Pres.Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

[jtilden21]

And tone it down! The moderators are not happy!

 

[letme]

As I sit here,I am still waiting for answers about the 4 cites pardoners I listed by Billy.
They have committed offenses for worse the what Libby did.

Where is fair and balanced here ? Arms dealers,lairs to the congress/courts..etc. Was it OK for these ? Flames are leeping high and fast,,I ask where was the outrage for like pardons for worse crimes.

Hell PARDON is not what done,really. Bush only stopped Libby from going to a country club.

 

[Andreus]

And tone it down! The moderators are not happy!

the mods are used to cracking us over the heads and we are responsive

lol

i want to hear one of the right wingers say what they have been tapdancing around all night

that Bush abused the power of his office today

its not like they havent infered it in every post

why cant they muster up the courage to just say it and be done?

 

[jtilden21]

Guys: With great respect, this seems to be a hot topic -- more than I thought it would be.

We have moved from discussions to personal attacks tonight on this forum.

Not only is that not in the interest of this forum, but it does not help the bigger picture.

Let's take it down a notch, talk rationally and STOP the personal attacks.

I know you are all heated personally because of this, but this is not proving to be productive conversation.

 

[Andreus]

As I sit here,I am still waiting for answers about the 4 cites pardoners I listed by Billy.
They have committed offenses for worse the what Libby did.

Where is fair and balanced here ? Arms dealers,lairs to the congress/courts..etc. Was it OK for these ? Flames are leeping high and fast,,I ask where was the outrage for like pardons for worse crimes.

Hell PARDON is not what done,really. Bush only stopped Libby from going to a country club.

i am waiting for you to say that the president has abused his powers

that is the topic of the thread

you know that... clintons actions are irrelevant on the morality of bush's actions

you came right up top the line and refused to say it

why?

 

[jtilden21]

Andreus: We can all make an argument that the PUSA has abused his power at one time or another. If it is a Dem prez, then the Repubs complain. If a Repub prez, the Dems complain.

Just SSDD.

 

[Spensed]

Special guidelines and procedures? Really, tell us all what they are! Do you just make this stuff up?

They are referred to in the CNN link I provided and they can also be tracked down, surprise, surprise, in a few Google searches. See, for example,

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons3.htm

Do I make this stuff up? No. But then, unlike some folk, I don't hold myself out as an authority on something I clearly don't know that much about. LOL.

 

[Andreus]

Andreus: We can all make an argument that the PUSA has abused his power at one time or another. If it is a Dem prez, then the Repubs complain. If a Repub prez, the Dems complain.

Just SSDD.

perhaps

but this thread is about bush and his decision, not the prior presidents and their rationalle for their behavior... we have discussed that all before

look

when saddam died and all the democrats screamed it was wrong, i broke with the party line and said that i thought he was giulty of a crime worthy of death and that he deserved his execution

when the dems went for immigration recently i broke as well in favor of my own personal beliefs that legal immigration was more important than anything the bad bill had to offer

these guys will not even say that bush abused his power in a thread about that action and are going through huge machinations to distract from the topic at hand just so they wont for one instant break from their party loyalty

i dont see how that is honest or promotes real debate

 

[letme]

i am waiting for you to say that the president has abused his powers

that is the topic of the thread

you know that... clintons actions are irrelevant on the morality of bush's actions

you came right up top the line and refused to say it

why?

Because he has not read that again HAS NOT abused his power. He did the same as a governor of a state in blocking an execution. Courts send a man to die, a governor changed the order.

Bush did what 42 POTUS has done for 226 years . He keep a man from going to prison.Just that simple. Libby is still guilty. Will be. will loose his right to practice law. He is still a FELON. only not locked in a cage.

 

[naked gent]

So if your sentence is commuted.....

But you're still on probation......

What happens if you violate your probation?

 

[jtilden21]

Okay Andreus agreed that we need to focus at the point at hand. But, part of this forum is to support your statements. When ppl reference other presidents, they are supporting their position.

Each of us can do that -- the forum is supposed to support an open discussion, which means that there will be differing opinions.

 

[jtilden21]

I hate to bring this down to this level, and God forgive me, but is this any different than the special privileges Paris Hilton enjoyed?

There were threads here just tearful because of poor Paris.

Okay, we are talking the difference between a hotel princess and a supposed traitor.

But, come on, guys!?!?!

Let's call a spade a spade and a $ privilege a $ privilege.

 

[letme]

So if your sentence is commuted.....

But you're still on probation......

What happens if you violate your probation?

Then that is a new charge. Charged with Violation of Probation. And then the ORIGINAL sentence most be served.(after a trial and found guilty). Time may be added for breaking terms also.

 

[Spensed]

Okay, gents:

We have two points:

1) That the prez overstretched his political power
2) That the prez used executive privilege

Regardless of your personal opinions on the details, I think that the crux of the matter is: should executive privilege be allowed, without checks and balances? Or is this a breech of the checks-and-balances system?

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush didn't or shouldn't have the legal or political power to do what he did. So whether he didn't or shouldn't have that power really isn't the immediate issue.

Many presidential pardons are unpopular and the Republicans were all over Clinton's pardon of Rich because they claimed it didn't go through the usual channels.

The issue is more one of morality, public confidence in the rule of law and conflict of interest. There are various non-binding produres and guidelines that apply to most Presidential pardons and commutions, which Bush ignored in this case. There are also questions in play about whether the commutation was given to shut Libby up from incriminating Cheney and Bush.

So while Bush is constitionally entitled to do what he did, it isn't surprising that other folk are going to use it to their political advantage.

I think the timing is much better for the Dems than an end of term pardon. This will become another talking point like the missing WMDs in Iraq, Katrina, the increased costs of the federal goverment, etc., etc. So it's not all bad.

 

[jackoroe]

[F Sans MS]They are referred to in the CNN link I provided and they can also be tracked down, surprise, surprise, in a few Google searches. See, for example,

[/FONT][F Sans MS]http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons3.htm[/FONT]
[F Sans MS][/FONT]
[F Sans MS]Do I make this stuff up? No. But then, unlike some folk, I don't hold myself out as an authority on something I clearly don't know that much about. LOL.[/FONT]

OK, thanks for that post, you were right and I was wrong. See, I can admit it . That having been said, it would appear that the word "generally" is used throughout the document. There are no strict prohibitions on what a POTUS may or may not do, merely guidelines and suggestions. The power of the pardon lies totally within the purview of the President.

 

[jtilden21]

spensed -- no, the discussion tonight has centered around whether or not he should have used something that he had a right to use.

The discussion went beyond that.

The forum centered around should he have envoked that power.

I made the agrument that he had every right to use executive power. The topic of discussion was shoulda, woulda, coulda.

 

[letme]

jtilden21

You have been a member JUB for just shy of 3 years and you picked tonight to make your 28th(well received) post ?? Dang you picked a hell of a night to jump into this frying pan !!!

Hi and hope to hear more from you and look forward to what shit you might stir up here

 

[JerryBoyz]

Yep, because the AVERAGE person convicted of PURGERY and OBSTRUCTION OR JUSTICE would get the same lenient treatment from the President....

IMO they should fix it so that no President can pardon any member of the Executive Branch from the past or present....Then we wouldn't have had that "Nixon pre-charged" pardon nonsense. The President should not be able to release crooks in his own administration or those of administrations past.

 

[jtilden21]

^ letme, I have been a member since this site was linkmeallover. And, I have quietly posted when I felt the need to bring my two cents into play. LOL

 

[Andreus]

Okay Andreus agreed that we need to focus at the point at hand. But, part of this forum is to support your statements. When ppl reference other presidents, they are supporting their position.

Each of us can do that -- the forum is supposed to support an open discussion, which means that there will be differing opinions.

the support of their presidents actions should include a justification for it above the excuse that someone else did it or why not

and as far as open discussion goes, there are general guidelines we follow in regards to hijacking and staying on topic

they need to be considered or the pandemonium breaks out that you saw tonight

just keeping on topic does not harm an open debate

i suspect you know that, though