News-Record.com

at this point, bush has very little to lose...

"I am looking forward to the next national election where I will vote for a party that has a higher standard of integrity."

Which party is that Ann?

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Look at the list just for January 20, 2001. Of course the most notorious being Marc Rich.

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

Bush has pardoned 113 people total as of June 29, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

Clinton pardoned 147 people on one day, January 20, 2001.

I don't agree that Bush commuting Libby's sentence was right, but I thought I'd add a little perspective. Sadly both parties have lost their way.

I think presidential pardons should have limits. I think there is a need for them, but as noted above- 113 by Bush so far and 147 in one day by Clinton? This is ridiculous.

Until Americans take back our America- this is the type of BS we will be dealing with.

Wish I had an idea how to take back my America...any suggestions?

The actions of the Crawford Clown surprise you in what way? Anyone with half an ounce of common sense knew that something was going to be "coming down the pike." Now the question is when the full and free pardon comes!

Remember, this administration is more lawless than that of the late Richard Nixon.

One difference that I see in comparing this particular incident with the pardons given by President Clinton; The pardons referenced given by President Clinton were given on his LAST day in office, not one and a half years left to go!

I do not recall President Clinton declaring that there would be any form of justice for outing CIA agents during his Presidential tenure. Is the Crawford Clown able to do the same? Does anyone recall the comments made about this specific incident?

Shalom

Is anyone else enjoying the twisted conniptions of the
left wingers who so vehemently hate the CIA (as well as all the other law enforcement agencies) and all it does, and yet feel compelled to express outrage that one of it's "operatives" was
outed and the president commutes the sentence of a man who was convicted
for having a crappy memory?

Paris Hilton shows American Justice to be equal.

Scooter's commutation is the sad end to a political circus that should have never happened. Scooter was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a crime that never happened. And, if a crime did happen, it was Armitage that did it. The whole Wilson/Plume affair was a waste of time and taxpayers' money. The prosecutor knew who leaked the name of a CIA clerk before he started the investigation. It was a political witch hunt the entire time. The only thing he caught was Scooter by questionable testimony of people with foggy memories. If you want to convict a real criminal, go after Joe Wilson.

Mike Nifong proved that American justice sometimes can be tainted with the stains of politics. Fitzgerald continued the tradition.

If Americans don't agree with presidents giving pardons to ever they choose, then insist that Congress change the law.

The president should not have the power to pardon or commute sentences. This is too much power for one person to have.

Why should the president, just because he is the president, be able to overturn a judges sentence? Overturning sentences should be left to the judicial branch, not the executive.

Just as Clinton did, Bush has further tarnished his legacy by in essence pardoning a convicted felon. Whatever you think about this case, the majority of the prosecution were Republicans, so this wasn't a partisan crack-job.

We the people need to revoke some of the Presidential powers.

"He is sending the message that if you have friends in high places, then the law does not apply to you."

You didn't know that until now?

Look, people. The law is for the government to make and everyone else to follow.

Or another way of saying it is that there is no law, only the whim of tyrants. The "law" is whatever those in charge declare it to be at any given moment.

As long as you all support a state, these are the results you're going to get.

Danny says,
"I don't agree that Bush commuting Libby's sentence was right, but I thought I'd add a little perspective. Sadly both parties have lost their way."

Wow! Like no one knew that! You still don't get it, do you?
Sure the other Presidents pardoned criminals, and sure some of the pardons where questionable.

The point here is the appeals process was NOT over.
This was NOT at the END of a term.
This was also NOT someone already serving a sentence.

What this was was a high ranking administration official found GUILTY BY A JURY! This was NOT a declared motion by some sitting judge, but rather a man found GUILTY by a JURY in a court of
law---who had never served a day in prison!

Oh how those who crucified Bill Clinton for lying about marital infidelity, are so quick to grant Cheney's torch bearer a walk! Ever wonder why Bush did this? Maybe it was because Cheney told him to? Oh yes. And why DID Scooter lie? To cover up the VP's illegal activities of outing a covert agent....one by the way, that the "Apologists" on this thread still claim was not under cover. Funny how they know more than the CIA who says she WAS in fact an undercover agent at the time.

Oh, the web of deceit being woven by our local "shills" for Bush. Danny, we're gonna have to get a surgeon to remove you from the anal orifice of the Administration!

Danny, you are like the little boy on the playground..."look mommie! He did it too! He did it too! It's not just me! He did it too! Looky everyone!"
We get it Danny. Now it's time for you to try and grasp it.

STUPID STATEMENT OF THE WEEK:

"If you want to convict a real criminal, go after Joe Wilson."

That's about as far fetched as I've seen and is a little "neocon-esque".

Joe Wilson reports back with info that doesn't fit the administration's purposes...so Oak calls him a criminal?

That 24% is something else! Whew! Folks, Bush is down to the seeds and stems in his stash bag of support! We are talking "the fringe" of society, now.

Best post of the week:

" Is anyone else enjoying the twisted conniptions of the
left wingers who so vehemently hate the CIA (as well as all the other law enforcement agencies) and all it does, and yet feel compelled to express outrage that one of it's "operatives" was
outed and the president commutes the sentence of a man who was convicted
for having a crappy memory?"

Oh NO! Folks, Danny is going to have a cow when he finds out about this! It will crush him...hope his wife is by his side when he finds out. Another scandal might just put him over the edge since he has his beloved "R" syndrome keeping him alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19636772/

If he comes out spinning it, or neoKitty does it for him, we'll have to just be thankful he didn't throw himself off the Talahatchie Bridge or something! LOL!

"The pardons referenced given by President Clinton were given on his LAST day in office, not one and a half years left to go!"

Look at the link again Darryl. The 147 pardons were just on one day, there were many more before that, the dates are referenced.

Brian, your post makes a lot of sense and I agree with it. This whole presidential pardoning or commuting business, no matter if the prez is, an R or a D, flouts our justice system in my opinion.

"Scooter was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a crime that never happened."

Hmmmmmm. Like what President Clinton experienced in the oval office one magic evening wasn't against the law (but embarrassing), yet the perjury of it was worthy of undoing the votes of tens of millions of people.

It depends of whose ox is being gored I suppose.

# Caspar W. Weinberger (1988 Several counts of perjury, See Iran-Contra Affair)
# Elliott Abrams (1988 Two counts of unlawfully withholding information. See Iran-Contra Affair)
# Duane R. Clarridge (1991 Seven counts of perjury and false statements, See Iran-Contra Affair)
# Alan D. Fiers (1991 Two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from the Congress, See Iran-Contra Affair)
# Clair George
1. (1991 Ten counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction)
2. (1992 two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress — see Iran-Contra Affair)
Robert C. McFarlane (1988 See Iran-Contra Affair)"

Besides letting perjuring employees off the hook is a Bush family tradition. Can we blame Bush for the poor example set by poppy.

Rufus, I have been told my whole life, "the apple does not fall far from the tree!"

So, with that in mind, is anyone surprised by the Crawford Clown's miscarriage of justice? I mean look, that bozo nominated a person who had never served a single day on the Bench to the Supreme Court. What other frolics can be expected in the next 18 months?

Shalom

I can't wait to see Danny spin this one!

How can ANY of the folks who supported Impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, NOT be for throwing Scooter in jail?

It is just too funny how the right finds its refuge in the truth, ONLY when it is directed at someone without an "R" by their name!
Amazing how some can't stop being Conservative Republicans long enough to be AMERICAN! Next time he has the fortitude to post on a political thread, watch Danny condemn some Democrat to make his point. Watch neoKITTY bring up Uncle Ted or besmirch the physical characteristics of any female leader. You can't make it up, folks.

Here is a good article about presidential pardons. Coming from CNN, it actually appears to be balanced.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/pardons/pardon.history.html

Pardons, many controversial, have been granted from presidents from both parties. Rufus mentioned some from Bush Sr. I linked hundreds from Clinton. Of course Ford pardoning Nixon was a biggie, as was Carter granting amnesty to thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers on his first day in office.

If Bush pardons hundreds of people on his last day in office like Clinton did, especially criminals like Marc Rich, I'll be equally critical.

Like Brian said, this is too much power for one individual to reverse the rulings of our justice system for certain individuals with connections.

Question: "I can't wait to see Danny spin this one!

How can ANY of the folks who supported Impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, NOT be for throwing Scooter in jail?"

Answer:

I don't agree that Bush commuting Libby's sentence was right, but I thought I'd add a little perspective. Sadly both parties have lost their way.

Posted by Dan July 6, 2007 7:19 AM

Proven wrong yet again:

It is just too funny how the right finds its refuge in the truth, ONLY when it is directed at someone without an "R" by their name!

I for one happen to support the rule of law and do not support those who break the law regardless of their political affiliation. Bush was wrong to commute Libby's sentence.

Scooter's real mane is Stavro Blofeld.

Dan & Kitty,
Here is an article that I am sure you won't read all the way through...why? Because you don't want to. But if you stick it out through the entire piece, you'll realize how stupid some of the support for this administration really has been.

A Profile in Cowardice
By FRANK RICH
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.

The timing of the president’s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father’s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.

But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.

That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn’t care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O’Reilly in a bunker.

But if those die-hards haven’t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby’s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren’t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby’s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush’s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence.

Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby’s appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can’t testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million “legal defense fund.”

The president’s presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libby’s jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. That’s the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.

When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely “some bureaucratic red-tape issues.”

Asked last week to explain the president’s poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that “when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind” to describe Mr. Bush, it’s “incompetence.” But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush’s cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris.

Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a consistent Bush and Libby defender, had to take notice. Furious that the president had not given Mr. Libby a full pardon (at least not yet), The Journal called the Bush commutation statement a “profile in non-courage.”

What it did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, is that this non-courage, to use The Journal’s euphemism, has been this president’s stock in trade, far exceeding the “wimp factor” that Newsweek once attributed to his father. The younger Mr. Bush’s cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.

People don’t change. Mr. Bush’s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm’s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.

The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didn’t stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus “compromise” that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.

Nowhere is this president’s non-courage more evident than in the “signing statements” The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward’s escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.

In the end, it was also this president’s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.

But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby’s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush’s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.

Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bush’s commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of “Bring ’em on” to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after “Mission Accomplished,” by taunting those who want “to harm American troops.” Mr. Bush assured the world that “we’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” The “surge” notwithstanding, we still don’t have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.

No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Hey, credit due for posting the NYT column in a thread where it belongs.

Question for you, Danny, is DID YOU READ IT? Did you understand it?

No answer says it all!