Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on January 25, 2007, 04:27:05 PM
-
...Scooter Libby?
Discuss please. No scratching, biting, gouging, or hitting below the belt!
;)
-
he should put on his chearleader outfit & go down to the courthouse & try to get the gallery into a big "D-fence" chant
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:aok
Dang Deb, you got me on that one. That 11111 ruld.
-
I'd like to see him pardon those border patrol agents first.
-
Amen to that Donzo.
-
Question is, who's going to pardon him?:huh
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Question is, who's going to pardon him?:huh
Who cares, he's toast along with the rest of the Pubs for the next twenty or so years. All part of his legacy.
GWB has bought a bunch of land in Argentina.
Argentina's extradition treaty with the US specificaly states that US citizens can't be forced to leave Argentina to be tried by the International Criminal Court.
http://www.amicc.org/docs/ArgenExtrad97.pdf
-
No, this is old news.
IMHO I don't think scooter did all that bad of a deed. This whole case blew up in the dems face as much to do about nothing. IMHO there should have been this scale of an investigation into who leaked the eavsdropping of al-queda related phone calls overseas by the NSA to the NYtimes. That to me seems like more of a hit to national security than to out a known CIA agent.
-
I'm with Donzo on this one.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
I'm with Donzo on this one.
oops yea that too!
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Who cares, he's toast along with the rest of the Pubs for the next twenty or so years.
20 years lol do you really think hilary clinton is going to make it as president for dems lol. youve got to be kidding me.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Who cares, he's toast along with the rest of the Pubs for the next twenty or so years. All part of his legacy.
GWB has bought a bunch of land in Argentina.
Argentina's extradition treaty with the US specificaly states that US citizens can't be forced to leave Argentina to be tried by the International Criminal Court.
http://www.amicc.org/docs/ArgenExtrad97.pdf
well here's another from the land of somewhere over the rainbow.
-
Originally posted by storch
well here's another from the land of somewhere over the rainbow.
Reminds me of work....
ME: "ok trainee....in the wizzard of oz what did the scarecrow want"
Trainee: "I'm sorry sir"?
ME: "I didn't ask for a character reference, what did the scarecrow want"?
Trainee: "a brain sir"?
ME: "you should aspire to be like him".
-
Whats to stop a president from pardoning himself?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Whats to stop a president from pardoning himself?
He has to have something to be pardoned from before he can pardon himself. That something would probably only happen after he's out of office.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Whats to stop a president from pardoning himself?
Constitutionallly I don't think he CAN pardon himself. I honestly don't think he's done anything (that I'm aware of besides all the conspiracy nuts) that would deserve a pardoning.
The only thing this president has done IMHO wrong is not sticking to the conservative base that elected him.
He could have been.....presidential. Instead he's just Bush.
EDIT: On the flipside the only thing the democrats have done in the last 6 years is oppose him. Being opposed to something is not a stance and that is something they will have to get sorely used to. Something I think they will fail at.
-
Now if we can just stumble onto one of Condi's blue dresses...
-
Originally posted by rpm
Now if we can just stumble onto one of Condi's blue dresses...
more likely just before Hillary is elected studly bill will be involved in a sex scandal in his Harlem office.
-
President Bush would have to be found guilty of some criminal offense to even need pardoned & so far he hasn't broken any laws, unlike Clinton who was impeached & still didn't need pardoned. Last time I checked perjury & obstruction of justice were criminal offenses, at least it would be for common folk like us.
Scooter Libby stole classified documents & all he got was a $50,000 fine; they should shoot him for treason.
-
Originally posted by john9001
more likely just before Hillary is elected studly bill will be involved in a sex scandal in his Harlem office.
that would just increase voter support from their mindless base ...
when a republican wins the WH in 08 there will be great whining I predict :)
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
President Bush would have to be found guilty of some criminal offense to even need pardoned & so far he hasn't broken any laws, unlike Clinton who was impeached & still didn't need pardoned. Last time I checked perjury & obstruction of justice were criminal offenses, at least it would be for common folk like us.
Scooter Libby stole classified documents & all he got was a $50,000 fine; they should shoot him for treason.
That was not Libby that was Sandy Berger.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Now if we can just stumble onto one of Condi's blue dresses...
Thanks for THAT mental image. :mad:
On the other hand, better her than Janet Reno.
-
I think the president should pardon the hottie nco who posed for playboy!
Oh wait, that would have been the LAST president. Nevermind.
-
Originally posted by eagl
I think the president should pardon the hottie nco who posed for playboy!
There's an idea I can get behind.
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
That was not Libby that was Sandy Berger.
Oh this is the guy that "leaked" the name of the CIA employee. My mistake, there is so much corruption & wrongdoing in Washington D.C. it's hard to keep track of who did what.
I suppose in this instance I would have to say it hinges on the question; Was Valerie Plame an "operative" as in undercover, or was she just a CIA employee. Those are two different things. I heard she was not in a covert role.
Bush shouldn't pardon him either way. We have courts for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Oh this is the guy that "leaked" the name of the CIA employee. My mistake, there is so much corruption & wrongdoing in Washington D.C. it's hard to keep track of who did what.
I suppose in this instance I would have to say it hinges on the question; Was Valerie Plame an "operative" as in undercover, or was she just a CIA employee. Those are two different things. I heard she was not in a covert role.
Bush shouldn't pardon him either way. We have courts for a reason.
It hinges on nothing. Libby, Rove, Bush, Cheney, et.al. had nothing to do with the "leak".
Richard Armitage was the source of the "leak".
-
of course you are correct there donzo but please look at my sig line.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
President Bush would have to be found guilty of some criminal offense to even need pardoned & so far he hasn't broken any laws, unlike Clinton who was impeached & still didn't need pardoned. Last time I checked perjury & obstruction of justice were criminal offenses, at least it would be for common folk like us.
Scooter Libby stole classified documents & all he got was a $50,000 fine; they should shoot him for treason.
Wow, so much misinformation in that statement it boggles the mind. Was Nixon found guilty of anything before Ford pardoned him?
Once again for those that slept thru Government class:
Impeachment = charged with a crime, not convicted of anything. It's like a grand jury indictment. Impeachment means NOTHING.
Trial = Guilt or innocence is determined and punishment is decided.
Be cool. Stay in school! A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wow, so much misinformation in that statement it boggles the mind. Was Nixon found guilty of anything before Ford pardoned him?
Once again for those that slept thru Government class:
Impeachment = charged with a crime, not convicted of anything. It's like a grand jury indictment. Impeachment means NOTHING.
Trial = Guilt or innocence is determined and punishment is decided.
Be cool. Stay in school! A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Impeachment is for removing a sitting president from office; it's got nothing to do with a grand jury indictment & it means a lot! To say it means nothing is silly. You have to impeach a president before criminal charges can be brought against them iirc. You can't pardon someone for something they haven't done; Nixon admitted his culpability making him guilty by his own words iirc, therefore pardonable.
I never said Impeachment meant guilt, you just implied that I did. Maybe you should take your own advice about that schooling, I made straight A's in my American govt. classes, did you?
Oh Donzo, since you say you know who did what maybe you should go & testify before all those money wasting hearings since apparently no one else knows; I'll say it again, no pardon that's why we have courts. IF Libby did what his accusers say he did, then I believe his guilt would hinge on if there was a crime committed. It's not a crime unless Plame's identity was protected by law. Not all CIA employees are.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
It's not a crime unless Plame's identity was protected by law. Not all CIA employees are.
You couldn't be more wrong on this point.
Libby's in trouble for lying to both the Grand Jury and to the Special Prosecuter.
Plame's status has absolutly no significance to his trial as of this moment.
Now it seems that Darth Cheny is going to be in some deep fecal mater, Ari has immunity and is working with Fitz.
The only reason this trial is happening is because people in the Whitehouse decided that politics and protecting their party came first above truth and justice. Not suprising considering who is occupying the peoples house.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Impeachment is for removing a sitting president from office; it's got nothing to do with a grand jury indictment & it means a lot! To say it means nothing is silly. You have to impeach a president before criminal charges can be brought against them iirc. You can't pardon someone for something they haven't done; Nixon admitted his culpability making him guilty by his own words iirc, therefore pardonable.
I never said Impeachment meant guilt, you just implied that I did. Maybe you should take your own advice about that schooling, I made straight A's in my American govt. classes, did you?
Brenjen, you are wrong with a capitol WRONG.
Yes, you implied impeachment means guilt. While you may believe that Clinton was guilty of a crime, a court of law has yet to make that decision. He could still have recieved a pardon tho.
You say Nixon was guilty of admitted crimes and that's why he was pardoned. Wrong again, sorry. Ford's pardon: Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
You can be pardoned for a crime that "may have been committed". I'm sure either your Government teacher is spinning in their grave or there was a grievous computer error on your report card. You don't seem to grasp the process and it's workings.
Now back to impeachment. Do you know how those work?? You can take notes because I'm going to use a metaphor again. It is the equal to a Grand Jury Indictment. It does nothing other than charge a person with a crime. No guilt or penalty is decided or assessed. The impeachment IS the bringing of charges, just like a grand jury brings charges. Do you see where the metaphor fits now? The charges are forwarded to the Senate, where they decide whether to hold trial or not.
Impeachment = NOTHING without a conviction from the Senate. Refresh my memory if you will, what did the Senate do with Clinton's impeachment?
Be Cool, stay awake in school.
-
I believe a president can pardon him or herself with the exception of impeachment. It would be considered by most nondemocrats bad form however.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
The only reason this trial is happening is because people in the Whitehouse decided that politics and protecting their party came first above truth and justice. Not suprising considering who is occupying the peoples house.
No . . . the only reason it is happening is some democrat hack who happened to work for the CIA sent her equally hack husband on a bogus trip so he could file a bogus report with bogus findings, and then make bogus statments to the news media.
Truth and justice were never in the picture to begin with.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Truth and justice were never in the picture to begin with.
More like some people in power being self rightious and believing they are above t3h l4w. Much more will come of this. Cheney is t3h h4xx0r.
-
Originally posted by E25280
No . . . the only reason it is happening is some democrat hack who happened to work for the CIA sent her equally hack husband on a bogus trip so he could file a bogus report with bogus findings, and then make bogus statments to the news media.
Truth and justice were never in the picture to begin with.
And I would say that the fervor of this statement should end the debate!!!!
shamus
-
Scooter Libby has been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of "justice."
His lawyer says they will appeal.
So, once again, I return to my original question; "Should the President pardon Scooter Libby?"
-
should fitz be charged with wasting tax money on investigating a non-crime?
the investigation was about outing a CIA agent, fitz found that did not happen, should he have stopped at that point?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Scooter Libby has been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of "justice."
His lawyer says they will appeal.
So, once again, I return to my original question; "Should the President pardon Scooter Libby?"
It depeneds on your definition of "should".
-
Absolutely no pardon.
-
(http://boingboing.net/images/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg)
Whoooops....
-
Originally posted by E25280
No . . . the only reason it is happening is some democrat hack who happened to work for the CIA sent her equally hack husband on a bogus trip so he could file a bogus report with bogus findings, and then make bogus statments to the news media.
Truth and justice were never in the picture to begin with.
Really?
I thought the only reason it is happening is some republican hack who happened to work in the White House sent his equally hack lackey to lie to a Grand Jury. Bogus testimony, bogus testimony, and then make bogus staments about the bogus testimony.
Truth and justice were never in the picture to begin with. Ref previously mentioned bogusness.
Or something like that,
hap
p.s. hacking, leaking, squealing, and bogusing has a pretty staunch history: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec03/historyleaks_10-09.html
-
Found this interesting....
Plame and her husband have since left government and are in the process of developing a movie about the case with Warner Bros. and producer Jerry Zucker. Plame also has a $2 million book deal if the CIA ever permits her to publish her story
-
Yes, he should do time. There are no degrees of guilt to it. Perjury is perjury.
Hold 'em all accountable.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
I'd like to see him pardon those border patrol agents first.
Amen
-
Before Bush considers any other pardons, he should pardon the border patrol agents. They shoot an illegal immigrant, the US attorney generals office allows him to come into the country and testify against these officers who were PROTECTING us? That's the real insanity of the justice system!
So, let's see. Drugs come across border illegally being smuggled by illegal immigrants, they're spotted, they run, they reach for what looks like weapons, the officers fire to protect themselves, the illegal gets away, the officers are arrested for doing what they were told to do, the illegal immigrant who helped smuggle the drugs then ran says, "Sure, me come testify against the people who shot me, anything to get my drugs into your country!"
THAT'S WRONG!
-
email the president and your congressman and tell them to pardon the agents.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Oh this is the guy that "leaked" the name of the CIA employee. My mistake, there is so much corruption & wrongdoing in Washington D.C. it's hard to keep track of who did what.
I suppose in this instance I would have to say it hinges on the question; Was Valerie Plame an "operative" as in undercover, or was she just a CIA employee. Those are two different things. I heard she was not in a covert role.
Bush shouldn't pardon him either way. We have courts for a reason.
You need to be better informed--Richard Armitage 'leaked' Plame first---and he was a Bush enemy
-
Kieran, President Clinton committed perjury...and he did no time. Apparently, some believe that there are varying degrees of guilt.
-
I know, Shuckins, but that ship has sailed. All we can do is deal with the now. If convicted, a person should serve time, just like you or I would in a similar situation. Libby is guilty. Why he chose to fall on the grenade is moot; he did. And I sure as heck don't want to see him pull an Oliver North and wrap himself in the flag and try to convince me he did it for America.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
You need to be better informed--Richard Armitage 'leaked' Plame first---and he was a Bush enemy
Dear lord, Armitage is a card carrying member of PNAC along with Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz etc. He wasn't any kind of outsider.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Dear lord, Armitage is a card carrying member of PNAC along with Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz etc. He wasn't any kind of outsider.
The State dept under Powell was and still IS against Bush, particularly the Iraq war--Armitage was a vocal critic of it, and could have ended the investigation before it started by speaking up, but he was granted immunity, so he didn't have to. Not everything is as it seems, or how you wish it to be
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.
Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up..
As it turned out, Novak wasn't the only person Armitage talked to about Plame. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has also said he was told of Plame's identity in June 2003. Woodward did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but, as late as last week, he referred reporters to his comments in November 2005 that he learned of her identity in a "casual and offhand" conversation with an administration official he declined to identify. According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three weeks before talking to Novak.
The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.
Indeed, Armitage was a member of the administration's small moderate wing. Along with his boss and good friend, Powell, he had deep misgivings about President George W. Bush's march to war. A barrel-chested Vietnam vet who had volunteered for combat, Armitage at times expressed disdain for Dick Cheney and other administration war hawks who had never served in the military. Armitage routinely returned from White House meetings shaking his head at the armchair warriors. "One day," says Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, "we were walking into his office and Rich turned to me and said, 'Larry, these guys never heard a bullet go by their ears in anger ... None of them ever served. They're a bunch of jerks'."
-
I think George Bush ough to pardon HIMSELF and is excellent example for the reason to have an I.Q. test administered before becoming president. I find it interesting that the Dixie Chicks knew the Iraq war was a bad idea before him and nearly his whole cabinet did. As i said before you don't need to posses a college education and what the world would consider proof of intelligent to be wise.
-
Twaddle, Armitage wasn't some State Department lifer bureaucrat. He was a colleague of all the other PNAC members in the Bush administration, and was a freaking Bush political appointee. Hell, he served as a a foreign policy adviser to Bush during his initial Presidential campaign.
Now you trying to make him out to be representative of the State Department instead of Bush, who gave him his freaking job? I don't think so. There's a common thread in this story and it isn't the State Department, it's the neo-cons following their stated policies using their typical methods to effect those policies.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The State dept under Powell was and still IS against Bush, particularly the Iraq war--Armitage was a vocal critic of it, and could have ended the investigation before it started by speaking up, but he was granted immunity, so he didn't have to. Not everything is as it seems, or how you wish it to be
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
What does any of this have to do with what Libby was convicted of?
shamus
-
Don't worry Shamus, discussions are like rivers, they flow where they will, but always lead to the ocean of higher knowledge.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Dear lord, Armitage is a card carrying member of PNAC along with Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz etc.
It doesn't Shamus. What's the old saying? When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When and facts and the law are against you, argue like heck.
And Thrawn, those guys, PNAC are a spooky bunch indeed. They've been in the same room agreeing with each other for way too long. I know delusional is not a stretch though megalomaniacal maybe but not by far.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Shamus
What does any of this have to do with what Libby was convicted of?
shamus
It has only to do with the oft-stated allegation that Bush's people 'leaked' Plame's name---Armitage, etal, is NOT one of Bush's people. Libby wasn't the one who 'leaked' her name. He is guilty of lying during the investigation--no more, no less.
(If he DID lie intentionally, what would have been his motive...AND WHO is stupid enough to think they can lie to a grand jury and get away with it?)
-
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
If Bush does pardon him, Take a look at who Clinton Pardoned, just for a comparison.
-
WOW!:O
-
pops gave orlando bosch a pardon, scooter the goat, that's a given..
-
Marc Rich S. D. N. Y. 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
-
Proof that President Clinton was correct when he stated, "I made a few mistakes during my presidential term."
-
I keep thinking of Sandy Berger in all of this...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I keep thinking of Sandy Berger in all of this...
Why would Bush pardon Sandy Berger?
-
Sandy Berger obviously lied to investigators, (and since all this has blown over even MORE stuff has come out) but that's not the same as lying to a grand jury
-
You do remember what Sandy Berger did, right?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You do remember what Sandy Berger did, right?
Oh yah. And absolutely NOTHING happened to him. NOW it looks like he pilfered and destroyed some non-duplicated originals
-
Let me say first Libby needs to go to jail. He broke the law and that's that.
WRT Sandy Berger, doubly so. Sandy Berger destroyed archived material belonging to the federal government for the purpose of erasing Clinton's (and perhaps his own) responsibility for 9/11. In addition, he was aiding the Kerry camp during the '04 election. Sounds like a two-fer to me.
So, if conventional wisdom holds, at least three crimes occurred:
1. He stole and destroyed evidence for any possible future investigation
2. He lied to authorities when questioned about the crime
3. His "information gathering" aided Kerry in an illegal attempt to sway a national election (shades of Watergate!)
As I recall the worst he got was a vicious finger-wagging in his face and a stern "Don't do that anymore, young man!" Yes, he was fined $50,000, but I doubt a penny of that came out of his pocket.
I'm sure someone will straighten me out here directly. After all, if he had been guilty of half of this stuff he would have gone to prison... right?
-
Take note of the number of people pardoned by Clinton who were convicted of distributing or attempting to distribute cocaine and other hard drugs.
Note also that some of those pardoned for those crimes had ties to the Eastern District of Arkansas. Have you ever heard of the town of Marianna? Look it up. During the eighties and nineties a very large percentage of the illegal drugs moving into the eastern half of the U.S. traveled through that town in eastern Arkansas.
Rumors about Clinton's ties to organized crime have been circulating since the first day he entered the political arena. There's more to the man than an engaging smile and an overactive libido. A lot of the man's friends and associates have fallen on their swords over the years to protect him.
The large number of unsavory characters and hard-core criminals that he gave midnight pardons to ought to raise the eyebrows of any objective observer. It absolutely reeks of corruption.
One of my associate instructors at the unit where I work attended Ouachita Baptist University in the 1970s and one of his instructors was James McDougal. He was friends with both James and Susan and was on a field trip to Washington, D.C. with them when James proposed to her. He knew both of them quite well.
This friend of mine is an ex-serviceman, Gulf War vet, and no fan of George Bush. When discussing his friendship with the McDougals one day I asked him if Susan was banging Clinton and whether or not he thought she took the fall for him in the Whitewater scandal.
He said "Absolutely."
-
Democrats have proven many times over that they care about legality, propriety, or morality only when they can attack republicans. When it comes to their own all misdeeds are forgiven, winked at, or even praised.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Democrats have proven many times over that they care about legality, propriety, or morality only when they can attack republicans. When it comes to their own all misdeeds are forgiven, winked at, or even praised.
Same for Republicans. Open your eyes.
-
If Libby lied under oath, I agree that he should be convicted, and if I were a juror who saw evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed purjury, I'd vote guilty.
However, I personally would have no problem with Bush granting Libby a pardon because the whole thing stinks of a political fishing expedition with no underlying crime, which the prosecutor appears to have been well aware.
I'm pretty tired of the hoardes of lawyers in Washington using the Justice system as a political club - both Democrats and Republicans. Ann Coulter's recent commentary on the subject illuminates the problem from her standpoint:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070307/cm_ucac/shootingelephantsinabarrel
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Same for Republicans. Open your eyes.
Not the same. Nixon resigned, what about Clinton? More recently other republicans have resigned in disgrace while democrats guilty of far worse remain in office with no pressure to resign.