code word: WRONG

nuf' said

Technically, Libby gets credit for "on day" served since he was booked and (those of you who were gloating about his Inmate # know who you are) already processed into the system. So, yes, the President felt anything more than one day was excessive. Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa.

They should be succinct like Clinton. He said, "I guess it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Here, they mean, "I guess it depends on what the meaning of 'equal justice' is".

I find it offensive that convicted felons who are friends of the powerful--or able to either protect them or bring them down--are able to get prison sentences completely commuted. If Bush had said, look, 30 months is too much. Instead I am going to commute all but the minimum amount of jail time recommended by the sentencing panel," he might have been able to eke out a faint comparison to Solomon from everyone. Instead, his decision further divides the country, undermines future federal criminal sentencing and perpetuates the belief that those in power now serve themselves first. It is bad for the republic. Conservatives should be both embarrassed and furious at that man.

Why am I not at all surprised that a cabal of imperialists find the phrase "equal justive under the law" to be such a head scratcher? For blatant imperial stupidity it beats the hell out of "Let them eat cake."

I'm glad to see a White House reporter(s) asking a solid series of follow-up questions. The White House's response may not be very reassuring, but the reporter(s)'s line of questioning certainly was. Good work.

Billy Pilgrim:

Did you erect guillotines outside Clinton's Chappaqua, NY house on January 22, 2001?

A real patriot is the fellow who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works.

Chinese Fortune Cookie

Jake: "Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Really? So Marc Rich was a member of Clinton's cabinet who had the potential to implicate him in a federal crime? And Jimmy Carter was protecting himself from prosecution by pardoning the draft dodgers?

Christ, this isn't comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and molehills.

The White House can mock the Congress. They can mock the Democratic Party. They have crossed the line in the sand when they begin mockinc the American people, as they are doing now.

It's time for all patriotic Americans to arm themselves as they did at our nation's birth -- reading Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* and *The Rights of Man*. Paine was our guide then, and he will be our guide now.

The whole horror of the Bush years began when the U.S. Supreme Court gave a certain former cheerleader, frat rat, and Bohemian Grovian "special treatment" in a 5 to 4 decision essentially throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and placing some of the most corrupt and scheming individuals ever in the White House who firmly believe they are above "the law," the U.S. Constitution and anything that Congress enacts or the courts judge.

Intentional double post, in honor of Thomas Paine.

The White House can mock the Congress. They can mock the Democratic Party. They have crossed the line in the sand when they begin mocking the American people, as they are doing now.

It's time for all patriotic Americans to arm themselves as they did at our nation's birth -- reading Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* and *The Rights of Man*. Paine was our guide then, and he will be our guide now.

Scott Stanzel needs to be more of a moving target. Snow muddies the waters with "what I find interesting" soliloquies. The fembot goes into broken record mode, chewing up time, and disheartening questioners with that glazed over stare. Mr. Stanzel needs to learn that simply delivering the days talking points will result in a dally pummeling. Spin harder Scott.

Hm, this story has a strange twist. Who knew that Marc Rich and Scooter Libby were "strange bedfellows" for more than 15 years while Libby advocated for Rich's pardon?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

Jake: Sorry, but you're mistaken. Rich wasn't convicted of anything, and even Libby agreed that Rich should not have even been charged.

Ahh, shitbag troll "Jake" from ThinkProgress has migrated here.

Worst of the lying shills out there. Works hard to earn his $10/hr from the RNC.

Yes, I know that Libby was Rich's attorney (until the spring of 2000 at least), but I am pretty sure the jury came back with a guilty verdict in that case -- I will try to double-check with Scooter next time I see him -- either way, Marc Rich and his partner were fugitives when Clinton pardoned them.

Ignore Jake - he is an infamous troll. His goal is to make trouble - this is a site for grown-ups and he is just a kid.

Billy - I'll run right out for knitting needles and yarn - can I knit you a nice red hat?

Powkat

You're off base on two counts.

Jake is not a kid. He's a hired gunslinger deliberately planted by the opposition for a specific purpose -- he's creating a commotion outside the bank while his accomplices are inside robbing it.

The Paine reference was not made to wax poetic. If you are familiar with the works cited, you would not have made your charming comment. Neglect Paine at your peril.

The press may be asking better questions, but they're still leaving much out:
1) Does the president believe the sentencing guidelines which generated Libby's sentence need to be changed?

2) If not, what is specifically different about Libby's case that warrants the deviation from the guidelines? [they should keep asking for specifics about Libby until the spokemonkey cries]

3) Did the President commute Libby's sentence to avoid putting Libby in a situation to bargain with prosecutors to avoid jail time--i.e., was the President afraid of what Libby might reveal?

4) If the President is determined to "respect the jury's verdict" why won'nt him commit to swering off a pardon--the verdict isn't going to change in January 2008.....

5) Why didn't the President wait for Libby to express remorse for his crime before commuting his sentence?

I don't expect honest answers to any of these questions, but it would be nice to see the Whitehouse spokesmonkeys squirm a bit.

It doesen't bother me near as much that the rich and powerful protect themselves and there is a two tier justice system in this country but to hear the Republican Party gushing on tv about being overjoyed that Libby beat the system turn my stomach. Someone should remind the Republican Party they and the Democrats are the system.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

For example, Scooters are WAY equal...

Jake the Snake, now there was a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Roberts

For everyone else, my initial post above pointed out the "legal theory" that Libby gets credit for "one day" served since he was booked and assigned an Inmate # -- nonetheless, plenty of other Presidents thought it was fine to pardon / commute sentences without even a SINGLE DAY of jail time -- Clinton did for Marc Rich, same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers, same as Ford did for Richard Nixon, same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa (although, now I'd better double check Hoffa now too ; )

Jake,

Now that it's been established that you're familiar with *Common Sense*, the obvious next question is, did you read it? Unlike Rousseau and Locke, Paine was eminently readable by even those of below average intelligence, such as you. He was able to penetrate the thick skulls of the NASCAR, pro wrestling crowd of his day, motivating them to think in terms of revolution -- not a shabby accomplishment.

Do yourself a favor. Do something to enrich your mind this evening and read a few pages from Paine. Tomorrow you may see the world from an entirely new perspective.

Does the troll (Jake) have any inkling how trite, stupid and false his attempts to absolve every one of the multitude of Bush/Cheney crimes by citing some irrelevant incident in the Clinton terms which K. Starr and the wing-nut media bums have tried to project into eternity?

One would think by now those wing-nuts who go on and on about supposed mis-deeds by Clinton as alibis for the present sad state of this nation's affairs would grow up and find some other excuses, huh?

For instance, Jake, your dumb suggestion that Clinton's pardon of Rich is comparable to Bush's 'commutation' of Libby marks you as a person whose cranium is filled with fecal matter rather than brains... As another commenter pointed out, there is no comparison.

Your blithering about erecting a guillotine outside Clinton's home as a counter to some facetious suggestion of comparing the Bush administration to the Louis XVI reign is not nearly so funny as you apparently think.

You are not only a troll..you are an un-mitigated, stupid bore.

And the CNN top news story right now (from the web) is:

White House: Clinton shameless on Libby

It's not special treatment, and even if it was, Clinton did it too, and how hypocritical of him to bring this up!

Clinton (Bill) should just STFU. He just takes the focus of the real issue.

Rich is irrelevant. Clinton did some unacceptable things years ago. So what? Wasn't Bush selected because he was allegedly a paragon.

The Bush/Cheney admin has been saying for months that they cannot respond to questions regarding on-going prosecutions, they need to let the justice system work, yet they now state that they have been deliberating for many weeks about Libby. Their plan to spring him was a long time in the making. Why is no one commenting on this very public contradiction and lie?

Why can't the Dem leadership understand that they are dealing with crazy people (Narcissitic Personality Disorder at the least) who have their fingers on the nuclear trigger? Why can't they understand that they immediately have to use every means possible to straightjacket these menaces?

Jake - what the hell does anything that Clinton (or any other president) have to do with what bush did? Please don't tell me that your sum defence is "But Clinton did it". I thought that Bush proposed a DIFFERENT White House from Clinton; therefore the call of "but Clinton did it" is patently false. Do you actually have an argument?

I guess the more appropriate comparison would GHW Bush's pardon of Cap Weinberger. Another instance of the Chief Executive pardoning a subordinate who had the potential to testify against him. Had Bush Pere tried that stunt prior to the end of his lame-duck presidency, he would have faced the impeachment his dim son should be facing now.

Singularity:

Why not something more recent in time, say, Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal? You know, if Bush is impeached for Libby, then Clinton can be as well.

oooooooooOOOOOO Tax evasion that's deadly, almost as lethal as treasonous leaking of a covert CIA agent, almost as lethal as lying to justify an illegal invasion of a small country.

"Do yourself a favor. Do something to enrich your mind this evening and read a few pages from Paine. Tomorrow you may see the world from an entirely new perspective.
Posted by: Billy Pilgrim
Date: July 5, 2007 5:12 PM"

A re-read of TP is a very good idea. I'll pull my copy out tonight and do that.

My momma always had a knack for judging people as to their honesty. She told me not to trust Bushit when he ran against Ann Richards for guv. I trusted her advice then, and she was so right.

Man Oh Man, it jst kills me that there are STILL some idjits out there that can't admit that they might have made a mistake when they voted for the moron so they have to use to old, tired candy-assed asinine, totally ridiculus, etc. etc. etc. wow.. excuse that Clinton did it. My one request of all those Goof Balls is... Step into the reality of the new millenium. Clinton ain't in charge no mo. The Bushits' are. They are the group responsible and they are the group which shall be held accountable. Throw these bums where they belong.. under the bus.
All others who do not agree please kindly STFU

"It's all a big joke to them."

Not for those who have to face the pointed questions about it, and and up twisting in the wind publicly. This isn't going away.

"I don't think even the 30% of remaining loyal "Bushies" has any notion that the administration is still interested in giving the appearance of transparency."

Bushit's polls are much less than 30 per cent. He is as result of the Libby coverup, at about the level of Nixon now. And it can only go down from there.

Posted by: Busta
Date: July 5, 2007 2:40 PM

"Technically, Libby gets credit for "on day" served since he was booked and (those of you who were gloating about his Inmate # know who you are) already processed into the system."

Which took a whole day, and occurred inside a jail/prison? Gee, I don't think so.

"So, yes, the President felt anything more than one day was excessive."

But only as concerns Bushit loyalist Libby. It isn't excessive according to the Republican-written and enacted sentencing guidelines, within which that 30 months falls. It isn't excessive according to the SC. It isn't excessive according to Bushit-appointee Judge Walton. It isn't excessive according to Bushit's DOJ.

Nor is 33 months for a veteran of two wars, and career military of 25 years, for perjury and obstruction of justice, excessive to Bushit. In fact, it isn't excessive to Bushit except in one case and one case only: Bushit loyalist Libby.

"Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Lying again, "Jake". There is no equivalence between the Libby case and the others you cite in effort to obfuscate and distract. In addition to which, this thread is about Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail time. It isn't about Libby-friend Marc Rich (who was only granted a partial pardon -- no commutation of sentence), draft dodgers (Bushit went AWOL; AWOL is a courts-martial offense), or even Ford-Nixon.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:40 PM

The President's judicial powers have no strings attached. The only check on this power is a political one.

Clinton pardoned Rich and Democrats payed (are still paying) a political price.

Bush pardoned Scooter and Republicans will also have to pay a price in reputation and trust in their brand.

I voted for Bush in 2000 because I wanted to show my frustration with actions like the Rich pardon. now Bush defends himself by saying I'm no worse than Clinton. Yes, I know that most of Clinton's "blizzard" of pardons came through the justice department. The Rich pardon was wrong and so is the Libby pardon. So when it comes to pardons both Clinton and Bush are disappointing.

I guess the comparison game can now move on to the foreigner affairs round. Guess who wins? Ask Republican Senator and future defendant Pete Domenici who today jumped ship, calling for a redeployment of troops. Maybe Jean Schmidt can accuse him of "cutting and running" and that will solve the problem.

Jake: "Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Really? So Marc Rich was a member of Clinton's cabinet who had the potential to implicate him in a federal crime? And Jimmy Carter was protecting himself from prosecution by pardoning the draft dodgers?

Christ, this isn't comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and molehills.

Posted by: Clavis
Date: July 5, 2007 3:25 PM

I think "Jake" figgers guilty-as-sin Marc Rich is relevant because Rich's soul-mate, and the person who lobbied for his pardon (partial -- and no commutation of Rich's sentence), was oh-so-innocent convicted felon "Scooter" Libby.

Ya see (I don't), "Jake" somehow connecting the sainted convicted felon "Scooter" Libby with Clinton via Libby-soul mate and client Marc Rich is intended by "Jake" to smear Clinton because he gave automatically-and-forever-innocent-victim-because-Republican convicted felon "Scooter" Libby part of what "Scooter" wanted for "Scooter"'s guilty-as-sin soul-mate Marc Rich.

Let me try again:

You can't expect Republican "Jake," apologist-for-Republican-convicted felons/traitors -- in this instance "Scooter" Libby -- to make sense. "He" has a difficult task: on one hand, rejecting the rule of law in behalf of poor baby convicted felon "Scooter" Libby, while simultaneously and on the other hand endeavoring to lynch Clinton by means of a rope made of law for crimes Clinton didn't commit except in the lies uttered by morally superior anti-lie-and-liars "Jake".

Does that confuse? Not as much as "Jake" confuses himself by being an out-and-out and obvious hypocrite.

The only justice in the above twisted equation/s is that the first victim of "Jake"'s irrational and lie-sustained hatred is "Jake".

Clavis:

"Libby was not a member of Bush's Cabinet -- sitting Presidents cannot be indicted --"

False. But if you believe you can do it: Substantiate.

"besides that, the President is the authority who can declassify information and therefore cannot commit that crime."

Actually, he can commit "that crime," because the laws which apply to such materials and their disclosure also bind on Bushit. Further, there are stipulated procedures -- even in Executive Order applying to Bushit -- which define the legal means to declassify classified materials. Disobeying those is violating those requirements.

And keep in mind that an Executive Order, being subordinate to statute, cannot be inconsistent with the statute without also violating it, and being null-and-void. In short: if the Executive Order stipulated that Bushit were exempt from the statute which applies to him, that part of the Executive Order would be null-and-void. And if acted upon, the action would be illegal.

Ass. Anti-lying morally superior liar.

"From CNN and other sources:

"Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.

"The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.

"Posted by: ajk2821
Date: July 5, 2007 3:42 PM"

Don't confuse "Jake" with the facts: Marc Rich was without question guilty, and scum, as evidenced by the simple fact that Clinton pardoned him.

All evidence to the contrary is a vast rightness-of-rule-of-law conspiracy to undeceptively besmirch the lies told against Clinton -- and Marc Rich -- by such morally superior anti-lying-and-wrong-doing smearmongering liars as "Jake".

Not so by the way: the person who lodged the false charges against Rich was none other than upstanding US AG Rudy Guliani.

Yes, I know that Libby was Rich's attorney (until the spring of 2000 at least), but I am pretty sure the jury came back with a guilty verdict in that case -- I will try to double-check with Scooter next time I see him -- either way, Marc Rich and his partner were fugitives when Clinton pardoned them.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 4:07 PM

There wouldn't have been a petition for a pardon for Rich to present to Clinton if not for "Scooter" Libby. In fact, I think it is abundantly safe to say that "Scooter" Libby was for pardoning Rich before Clinton learned of the "Scooter" Libby pardon.

Got that, liar? "Scooter" Libby was for pardoning Rich before Clinton even knew the petition ofr the pardon existed.

Why are you not blaming Libby for initiating the pardon issue, in view of the fact that you hate the fact that Rich got pardoned? Ah, that's why: it isn't that you hate Rich; it's that you "hate" Rich only because associated with Clinton.

On the other hand, you certainly don't hate Rich because he was associated with the oh-so-innocent convicted felon Libby. Instead, you admire Rich's choice of stirling character and integrity to represent him in the effort to get the pardon.

Or is it that you hate Clinton because he didn't grant Rich a full pardon?

Make up your mind: Why do you hate Rich? Because he was associated with Clinton only because Clinton happened to grant him a partial pardon? Or because associated with the upstanding oh-so-innocent convicted felon "Scooter" Libby?

Come on, you can tell us the truth; we won't tell anybody. Oh, right -- I forget (like hell): you don't know the meaning of truth, let alone how to tell it.

As said before: I'd ask why you're a liar, but your answer would be a lie. Let me guess: your real name is "Scooter" Libby.

I hope everybody realizes that "equal justice under law" is the inscription on the front of the Supreme Court building. It speaks volumes that a White House spokesman would profess unfamiliarity with the term.

For the record, I have never stated I was against the Marc Rich pardon. Carry on . . .

". . . . The Rich pardon was wrong and so is the Libby pardon."

Posted by: Samsara
Date: July 5, 2007 7:16 PM

Still full of shit after all thewse years.

Your view of the Rich pardon is that you swallowed from the Clinton-haters. You swallowed the lie, and so far haven't corrected yourself about it.

Clinton did not give Rich a full pardon; he only pardoned him of the bogus charges against him. Otherwise, the pradon tightened the fulfillment of his obligations -- reimbursing to those he defrauded -- on him.

Your hatred of Clinton is -- bottom line -- lie-based. Smarten up and stop viewing the parties as the same. The Democrats are about obeyind the law. The republicans are party-bforeContitution, rule of law, and country.

You tell em Billy Pilgrim. Good to see you again.

code word: shame (something no one in this administration is acquainted with).

I hope the reporter who had the temerity to press on with his followups stays with it: if only the teevee or major newspaper would simply document this stuff . . . .

If it ain't equal, it ain't justice. Anything more you're unclear of Mr. Stanzel?

Cassidy: Read this:
The Libby Commutation: Coincidence, or Conspiracy?
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/05/2299/

In response to Jake - The "Clinton did it too" excuse is over with. Let's get something straight: Bill Clinton issued 140 pardons and commutations on his last day in office. All of the people he pardoned had served part or all of their jail sentence. He never pardoned or commuted the sentence of anyone working in his administration during the middle of a term.

As for the pardon of Marc Rich, the international commodities trader who fled the US while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion, let's not forget that even Rich's attorney, whom Clinton described as a "distinguished Republican lawyer", supported Rich's pardon and never wavered on his claim of innocence.

That distiguished Republican lawyer was Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Who the heck is Mr. Stanzel? Where does the White House find these people? I mean, how dumb do you have to be to utter the words: "Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by 'equal justice under the law.'"

no name:

Bill Clinton in no longer in office -- that is correct -- but he can still be impeached to disqualify him from ever holding "any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States." Read Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution if you don't believe me.

Broadway Carl:

I know how Clinton was impeached -- I even posted that Op Ed in an earlier thread -- so I'm not sure what you think you are "correcting." I wasn't upset with Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich BTW. I'm simply saying IF Bush is impeached for Libby's, then the same standard should be used for Clinton's.

Azieran:

From our nation's independence ("All men are Created equal"), that has been our IDEAL -- note however that most of our Founding Fathers owned slaves -- our government is not perfect, but we are getting better. Now, I agree that no one is above the law, but I guess our disagreement today is that you don't think the Presidential pardon power is legitimate. Funny how many Democrats thought it was legitimate the morning of January 20, 2001. I did not look up ANY of the above information. Next question?

I did confirm that Rich's pardon was based not on a conviction, but rather the 1984 "superseding indictment" for wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701.

Others who did not spend a day in jail, also pardoned by President Clinton:

Pincus Green [see above];

John Fife Symington, III [1996 indictment; 1997 superseding indictment -- false statements to federally insured financial institutions, wire fraud, attempted extortion, and false statements in bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1343, 1951, 152, 2(a) and 2(b)];

John Deutch (2001 information -- former CIA Director); and

Preston Theodore King [1961 conviction -- failure to appear for physical examination; failure to appear for induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 46; 1962 indictment -- Bail jumping, 18 U.S.C. § 3146];

Ernest Charles Krikava -- Offense: Perjury in bankruptcy proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 152, sentenced November 10, 1993 to Five months' jail, three years' supervised release with special condition of five months' home confinement.
Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment to expire immediately; supervised release reduced to 31 months; special condition of home confinement removed.

Just what are you trying to accomplish, Jake? You fart in the wind to smell your own aroma.

No one wants to hear your rationalization of Bush's continued spitting on the American system of Justice, or what shred of it is left. It is small minds like yours that have led us to our sorry state of splitting hairs over whether Clinton's pardons are better or worse than Bush's commuting.

I could give a crap about Bush, the damage he has wrought is to our Justice System, when all those defence attorneys begin, as they already are, to say "if the President says it's too excessive, why, it's too excessive for my guy too!"

Code is small as in Jake's small mind. You reveal how small the longer you talk. Politics class indeed.

Vicki Lopez-Lukis -- Offenses: Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 sentenced November 14, 1997 to 27 months' imprisonment; two years' supervised release. Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment to expire immediately.

Bobby Franklin Griffin -- Offenses: Bribery, mail fraud 18 U.S.C. §§ 666 (a)(1)(B) and 1341 sentenced December 4, 1997 to 48 months' and one day's imprisonment; three years' supervised release; $7,500 fine. Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment to expire immediately.

Benjamin Berger -- Offenses: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; false statement, 18 U.S.C. § 1001; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(1); filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) sentenced October 18, 1999 to 30 months' imprisonment; two years' supervised release; $522,977 restitution. Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment commuted to 24 months' imprisonment.

Ronald Henderson Blackley -- Offense: False statements; 18 U.S.C. § 1001 sentenced March 18, 1998 to 27 months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release. Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment to expire immediately.

Bert Wayne Bolan -- Offenses: Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and illegal remuneration for patient referrals, 18 U.S.C. § 371; mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 sentenced April 14, 1995 to 97 months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release; $375,000 fine. Terms of Grant: Sentence of imprisonment to expire immediately, unpaid balance of fine in excess of $15,000 remitted.

Jake is lagging the system. I thought my post got eaten so I reposted with revisions. Thanks, Jake. I apparently wasn't done feeding the troll.

Jake:

You are farting in the wind, pausing to smell the aroma. You document nothing but your talent at cutting and pasting.

Jake:

2 wrongs don't make a right, didn't your handler teach you anything?

I never said that Rich's pardon was wrong. You see how that would be a consistent position? I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those who DEFENDED Clinton's pardon but bash Bush's. It's just as likely that McDougal knows about a Clinton crime and Libby knows about a Bush crime. But, even if Bush commuted Libby's sentence in order to keep him from implicating Bush in a crime, that commutation cannot be revoked and is not within the criminal definition of treason. How are you using the word "treasonous"?

"Bill Clinton in no longer in office -- that is correct -- but he can still be impeached to disqualify him from ever holding "any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States." Read Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution if you don't believe me."
Posted by: Jake
Wrong! Again! Still!
Article 1 Section 3 sez NOTHING about impeachment of someone who is not holding public office.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Impeachment (The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.
Notice Jake, the words in the definition "removal from office"?
Pull yer head out of your ass (probably an impossible feat for you).

Notice, anoa, the word in the Constitution "and" (I will refrain from discussing your anatomy, thank you very much).

Actually, eyeball, you need to ask JNagarya whether he defended the Marc Rich pardon, because I think he has indeed done so, repeatedly, on these threads -- if so, that qualifies as at least ONE person who "despise[s] the libby pardon embracing the rich pardon" -- I will note, for the record, that Mr. Libby was Rich's attorney only until the spring of 2000. Clinton didn't pardon Rich until January of 2001. I have not seen any statement by Libby "defending" his own commutation.

As for all of Clinton's pardons being conducted though the proper channels and "NOT for people who were CONVICTED that also spared them jail time" please see Roger Clinton and Preston Theodore King (above). We've already discussed the pardon of Susan McDougal re: the probe of Clinton's own wrongdoing. But, I could have kept going above too. Bottom line, if Bush is going to be impeached for Libby's commutation, then Clinton should be impeached for his as well.

Jake must have gone back for seconds of black beans to keep the gaseous emmissions coming. Cloud the issue with your methane all you want, Jake, the WH is, and has been, screwing with the Rule of Law. Clinton did nothing of the sort. He would have paid the price long ago had he done so.

You and the Right Wind Noise Machine is in high gear fighting tooth and nail because you know Bush will ultimately pay the price for his sloppy legal interpretations of his presidential powers. That price may be simply going in the history books as a putz, and that will be fine with me.

Nothing will stop him from going to sleep at night the rest of his life with sugar plums in his head of his "Churchillian Presidency" he dreams he had. Not even his fake cowboy life on his fake ranch in his fake hometown in Texas where he lied about growing up.

Was Clinton right? That is not the subject here, and you know it. The WH is wont to change it to that subject, or any other subject than what its actions mean to real world implications of equal justice for all. The subject is, and will remain, was the WH action precedented and was it right? It was not.

Code is expert as in I don't have to be an expert to know a fart when I smell it, Jake.

test

***Can America Be More Than A TROPE???????

A trope is a figurative metaphor that has more than one meaning.

FREEDOM as a trope can be used to express both the absence of oppression and tyranny of American Aristocracy over the Common Population, or the freedom of the American Aristocracy to enforce oppression and tyranny over the Common Population and exploit the Common Population in pursuit of private interests and the interests of capital.

The founding fathers were very much interested in metaphorical tropes that appeared to express the interests of the Common Population while at the same time they embodied private interests and the interests of capital.

During the Revolutionary War Era in Colonial America WE THE PEOPLE was a trope. During the Revolutionary War Era in Colonial America the British and American Aristocracies controlled vast estates that each comprised millions of acres and the Common Population were at this time either abject slaves or wage slaves in service to the British or American Aristocracies. As a trope the American Aristocracy used WE THE PEOPLE to distinguish the American Aristocracy as WE THE PEOPLE to the American Aristocracy, and WE THE PEOPLE as a rhetorical trope to the Common Population to lead the Common Population to believe that the Common Population were WE THE PEOPLE. As a trope WE THE PEOPLE is used to address both the American Aristocracy and the American Work Force of wage slaves as WE THE PEOPLE, so that both constituencies can be addressed at the same time; the American Aristocracy hear WE THE PEOPLE as distinguishing the American Aristocracy's power, control and domination as WE THE PEOPLE over the Common Population of American Wage Slaves, and the Common Population of American Wage Slaves hear WE THE PEOPLE as a trope for HOPE for their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness as a majority Common Population that wants to share in the American dream as WE THE PEOPLE.

The American Aristocracy hear the metaphorical trope of WE THE PEOPLE as an expression that is exclusive, and the Common Population hear the metaphorical trope of WE THE PEOPLE as inclusive of ALL the constituents of the Common Population.

All of the language of the American Revolution against Britain before, during and after the Revolutionary War has been, is and will continue to be used as rhetorical tropes in the same way as WE THE PEOPLE.

Freedom, justice, the American way and WE THE PEOPLE are ALL examples of tropes that mean different things to the American Aristocracy and the American Common Population. The FOUNDING FATHERS' language of tropes to lead the Common Population against its best interest and the American Aristocracy in its best interest must be eliminated in the 21st Century, and a COMMON LANGUAGE without rhetorical tropes must be developed where metaphorical tropes are no longer used by the American Aristocracy as tools of commercial interests and the interest of capital to exploit, tyrannize and oppress the Common Population of the United States by way of thoughts, feelings and beliefs in rhetorical tropes with non-existent benefit for the Common Population, and sole benefit for the American Aristocracy; tropes that are not inclusive of the Common Population and that have exclusive benefit for the American Aristocracy.

Can America be more than a rhetorical trope? The American Way IS a rhetorical trope. Unless the United States can develop ACTUAL freedom, justice, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the American dream; rather than hollow rhetorical tropes that only provide benefit to the American Aristocracy, America is and will continue to be in a permanent state of decline and turmoil that can only end in the metaphorical equivalent of the Common Population "Storming the Bastille".

United States Government IS a Ponzi Scheme

The following quote from "The Great U-Turn" Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing of America by Bennett Harrison and Barry Bluestone defines a Ponzi scheme as:

Ponzi Scheme: An ingenious fraud almost perfected in 1919 by Charles Ponzi, who set up business in the heart of Boston's financial district. His offer to an eager war-weary public was simple: Invest any sum with him for 45 days and he would return the money plus 50% interest. Invest for 90 days and realize a profit of 100%. He claimed that he was speculating in a sure market -- the market for International Reply Coupons. These were vouchers for postage stamps that could be redeemed in any country belonging to the International Postal Union. Ponzi told his customers that, with the money they invested with him, he intended to buy the coupons in European countries where the exchange rate was low and then redeem them for stamps where the exchange rate was high. By selling the stamps he had purchased in this way, he promised his investors a fortune.

Ponzi never did buy any reply coupons or attempt to arbitrage them. But he guessed that people who were offered a chance at a geometrically increasing return would probably leave their money with him indefinitely. He was almost right. He seduced 20,000 Bostonians into giving him $14 million in the first few months of his operation. By paying off early investors with money given to him by new ones, he built up a pyramid whose early success earned him cheers on the streets of Beantown.

The fatal flaw of pyramids, however, is that they have to be perpetual motion machines in order to work. Ponzi's, of course, was not. It was stopped by his arrest and conviction for fraud in 1920. It took auditors until 1931 to untangle his finances, the end result being that his hapless investors received only .30 cents on the dollar. Ponzi eventually went to jail in Massachusetts, later jumped bail, and started a venture in Florida swamp land. In 1934, the U.S. Government deported him to Italy.

In Charles Ponzi's Scheme, Ponzi was at the top of the pyramid, had a cadre of those who benefited beneath him to sing praises for Ponzi's scheme, and together Ponzi and those singing Ponzi's praises harvested the resources from everyone else in the pyramid with no one else in the pyramid except Ponzi and those singing praises for Ponzi's scheme receiving benefit from Ponzi's scheme.

What is government in the United States today other than an exceeding large Ponzi Scheme? The Elite Capitalist Class are representative of Charles Ponzi at the top of the pyramid, the class in the middle, as a cadre of helpers to Ponzi that sing the praises of Ponzi's scheme, is the Professional Middle Class; and everyone else beneath them, the Common Population, the Working and Poor Class and Culture, are the victims that get harvested for the benefit of the Ponzi Scheme of Government that at present can only be made reference to laughingly as [Representative Democracy?].

The 70% Majority Common Population of the United States can do better than to be the victims of a large and enduring governmental Ponzi Scheme controlled by the Elite Capitalist Class and the class in the middle, the Professional Class.

The Common Population of the United States can rule the government of the United States and in so doing rule themselves democratically together with the Ponzi Class of Elites and the Ponzi familiars singing Ponzi's praises, the Professional Middle Class, together with their own 70% Majority Common Population if they will rouse themselves from their slumbering intellects and vote for their own best interest of their own Common Population, rather than Ponzi Democracy controlled by Ponzi Republicans and Ponzi Democrat familiars that commodify and harvest the 70% Majority Common Population for obscene benefit from the Common Populations communal resources.

It is time for the Common Population to take over control of the Democratic Party and the government of the United States. It is time for the Democracy For America Movement to begin in earnest. It is time for an end to Ponzi Government of the United States.

It is time for ACTUAL Democracy For America.

Posted by: anoa
Date: July 6, 2007 3:46 PM

Wrong on impeachment: Former Senator after he left office _was impeached_: Senator William Blount.

Your argument about [paraphrassing] "nothing permits impeachment of _former_ US officials" isn't valid. The impeahcment power, as pardon power, is one COngress can decide to use as it wishes. Congress can decide who is or is not a civil officer. Up to the defendant to claim, after they are convicted, that they have standing to challenge the conviction; and that they are "not" subject to impeachment.

You fail to explain the precedent of the House impeaching a former senator. Time for Congress to use its impeachment power against legal officers in the WH Counsel's office, and against former US legal counsel officers foremly with EOP-DOJ-OVP-WH.

They want the title of lawyers wiout the responsibilty linked with impeachment. Those days need to end.

Good luck convincing anoa of that : )

Impeachment cannot come soon enough...