison, a pardon seems inevitable.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:33 amIt's going to be a hard fall for all of these toadies once they're out of power.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:35 amFor the record, Jake is a broken record who sets the world's record for recording people on an Ignore List when he cannot go on record defending a post.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:35 amFor the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich’s pardon.
Comment by Jake
For the record, I don't recall Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich being the subject of one of the TP threads. However, Jake, some of your fellow trolls have mentioned it numerous times in various threads here, to which someone else always replies by noting that Libby was Marc Rich's attorney.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:35 amJake, you and I are looking forward to Libby's pardon. For one, why should Libby be the only one to go down on this?
I can't wait. Clinton has pardoned worse criminals, I'm sure. Not that I blame him: every President has that right.
You are on notice, President Bush: Pardon Libby!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:36 amFor the record, Clinton should not have pardoned Marc Rich. Next.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:36 amJake
"For the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich’s pardon."
Why do two wrong always make it right to you Jake? I'm guessing nearly everyone in here thinks Clinton should not have pardoned Rich. Including Clinton himself. He has said as much.
That doesn't mean that Bush has the moral high ground in pardoning Libby. He who knowingly subverted our justice system. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers for a serious crime. Why doesn't that bother you?
It's times like this Jake, when it is hard to believe that you are the independent you claim to be. What happened to the tough on crime Republicans. At least the Judge that handled this case understands the seriousness of this offense.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:36 amCondi is just greasing the skids in hopes of her own eventual pardon.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:38 amCrump’s Brother:
I answered your question from the Think Fast thread: if I don’t respond to you directly, it’s fair to assume you are on the “Ignore List†— c.f. I am responding to you by name with this post and therefore Crump's Brother is not on the "Ignore List" — if I mock something “for the record†that is strictly intended for the benefit of those NOT on the “Ignore List†to reveal the hypocrisy, immorality, etc.
As an example from [that Think Progress thread], one can find the “Tooth Fairy†on Google too, but that’s about as real as a witch.
Any more questions?
June 12th, 2007 at 10:39 amCompTROLLER V-1
"I can’t wait. Clinton has pardoned worse criminals, I’m sure."
WHAT IS WITH YOU GUYS?!?!??!
Why is it that if Clinton did it, that means it's ok for Bush to do it?
I can't wait till Bush decides to use an atomic weapon. Then you guys will say "Truman did it!!!"
June 12th, 2007 at 10:40 amWhy does Condi have time to give her views on this issue? Wouldn't her time be better spent trying to resolve major diplomatic issues in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who cares what her opinion is on this? What has she done for the country lately?
June 12th, 2007 at 10:40 amComment by Midori
Of course TP is not going to report on Marc Rich. What kind of defense is that?
And yes, Marc Rich had Libby as his council. So how does that matter, exactly? President Clinton made the choice to pardon, not the council for defendent.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:40 amP.S. Obviously, TP was not around at the time of Marc Rich's pardon. Liberals like those on the "Ignore List" were DEFENDING Clinton at the time.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:41 amP.S. Obviously, TP was not around at the time of Marc Rich’s pardon. Liberals like those on the “Ignore List†were DEFENDING Clinton at the time.
Comment by Jake
Thanks, Jake. You can never ignore anyone, can you? Heh.
For the record, Jake is in no way, shape or form an Independent.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:43 amEither pardon Libby or indict the co-conspirators. I don't like a "fall-guy" when others, especially the Vice-President, were said to be deeply involved.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:45 amBush is going to pardon a close White House advisor, guilty of TREASON?
The same act of TREASON Bush once said would result in dismissal from the White House of any person involved, which resulted in NO DISMISSALS?
SHAMEFUL.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:45 amRice will be needing a pardon herself, so it makes sense to start greasing the skids now.
Scooter will be more able to return the favor from the outside.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:46 amI do not support the power of the pardon as written, and I believe wholeheartedly that it should be reworked. It's too much power. It's used to often to subvert our justice system. I think that if a President is going to pardon someone, it should be done at least one week prior to the next Presidential election, and not after. Only the incoming President will get power after they take the oath of office two and a half months later. This will allow the political process to play its part in the pardon.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:46 amHEY JAKE!!! Betcha you don't even know who represented Marc Rich in the pardon deal with Clinton? Three guesses!! That's right, it was Lewis Libby, lol. All so the neocons could rake Clinton over hot coals for such a "shameful" pardon, lol.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:47 amJake,
I'm not sure I followed your explanatory thread. I apologize for that. So you do reply to me?
I'll repost my earlier comment and see if you will respond to it.
“For the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich’s pardon.â€
Why do two wrong always make it right to you Jake? I’m guessing nearly everyone in here thinks Clinton should not have pardoned Rich. Including Clinton himself. He has said as much.
That doesn’t mean that Bush has the moral high ground in pardoning Libby. He who knowingly subverted our justice system. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers for a serious crime. Why doesn’t that bother you?
It’s times like this Jake, when it is hard to believe that you are the independent you claim to be. What happened to the tough on crime Republicans. At least the Judge that handled this case understands the seriousness of this offense.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 amJake, tell us, what Liberals like those on your esteemed "Ignore List" were defending Marc Rich's pardon? Provide some evidence.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 amWhether I am on the ignore list, or merely like those on the ignore list, I have never defended Bill Clinton.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 amHis actions were irresponsible given the office he held, and surely helped pave the way for much of the (far greater) evils we face today.
As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I voted for Nader in 2000, out of disgust, and also the misguided belief that America was nowhere near stupid enough to elect another Bush.
It also never occured to me that an election could be stolen in the United States.
Zoo... Jake? Who is Jake?
June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am#25. I agree, we should indict the co-conspirators. Of course, Libby LIED TO A GRAND JURY to protect his co-conspirators.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 amComment by Crump's Brother
Crump, I'm just merely repeating that the President has the right to issue controversial pardons - even for political purposes - and that Bush can't suddently be held to a higher standard in this case. I'm not advocating the higher moral ground on any other issue, including that of dropping bombs. Perhaps Congress/SCOTUS might want to take up the issue of changing the rules of granting a pardon.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:51 amThe signal is that Bush is going to pardon Libby in a deal with the conservatives. Amnesty for Libby in exchange for amnesty for the illegals.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:53 amMy god people your trying to use logic with jake. His real name is Karl Rove. Please, stop trying to convert the devil to your own views. Just ignore the troll.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:53 amJake is In Depends maybe, definitely not Independent. There is no subject that that sycophantic whore won't defend the Repugnicunts on. I have yet to see anything intelligent come with Jake attached. Stupid fu*k interrupts threads with his cries for attention. Like a 6th grade schoolgirl and her friends list.
Ignore the puketrolls people.
There are some who have different opinions and insights and defend their positions, but the ones who are just here for their daily dose of abusive attention are sick and should be ignored.
Pardoning Libby sends the wrong message. Loyalty to the party and to the Shrub is rewarded, keep your mouth shut and no one goes to jail right Libby? Gonzo? Monica?...........
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 amCrump's Brother:
Since you guys would be screaming bloody murder even if it were justified, course I would bring up Truman.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 amI don't care about 'Jake'. The issue is Rice having any comment about Libby. Shut up lady and do your job which you haven't yet managed.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:55 amZoo… Jake? Who is Jake?
Comment by Juan C
Heh. No idea, Juan..... :D
June 12th, 2007 at 10:55 amCompTROLLER V-1,
"Perhaps Congress/SCOTUS might want to take up the issue of changing the rules of granting a pardon."
Agreed!! This should happen!!!
But to your other point. Just because he has the power, doesn't mean he should exercise it. The pardon should be used in cases like the one in Geogia, where a 17 year old boy got 10 years in prison (without the possibility of parole) for having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. That's where the pardon should be used. Only when there is an abuse of judicial power like that.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:56 amCT V-1,
I agree that Libby shouldn't be the fall guy for covering his boss' tracks. That's exactly why he shouldn't be pardoned. If he thought that he had to spend some hard time in jail, maybe he wouldn't have obstructred justice.
Just looking ahead to the next lacky asked to lie with a pardon promise in his pocket. Democrat or Republican, if they committ the crime they should get the book thrown at them.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:59 ambut condi, the judge couldn't sentence him for the other crimes he obstructed. as much as you want him to spend the remainder of his life in prison. darn if he didn't get charged yet for treason, IIPA, conspiracy, you know, those other things that they are keeping "classified" for now.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:00 ambut don't you worry, the new set of indictments will likely find him and the fat guy you want to see at the end of a rope
[Refreshering]
June 12th, 2007 at 11:01 ambrando:
Liberals like John Podesta "I think the fact that he heard from Prime Minister Barak, Shimon Peres and others, didn't mean that we were doing this -- that this was a significant U.S.-Israeli issue, but those were men he respected. And they were asking him to look at it.
And I think that he felt obliged, having heard from a number of people who he respected, asking him to take it under serious consideration, that he did that."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/01/se.09.html
June 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am"I don’t like a “fall-guy†when others, especially the Vice-President, were said to be deeply involved.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 12, 2007"
did they amend the law about lying to a grand jury to make it ok as long as you're a 'fall guy'?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:03 amRice wants a pardon for Libby, because she might need a pardon too someday.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:03 amYou'd think Rice would have her hands full with her job. Well, good point. There doesn't seem to be much of a focus there either.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:04 amChimpy McAWOL might as well pardon Libby despite his tough talk when the scandal first broke. The Chimp has so little credibility left that hardly anyone new will raise a stink when Libby is let go. I guess thats one of the benefits of being such a creep. Eventually nothing he does will shock anyone
June 12th, 2007 at 11:05 amGus Smith:
Of course the issue is Libby's pardon -- I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of defending Marc Rich's pardon (Libby has not yet fled the country) at the same time -- I think Dr. Rice is doing a great job (for instance, there's been no terrorist attack in the U.S. since 2001).
June 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am...so when's his firing squad going to convene?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:06 amCompTROLLER V-1:
I agree that Bush shouldn't be held to some higher standard in this case. I don't think the Constitution should be changed re: granting pardons either.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:07 amCompTROLLER V-1 wrote: I’m just merely repeating that the President has the right to issue controversial pardons - even for political purposes - and that Bush can’t suddently be held to a higher standard in this case.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:08 am__________________________________
If a pardon is considered "controversial", that means a number of people took issue with it. That is all we are doing with a discussion of a possible pardon of Libby. It is not a "higher standard".
Bush is going to pardon a close White House advisor, guilty of TREASON?
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. #26
...no surprise there...
...one TRAITOR to another...
June 12th, 2007 at 11:08 amContrary to what Dirty Rice has to say, those serving the public trust should be held to a higher standard BECAUSE of their positions, not the other way around.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:09 amYou don't get to break the law and cover up crimes because of your "public service". You get a harsher penalty because you abused your position of public trust.
[Refreshering]
June 12th, 2007 at 11:10 amI wouldn't be knocking the idea of pardons if I were a chance of needing one.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:11 amLOL -- when was Libby found guilty of TREASON? I take it that "Dirty Rice" = "Knappy-Headed Ho" as well?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:12 amComment by Crump's Brother
You have another valid point, and another case for changing the rules granting a pardon. I read the article this morning about that young man this morning, and 10 years for THAT sentence absolutely does not fit the crime. On average, an offender under age 21 and a victim 13 or older in that case (consentual) would merit a suspended sentence and probation. That's a sad case of the remnants of overreaching southern justice.
It's not so much that Libby should be pardoned, but it's that he has to go to prison. Perhaps if he has more information regarding the case, maybe the prosecutor can cut a deal to suspend his prison term and sentence him to probation, who knows.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:12 amJake: We need you.
If all registered Republicans would sign up for Iraq duty, we should be able to field an on-the-ground force approaching 100 million people, requiring perhaps 200 million support staff.
With 100 million troops on the ground, we could ensure that each and every Iraqi alive would have round-the-clock, 24/7 accompaniment by at least 1 US soldier, in 8 hour rotations.
Anything less is surrendering to the Global Caliphatic Jihad.
Mike Crotch.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:13 amClinton has pardoned worse criminals, I’m sure. Not that I blame him: every President has that right.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 12, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Translation of first sentence: two wrongs make a right.
Translation of second sentence: there is no wrong, only right when our authoritarian cult leader does it.
Thanks for telling us so much about yourself, CTV-1: no regard for the rule of law, extreme moral relativism.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:13 amKeep hinting SecState. I hope Bush pardons him and the electorate takes it out on the Repugnicants in 08, big time.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:18 amTwo questions you will never hear the MSM ask any of Libby's defenders: do you think he is guilty? and if so, why did he break the law?
Impossible to answer those questions and in the same breath make a case for a pardon, I think.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe president's power to pardon federal crimes is absolute.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:18 amThis sad episode sure does put to bed the myth of a Liberal media. Look at how the Repubs are using the entire media to get their narrative across. The entire media is in cahoots with the Repubs to sell the public on the narrative that Libby should be pardoned, even though he is a convicted felon who hurt America's national security by revealing numerous CIA assets which were working on WMD proliferation and terrorism.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:19 amLibby shouldn't be pardoned. He should be sent to Gitmo for some waterboarding, sleep depravation, sensory depravation, uncomfortable positioning and whatever else they do to traitors to get them to tell the truth, because to this day, far from being contrite, Scooter Libby is still covering up a crime.
Comment by nanlichi
Well, you've got me nailed again, but I still don't think that Libby should be going down this hard. In the end, however, I have to admit that these types of offenses deserve some reasonable punishment in that it provokes awareness.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:19 amping
June 12th, 2007 at 11:20 amMike Crotch:
Off topic, but I am registered Independent, and I already served in the Korean War. Next canard?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:20 amBush's lawyers are planning blanket pardons for all of the cabinet. Basing it on Ford's pardon of Nixon which did not refer to specific crimes but merely gave dates during which any crime committed was to be forgiven.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:21 amComment by VerbalKint
Well that's your interpretation. You have fun with that, ok? You only told yourself about myself, probably not very accurate.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:22 amOh, yeah, she's the one to talk about law and order: she's currently ignoring a supoena to appear before the committee investigating pre-war intelligence. She should be in jail, the traitor. Mushroom cloud, indeed.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:22 amJake
"The president’s power to pardon federal crimes is absolute."
No one is going to argue that, although many of us think that should be changed. You've mande your point that you don't think so. If you feel that way, then why are you upset about Marc Rich's pardon? Further, I still feel that you did not address my earlier post. I'll repost it again for you. If you don't want to reply to it, let me know and I'll drop it.
“For the record, I never heard any of you bashing Clinton for Marc Rich’s pardon.â€
Why do two wrong always make it right to you Jake? I’m guessing nearly everyone in here thinks Clinton should not have pardoned Rich. Including Clinton himself. He has said as much.
That doesn’t mean that Bush has the moral high ground in pardoning Libby. He who knowingly subverted our justice system. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers for a serious crime. Why doesn’t that bother you?
It’s times like this Jake, when it is hard to believe that you are the independent you claim to be. What happened to the tough on crime Republicans. At least the Judge that handled this case understands the seriousness of this offense.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:23 amYou only told yourself about myself, probably not very accurate.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You told enough about yourself when specifically said that there were "intelligent nations" (sic!!!). Guess, not the brightest in the classroom.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am[Refreshinizing]
June 12th, 2007 at 11:29 amAnd I agree CT V-1 that it's a shame that Libby is the one going down. Setting aside his misplaced loyalty, he seemed to be a decent person. Hard working, dedicated, he was respected by several Democrats.
The best outcome of this sorry story would be for Libby to tell the truth in exchange for his conviction being reversed.
I am no Madam Cleo, but I think that Libby's honest testimony would send that fat KKKarl rat to prison to squeal like a pig. Maybe Cheney and Bush too.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:30 amstating that he should be treated ‘in accordance’ with his public service.â€
Uh, that doesn't merit a pardon, unless the word "pardon" now has a new meaning.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am#58 Thats a good point but, as odd as this sounds, some people, like Scooter and Paris Hilton, need to have some kind of consequence for reckless, in your face behavior. A CIA agent and all her contacts were put in danger and, of all things, a project concerned with Iranian nuclear proliferation. Has Libby even shown any remorse for wrong doing? Maybe Huckabee could get it set to where he could go down to Gitmo.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:33 amComment by Juan C
[Ignore List]
June 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am[Code 4: Inundated with happy talk, refuses to look outside of loony blinders, believes that everything is created equally]
[Blabs like disgusting lunatic about not humping in a week]
Yeah, the public got "serviced" all right.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:33 amSo, if I am an upstanding citizen who volunteers for charity for the first 50 years of my life and then go on a shooting or robbing spree, should I not go to jail because I was such a good person before I turned criminal?
Of course not. You do a crime, you pay the time. Should be obvious.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am...
June 12th, 2007 at 11:37 amScooter should go to prison (convicted felon). Rice should stick to shoe shopping.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:38 amCrump's Brother
If you keep asking questions that don't want to be answered, you'll be slammed onto the Ignore List!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:38 amso I shouldn't be pardoned for a crime because of my type of job? BS!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:39 amA la madre TP, what's up with the refresh?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:39 am"......but I think that Libby’s honest testimony would send that fat KKKarl rat to prison to squeal like a pig. Maybe Cheney and Bush too."
Comment by nanlichi
Those two, Rove and VEEP, are exactly who get me fired up in this case. I can't stand the thought of Libby sitting in prison while those two slobs live with themselves of putting out one of their own to keep themselves cushy. I know there's evidence to Libby's guilt, but I would rather see him go free (as you suggested) to put those two away. I really can't stand them. They are misrepresenting conservatism like never before.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:39 amThe chymp can absolutely pardon any federal crime.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:43 amBut there's a political backlash price to pay if the public sees it as validating lawlessness and cronyism.
Go ahead, chymp make our election year.
ping
June 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am"Those two, Rove and VEEP, are exactly who get me fired up in this case. I can’t stand the thought of Libby sitting in prison while those two slobs live with themselves of putting out one of their own to keep themselves cushy."
Libby is not a victim. He made a choice.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:44 amJake,
I guess I'll take your silence as a 'no comment'.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am[Refresher]
June 12th, 2007 at 11:47 amWould you really expect anything else from the thugs in the crime family? They are all looking at what could happen to them...they are all lying sobs and have committed the same crime along the way. It is the GOP crime family way.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:48 amGo Rice just do it!
Trumped up case to begin with.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:49 amPardons need to be written out of our constitution. At the very least, congress should have to approve every presidential pardon. Checks on the Judicial branch are good, but this is too much power for the Executive alone.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:51 amComment by pgw
That's not what I'm talking about. Stop missing my point.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:51 amCrump's Brother:
As long as you answer my questions in a civil manner, I will return the same courtesy. Those on the "Ignore List" have not. You honestly have never seen anyone bash me with personal attacks here? As for Marc Rich’s pardon, I am upset about the bribery, not the pardon itself. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. If it was not wrong before, however, it should not magically be wrong now. I'm sure everyone here NOW says Rich's pardon was wrong -- were they saying that at the time? I posted Podesta's quote / link above. If you were set up and found guilty by a jury of your peers for the same crime, a pardon would not bother me either. What I am surprised is that all the Bush haters could manage were 26 letters to the Judge (compared with 150 who know Libby personally asking for mercy from the Court). I hope that answers your questions.
CompTROLLER V-1:
What's not "conservative" enough for you about Cheney?
Russ:
Unless you are revealing classified information, none of us know whether she even had any contacts that were put in danger
Joel:
Should you do the time if you didn't go on a shooting spree?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:57 amAlong with the 17 boy from Georgia a Presidential Pardon should be issued on behalf of the two border guards from Texas who received an 11 and a 12 year sentence for shooting an illegal Mexican drug smuggler in the ass.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pmOh yeah, nevermind. I forgot that POTUS is in bed with his Mexican "amigos" more than he cares about logic and justice.
I'm not silent, Crump's Brother. The posts are not showing up very well on my end, that's all.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pmpardon libby and it is the straw that broke the camel's back vis a vis impeachment being on the table. gonzo and libby must do time.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pmJake,
"If you were set up and found guilty by a jury of your peers for the same crime, a pardon would not bother me either."
Perhaps you could explain the 'set up'?
He lied to a Grand Jury and to federal investigators. That is a crime. A serious crime. It was serious enough of a crime that many on the right were screaming for Clinton's head for the same thing. He was not set up. He had the option of telling the truth. Correct?
June 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pmBob:
The 17 year old was convicted under STATE law, and the president has no power to pardon state crimes.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm"That’s not what I’m talking about. Stop missing my point."
so you're not saying that libby was 'put out' by rove and cheney?
because that's what you posted:
"I can’t stand the thought of Libby sitting in prison while those two slobs live with themselves of putting out one of their own to keep themselves cushy.â€
libby was 'put out' by libby.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pmLibby resigned when indicted. Clinton didn't when impeached, and NEVER got prosecuted, Crump's Brother.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:02 pmAgain, WHY do you people respond to that Idiot Jake the Fake?
1. He is a scum sucking Troll.
2. Everything he posts is crap, meant to prey on your emotions and disrupt the thread.
3. He is a know liar.
IGNORE THE TROLLS - Debate good, Trolls bad
June 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pmREFRESHER
June 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pmIGNORE THE TROLLS - Debate good, Trolls bad
Comment by Buck Fush
Particularly ignore trolls that create fake "lists" of people they can't face in a debate.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm"Particularly ignore trolls that create fake “lists†of people they can’t face in a debate.
Comment by gummitch — June 12, 2007"
why do you hate southern baptist catholics?
June 12th, 2007 at 12:09 pmJake,
"Libby resigned when indicted. Clinton didn’t when impeached, and NEVER got prosecuted, Crump’s Brother."
Kind of irrelevant don't you think.
The point is this, Libby could have told the truth. There was no set up. You claimed there was one. Was there? You have evidence of this.
Further, I don't think you are accurate about the Presidential power of the pardon being limited to federal issues.
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This does not have any limitations except for impeachment.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:09 pmComment by pgw
"libb was 'put out' by libby"
If Libby really has more information to implicate others, he can speak up and I would advocate his prison sentence being suspended. And if he had no credible information to begin with, the convictions should be overturned.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:09 pmCorrection.
I have learned something today.
THe Presidential Pardon does only apply to federal cases.
My bad
June 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pmOdds are Libby won't spend much time but one thing good came out of this, the stream of unAmericans who felt Libby should get off scott free, from Dershowitz down the line to Carvel, is now forever crystal clear.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm"If Libby really has more information to implicate others, he can speak up and I would advocate his prison sentence being suspended."
you mean information that he chose not to share with fitzgerald, a u.s. attorney; the grand jury in the plame investigation; judge walton, who was appointed by w.; and the jury in his own trial? if you think he's gonna flip on cheney, don't hold your breath. he had several chances.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pmConnie is right as no Republican or White House staff person should be charged with the crimes they do. Our jails should only be full with other people and Democrats. Gonzales can lie under oath with no problem so why can't Libby. Lying under oath in God's name is legal for some and a crime for others. Abramoff should be set free because all he did was steal and lie to get money from minorities what wrong with that. So Duke committed crimes no big deal. Paris should be set free because she's rich. Now if Bill Clinton looks like he's thinking of something bad he should be sent to Gitmo. Bush has lied for 6 years and Americans love him for it. Bush/Cheney lied about Iraq and more then 3500 soldiers have died based on those lies and we love them for it. The White House has stolen billions of dollars from the US Treasury as Americans lose jobs, high gas prices and food is high priced. We see no problem with the Bush Constitution. The plan was great to have all Judges that followed the Bush policy and lawyers that filed false charges against Dems to make use they didn't get elected. We were close to have a total Republican government if those honest people hadn't mess it up. We can only hope that Karl Rove will work his crime again and put Fred Thompson ( Law/Order) in office. Then we will see the United States can continue the crime wave and stay the coarse in illegally invading other countries and torturing innocent people. We are the rulers of the world and can do what every our King says. As King George said if your not with me your against me.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThe ping that refreshes.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIn accordance with his public service maybe he should be waterboarded until he spills all he knows about Cheney. I'll bet he was in the room when Cheney and his "Energy Task Force" drew up the map on how they were going to devide iraqi oil revenues and crash the grid in predominantly Democratic stronghold states.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pmREFRESH-MENT
June 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pmCriminal activity is accepted, actually expected, in the means-justifies-the-end Cheney Crime Family running the White House. Rice may need a pardon some day too perhaps from war crimes so of course she speaks favorably of pardoning a co-partner in crime.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pmRefreshee
June 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pmGuys, it is absolutely POINTLESS to debate these trolls.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCondi Rice is without personal integrity or national credibility. Condi's complicit in the impeachable offense of lying to move forward with this highly amoral, illegal war. Condi's worried about her own ass when her own indictment comes about. That's all this is about! Condi is a "non-entity" in a "lame-excuse, lameduck presidency"! Ignore her and she'll slink away like the skanky skink that she is.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pmHis pardon is as good as done because Dems waste their time venting to each other on the web, and waiting to see if a pardon occurs; at which point it's the wrong time to begin to get upset. The GOP would raise an organized hue and cry about this, from now until he shows up for jail to prevent a pardon from even being mentioned.
Thanks again Dems. You blow everything. You blew the Alito nomination hearings, you blew the AG vote of no-confidence and now you're blowing the Libby Pardon.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pmooklkllk
June 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pmGuys, it is absolutely POINTLESS to debate these trolls.
Comment by JPV
Specially, the Jake troll drives everybody in a frenzy. I dont know why, he is the most boring poster after Seixon.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm"Condi Rice is without personal integrity or national credibility."
because she went to see Spamalot
June 12th, 2007 at 1:03 pmPardon me, Kindasleazza, but you're next.
Things seem to be 'mushrooming' in D.C., eh?
Geez, in 45 minutes or so, your whole career could go up in smoke.
Or, you could lose a heel!
The Scootster is getting just what he deserves. KKKarl & Darth will be joining you soon.
Be patient...
June 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pmPARDON ME!
June 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pmLikewise she should be treated in the same fashion and sent directly to the slammer.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIf Bush has no respect for the Law, he will pardon Libby.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm[...He should be treated 'in accordance' to his public service],
I thought he should be treated 'in accordance' to law...!!
June 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSurprise Surprise Surprise!
This country has gone to hell! See, Born agains? You went to hell with it.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm.....
June 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmlkk
June 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm[0-k
June 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pmOne ping, Vasily.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pmCrump's Brother:
It is HIGHLY relevant if Clinton's perjury to the grand jury / obstruction of justice gets treated on a much lower standard (fine by liberals back then) and Libby's perjury to the grand jury / obstruction of justice gets treated on a much higher standard (if not legally "treason" then it should be punished as such, according to some of your comrades). My hypothetical about being "set up" simply seeks where (or if) you would draw the line. Also, you're welcome on teaching you about federal vs. state laws.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pmTwo pardons: 1st Libby and 2nd Bill Clinton. If it's good enough for Libby it's certainly good enough for Clinton. Both sides would be happy and we can move on.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:35 pm"he should be treated ‘in accordance’ with his public service.â€
Bullshit!!!
He should be treated according to the law.
If her statement were true, then it could be said that "Public Service," aka Working for the Government, rightfully gives the individual a free pass to commit crimes.
This is High Corruption.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:18 amThese threads are not working.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:25 amGeez, Condi, why not just pin a medal on the man whilt you're at it?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOf course TP is not going to report on Marc Rich. What kind of defense is that?
And yes, Marc Rich had Libby as his council(SIC). So how does that matter, exactly? President Clinton made the choice to pardon, not the council(SIC) for defendent(SIC).
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 —
As Zooey already pointed out, TP didn't even exist when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Should we all go back in a time machine and try to change that?
June 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm