Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[deep]

It's in the Constitution. Just like we have Freedom of Speech, the President has the right to do that. As we can protest, he can issue commutals. That's the way life goes. Sorry.

I think I said the same thing 2 replies before you posted this

I don't think anyone has posted that Bush did not have the Constitutional Right to bail out Libby.

Again, has anyone said he did not have the right to do it?

 

[phillyfan26]

It's in the Constitution. Just like we have Freedom of Speech, the President has the right to do that. As we can protest, he can issue commutals. That's the way life goes. Sorry.

Did you even read my post? Honestly, it's like you haven't even looked at what I've said:

It's not about the legality of him using it. No one is denying that he has the ABILITY as President of the United States to commute and pardon sentences.

Here is the problem that we have, that you still seem to not understand:

THIS IS A COVER UP! A COVER UP!

This has nothing to do with President Clinton! Bringing up Clinton means nothing. We are discussing the fact that Libby is covering for Cheney, who ordered a leak of classified information. Because it really isn't Libby's fault that he followed orders, Bush decided to commute him so that he doesn't have to get jailtime for PERJURY, which was only used to cover Cheney's ass. We are discussint the fact that, because he was COMMUTED (NOT PARDONED, as people were discussing earlier with Clinton), he retains his fifth amendment rights and doesn't out Cheney.

Here's how the Clinton arguments don't work:

1. His pardons were pointed out. This was not a pardon.
2. This isn't a partisan issue.

I'm not a Democrat! I have no partisan bias against President Bush. So, quit making this thing into a damn partisan issue. We're not comparing Bush to anyone. That was never the issue. We are discussing the commute used to cover up.

 

[JessicaAnn]

I direct you to my last one. And if we are unwilling to provide arguments and counterarguments, than might as well stop arguing. I know its hard to believe that Clinton was a terrible president and many of you are unwilling to face that, but don't make yourselves look foolish by not accepting the different facts provided. I am proving a point that you are unwilling to look into b/c of political views that are blurred.

Again, please address the questions that unico aked.

Why do you think he ordered the commute?
Why do you think libby lied?

Your response has nothing to do with either of these questions.

And as deep pointed out, for all the questionable things Clinton did while in office, he never commuted the sentence of anyone who worked in his administration.

You seem to be the one who has the blurred political views who is is unwilling to debate this seriously.

 

[redhotswami]

Everyone. You are not willing to accept any of my arguments while they are very logical. Have you even read my thread? I think you stopped reading once you saw the name Clinton.

i don't know what thread you are talking about. you've started no thread that had the subject line of clinton in it.

i think you need to quit making assumptions. honestly. if you can't respond to my questions then you might as well not respond to my posts. your arguments are NOT dealing with the issue at hand. i'm pointing in a very specific direction here and you avoid the issue by mentioning clinton's reign.

and with your assumptions, you've assumed that i thought that clinton was a great president. again, you know what happens when you assume, right? you've no idea my stance on bill clinton's politics. all ive maintained is that what he has done is irrelevant to what is going on:

the bush administration lied about their intentions of pursuing a war in Iraq to the public

 

[struckpx]

Again, please address the questions that unico aked.

Why do you think he ordered the commute?
Why do you think libby lied?

Your response has nothing to do with either of these questions.

And as deep pointed out, for all the questionable things Clinton did while in office, he never commuted the sentence of anyone who worked in his administration.

You seem to be the one who has the blurred political views who is is unwilling to debate this seriously.

I am going to have to wait until more facts come out. The story has not played out yet. How so, I have already admitted that he did this to help his man in a previous thread. Did you read that?

I am also making the point that regardless, if this was a Democrat or Republican President, the same result would have occurred.

 

[deep]

The President must have some authority. W/out it, he would have no power and we would not need a president. The court system would become corrupt and could rule whatever it wanted.

You may want to do a quick refresher on the three branches of Government.

checks and balances

the last thing the constitution provides for is an Executive that has power over the Judiciary

that would be more like a Monarchy or dictator.

 

[phillyfan26]

I am going to have to wait until more facts come out. The story has not played out yet. How so, I have already admitted that he did this to help his man in a previous thread. Did you read that?

I am also making the point that regardless, if this was a Democrat or Republican President, the same result would have occurred.

Again, I ask you to read my post, but in response to this:

IT IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE!

 

[struckpx]

Again, I ask you to read my post, but in response to this:

IT IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE!

Yes, it is. Everything in Washington is.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, it is. Everything in Washington is.

We're not arguing republican vs. democrat here. That's why we keep attempting to tell you that Clinton is unrelated. We're arguing about the COVER UP.

Again, again, again, I ask you to read the post that I requoted up on this page.

 

[redhotswami]

I am going to have to wait until more facts come out. The story has not played out yet. How so, I have already admitted that he did this to help his man in a previous thread. Did you read that?

this is what makes me think that you don't even read my posts. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor himself, said that a cloud rests over the white house, given all the information he has collected. Have you read up on the issue? Or do you just know what you know from coming in here and reading a select number of posts? The facts are out there for all of us to see.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Yes, it is. Everything in Washington is.

That is awfully pessimistic.

 

[struckpx]

this is what makes me think that you don't even read my posts. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor himself, said that a cloud rests over the white house, given all the information he has collected. Have you read up on the issue? Or do you just know what you know from coming in here and reading a select number of posts? The facts are out there for all of us to see.

I have not read every detail. I have read interesting details about the prosecutor however. He needs to be investigated as well I believe.

 

[phillyfan26]

I have not read every detail. I have read interesting details about the prosecutor however. He needs to be investigated as well I believe.

So, you've argued this whole time, and you don't even know about the cover-up?

That's what the issue is!

 

[struckpx]

So, you've argued this whole time, and you don't even know about the cover-up?

That's what the issue is!

I knew about that, but I have not read specific details about the history of the prosecutor, etc. That is very important to the case as well.

 

[phillyfan26]

I knew about that, but I have not read specific details about the history of the prosecutor, etc. That is very important to the case as well.

Are you aware that Libby is covering for Cheney, who ordered the leak of confidential CIA information, and that with Bush commuting him, he does not have to speak, and thus is covering Cheney on the issue?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Could you clarify the cover up, the initial leak was not done to discredit Wilson.

 

[phillyfan26]

The cover up:

Okay, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks, and irrelevant issues brought up in here. I want a REAL discussion. Granted, I haven't been continously staying on this case from day one, when Plame was first outed. However, given what I've read so far, here is the UNOFFICIAL timeline of events.

Jan 2003 - President Bush said that Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Africa

June 2003 - C. Rice lies on Russert's "Meet the Press" about who "knew" this information

July 2003 - Ambassador Wilson (Plame's husband) writes an op-ed in NYT calling out the administration

Then, as we all know, Plame's name is leaked. The current trial is investigating whether this administration ordered the leak to retaliate against Wilson and to prevent other people from coming forward as he did and calling them out. Bush admin. welcomed the case, and said that whoever was found responsible for leaking Plame would be fired.

Libby has lied in response to the key question here, who ordered the leak. Fitzgerald said that a cloud rests over Cheney. In what I've read, it is clear that Cheney is involved, and Libby is lying to protect that. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is implicated too. But clearly Cheney. If the special prosecutor in this case says, based on his information gathered, that it is clear Cheney is involved, then why wouldn't that be plausible?

Bush orders Libby's commutation, thus A) allowing him to maintain his 5th amendment rights and B) allowing him to get away with, and continue to lie to protect their involvement. Thompson & Matalin have been pushing hard to raise money for his defense fund. Libby himself has not had to pay the $250,000 out of pocket.
Okay. There you go. It is a rough sketch, but I have laid it out. Hopefully we can move forward with this. If ANYBODY has anything to offer to support/critique this timeline, I am all ears. This is what I've read thus far. I'm up for a meaningful discussion with valid points rather than us spinning in circles with attacks and irrelevant topics.

diamond, you said "the left" have laid out their points for argument. THESE RIGHT HERE are my points.

 

[struckpx]

Are you aware that Libby is covering for Cheney, who ordered the leak of confidential CIA information, and that with Bush commuting him, he does not have to speak, and thus is covering Cheney on the issue?

Yes, but do you know that if you read between the lines, Judith Miller (the New York Times reporter who went to jail) received a "voluntary" waiver from Scooter Libby giving her permission to speak to the courts. So, that should have been taken note of. Libby allowed himself to be put out there, but she decided not too do that.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, but do you know that if you read between the lines, Judith Miller (the New York Times reporter who went to jail) received a "voluntary" waiver from Scooter Libby giving her permission to speak to the courts. So, that should have been taken note of. Libby allowed himself to be put out there, but she decided not too do that.

Of what relevance does this have to Bush using the commute to cover up Cheney's orders?

 

[struckpx]

Of what relevance does this have to Bush using the commute to cover up Cheney's orders?

Nothing. I am talking about the cover-up.

 

[phillyfan26]

Nothing. I am talking about the cover-up.

What cover up are you talking about? We're talking about Bush covering up Cheney's CIA leak orders. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Lila64]

 

[phillyfan26]

I can't get over the fact that after I blatantly pointed out that I'm an independent, you called me a liberal.

 

[struckpx]

I am displaying the point of how Scooter Libby gave this woman the right to tell the authorities about him and everyone else w/ this waiver. Where is the cover up in that? He is giving himself up so she can get out of jail.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Right. The reporter got her info from Libby. No cover up there.

The point of this thread/discussion is that Libby took the fall for Cheney. Cheney okay'd the release of info about Plame. The commutation of the sentence prevents anyone from going after Cheney for releasing classified info. That is the cover up.

 

[anitram]

What the HELL does Judith Miller have to do with the fact that Libby was indicted because his testimony to a federal grand jury was inconsistent with previous notes?

Libby PERJURED himself and no amount of Armitage or Miller or Clinton or Tinky Winky changes that nor has any relevance!

This discussion is so beyond unreal and stupid that it's really not worth it.

 

[phillyfan26]

I am displaying the point of how Scooter Libby gave this woman the right to tell the authorities about him and everyone else w/ this waiver. Where is the cover up in that? He is giving himself up so she can get out of jail.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about, just like Bill Clinton, immigration, and partisan politics.

 

[Lila64]

 

[phillyfan26]

To summarize this thread, everyone trying to defend Bush did so by ignoring the actual issue.

 

[BVS]

Yes, but do you know that if you read between the lines, Judith Miller (the New York Times reporter who went to jail) received a "voluntary" waiver from Scooter Libby giving her permission to speak to the courts. So, that should have been taken note of. Libby allowed himself to be put out there, but she decided not too do that.