I suppose you're not including Marc Rich, who was charged with tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran) during the trade embargo back in the 80's, who then fled to Switzerland. Denise Rich, his ex-wife, contributed $1 million to the Democratic party just before Clinton's pardon.....although I'm sure that must not have had anything to do with it! LOL. Oh by the way, he never spent a single day in jail. OldTrader
So if the pardon of Mark rich was wrong in your opinion, which you seem to indicate by the focus on Clinton and away from Bush and his cronyism, then so was Bush's commutation of sentence wrong... Is that what you are awkwardly trying to say, that Bush was wrong?
But Libby had a media conspiracy against him. He had an advocate judicial system against him. How many guilty of perjury serving their terms were tarred and feathered like Libby? None, maybe? Libby was a happenstance target by people of influence trying to get Bush and Cheney by any means necessary. Bush has the power to balance that type of injustice perpetuated by non-elected societal institutions of prejudice like media, law and education.
This is where many people tend to become confused and sidetracked. These types of statements are always introduced by the wacko right to divert attention from where it really should be. The issue is not what some other President did. The issue is what this President has done. This little bastard has single-handedly nearly destroyed the country by bankrupting the treasury and devastating our image on the international scale. He's like the "fourth Stooge" (Moe, Larry, Curly, George) who looks at the rest of the country, as well as the rest of the world with his thumbs in ears, waving his fingers, while saying naa naa; I'm doing things my way no matter what all the rest of you say. And, while we're at it; anybody still believe it has been worth thousands of U.S. dead soldiers for Little George's war in Iraq? If this straw (Libby sentence commute) doesn't break the camel's back for the remainder of the Republicans, I kinda wonder what it would take for them to no longer support this idiot. .....Hmmm, maybe nuking Massachusetts??? This little shit needs to be removed from the White House before he can think up his next major blunder. Of course, the Dumbocrats don't have the guts to move forward to get rid of him, so looks like we're stuck for a while longer. This from a real Republican; a Ronald Reagan Republican. (Thank you for standing up when I mention that name.) Hillary for President in '08. Let's kick these Rinos in the ass again in the next election. Maybe some of them will begin to get "it".
The "wacko right"??? LOL! Just so that you know, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the right to pardon virtually without limitation. What that means is that Clintons 140 pardons in a single day in January 2001 were sanctioned by the Constitution, just as Bush's pardon of Libby. It's really that simple. Now, if you were acquainted with the facts, you might discover a much stronger basis for pardon of Libby, than for a guy like Marc Rich, who bought and paid for his pardon by his contribution to the Democratic party. But either way, our forefathers evidently felt that this miscarriage (in Rich's case) was worth giving the President the right to exercise his judgment, which is exactly what Bush did in Libby's case. OldTrader
what is your point? that one wrong justifies another wrong? and ZZz: please remove that vomit picture from the thread -- I realize this is the politics and religion forum, but that is really uncalled for.
Not at all. I was responding to the post by Sparohok, in which he stated: "To me the big difference is that Clinton made those pardons as he was leaving office. A lot of those people had been in prison for years before they got pardoned, so it certainly wasn't a lightly made decision to wait until the end of his term. " Rich hadn't been in prison, and the pardon was immediately preceded by a major contribution to the Democratic party, giving the appearance that his pardon was bought and paid for, rather than one stemming from alot of "heavy" thought. You'd have understood that point had you bothered to read the thread and context in which my post was made, before you made your own post. But in fact, if you bother to read the circumstance of the Marc Rich case, versus the Libby case, my opinion would be that Libby was well more deserving of a pardon than Rich. I can see no reason for a pardon in Rich's case other than his contribution. OldTrader
Well, when you get thru LOLing you might want to consider whether both Clinton and Little George just may have subverted the intentions of the writers of the Constitution. Your interpretation of the intent of the writers of the Constitution are IMHO bizarre. So, why do you keep trying to justify what Little George did by the actions of Clinton??? If what Little George did was correct, your lame excuse of citing the actions of someone else, wouldn't even be necessary. Apparently, you and I differ on what is acceptable levels of moral responsibility. After all, we're only talking about the actions of a President of the United States!!??!! Of course one seldom admits being wrong about anything here in ET chit chat. So.....have fun.....
Yet another ironic thread started by the same troll who believes that proof of the justice system working is that paroled murderers only kill a couple of hundred innocents. The same troll who thinks pedophilia is a laughing matter and told an ET member it disagreed with that it hoped the member's kids were murdered at the hands of a pedophile. The troll is here to lure in unsuspecting victims with a seemingly reasonable thread title and then.....argue until the "discussion" dissolved into ad hominem. Nothing more.
Of course I'm including Marc Rich. He was pardoned as Clinton was leaving office. You haven't refuted a word I said. Seriously, what's your point? As it happens, Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's defense lawyer. He has always maintained that Rich was innocent, including after the pardon when he wasn't Rich's lawyer anymore. So even Mr. Libby disagrees with you on this one.