Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Pardon investigations to begin soon.Follow

#1 Jul 06 2007 at 8:05 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288238,00.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON — A House Judiciary Committee hearing into the decision to commute the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will also take a look at other presidential pardons, the chairman of the committee said Thursday.

"Yes, we’re going to review all of them, including Clinton’s, Bush one, Bush two, we’ll go back as far as they want," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in an exclusive interview with FOX News Radio. Conyers added that the Nixon pardon would also be covered in the review.

Conyers said he doesn't think President Bush acted outside his constitutional authority in commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence, but he questions the use of that authority. The power to pardon is written into the Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It states: "He (the president) shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Ranking Committee Republican Lamar Smith of Texas told FOX News Radio that he was surprised to hear Conyers' plan for the hearing now scheduled for Wednesday.

"I really on the whole think the Judiciary Committee has a lot better things to do than to spend time investigating what is a constitutional prerogative of any president, Republican or Democrat," Smith said.

Democrats have been lashing out at Bush for commuting the prison sentence for the former vice presidential chief of staff, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of the leak of a CIA employee's name. No one in the Bush administration has been convicted of illegally releasing former CIA staffer Valerie Plame's name.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., a 2008 presidential candidate, said the Libby commutation "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

On Thursday, the White House scoffed at Clinton's comments, saying no one batted an eye when, on the last day of his presidency, former President Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich. Ironically, Libby had been Rich's attorney.


"It seems to me that the hypocrisy demonstrated by Democratic leaders on this issue is rather startling. When you think about the previous administration and the 11th hour fire sale pardons, and issues that were provided commutations on the last day in the numbers of the hundreds, in the final time between the post-election period, it's really startling that they have the gall to criticize" Bush's decision, said White House deputy spokesman Scott Stanzel.

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," Snow said. As for Conyers' decision to hold a hearing, Snow said he hoped Clinton's pardons would come up too. "Well, fine, knock himself out. ... And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"


Yawn. Anyone surprised by this?


#2 Jul 06 2007 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, kinda. Not shocked, but a little surprised.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jul 06 2007 at 9:16 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Whiny democrats who have yet to do anything but ***** and complain?

After the last 7 yrs, I don't think anyone is surprised. It's kinda their schtick.

Evidently, we must have fixed all of the other glaring politcal issues of the day.
#4 Jul 06 2007 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, kinda. Not shocked, but a little surprised.

I am kinda of surprised given some of the questionable pardons given by Clinton. Constitutionally it is a clear cut "and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Besides no pardon for impeachment, there are no other conditions placed on this power such as you can't pardon members or former members of your our administration, so what exactly are they going to investigate?

Edited, Jul 6th 2007 1:45pm by fhrugby
#5 Jul 06 2007 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
Do not pardon or give a reprieve to the server gremlins.


Edited, Jul 6th 2007 1:47pm by fhrugby
#6 Jul 06 2007 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Wait, they want to investigate the presidents ability to do something that is completely and utterly within his constitutional athority to do, with no direct oversite?

Smiley: rolleyes

Way to show your leadership ability Hillary
#7 Jul 06 2007 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Yes, we’re going to review all of them, including Clinton’s, Bush one, Bush two, we’ll go back as far as they want," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in an exclusive interview with FOX News Radio. Conyers added that the Nixon pardon would also be covered in the review.
Huh. Then what? Smiley: confused


Unpardon Nixon!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jul 06 2007 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
Wait a minute, this is out of the scope of Joph's knowledge of the liberal conspiracy?


I'm scared.
#9 Jul 06 2007 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,128 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Yes, we’re going to review all of them, including Clinton’s, Bush one, Bush two, we’ll go back as far as they want," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in an exclusive interview with FOX News Radio. Conyers added that the Nixon pardon would also be covered in the review.
Huh. Then what? Smiley: confused


Unpardon Nixon!

I do not believe Nixon could be unpardoned even if the investigation was timely. The condition "except in the case of impeachment." means that a pardon could not stop or prevent an impeachment, which was moot in the case of Nixon even at the time the pardon was given. The pardon could prevent criminal or civil punishment for the offenses that someone is being impeached for, but not the impeachment itself.

One thing to note, is that there is an issue of wether the President can pardon someone for offenses punishable under state law but not a federal offense, ie the interpetation that "offenses against the United States" means federal offenses only, which I do not believe has ever been tested in the courts.

Edited, Jul 6th 2007 2:03pm by fhrugby
#10 Jul 06 2007 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
I do not believe Nixon could be unpardoned even if the investigation was timely
Well, it was a joke.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jul 06 2007 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Who's to say they're not investigating whether to make an amendment.

Not that I believe that will actually happen, but just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.

#12 Jul 06 2007 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Who's to say they're not investigating whether to make an amendment.

Not that I believe that will actually happen, but just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.


And of course deciding to try and make an amendment to the constitution based on your panties being in a bunch over a single case is a great idea for making smart law and an excellent use of tax payers money.

Why I remember last November when the dems took over congress, thinking thats a clear sign that we needed to spend more time reviewing presidential pardon powers.

Oh wait, there might have been something else they were supposed to do something about first
#13 Jul 06 2007 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Losttroll wrote:
Oh wait, there might have been something else they were supposed to do something about first
Flag burning amendment! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Jul 06 2007 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
No way, Flag buring should remain protected speach!

Of course I think opening up on a flag burner with a paint ball gun should be protected speech too.

You can't tell me that hitting someone in the nads with a paint ball doesn't make just as much of a statement as burning a flag.
#15 Jul 06 2007 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
not surprised that the Dems are being stupid if that is what you mean.

Quote:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., a 2008 presidential candidate, said the Libby commutation "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."


ok and were is her proof in this statement? is this not called liable?

bloody stupid woman she is.
#16 Jul 06 2007 at 11:44 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
It's libel. And you mean slander.
#17 Jul 06 2007 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
ok and were is her proof in this statement? is this not called liable?


No, you're thinking of slander, libel is when it is in print. (didn't anyone see spiderman?) Liable is when you are leagle responsible.

And generally then burden of proof for Slander/Libel is on the accuser. Something tells me the White house probably doesn't want to try and prove that case.
#18 Jul 06 2007 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
thanks for the correction and education.

still does not make her smart or good in the public eye.
#19 Jul 06 2007 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Losttroll wrote:
Quote:
ok and were is her proof in this statement? is this not called liable?


No, you're thinking of slander, libel is when it is in print. (didn't anyone see spiderman?) Liable is when you are leagle responsible.


And the word is "legally". ;)

Quote:
And generally then burden of proof for Slander/Libel is on the accuser. Something tells me the White house probably doesn't want to try and prove that case.


It goes no where for two reasons:

1. Here statement simply isn't explicit enough. Had she said something like "We all know that Libby was protecting Vice President Cheny, because he had secretly ordered the leak of Plames identity in violation of the federal espionage act", you'd have something specific enough.

All she said was that he was acting to "futher stiffle dissent". Um... What the heck does that mean? It's one of those vaguely phrased statements designed so that everyone knows what she's referring to, but since she didn't actually explicitly state it, you can't charge her with slander.


2. Everyone involved is a public official. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this one. Public officials are essentially "open game". You can make any claim or statement about them as long as you're talking about their professional actions. This is a protection of speach. Most importantly it's protection of political speach. The thinking is that it's more important to protect those who make wild claims about the actions of politicians then to protect the politicians from those wild claims. Because if you side with the politicians then it becomes legally dangerous to ever question any action by your government. That's a "bad thing"...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Jul 06 2007 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji, great info, thanks.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)