Author Topic: Should President Bush Pardon... (Read 1782 times)

rpm · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:26:35 PM »

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

lukster · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:47:40 PM »

I believe a president can pardon him or herself with the exception of impeachment. It would be considered by most nondemocrats bad form however.

E25280 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 27, 2007, 01:23:56 AM »

Quote

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.

rpm · « **Reply #33 on:** January 27, 2007, 01:40:02 AM »

Quote

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.

Shamus · « **Reply #34 on:** January 27, 2007, 01:42:42 AM »

Quote

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

Shuckins · « **Reply #35 on:** March 06, 2007, 04:31:27 PM »

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?"

john9001 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 06, 2007, 04:44:47 PM »

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?

Donzo · « **Reply #37 on:** March 06, 2007, 04:46:07 PM »

Quote

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".

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** March 06, 2007, 04:46:31 PM »

Absolutely no pardon.

Chairboy · « **Reply #39 on:** March 06, 2007, 04:59:58 PM »

Whoooops....

Hap · « **Reply #40 on:** March 06, 2007, 05:09:36 PM »

Quote

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

Ripsnort · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2007, 05:18:39 PM »

Found this interesting....

Quote

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

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:23:57 PM »

Yes, he should do time. There are no degrees of guilt to it. Perjury is perjury.

Hold 'em all accountable.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:25:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Donzo
I'd like to see him pardon those border patrol agents first.

Amen

Denholm · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:41:46 PM »

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!