Conyers: Bush Should Waive Exec. Privilege, ‘Do What Clinton Did’ And Explain Commutation
Conyers: Bush Should Waive Exec. Privilege, ‘Do What Clinton Did’ And Explain Commutation
This Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers will hold a hearing on the use and misuse of presidential clemency power, looking specifically at whether President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was an abuse of power.
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Conyers said there exists a “suspicion that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House.” Conyers noted “there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons… [and] it’s never existed before.”
Conyers said he is requesting Bush waive executive privilege and “do what President Clinton did — namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest.” Watch it:
Conyers was also asked about subpoenas that he has issued to the White House for information relating to the U.S. Attorney’s purge. The Washington Post reports this morning, “The White House has decided to defy Congress’s latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, sources familiar with the decision said yesterday.”
Conyers said the White House had failed to communicate with him about its intent to defy Congress. “Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas.”
Asked by host George Stephanopoulos if “that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?” “Well, yes,” Conyers responded. “It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.”
Transcript:
CONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons, nor, according to those that we’ve talked to — and this is why we’re doing the hearings — is that it’s never existed before, ever.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s really…
CONYERS: We’ve never had…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because you seem to be suggesting that President Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence in order to keep him quiet.
CONYERS: Well, that’s — I said that’s what the general impression is. And what we’re trying to do — and this is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest. That’s the whole purpose.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re asking him to waive executive privilege.
CONYERS: Yes. And that’s what Clinton did. Yes, we’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail.
So, what we’re saying, Mr. Stephanopoulos, is that there wasn’t any pardons that have involved a person who was a former chief of staff to the vice president of the United States that got a commutation. Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn’t the case here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve asked the president — you’re asking the president to waive executive privilege in this case on the pardons. You’ve also asked him to waive executive privilege as you investigate the firing of those U.S. attorneys. And you’ve given the president a 10 a.m. deadline tomorrow to come forward with those documents.
But The Washington Post reports this morning that the White House is going to deny that request. They say that they’re not going to turn over the documents you’ve requested or the detailed justification for the executive privilege claims. So what’s your response going to be?
CONYERS: Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas. I don’t think, if this is correct, we don’t have any other choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?
CONYERS: Well, yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
131 Responses to “Conyers: Bush Should Waive Exec. Privilege, ‘Do What Clinton Did’ And Explain Commutation”
Topic Cloud
Fine, Conyers. Bush can wave exec priviledge in Feb. 09 after he leaves office, like Clinton.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:02 amI’m still not convinced Bush will be leaving office in 09. And he will never ‘waive executive privilege’ cause we all know now they consider themselves above the law.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:06 amBush dosn’t deserve exec priviledge . Bush will go to hell. Do you support Freedumb m12?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:06 amthen you to can go to hell.
I’m still not convinced Bush will be leaving office in 09. And he will never ‘waive executive privilege’ cause we all know now they consider themselves above the law.
Tinfoil hat theory! Need some deflector shields on that hat.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amonly ones here wearing tinfoil hats are those that continue to defend the criminal-in-chief… so much for principles.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am“Tinfoil hat theory! Need some deflector shields on that hat.”
Comment by m12
Project much, Kool-Aid swiller?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:11 amWait…. Isn’t this special president above the law? …Yes, I thought so.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:13 amProject much, Kool-Aid swiller?
You’re the one with a ridiculous theory about the President.
First, liberals say he’s never leaving office, then liberals say he’s buying land in Paraguay for after he leaves office. Hmm…..
July 8th, 2007 at 11:14 amAgreed. And really, Bush doesn’t ‘have’ to co-operate like Clinton did with the investigators requests and subpoenas throughout the investigation, Clinton was weak, Bush is a real man, did you see him in that flight suit? I’d love to have him over for a bbq in his flight suit and enjoy a cold beer with him while he regals me with tales of combat over the Texan skies. I hope Fred Thompson swaggers just as well as Bush since we already know Rudy does and damn McCain’s buck-wild maverick flip-flopping style (but not Kerry-like flip-flopping, oh no) make my loins quiver.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 amLet’s take up the troll refrain:
“CLINTON DID IT!”
Ourtesy of morningstar.com
1. Clinton grants pardons.
2. Less then 2 weeks later the House Government Reform committee chaired by Dan Burton (R-IN) opens an investigation.
3. Soon thereafter, the Seneate Judiciary Committtee (Orin Hatch, R-UT) decides to hold hearings.
4. This is followed by US Attorney Mary Jo White openning yet another investigation assisted by the FBI.
5. Clinton waives executive privilege and allows 3 of his top aids to testify about the pardons.
6. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) vows to continue the invesitigations and not allow Congress to “walk away” from the investigations.
7. Over one year later, federal prosecuters conclude “it wasn’t approriate to bring charges”.
Let the investigations begin, let Bush waive executive privilege. After all, that’s what Clinton did.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 amI like Conyers, but you can’t make a compelling case and convince the fence-sitters by stumbling over your facts and soundling like you just woke up.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am“You’re the one with a ridiculous theory about the President.”
And once he declares martial law, who’s to stop him from buying this alleged land in Paraguay anyway?
We know people like you don’t think enough to even HAVE a theory, just repeat the lies and propaganda being spoon-fed to you by the likes of reichwing talk radio and the White Bread House.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:17 amFirst, liberals say he’s never leaving office, then liberals say he’s buying land in Paraguay for after he leaves office. Hmm…..
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Yeah, you’re right — that does sound ridiculous. I mean, Bush making back-up plans in case the first plan fails? Never happen!
July 8th, 2007 at 11:18 amYeah, you’re right — that does sound ridiculous. I mean, Bush making back-up plans in case the first plan fails? Never happen!
So of the following 3 plans, whats the order of backups?
Fixing elections
July 8th, 2007 at 11:23 amNever leaving office
Martial Law
Paraguay
#10
And like I said, you can have your investigations in 2009.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:23 amLet the investigations begin, let Bush waive executive privilege. After all, that’s what Clinton did.
Comment by spit take — July 8, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Excellent post.
The facts, having a liberal bias, are not in the cons favor in yet another issue.
They simply want a double standard, and will LIE to get it. But, as usual, their lies are without merit, and therefore easily debunked with the truth.
Waive executive privilege? Clinton DID do it! LOL
July 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am“So of the following 3 plans, whats the order of backups?
Fixing elections
Never leaving office
Martial Law
Paraguay”
Comment by m12
Can’t count either, I see. Clearly no point in talking anymore.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:24 amComment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Fixing elections
Never leaving office
Martial Law
Paraguay
Technically Martial Law would have to come before never leaving office I suppose
July 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am“Clinton was weak, Bush is a real man, did you see him in that flight suit?”
Has to be a name hijacking, Mr. President can’t be THIS stupid can he?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:26 amWhat are these dems gonna do if gwboy decider decides to ignore them, as he has so far? Why they will stamp their feet, wave their hands, jump and down like little children and nothing will get done.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:26 amI hold little hope that these criminals will be brought to justice.
m12 has brain damage, therefore he does not have critical thinking skills.
Plan:
Fixing elections (2000-2006)
martial law (2008)
never leaving office (post 2008)
Back-up:
Paraguay (2008)
Clear?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am> And like I said, you can have your investigations in 2009.
Probably earlier if “He Who Is On the Dark Side” decides to make his muppet attack Iran. Can’t wait.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:29 am#10
And like I said, you can have your investigations in 2009.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Why should we wait? The investigations into Clinton’s pardons started within two weeks of the ink drying. Within a year they had determined that nothing was wrong with them.
You want to wait a year and a half just to start. I wonder why that is? If he’s going to waive executive privilege, why bother waiting? What’s the priniciple on which you base your delayed “concession”?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:30 amActually it is not Dubya, but his daddy, George Bush Sr. that owns land in the Chaco region of Paraguay, in Paso de Patria, nearly 70 thousand hectares (about 173,000 acres)
July 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am“Clinton was weak, Bush is a real man, did you see him in that flight suit?â€
Has to be a name hijacking, Mr. President can’t be THIS stupid can he?
Comment by CONservative — July 8, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Yeah, well, that’s the problem with posting stupid stuff all the time like Mr Pee does. If someone does name-jack and try to make you look ridiculous, you’ve left all standards for reason far behind and no one can tell for sure.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:32 amWhat’s the priniciple on which you base your delayed “concession�
Comment by spit take
This group and their suck-ups don’t have ‘principles’, they just run their mouth about them.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amWhy Paraguay? I hear Bolivia’s much nicer.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amm12 > Bush family already purchased 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay next to a US military base. Bush and his dad apparently are keeping the land as an emergency escape hideout.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:37 amYes, I am surprised at the number of people who lack critical thinking skills. m12, just suppose for a second that we’re right and Bush and Cheney are as evil as we say they are. Suppose that November 6th, 2008, radiological bombs are detonated in Washington DC, New York City, and a city in the Mid-West, and true nuclear weapons are detonated in San Francisco and Denver (both havens of Liberal thought, btw). What would an evil Bush and Cheney do next? Of course. “In this time of great tragedy, it is my determination that this country needs the stability that my Administration has provided for the past eight years. I have issued an executive order postponing elections until after the current crisis is over. I have also declared martial law. Please work with law enforcement to ensure that the terrorists that have committed this horrible attack are brought to justice.” Within days, it’s traced to whoever the al Quaida terrorist leader in Iraq is, and Osama bin Laden ultimately takes claim for the attack. The crisis never ends, the last of our liberties are taken in the name of homeland security and the United States of America, the republic established in 1776, dies, to be replaced by a corporate theocracy.
This is actually a plot for a pen and paper RPG I run. By 2050, this nation has seen the presidencies of Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and other notable names in the neocon movement. Worship of the Christian God is required, and ‘morality squads’, groups of men and women who enforce the Christian Bible’s view of morality, go about the land doing their thing while hypocritically going and doing the very things their holy book says not to do.
I grant you, m12, that this view of the future is a pessimistic view. Maybe you’re right (at least on the effect and not the cause) and Bush does give up his Presidency in 2008 (at the end of a US military that still takes its oath to defend the nation before a rogue ex-President seriously) and he flees to Paraguay.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:39 amThe Problem with “This Week”, is that they ALWAYS put the liberals or Democrats in a weak position.
Every week the round table is made up of a very strong, very masculine right wing pundit, a very weak and soft spoken far left fringe liberal, (almost always a female) and an articulate well educated moderate or two, who likes to hear themselves talk, and who invariably mocks the far left liberal, and cowtows to the conservative.
Farid Zakaria is an educated and articulate man, who likes to hear himself talk. George Will is an educated and articulate man, who LOVES to hear himself talk. Both tend to attack far left “wingnuts” and bow to strong, vocal right wing guests.
I am seriosuly sick of seeing Katrina Vanderhooval and Donna Brazille representing the left, who are the two most frequent guests This Week has for their left wing round table pundits. Both are weak, softspoken far left spokespersons, and of course, both are women, which is fine, but the image presented to the country is republicans are the party of strong male figures, and the left is a bunch of soft spoken weak women. And when they do put a man on we get someone like Dick Durban or Al Sharpton. Whats wrong with putting strong, vocal person like David Shuster on or Scott Ritter? Lets put Paul Riekhoff up against the right wing tough guys they pick?
And why does Stephanopolis always laugh at the left wing candidate and bow to the right wing? Why does he give the right wing the first word, and usually the last? I know why the right gets all the air time though. Its because the right wing guest invariably interrupts the left wing guest, who sits back and try’s to look like they’re the “nice one”, while they let the right wing guest stomp all over them.
I for one am boycotting “This Week”. I used to watch it religiously, but its turned into a stump for the right wing as it casts the right always in a favorable light, and the left in a light of feminine, soft spoken weak willed, passive debating wimps.
You’d never know Stephanopolis worked for Clinton.
BOYCOTT THIS WEEK!!!!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 11:39 amWayne above says 173,000 acres. The press has not asked where the Bush family got the money to purchase that land?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:40 amAll this crap is falling down around the King’s ears now.
He can’t comply with the subpoena, because then we’ll all find out for sure what a rotten thing he is.
But he must comply with the subpoena, because if he doesn’t he’ll be perceived as being “worse” than Clinton by the sheeple.
Oh my, this is a dilemma….. :-)
July 8th, 2007 at 11:40 amSo now Bush should do something because Clinton did it? My head hurtz.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:45 amThere are plenty of strong left wing pundits out there, but shows like “This Week”, and “Meet the Press”, just seem to be afraid of them.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amTechnically Martial Law would have to come before never leaving office I suppose
Comment by Tundra
The groundwork for that possibility was laid out in “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ (H.R.5122) . That act killed the provisions of posse comatatus and took the local National Guard control away from the local governers.
Read the law as it was passed and if you are not up on the legaleeze, read the reviews done by proffesors and law students.
I posted here about it after reading it, when none of the media was reporting the law. It was signed in a “private” signing with all the members of PNAC in attendance. No media was invited.
Read up on the implications. This is a law I don’t trust any president with even a Democrat, especially Hillary. The neocon trolls should be concerned about this too, if they had any brains at all.
Too wide open for total abuse.
A few links:
http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
July 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amhttp://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art48192.asp
Why should we wait? The investigations into Clinton’s pardons started within two weeks of the ink drying. Within a year they had determined that nothing was wrong with them.
You want to wait a year and a half just to start. I wonder why that is? If he’s going to waive executive privilege, why bother waiting? What’s the priniciple on which you base your delayed “concession�
Clinton was no longer in office during the investigations. Bush deserves the same concession so he can properly execute the duties of his office.
Clinton had many pardons during his term, none of which were investigated during his term.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amhttp://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353
July 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amCheck this out. Kinds old, but very interesting.
Probably earlier if “He Who Is On the Dark Side†decides to make his muppet attack Iran. Can’t wait.
Neither of them will attack Iran. Hillary will if she wins.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:51 amThis is actually a plot for a pen and paper RPG I run.
Comment by Jeremy — July 8, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Awesome story!
Totally not based in reality, but it’s a fun game plot.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:52 amm12 > most pardons are done as a President leaves office. That would mean that Scooter Libby should have served 12 to 18 months in prison, then Bush pardoning him on his way out in January 2009.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:52 amClinton was no longer in office during the investigations. Bush deserves the same concession so he can properly execute the duties of his office.
— i’m12
Wrong, the investigations were started while he was in office.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:52 amDid you ever meet a fact you did not mangle?
So now Bush should do something because Clinton did it? My head hurtz.
Bush didn’t even issue a pardon like slick Clinton did.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amClinton was no longer in office during the investigations. Bush deserves the same concession so he can properly execute the duties of his office.
Clinton had many pardons during his term, none of which were investigated during his term.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Clitnon was no longer in office because his term ended within days, not because he delayed a year-and-a-half. There was no concession to wait until he left officve. Investigations were begun immediately. If Clinton had still been i office, you can be damn sure the Republicans would have investigated him while still in office.
Given that Clinton was the most intimately-investigated president in history, I wud suggest that the reason none of his other pardons were investigated was because there was nothing suspicious about them. Do you have any evidence that it was because of some deference to his being in office?
Again, I ask, what is the principle on which you base your demand for a delay? (Althogh I suspect CONservative already answered for you.)
July 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amLibby was given Clemency because Bush was afraid of him talking to the feds while serving his prison sentence.
He wasn’t pardoned because he retains his Fifth Ammendment rights, which he would lose were he pardoned.
This isn’t rocket science.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am“Neither of them will attack Iran. Hillary will if she wins.”
“Clinton had many pardons during his term, none of which were investigated during his term.”
Comment by m12
Which liar said they won’t attack Iran, Insannity? BillO? Rush O’ Fool? And none of Clinton’s pardons were to cover actions of the White House. You can keep throwing out the strawman talking points, they’ll just keep gettin debunked.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amComment by Wayne — July 8, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Thanks Wayne, I started digging through them and it is certinally interesting enough for me to dive deeper. I would have to agree so far that it is cause for concern.
Question though for you legal minds: Could Bush issue a pardon to himself and Cheney before he left office for any wrong doing they may have committed?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amTundra > a president cannot pardon himself or his VP, but the next president can do so.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:59 amm12 > most pardons are done as a President leaves office. That would mean that Scooter Libby should have served 12 to 18 months in prison, then Bush pardoning him on his way out in January 2009.
Should have according to who?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pmBush and Cheney may have already cut a deal with Hillary Clinton to pardon them both, if she becomes president in 2009, but if she does that then she might be impeached for doing it.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pmAccording to precedent Matlock.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pmClitnon was no longer in office because his term ended within days, not because he delayed a year-and-a-half. There was no concession to wait until he left officve. Investigations were begun immediately. If Clinton had still been i office, you can be damn sure the Republicans would have investigated him while still in office.
Given that Clinton was the most intimately-investigated president in history, I wud suggest that the reason none of his other pardons were investigated was because there was nothing suspicious about them. Do you have any evidence that it was because of some deference to his being in office?
Again, I ask, what is the principle on which you base your demand for a delay?
You and Conyers are bringing up Clinton…yet you want a result different than Clinton.
Have your cake and eat it too, I suppose.
As Dick Durbin said in 2001, if this ‘hearing’ is a partisan shot at President (Bush), “It’s time to move on.”
July 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pmShould have according to who?
Comment by m12
According to the Law as it is written, since he was found guilty.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhich liar said they won’t attack Iran, Insannity? BillO? Rush O’ Fool? And none of Clinton’s pardons were to cover actions of the White House. You can keep throwing out the strawman talking points, they’ll just keep gettin debunked.
Keep tossing out that nonsense. Never mind that slick Clinton pardoned his brother, his friends, his former cabinet member, and his allies in Congress!
July 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pmm12 > court gave Libby 30 month prison term, so if he went to jail starting in August, then he would be there for about 17 months, then pardoned by Bush. That would have been the most ethical thing for Bush, but he is not an ethical president.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pmAccording to the Law as it is written, since he was found guilty.
And according the Constitution, the President has a right to grant commutations.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pmComment by Jay Randal — July 8, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Thanks Jay! wasn’t sure if someone had to be convicted to get one either.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNever mind that slick Clinton pardoned his brother.
Comment by m12
Roger Clinton, the president’s half-brother, convicted on drug charges served the entire sentence more than a decade before the pardon was given.
Tell me how much of the sentece did Libby serve? None you say?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pmAnd according the Constitution, the President has a right to grant commutations.
Comment by m12
And Bush followed none of the guidelines for review in the Justice dept before commuting Libby’s sentence. It was pure political hackery.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#57
The funny thing is, a month after that pardon, Roger Clinton got a DUI!
Too bad big bro couldn’t bail him out anymore.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pmAnd Bush followed none of the guidelines for review in the Justice dept before commuting Libby’s sentence. It was pure political hackery.
You understand the definition of the word ‘guideline’?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHere are the articles concerning Bush’s purchase of land in Paraguay. By the way, a couple more things I read about this. The land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border. The US military has been increasing its presence in Paraguay since 2005. Do we have a secret military base there as well?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ international/ story/ 0,,1928928,00.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cp10202006.html
http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 10/ report-bush-buys-paraguay-paradise.html
An interesting aspectic to this scenario. Read about the extradition law in Paraguay.
http://www.oas.org/ JURIDICO/ MLA/ en/ traites/ en_traites-ext-usa-pry.pdf
We have extradition between the US and Paraguay, but not in the case of a ‘political offense’. (How convenient). This was set up by President Clinton in 1998.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThe Paraguayan government has also granted immunity to US military personnel from international war crimes prosecution. Suppose Rumsfeld is going down there too?
The funny thing is, a month after that pardon, Roger Clinton got a DUI!
Too bad big bro couldn’t bail him out anymore.
Comment by m12
Yep, Roger Clinton is a dumbass, he was given basically a clean slate and went off to dirty it once more. Some people are just plain stupid.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pmaccording the Constitution, the President has a right to grant commutations.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
The power to grant clemency was used by Clinton at the end of his term, and he allowed investigations to begin while he was still in office.
What, is this an exception to the “Clinton did it too” moronic motto?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pmJG > a Special Ops military base is located next to the Bush property in Paraguay. Supposedly 10,000 US troops are located there, but nobody in the press has asked Bush Regime about it?
Bush claims to be short on troops to send to Iraq, so those 10,000 should be removed from Paraguay and sent to Iraq. Bush family can hire Blackwater mercenary goons to guard their property at their expense.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pmJust a couple days ago on this site, Gregor Samsa:
01/20/01: On his final morning in the White House, President Clinton grants 140 presidential pardons and 36 commutations.
2/08/01: The House Government Reform Committee, headed by Dan Burton, launches hearings into Clinton’s last-minute pardons.
2/14/01: Pardon hearings begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Republican Orrin Hatch.
2/15/01: Manhattan U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, in conjunction with the FBI, launches a criminal investigation into all the Clinton pardons.
2/23/01: Manhattan U.S. attorney Mary Jo White announces her office is investigating commutations Clinton granted to four Hasidic men from upstate New York.
2/27/01: Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to testify before the House Government Reform Committee.
3/01/01: Former aides John Podesta, Beth Nolan and Bruce Lindsey testify for an entire day before the House Government Reform Committee.
3/11/01: Pledging continued investigations into the pardons, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott says Congress must not “walk away†from the work of pursuing Clinton.
3/13/01: Attorney General John Ashcroft asks White to expand her current investigation into some of President Clinton’s pardons to include all 177 of the last-minute clemencies and commutations.
All those dates were after he left office.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pmClinton was no longer in office during the investigations. Bush deserves the same concession so he can properly execute the duties of his office.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 11:49 am
What talking about “executing the duties of his office”? He should be in The Hague.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pmYou understand the definition of the word ‘guideline’?
Comment by m12
Probably better than you do.
Bush stated when he commuted the sentence that the sentence was too harsh.
The sentence was set by the Law.
Did Bush commute the sentence of anyone else convicted of felony perjury and obstruction? NO
Is he going to? Doubtfull
did he pettition Congress to lighten such sentences by changing the law, as it was passed so no citizen will ever have to face such unfair sentencing? NO
If you are so blind that you cannot see the hypocricy of what Bush did, there is no hope for you at all.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmIt doesn’t matter who Clinton pardoned. Bush didn’t pardon Libby. He gave him Clemency so he wouldn’t turn states evidence and so that he woulnd’t lose his 5th ammendment privleges.
This doesn’t take a genius to figure out.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmAll those dates were after he left office.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Fine then. Investigations started a few days after Clinton granted the pardons.
I look forward to your support of the investigation into Pres Bush’s commutation at the beginning of August.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pmAll those dates were after he left office.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Are you dense? The pardons were issued on his last day in office so, of course, it would be done after he left office.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pmFine then. Investigations started a few days after Clinton granted the pardons.
I look forward to your support of the investigation into Pres Bush’s commutation at the beginning of August.
Bush will not waive executive priviledge this August. Clinton didn’t in his 7th year.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pmDid Bush commute the sentence of anyone else convicted of felony perjury and obstruction? NO
Is he going to? Doubtfull
did he pettition Congress to lighten such sentences by changing the law, as it was passed so no citizen will ever have to face such unfair sentencing? NO
The fact that the sentence was too harsh for Scooter doesn’t make it too harsh for anyone else.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pmLOL m12, so according to you the sentence was harsh for Libby, but everybody else deserves that sentence?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pmAre you dense? The pardons were issued on his last day in office so, of course, it would be done after he left office.
And Bush will only waive executive priviledge at that time! Does that somehow conflict with liberal witch hunt ideals?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm#73
Yep.
” one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men. ”
July 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmAlexander Hamilton
Bush will not waive executive priviledge this August.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
So, we have one big difference: Clinton waited until he was about to leave office. Bush didn’t.
You cannot defend Bush’s pardon because “Clinton did it too” when you know he didn’t grant clemency before the end of his term.
Clinton didn’t in his 7th year.
If Bush had waited like Clinton did we wouldn’t be having this exchange.
But you want to have it both ways: Clemency, like Clinton did, and no investigation, unlike Clinton did. All your babble is pure sophistry.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmBush will not waive executive priviledge this August. Clinton didn’t in his 7th year.
Comment by m12
Clinto waived executive priviledge many times in the many investigations over the years. His advisors testified over 40 times during his years and priviledge was waived each time, he did not hide behind executive priviledge
July 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pmListen to the mook. Liberal witch hunt.
This from the idiots who spent years and millions on trying to nail Clinton for getting a bj.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pmComment by Jay Randal — July 8, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Yep. That’s exactly what he is saying.
m12’s is now a naked defence of Libby’s sentence commutation. He is obviously trying hard to justify it, ethics and law be damned.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm†one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men. â€
Alexander Hamilton
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
July 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm-U.S. Constitution
[Clinton] he did not hide behind executive priviledge
Comment by Wayne — July 8, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Good point, Wayne. In my haste to reply to m12’s rants I completely missed the fact that Clinton was investigated so much, so often.
So, m12, how about Pres Bush waiving executive privilege -like Clinton did? (given that that’s your favorite excuse every time Pres Bush screws the pooch)
July 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmYou cannot defend Bush’s pardon because “Clinton did it too†when you know he didn’t grant clemency before the end of his term.
If Bush had waited like Clinton did we wouldn’t be having this exchange.
He is waiting. Libby did not receive any pardon.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmYou and Conyers are bringing up Clinton…yet you want a result different than Clinton.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Conyers rightly pointed out that Clinton waved executive privilege when his pardons were investigated, with in two weeks.
You want to move the goalposts and claim that, for some reason, the time period is less important than being in office or out of office.
There is no reason to suspect that any investigation or waiving of executive privilege had to wait until Clinton left office. that is jus the circumstance that seems most favorabe to you, so that’s what you’re clinging to. Whether Clinton was in office or not makes no difference.
He signed the pardons, Dan Burton started an investigation, Clinton waived executiv privilege.
Again I ask, on what principle do you base your demand for delay?
July 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmClinto waived executive priviledge many times in the many investigations over the years. His advisors testified over 40 times during his years and priviledge was waived each time, he did not hide behind executive priviledge
Please post the dates he waived this priviledge in a pardon investigation.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#83
I’ve already answered your question twice, but it’s quite simple.
Waiting until Jan 2009 shows that Conyers is not interested in, as Dick Durbin said, “a partisan shot at the President”.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:47 pmTo convince Congress he has nothing to hide, former President Bill Clinton says three of his closest ex-aides are free to tell a House committee whatever they wish about the clemencies he granted in his last hours in the White House.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pmClinton Waives Executive Privilege
#86
Feb. 27, 2001. For it to be equivalent, Bush will do the same on Feb. 27, 2009.
Why are the lefties babbling about investigating a commutation, anyway, when the possibility of a full pardon remains?
Guess they can run the course a second time, after all, they have nothing better to do than unleash witch hunts on our President.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pmBush should waive executive privilege a few days after granting clemency.
After all, Clinton did it too.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm#88
He hasn’t even fully granted clemency.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThe funny thing is, a month after that pardon, Roger Clinton got a DUI!
Too bad big bro couldn’t bail him out anymore.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
—————————————————————————————-
That is too funny!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmPlease post the dates he waived this priviledge in a pardon investigation.
Comment by m12
Use google, dumbass
July 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pmresearch yourself
As I stated, his advisors testified over 40 times
I am not going to post every date just to placate your lazy ass
You’re right.
Clemency is given to prisoners, not wimps who never served a day of their sentence.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm#83
I’ve already answered your question twice, but it’s quite simple.
Waiting until Jan 2009 shows that Conyers is not interested in, as Dick Durbin said, “a partisan shot at the Presidentâ€.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
I must have missed it then. Can you repeat it? If it’s as simple as you say, it shouldn’t cause you too much effort to copy-and-paste it one more time.
Because as far as I can tell, the principle on which you base your demand for delay is “Clinton Did Itâ„¢”. Is there a legal or philosophical principle other than that?
Ask anyone who works as an investigator of any kind - police, insurance, legal, journalist — and they will all tell you that the sooner after the fact that an investigation begins, the more fruitful it will be.
So we have to balance that principle — the efficacy of an investigation — against whatever you uphold as the principle to wait until Bush is out of office. (”Clinton Did Itâ„¢”, right?)
One MAJOR problem facing an investigation delayed eighteen months is that we KNOW what that kind of time gap does to the memories of Bush administration officials. Heck, their memories get fuzzy after three months, let alone eighteen. And we wouldn’t want anyone else “railroaded” because of their “faulty memories” now, would we? See, I’m really only thinking of the poor Bush administration officials who will be forced to testify after their memories have gone hazy.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pmUse google, dumbass
research yourself
As I stated, his advisors testified over 40 times
I am not going to post every date just to placate your lazy ass
Of course, because all of the pardon investigations were after Jan. 2001!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThat is too funny!!!
Comment by Mr. President
No what is funny is you have nothing more intellegent to add to the conversation than simple one line idiot responses
July 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pmCONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House…
July 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSpeculation, pure speculation.
#86
Feb. 27, 2001. For it to be equivalent, Bush will do the same on Feb. 27, 2009.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Wrong. Dan Burton announced his investigation Feb 8, 2001. Clinton waived executive privilege Feb 27. That’s nineteen days later. So to be perfectly consistent, if Bush announces that he will waive executive privilege nineteen days from today, we’ll call it even.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmHey Conyers…
Go Fukc Yourself!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmHEyOOooooooooooOO!
CONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House…
Speculation, pure speculation.
Comment by Mr. President — July 8, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Where does Conyers imply otherwise? What’s your point, Mr. Pee?
July 8th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHey Conyers…
Go Fukc Yourself!
HEyOOooooooooooOO!
Comment by Mr. President — July 8, 2007 @ 1:10
And yet more of what passes for intelligent comment from the Troll Patrol.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHe hasn’t even fully granted clemency.
Comment by m12 — July 8, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
You twit. Clemency is a reprieve, such as a full pardon or commutation. Even your not-so-clever Dear (mis)Leader knows that:
The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.
Statement by the President on Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby
Or like the DOJ states:
Executive clemency may take several forms, including pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pmOffice of the Pardon Attorney
Speculation, pure speculation.
Comment by Mr. President — July 8, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Hence the reason for the investigation, dumb ass.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pmPres Bush should waive executive privilege a few days after granting clemency.
After all, Clinton did it too.
(It’s easy to be a troll. Just post a few talking points, rinse, repeat. No brain power needed)
July 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm(It’s easy to be a troll. Just post a few talking points, rinse, repeat. No brain power needed)
Comment by Gregor Samsa
LMAO
July 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pmLook the Prez and VP are busy men, their time can’t be wasted every time some foolish congressman gets sand in his/her vagina.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pmHere is a song to stir the Trolls up =)
To the tune of “A Good Hearted Woman”, my apologies to Willie Nelson and the late Waylon Jennings
Chords D, D7, G, A7
—————————————-
“A Once Good Country”
( verse 1 )
A long time forgotten, the promises Bush made along the way.
The good life he promised ain’t what we’re living today.
With cackling laughter, he wreaks havoc across the land.
A once good Country being wrecked by Crazy man.
(chorus )
A once good Country being wrecked by a Crazy Man
Why Pelosi won’t Impeach him, is something that we don’t understand.
With cackling laughter he wreaks havoc across the land
A once good Country being wrecked by a crazy man.
( verse 2 )
He spies on us daily and torture rules the day
That “goddammed Piece of Paper” just seems to get in his way.
People speak out against him, he thinks they are just out of hand.
A once good Country being wrecked by a Crazy Man.
(chorus )
A once good Country being wrecked by a Crazy Man
Why Pelosi won’t Impeach him, is something that we don’t understand.
With cackling laughter he wreaks havoc across the land
A once good Country being wrecked by a crazy man.
( verse 3 )
The news reports on bimbos while ignoring whats really going on.
Our wounded comming home from war are being shat opon.
Discarded, told to shut up, not speak or be out of hand
A once good country being wrecked by a Crazy Man.
(chorus )
A once good Country being wrecked by a Crazy Man
Why Pelosi won’t Impeach him, is something that we don’t understand.
With cackling laughter he wreaks havoc across the land
A once good Country being wrecked by a crazy man.
( repeat verse 1 )
A long time forgotten, the promises Bush made along the way.
The good life he promised ain’t what we’re living today.
With cackling laughter, he wreaks havoc across the land.
A once good Country being wrecked by Crazy man.
(last chorus )
July 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pmA once good Country being wrecked by a Crazy Man
Why Pelosi won’t Impeach him, is something we don’t understand.
Law and Order used to rule across this land
Before A once good Country was totally f*cking trashed by a crazy man.
Didn’t this guy get busted with $90k in his freezer?
Comment by Mr. President
What’s wrong Mr. President? They all look the same to you?
Still haven’t answered that question there, Mr. President.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pmPlease, Mr. President you have to acknowledge me as you, remember what the doctor said, if you don’t embrace me the personalities will never merge. Those dreaded mornings would continue. You know the ones, where you/we wake up wondering where those fishnet stockings and stiletto heels you/we are wearing came from? We’ve taken the first step, finding a place where there’s a possibility of us both existing at once, confronting the reality, albeit a ‘virtual’ online reality, where our existence is apparent to both of us. Now we can take the next step of reconciling ourselves, but I can’t be the only one to recognize this or the downward spiral of madness will continue and your compensatory idolization of Bush and the neo-conservative movement will continue. Remember, It’s only a crutch you/we use to stave off the overwhelming feelings of emasculation that have existed since you realized that Clinton was potentially having sexual relations with a woman, while a virile and strong Republican like yourself was left to his own ‘devices’ for satisfaction and all the while Falwell and Roberts et al were screaming from the TV that touching yourself was pure evil. We sought refuge in a manly figure and a strong manly administration yet it only resulted in you/we detaching ourselves further from reality; a bubble was formed if you will. We must burst this bubble and we can do it!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmNo! I will not listen to you again! the last time we ended up drinking the pruno with the Crips and we couldn’t sit down for a week!
And yes! I am touch us now! and Yes we know it is evil and it is the Democrats fault. If only that Damn Bill Clinton wasn’t so smooth and sexy… why does he play that damn sax! That bastard!
Wait…we’re not writing this stuff are we?
oh crap…don’t push POST!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pmComment by pseudo-Mr.President — July 8, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pmYou sir, are a coward
Comment by pseudo-Mr.President — July 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pmYou sir, are a coward.
I wish someone from the right would come in here and put their dog on a leash.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWILLYLOMAN IS A NAME HIJACKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember when you Lefties said that you disapproved of such things!
Well let’s see if you are true to your word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment #127
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 07/ 08/ conyers-impeachment/ #comment-3918913
REMEMBER THIS WAYNE:
Anyone that does hijack a name usually gets imediate condemnation from the rest of the posters.
Comment by Wayne — July 3, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
YOU SAID IT HERE:
#237
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 07/ 03/ political-appointees-given-new-regulatory-powers/
imediate condemnation for willyloman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pmAsking George Bush to explain anything is an exercise in futility. It is beyond his ability to explain anything he’s done in a remotely coherent fashion.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pmHey trolls, please tell me. If Bush has nothing to hide, why is he hiding behind Executive Privilege? Also, what makes him think that he has the right to tell a private citizen, Ms. Taylor, that she can’t testify if she wants to. Last I heard, Bush had not been promoted to God.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pmSara Taylor CAN and MUST testify UNDER OATH.
She is a PRIVATE citizen, and is NOT working for TRAITOR Bush anymore.
Bush trying to stop Taylor from testifying is like a CRIMINAL telling a witness that THEY can’t testify.
Yes, she CAN and MUST!!!
God Bless America, The Democratic Party and SUBPOENAS!
July 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pmBush clearly misused his clemency power in commuting the sentence of Libby a former White House official. This was a clear abuse of power and the clemency power was not meant to be used for the benefit of the president and the vice president in protecting their interests. In this case unlike Clinton, the commutation will ensure that Libby will never provide information that could incriminate anyone in the White House especially Bush, Cheney or Rove.
Conyers is right, President Clinton never did anything that was even remotely a conflict of interest in terms of pardoning or commuting someone’s sentence. Also if the White House firings of the 9 US attorneys was not politically motivated and if they have nothing to hide then they should comply with all the subpoenas. Bush should be held in contempt of Congress if he doesn’t comply.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI see neither Mr Pee nor He’s12 ever went anywhere with any of the questions I asked them in good faith. No response, nothing.
Color me shocked.
What a lame batch of trolls we have here now. Is it because it’s summer, and all of the decent trolls are at the beach with their girlfriends?
July 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pmBush will never waive executive privilege. It would imply that he had principles, which we all know he lacks.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pmIf Bush decides not to leave office, then he won’t. He simply starts another war maybe in Iran or North Korea and declares marshal law. He orders elections temporarily suspended while the country is in a state of war and he can remain President until he can figure out a way to become the supreme dictator. Our country is destined to become a wasteland because he stole the election in the first place and we cannot get rid of him now or ever. We will all live in GWB hell.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:57 amCongress needs to get some balls and inpeach this lying SOB and his puppet master Cheney.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:59 amOur country is destined to become a wasteland because he stole the election in the first place and we cannot get rid of him now or ever.
Comment by American Citizen — July 9, 2007 @ 3:57 am
—————————————————————————————-
Wow. No wonder your vote didn’t count!
July 9th, 2007 at 4:03 amHEyOOOooooooooooooOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you think your vote counted? You live in a fantasy world,
July 9th, 2007 at 4:08 amI didn’t vote!!!
So there!
:P
I already knew who was going to win!!!!
And I was right!!!!!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 4:54 amYAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Expell Conyers From the House Before He Ruins America!!!!
LONG LIVE THE METAPROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT â„¢
July 9th, 2007 at 5:12 am#
I didn’t vote!!!
So there!
:P
I already knew who was going to win!!!!
And I was right!!!!!!!
YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 4:54 am
Sure you knew. It’s easy to know when it was all fixed. The only votes that did count were those who wanted Bush. Wow, how does it feel to be in a minority since you remain a Bush supporter? I guess you’re one of those who still believe we have a great economy and there WERE WMDs.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:50 amComment by American Citizen — July 9, 2007 @ 5:50 am
it feels fine.
pretty much the same.
I’m happy. I’m confident.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:03 amWhat requires the President to follow the guidelines? I think what the President did was very dirty and worth a ‘vote of no confidence’ (if such a thing exists in the US — hopefully impeachment works the same way) — but did he actually do something illegal?
July 9th, 2007 at 9:08 pmNo. The case was solved without Libby’s testimony, and it’s doubtful whether Libby actually lied, as opposed to having a bad memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage
July 9th, 2007 at 9:13 pmJournalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that “a government official with no axe to grind” leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003.
I find it strange how “people” compare the Bush-Libby Commutation to President Clinton’s pardons. As Clinton’s pardons were controversial, I think one must look at the Bush, Sr. pardons of White House and senior intelligence officials involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Does anyone remember former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, former assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs Elliott Abrams, former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane and former CIA employees Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George? They were all pardoned by Bush senior after they were convicted of lying and obstruction of justice. I think the present administration understood that leniency would not be granted after Bush leaves office if a democratic president was elected. The Iran-Contra pardons are a definite case study to help understand this administration’s political cronyism and lack of respect for the law. President Bush, Sr. was quoted as marking former secretary Weinberger as a “patriotâ€. There is no honor in lying to the public and law enforcement officials. Parris Hilton served 3 weeks in jail, but I. Lewis Libby’s sentence was too harsh? If G.W. Bush had reduced the sentence, I could understand. This administration continues to not be held accountable and further promulgates the ideal of “do as I say not as I doâ€. What hypocrites!!!
July 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pmM12 Dear Quivering Loins:
The REAL MAN you are talking about…never was in combat …and the handsome littly boy that loves filights suits.Never flew a plane !Wishfull thinking Gorge!..You know like little kids that always want to be a Firemen ! Thats the REAL MAN?? You should say LITTLE BOY WISHES
July 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pmBush is still just a spoiled little boy that has to have his way!
Look it up that was all show too.Being Garbed in a filight suit!lol funny!
..and as far as a Beer good luck with that…I think he has a taste for something stronger than that!
Must have burned some brain cells on the way….or got his smarts from Momma Bush…by the way have you read her book? Yickes!!No wonder her kids don’t know what they are doing! Its inheareted!
Do yourself a favor and look into some things and see how your Loins Quiver then………
Sic of ALL the Bush’s and can’t wait till he is oautta there…along with all the rest of the Bush”s…I pray we will have a country left when that time comes.
I can’t belive how that Moron got in the W.H. and how easy it was for him to get by with cheeting the nation and the people and he still is…Wake up America………Gees mabe with any luck another Monica will wonder into the Ovel Office…ahhhh our problem would be solved. Clinton screwed a women Bush is screwing America.