|
Bush spares Libby from prison (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Stop smoking the damn banana peels. What kind of "justice" is served with serving less time than ing Paris Hilton, |
because Paris was already on probation stupid. god your dumb
and yes a suspended licence is a form of probation |
|
|
| mattW |
| It's unfortunate that Libby's sentence was commuted, but at least he wasn't pardoned. Typical politics... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i would expect that from your side of politics.
unlike the case itself, it is very clear now this decision is not a reflection of politics or political pressure. like Snow said, it's about justice.
polls be damned as they should be. |
justice? so someone who is sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card? how is that in any way right?? :conf: |
|
|
| mattW |
As of June 29, 2007,[1] President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of four people.[2] In addition, Bush commuted an additional sentence on July 2, 2007. In this context, a pardon means an executive order vacating a conviction for which the sentence has already been served, thereby eliminating the collateral effects of the conviction, while a commutation means a mitigation of the sentence of someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._George_W._Bush |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you people are so stupid.
Libby still has to appeal the conviction and the rest of the sentence. and he will. |
Irrelevant. He failed to be rightfully punished for being convicted on 3 counts of obstruction of justice and purjury.
Or does your anger to lying in court only apply to Democrats?
| quote: | a sentence handed down based on allegations never presented to the jury.
no one violated the Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act. |
No one was proven to do so as a result of Libby's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PURJURY.
Shall we continue with the same dance we always do, Q?
| quote: | | this entire investigation was a sham from the start and turned into the prosecutor's wanting for more, but couldn't get it based on the FACTS! |
The facts were OBSTRUCTED by the person who just got a free pass out of jail. Again this was made evident by Fitz, remember?:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1
| quote: | Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger. where was this faux, misplaced outrage then? i could care less really but it sure puts all this righteous indignation in perpective for us more rational people.
and you call yourselves liberals:rolleyes: :crazy: |
You mean the guy who took COPIES of documents? How does that compare to the top aide to the vice president lying and obstructing justice to the FBI and Grand Jury about the Administration's willful leak of classified information pertaining to an undercover COVERT CIA officer who's job was to find WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran?
Gosh I can't wait to hear your straw man.
| quote: | | On March 7, Libby juror Ann Redington appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball," where she was asked about a pardon for Libby. |
You're full of straw man arguments tonight, aren't you? Since when was it ever the choice or the judgement of the jury to consider or have a voice pertaining to the sentencing of Libby? Last I recall, it takes a unanimous consent of ALL jury members on a given count, and then their role is finito, is it not?
| quote: | | fitzgerald's statement: |
Is that suppose to help your cause, especially this part?:
| quote: | | We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing. |
No one is arguing that Bush is fully within his rights to do what he did,
but that certainly doesn't necessitate it being an ethical one, considering not more than a month ago Perino stated he wouldn't interfere, as well as considering this guy is pushing for MANDATORY minimum sentencing laws:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...tory_sentences/ |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
justice? so someone who is sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card? how is that in any way right?? :conf: |
yes. in America, and i would suspect in your government as well (though i could be wrong) the Executive's power of pardon is as much a part of the Justice system as the jurists themselves.
Libby has not escaped conviction.
this is nothing new by any stretch. this is only Bush's 2nd pardon and probably his last. his first one wasn't really a pardon.
what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yes. in America, and i would suspect in your government as well (though i could be wrong) the Executive's power of pardon is as much a part of the Justice system as the jurists themselves.
Libby has not escaped conviction.
this is nothing new by any stretch. this is only Bush's 2nd pardon and probably his last. his first one wasn't really a pardon.
what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was. |
im not debating the power of the president (or our prime minister) to do these things. i am however, questioning the ethical nature of pardoning someone that presumably did the administration's dirty work.
i dont know a great deal about the case (american politics does not excite me) but it appears to me that someone was told to do the wrong thing by senior government, did the wrong thing, then senior government let them off. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was. |
Yes, I see. So since it was clear that a Republican prosecutor appointed by Bush believes his conviction is well within the guidelines, and considering the Republican judge fully agreed, and even if the parol board advised a lesser sentence of 15-22 months, Bush's actions completely ignored all of that,
for....uhh....what again? Because he simply had the power to do so, and we must never question our Commander Guy or something like that? |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you people are so stupid. |
I've been known to resemble that on occasion
| quote: | | and you call yourselves liberals:rolleyes: :crazy: |
That I do object too.
You know it in your hearts that you can't do it properly any more electing B-grade actors and the mentally retarded as your lord and master el presidente
It's time to come back to the empire, let England run things again.
We'll make it all better. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
He failed to be rightfully punished for being convicted on 3 counts of obstruction of justice and purjury. |
you want to talk about irrelavent?
SAYS WHO? who ultimately has the right to say who is "rightfully punished"? i'll give you a hint.
| quote: | | Or does your anger to lying in court only apply to Democrats? |
i don't care about the Donks. no one does but you here.
| quote: | No one was proven to do so as a result of Libby's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PURJURY.
Shall we continue with the same dance we always do, Q?
The facts were OBSTRUCTED by the person who just got a free pass out of jail. Again this was made evident by Fitz, remember?:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 |
you do not understand. any culpable obstruction would have resulted in further investigation in regards to the violation of the Espionage act, which happened, for years. after which no one was found in violation of any law prior to Libby's trial. not because Libby had prevented that from happening, but because no law was maliciously broken in the first place.
| quote: | | You mean the guy who took COPIES of documents? |
thats just it. he didn't know there were hard-driven copies because he was caught stealing and destroying multiple hard copies of the same thing thinking that was the end of the copies. don't defend that bastard.
| quote: | How does that compare to the top aide to the vice president lying and obstructing justice to the FBI and Grand Jury about the Administration's willful leak of classified information pertaining to an undercover COVERT CIA officer who's job was to find WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran?
Gosh I can't wait to hear your straw man. |
i don't know. i just find it telling and odd, some of the misplaced rage around here.
| quote: | | Since when was it ever the choice or the judgement of the jury to consider or have a voice pertaining to the sentencing of Libby? |
i suppose after their job is done after the jurors reach a verdict. duh.
i was just letting people know how one of the Jurors felt about Waltons sentence.
it's called perspective. life should not be viewed completely from your fever swamp.
| quote: | | Last I recall, it takes a unanimous consent of ALL jury members on a given count, and then their role is finito, is it not? |
sure, on the verdict.
| quote: | | No one is arguing that Bush is fully within his rights to do what he did |
no, but some of the more mentally challenged here that are not familiar with the American Justice System may need a refresher.
| quote: | | but that certainly doesn't necessitate it being an ethical one, considering not more than a month ago Perino stated he wouldn't interfere |
what you are claiming with what Perino said and has said since is out of context as usual.
thats for Federal level violent crime and narcotics jackass. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| i think brooks & shields should be replaced by opus & Q5 :D |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not debating the power of the president (or our prime minister) to do these things. |
when you say that "sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card?" that leaves little to be interpreted
| quote: | i am however, questioning the ethical nature of pardoning someone that presumably did the administration's dirty work.
i dont know a great deal about the case (american politics does not excite me) but it appears to me that someone was told to do the wrong thing by senior government, did the wrong thing, then senior government let them off. |
well you're wrong. all of your presuptions are wrong based on the law and the outcome of this case prior to the Presidents decision.
HE WASN'T PARDONED.
i mean i really can't make it any more clear for you other than to say there are two well defined sides to this. one of the sides is ignorant of the law and facts of this case and is completely hysterical. |
|
|
|
|
