phillyfan26 said:
There's so many things wrong with the posts about Clinton, the biggest thing being that Clinton's pardoning has nothing to do with this case. This case isn't about the pardons of Bush, for one because this wasn't even a pardon! This is about THE COVER UP.
And some of the posts in this thread leave a sickening feeling in my stomach. It's amazing what political parties can do to people.
- phillyfan26, Independent
No, the point of bringing up Clinton is showing how other Presidents have used this method, not only a Republican Conservative like Bush. For us to make a big deal out of this when Clinton's commutal's were just as sketchy is of note. That is why we are bringing it up. If that were not the case, then we should not bring up any artifical evidence for it has nothing to do w/ this case. The amount of jail time that others have received on similar offenses don't elicit the same circumstances as this one, therefore are refutable. That is your argument.
Precedent is what makes up every facet of this country. We rely on it, live on it, and breathe it. For Clinton to condemn this and smile about it is another one of his great lies that we have become so used to. Look into the Marc Rich case or the FALN terrorist commutals and you will find that Libby's case pale's in comparison to those.
Both Clinton and Libby are very similar. That is also why this argument keeps being brought up. They both are/were high ranking officials, lied under oath and both were tried for alleged or actual crimes.
Differences: Clinton was elected President, Libby a staffer unelected by anyone but Dick Cheney. both are supposed to hold high morals, but one was officially publicly elected. Prior to this case, none of us would have been able to even know what Libby looked like.
Here's the catcher:
Scooter Libby is a convicted Felon, Bill Clinton, although many senators voted to impeach him, was not convicted of anything.
For further evidence, I refer all of you to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It reads:
"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
So, he was convicted in a US court of law, which means his crime was an offense against the United States and the president commuted his sentence, also known as a reprieve, which the Constitution allows to.
Now, what do you not understand about this? Should I go further into Clinton's commutals? I would love to indulge in those, for they are much worse than Libby's.
I look forward to feedback. Is that not enough evidence? What else should I put?