DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Quote:

---

The prosecuter in this case said directly that he could not get to the truth of this matter because of the lies Libby told.

---

Actually I believe it was the judge that said that...

Well, Pit, your hypocrisy is amazing. First, you claim that civil rights say that the statement is wrong, now you use it. Further proof that you continue to change your values to support your agenda. I love how you take anyone that says what they're OPINION is as fact when it supports you, too.

Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction. Why did he lie? Could it be that he indeed was the leak and wanted to keep from being arrested? Couldn't it be that simple, Pit? Every day people lie to try to keep from being arrested. Yet, you IMMEDIATELY try to claim that there is some sinister plot of cover up. Of course you have ZERO PROOF other than someone's OPINION for that assertion.

Yet you talk about comedy relief. Your hypocrisy and agenda are so laughable that very few can take you seriously.

That I agree with... this could be the centerpiece of the issue of deception or deceit or whatever they want to call it... which would serve as one collective issue...

The problem, and politicians never seem to learn this, is that the dems are going to go after accountability hard, they are going to go after secrecy hard, etc... then when they are in complete control again, they will screw up, like they always do... and what will happen the first time they try to claim executive privilege? or the first time they try to skirt an issue? Then the cries of hypocrisy will come out from the right...

From a purely political standpoint, the dems would be well served to not hammer home some of these things like they could because it WILL come back to bite them at some point....

As a citizen I wish there was more transparency, but if I was a political consultant to the dems, I would advise them to keep some of this in their backpocket to see if they need it... There is a good chance they can win this election without it and if they can, they should... then when the first time a dem screws up they can secretly remind republicans how easy they were on Libby....

This is why we need Willie Nelson in the white House

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, "technicalities," and that it really was over reaching and excessive.

And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down.

FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.

That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Yes I think you're right DC. But I believe this statement,in effect,pretty much covers that same sentiment.

JMHO

Well, it appears Pres. Bush can't even commute a sentence without their being problems.................

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_confusion

Actually, he was "tried" in the Senate.... He was impeached in the House of Representatives.... The House acted as Grand Jury on four Articles of Impeachment... two of which were passed to the Senate for trial.... The Senate acted as a Trial Court, for the Impeachment Proceedings.... with the Trial presided over by the Chief Justice (William Rehnquist)

The vote on the Article 1, Perjury, was 55 votes not guilty, out of a possible 100.

The vote on Article 3, Obstruction of Justice, was an even split 50 - 50. With a two-thirds majority needed to convict. Clinton was brought to Trial in the Senate for the High Crimes and Misdemeanors of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.... and was acquitted of both charges.

Before the cook-out.......................................


Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby

The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

To all of you,a very happy 4th of July. Please remember the intent of our forefathers on this auspicious day. That checks and balances are to be first and foremost in our government. That above all,accountability to the people of the United States of America is owed to its people!

And look at the lengths that this administration has gone to in order to circumvent that responsibility. And on top of it all? He chose to spit in the eye of Liberty and Justice at THIS time of year. Our forefathers fought and died to Liberate us and give us Independance from a king,from a Monarchy.

Or have we really achieved that at all?

I feel on this day,at this time,we all need to look deep within ourselves to answer these questions.

Let Freedom Ring!

?????

Where did all that come from? So Bush commuted the prison term, big deal. Presidents do it all the time.

Bush didn't throw anything away, and in all honesty, if commuting Libbey's sentence causes someone to vote democrat, fine. Not many people will be swayed by this, one way or the other. While many paint this to be "huge, monumental......etc", this whole thing is a non event when you get right down to it.

Just keep telling yourself that. In your house? That may be true.

But the true picture is very dark

With one administration,we no longer have our privacy in some respects,they're covering up all White house communications concerning Plame,Wison,the U.S. atoorney firings. No disclosure,only secrecy. No accountability. None,nada,zip. Only secrets. National policy on energy set with secrecy. No release of names or corperations involved,only more cloak and dagger secrecy behind closed doors.

You my friend may have a veil over your eyes,but you are no longer among the majority. This "Undercover White House" has brought shame around the globe upon pur great nation.

May brighter days be ahead for our nation. And the form of government,with openess and accountablity be restored as our forefathers intended.
And may God have mercy on their souls.

The only people I know that are making a huge deal about it are straight line liberal voters.....and Pit.

How long will it take before people realise that this nations people are no longer buying the lies and propeganda? That hand has been played out.

If those are the only people you know making a big deal of it,you have your eyes closed. That,or you associate and surround yourself with people who only resemble your own beliefs.More GOP officials are distancing themselves from this administration by the week for their evil deeds. For their contempt for openness and honesty. And that trend will continue to grow. And all we'll get are excuses and rationalizations for that occuring. Yet more proeganda. It's over.

Quote:

---

That,or you associate and surround yourself with people who only resemble your own beliefs.

---

That's definitely not the case. Even my wife's a liberal.

This is a small deal...I pretty much expected this.

But it is a piece of the larger picture - which is the operations of the Bush administration. They really do think they're above the law, and this isn't a prime example, but rather a small blip on the radar. 30 years from now when all the dealings of this administration become unclassified, Bush's position as history's worst president will be solidified.

Bush says the sentence was excessive and thats why he issued the commutation.. from what I've been reading, the sentence fell well within the US averages. Looks like Libby is lucky to be working for this White House.

web page

LIBBY COMMUTATION
Sentence fell easily within U.S. averages
Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:40 AM
By James Nash, Jodi Andes and Jack Torry

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
President Bush defended yesterday his decision to commute the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing the CIA leak investigation. Bush even held open the possibility of a full pardon.

Bush called the prison time originally given to Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff "excessive." But when it comes to federal sentences for perjury and obstruction of justice, prison time is the rule, not the exception.

Three out of four people convicted of obstruction of justice serve time in prison, federal court records show.

And 69 percent of those convicted of perjury are given time behind bars.

The length of the typical stay varies. With an obstruction, the average sentence is more than five years; with perjury, the average is 21 months, records show.

But Ohio legal experts noted that the president can commute a sentence or pardon anyone convicted of a crime.

"He certainly ought to exercise that power as he sees fit," said veteran Columbus defense attorney R. William Meeks. "It is in the Constitution for a reason. The problem is the unfairness to other people similarly situated."

Homemaking impresario Martha Stewart served five months in prison for lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice about a tip she received to dump stock in a company called ImClone before its price plummeted.

Rapper Lil' Kim served 366 days in prison after lying to a federal grand jury about a shooting in 2001 outside a New York radio station.

The decision to spare Libby a prison term was roundly criticized by Democrats; Republicans were more subdued, with some welcoming the move and others saying Bush should have gone further and granted Libby a full pardon.

Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, said Bush was "absolutely right. The sentence was out of line. I think most of the voters, when they analyze it, will feel fine about it. Will it be a political football for the next few days? Absolutely right."

In comments yesterday after visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Bush said he made his decision carefully.

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe was the right decision to make in this case. And I stand by it."

The commutation does not wipe out Libby's felony conviction, and he still will be on two years' probation and pay a $250,000 fine. A pardon would clean his slate.

Bush's commutation argument doesn't make sense, said Joshua Dressler, chairman of Ohio State's Moritz College of Law and a criminal procedure expert. The 2 1/2 -year sentence was well within federal guidelines andis close to the national average, he said.

"To call it excessive is to suggest the guidelines are wrong," Dressler said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner backed Bush. In a statement, the West Chester Republican said, "Given the fact that the prosecutor in this case never charged any individual with breaking the law in regards to the disclosure of (covert CIA agent) Valerie Plame's name to the media, I agree with the president's decision.

"It ensures that the interests of both justice and fairness are served."

Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Genoa Township, in his statement, said Bush "exercised his constitutional authority" -- "something virtually all presidents have done for a generation."

Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Upper Arlington, said Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Carter all "utilized the powers of executive clemency hundreds of times." She said Bush's decision "will be evaluated ultimately by the American people for its appropriateness."

A spokesman for Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said Voinovich would not comment on Bush's action.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, found herself defending pardons issued in the final hours of her husband's presidency. Clinton pardoned financier Marc Rich after Rich's wife, Denise, gave $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton library.

Sen. Clinton said her husband's pardons were not aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy.

"This (commutation) was clearly an effort to protect the White House," she said.

Information from the Associated Press was included in this story.

jnash@dispatch.com

jandes@dispatch.com

jtorry@dispatch.com

Quote:

---

Sen. Clinton said her husband's pardons were not aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy.

---

Well I'm glad she cleared that up... I wasn't aware that YOUR MOTIVE for letting criminals out of jail should be the deciding factor in whether or not it's the right thing to do.... and I also think it's safe to say that the folks who were in prison for Whitewater that Bill pardoned might have had just a little bit to do with protecting his legacy...

Why Libby's Sentence Was So Tough
Tuesday, Jun. 05, 2007 By REYNOLDS HOLDING

When I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced Tuesday to a surprisingly long term of 30 months in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice, he became a victim of one of the most troubling aspects of federal sentencing laws

My posts from yesterday are in large part,more of an indication of how the Democrats will use this administrations actions to attack the future GOP candidate. How this election will be ran on their part.

They,much like the GOP has done in the past,will use Patriotism as a weapon against the GOP. They will use how many privacy laws have been watered down. How they have been more secretive and uncooperative in investigations. How they have refused to honor subpeonas. How even national energy meetings have been secretive.

They will portray them as using everything within their power and twisting,and to an extent changing laws,to give them the "ultimate power" moreso than any administration in recent history,if not our nations history.How they have ran things more as a monarchy than the Democracy as our forefathers intended.

This will be a very powerfull political tool.And IF the GOP nominee supported these measures,if they supported the president on any,if not most of these issues,they'll use it like a sword in their heart.

I'm not a political strategist,so I'm quite sure that the examples I posted yesterday will only scratch the surface of the strategy they'll employ. But I am quite sure that the posts I made will be a part of it. They will use it in a bigger picture to show a pattern of secrecy and non accountability. Of how this administration feels it is "above the law".

And when will this be expounded and show on your TV day in and day out? Next year. Next fourth of July. Less than four months before the elections. And it will not effect the GOP base. (something that some of those trying to dismiss this are a part of) Because no matter WHAT Bush does,or no matter if he thumbs his nose at supeonas,ruins the lives of those who refuted his assertions to the war in Iraq,or any other sorted and questionable acts by this administration,they'll uphold him.

But GOP hardliners (the base) can not win elections alone. Very much as the Democratic base can not win elections alone. It's "the middle,the moderates" who make you or break you. And as we've seen,the Patriotism,our forefathers and an "open,accountable government" is a very powerfull tool to invoke the emotions of the American voter.

The thing that confuses me in all of this is,exactly how and why you feel this won't work? EVERY time we get close to election time,I hear many of you say just how uninformed and stupid the average voter really is. How easily they are swayed by emotions. Yet the Dems have an huge stockpile of weaponry at their disposal to help them portray the very picture that I painted yesterday,but you say it will have very little impact?

With all of this said,many of you are wrong. About what exactly which of the following two,I'm not completly sure on yet,but it's one of two things. Either..............

A. The average voter is MUCH smarter than you have claimed in the past,and will not let the Dems use these very strong and emotional talking points effect their views.

or................

B. I'm right and by the Dems invoking Patriotism will be a very strong influence and effect this election greatly.

You guys can't be right on both. You can't have it both ways.

No, halfback, Clinton WASN'T tried for a crime. He went through an impeachment process. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you don't know the difference between a criminal trial and impeachment proceedings, I'll stop right now.

Isn't if fun to see Pit use one of the biggest liberals in the media as some sort of proof that everyone is up in arms over something that has been done by every sitting president since Washington?

Wow, Pit, that sounds like an insult. I thought you were "tired" of them.

Again, Clinton was never tried in a criminal court proceeding. It's "Funny what depths some will stoop to in order to try to minimize the acts of their own", though.

One gulity. One not guilty.

Elementary.

LOL, again, you twist things. Clinton was never tried in court. Elementary. Why can't you grasp that?

Quote:

---

Libby was found guilty. Clinton was found not guilty. But yet,people still attempt to compare the two.

---

What's funny is that you still attempt to compare their "trials"...

Let's see, Libby was tried by a cleaning lady, a plumber, an author, and a school teacher who were all vetted to be impartial... Clinton was "tried" by United States Senators, 45 democrats, 55 republicans and it took 67 votes of guilty to convict... you do the math. (not a single democrat senator voted "guilty" on either charge)

Libby had live witness testimony, Clinton trial had NO live witness testimony...

Yea, they're exactly the same....

Add to that, DC, that one was a "trial" to remove Clinton from office and the other was a criminal trial. They're not anywhere near the same thing, but Pit's hatred for the Bush administration makes him reach as far as possible even while making himself look foolish.

While in each of these cases,the way they were "tried" used a different method and or process.

Each used the "due process" that the law dictates. If the system in place for each of these cases was used,I find it moot to dispute the verdict of either.

Much the same holds true with a Cout-Martial. A court-martial has different guidelines than our standard Judicial System and is ran by the military. However,a court-martial is legal and a due-process under that system.

My point is,in each of these cases,due process of the law was followed and differing verdicts were a result. You may not agree with the way the the process works in one or both os these cases. And that is entirely up to you.

But the fact remains that in each of these cases,due process according to the law was achieved with differing results,bottom line IMO

WRONG YET AGAIN, Pit. Clinton could have been tried for the crime of perjury in a criminal court REGARDLESS of the results of the impeachment process. The impeachment process was being used to determine if the crime was of the level to remove him from office. That's the problem, you apparently don't understand what the impeachment process was used for in this situation. There was MUCH speculation as to whether Clinton would face CRIMINAL CHARGES AFER the impeachment was over. Again, tell the whole story and stop twisting the facts to your arguement.

Quote:

---

I believe you'll find that the "majority party" at the time was held by the GOP. Which would indicate that if the result was "50/50" it was not split totaly "according to party lines".

---

Neither the perjury vote (which was 45 guilty, 55 not guilty) or the obstruction of justice vote (which was 50 guilty, 50 not guilty) were straight party line votes... in both cases, most republicans voted guilty and half a dozen to a dozen broke from the "party" and voted not guilty... the democracts, all 45 of them, voted not guilty on both counts... so for the democrats, it WAS straight party line... from the party that wants to reunite us and end partisanship...

The whole point, that you are trying to distance yourself from now, Pit, and once again twist things, is that Clinton was not tried in criminal court. Period.

The rest of your drivel made my point. Clinton wasn't even tried for perjury when the entire world heard him admit that he had committed the crime, so Bush cummuting the sentence of another official isn't evidence of some vast conspiracy or coverup.

I don't blame you for the system, Pit. I blame you for once again twisting the facts to try to make some obsure point because all you want to do is bash the administration and argue, regardless of the truth.

So the part where I stated this "which you so conveniantly ommited",was correct?

Quote:

---

result was "50/50" it was not split totaly "according to party lines". But for the most part,I tend to agree.

---

Are you starting to hang out with "questionable characters" again DC?

I won't argue that he lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky... I would have lied about it too... Clinton was being investigated about Whitewater, not about having sex in office. One of the reasons he was acquitted by the Senate was that even Republican Senators, thought the investigation had gone overboard, hence the 55 - 45 vote on perjury. The Obstruction of Justice vote was closer, and more along party lines, as 5 Senators felt that the perjury may have been justified, but it did obstruct justice.

There was a lot of debate as to if any court, even the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction over "criminal actions" by a sitting Chief Executive. After all, the President could always pardon himself in a "Real Trial..." Just as Bush may still do for Libby.... That's why the Constitution provides for an Impeachment Trial by the Senate, to remove from office. If the Senate found the President Guilty, then the President would be removed, and further criminal proceedings could continue. The vote of Clinton's Trial, by the way, was Not Guilty.....

After Clinton left office, a Grand Jury could have been convened, and Clinton could have gone on trial, again for Perjury and Obstruction, but there were questions as to relevance, and if a Grand Jury would have jurisdiction over testimony in a Congressional investigation. Congress no longer had jurisdiction, because Clinton had left office.

If Congress had no claim to jurisdiction over it's own investigation, how could a local Court claim jurisdiction....

When you claim political motivation.... You have to look at BOTH parties....