Oh...






...I have gagged Darden.

I could have attended hundreds of other gatherings.












.....But noooooOOOOOOOO.....

who the hell is crying for him? not me.
'the family'? that reminds me, we watched the godfather the other day.:rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...bby/index.html


this **** bothers me

clinton has the guts to say that when he also lied in court (w/ the monica thing - granted i didnt think a bj was that big of a deal, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath if ya ask me)

and the whole whitewater shiat - and the fact clinton pardoned everyone and their mother.

what a loser




now, i dont mind dumbocraps, i mean democrats. well actually i do mind, but i am not real fond of republicans in the past 4 years or so, but, if Hillary wins this gosh darn thing I'm outta here.

I would love to see a woman president, or any minority president, just no Hillary, please.

I would love to see a woman president, or any minority president, just no Hillary, please.
-------------------


Fucl<in' amazing.

I'm sorry...my words could have been chosen in a better way.


I should have said ...."Fucl<in' unreal."







Thanks in advance.

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a distinction between President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby — which she has harshly criticized — and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office.



both sides slay me. they each point the finger at the other--yet both sides engage in the same behavior. it's hysterical!

it was ok for clinton to pardon 140 people in the waning days/hours of his presidency, yet he bashes bush for commuting the prison portion of libbys sentence. not a pardon mind you....


this system is so flawed, no wonder there is constand gridlock in washington.

Lord Acton said it best.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The state of politics in this country is sad and sickening all at once.

it is.

many candidates run with the agenda of working for the people and doing their work. then they get up there and fall right into the system, with all its corrupt ways. you might have a legit piece of legislation, but by god if you don't vote for a fellows pork, guess where you're stuff is going?

ben franklin wanted our leaders to be unpaid, now wouldn't that be something? many of them get up there, and then just do what they can to stay in office a few years so they can get retirement. and that of course is full pay! it's ridiculous.

I have a news flash for you....

Remember Mark Rich, the Clinton pardon that garnered the most boohooing from Republicans? I'm sure you do, because that's the name the Bush-Cheney supporters like to dredge up, like he was a greater danger to the human race than our POTUS.

Well, none other than SCOOTER LIBBY was Mark Rich's defense attorney.

Try and pin the "integrity badge" on Mr's. Libby, Cheney and The Decider after this revelation.

even the tyrant charles the first had a lawyer.

hell, that just goes to show they're all in it together, doesn't it?

Noooo....I actually believe it exposes a level of hypocrisy.

Danzig,
I'm a bit confused. Did Clinton pardon anyone that was serving in his administration to protect either himself or his vice president?
My recollection is a bit hazy, and who was Charles the first's lawyer.
Emporer George's was named Alberto. He sure knew "law", but had serious memory lapses on other minor things.

There is no conservative or liberal anymore in today's politicians. They are driven by huge money and special interest groups. The Democrats and Republicans in DC right now are the sickest group of people we have ever had running this country. All you can really do is vomit at the nonsense going on there.

Now that would be a waste of perfectly good vomit.
A better comparison might be canine fecal matter, but that might be insulting to dogs.

Amen to the last posts. Instead of "George Bush the Liberal" it should be "George Bush the Dick Hea*!"

We need a third party, if not a forth....now.

Spyder

not sure if any of the 141 pardons clinton signed his last day in office alone had to do with anyone in his admin--maybe a pre-dated one for sandy 'classified documents is my middle name' berger?--but when george PARDONS someone, i'm sure we'll hear about it.

for the clintons to complain is the height of hypocrisy--but no doubt plenty of the republicans who complained are now celebrating libbys sentence reduction.

it is on both sides, absolutely!! pot calls kettle black every day in d.c. and it's a shame, and an embarrassment that this great country is run by people on both sides of the aisle who scream bloody murder when the other party does exactly what they themselves are doing!

that's been exposed for ages, on both sides of the aisle.

Danzig...this is my favorite Bush bon mot.

When pardoning Scooter Libby, Bush stated, "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

Let's take a trip down memory lane:
George W. Bush, during his six years as governor of Texas, presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States. A couple of noteworthy opportunities were presented to GWB:

• Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old and a nincompoop for a lawyer. Terry was a very bad guy and society deserved to be protected from him...but kill him??? C'mon
• Karla Faye Tucker, my all-time favorite. She became a household name while awaiting execution because of the sincerity of her religious conversion. People all over the world, from the Pope, to Bianca Jagger, Pat Robertson and even Jerry Falwell pleaded with Bush to grant her clemency. Journalist Tucker Carlson caught Bush, in an unguarded moment, ridiculing Karla Faye when she appeared on Larry King Live. "Please," Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "please, don't kill me."

Sorry for the long winded essay, but I firmly believe that everyone needs to know these things. I don't want Bush to be excused by anyone who thinks all politicians are just as bad. They're not. Bush-Cheney invented a new level of evil.

some people support the death penalty, and some don't. i've said before that except in extreme cases, i do not--so you certainly won't get me defending bush in that regard.

but to say that he and his vp have ratcheted things up to a new level of evil--well, i disagree.

both sides engage in behavior that most of us would not, and both sides criticize the other for those same behaviors. for any accusation against one party, or member, no doubt similar happenings could be found for the other.

i know members of each party like to point at members of the other for their bad behavior, and then excuse like behavior when it's one of 'their own'. i think that is also a shame. both sides love to talk ethics--as long as it's 'the other side' who is being investigated.

it would be lovely if both parties would come to understand that they are all supposed to be on 'our side'!!!

also, for the record, bush has not pardoned libby, he commuted the prison portion of his sentence--which is his right to do so as president, much like a pardon would be--as was clintons right to do so before he left office, and he did just that.

We've always heard about! Complaints when George Sr did it, and complaints when Clinton did it. Its total hypocrisy from all sides.

i know it, it's ridiculous!

remember travelgate? now it's alberto.


pot, meet kettle. kettle, pot....nice to meet you. likewise i'm sure.

Here are the words of another unelected Republican president after he issued a pardon. (Right, GDub didn't, he commuted...so the civil action by the Wilson-Plame's can't go forward until the appeals process is completed).

Gerry Ford proclaimed that “our long national nightmare is over”, he followed that famous lines with these words: “Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule.”

Well, just my opinion, but the nightmare doesn't seem to be over, and though the Constitution has been undercut by illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeus corpus, and other acts that we suspected "terrorists" would impose (little did we suspect that the real threat to our liberty would come from the junta that occupies the White House), at least we have a government of laws and not men (if you don't consider signing statements, and Cheney's claim that his role is not in the executive branch). Watch for "contempt of Congress" filings in the future.
Seems that if there's nothing to hide, a whole lot of effort is being exerted to hide something.

Oh, at least Ford was right when he said, "here the people rule." Yeah, right?

C@C,
Here's one for ya. Hope it gives you a laugh, like it did for me.
http://newsforreal.com/

Bush showed utter contempt for the judicial process when he threw out the verdict by 12 American citizens and disregarded the judicial rulings. Let's not forget he proclaimed himself The Decider.

And Danzig is right about Bush not pardoning Scooter. Technically, a pardon is an admission/acceptance of guilt--this was established when Nixon was pardoned by Ford. Bush, Cheney, Scooter & Co. maintain that Scooter did not commit a crime. Thus, only a sentence commutation was issued.

Well....apparently Congress is culpable for all of the above as well,for they surely voted for the Patriot Act and subsequent urgent invasions of our precious rights! If the "Breck Boy" is wrong, and the WOT isn't just a bumper sticker, then you people are going to be "mighty inconvenienced" when the terrorists come to our land!

Q: What is a Signing Statement?

A: A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

Q: Is George W. Bush the first President to issue signing statements?

A: NO. Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe. Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below.

Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66281

Even more forcefully, Monroe sent another message dated April 6, 1822, (that refers to his January 17, 1822 message as having “imperfectly explained” his concerns) stating “If the right of the President to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officers from any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he would be compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps had been reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law as to those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had been already legislated out of office, taking from the President all agency in their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversive of the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices for a particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices, at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generals and other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat every object of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at the head of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have had no experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66303

In May 1830, Andrew Jackson wrote an message to the House stating his understanding of the limits of an appropriation: “the phraseology of the section which appropriates the sum of $8,000 for the road from Detroit to Chicago may be construed to authorize the application of the appropriation for the continuance of the road beyond the limits of the Territory of Michigan, I desire to be understood as having approved this bill with the understanding that the road authorized by this section is not to be extended beyond the limits of the said Territory.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66775

Tyler, issued a prototypical “reluctant” signing statement, in which he signs a piece of legislation concerning legislative apportionment while announcing, for the record, that he thinks it is unconstitutional: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67545

Polk in 1848 similarly warned that while he was signing legislation that established a government in the Oregon territory prohibiting slavery, that he would not have signed similar legislation that involved New Mexico and California south of the “Missouri Compromise Line”: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=68034

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?

A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?

A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

Q: How can I quickly locate a lot of the controversial signing statements?

A: In our search function for all presidential papers, search on: “my constitutional authority” OR “unitary executive”. This will return about 250 documents. Most of them, from Ronald Reagan to the present are signing statements—but there are several veto messages sprinkled among them.

Q: Didn’t the American Bar Association declare that Bush’s use of signing statements was unconstitutional?

A: In July 2006, an ABA “Blue Ribbon Task Force”—not “The ABA”—found that these presidential assertions of constitutional authority “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” The report of the bipartisan commission, which relied on the American Presidency Project database, can be found here: http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf

Q: What does the ABA Task Force say the president should do if he thinks a bill passed by congress includes unconstitutional provisions?

A: Veto the bill.

Q: Is this a liberal-conservative issue? Are there any liberals that side with Bush?

A: An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

In an essay published in the Boston Globe on August 9, 2006, liberal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that signing statements are “informative and constitutionally unobjectionable.” Tribe writes that what is objectionable is “the president’s failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress.” An eventual challenge to a president should come not to the statement, but to the fact that a president failed to enforce a law or that his actions resulted in harm to others. In the latter case, Tribe has in mind Presidential directives about how to treat “unlawful combatants.” Tribe’s essay can be found here: http://www.boston.com/

Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.


last i saw, congress is made up of members from both parties. this is what hysteria will get you.

Dan..






...what is your primary malfunction here?

scaring people is the best way to get and keep power. even these chumps figured that out. the question should be "when was george bush a conservative?" 20 million illegals, open borders, debt up to our asses, intervening on a family crisis (teri shaivo), wiretapping, e-mail reading , nation building on and on and on . yeah he's the most conservative i've ever seen .lol. maybe if your trying to conserve on good ideas that is . !

Getting back on topic sort of... this is from the Balco steroid case in which a lawyer, Ellerman, was given time for leaking information about the case...

White also rejected Ellerman's argument that he should get a lighter sentence because President Bush commuted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2½-year prison sentence for perjury to probation. White said to do so would open the door to doling out unduly lenient sentences for other white collar criminals.

"If Mr. Ellerman is dissatisfied with his sentence, he should seek a commutation from the president," White said.



And it spreads. Judge White is apparently aware and having some fun with it.

ANd I will take bets. Bush pardons Scooter near the end of his term. Bush sticks with his friends. Loyality above all.

Okay, since this thread has been revived, here's something to read (if you're really, really interested) -- congressional testimony from a "liberal defense attorney."

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Cochran070711.pdf

ShadowRoll: this is really unfortunate for Mr. Rita! Sounds like an over-aggressive DA got a great case to build his rep(one thing I hate about DA's) I was only able to peruse the 9 page pdf, but this guy's phsyical health and well being will be sorely tested in Prison! More later...thanks for the link!

The power to pardon was highly debated among the founding fathers.

Among the first pardons were those issued to people convicted as a result of the Whisky Rebellion, after their (over)vigorous protest over excise liquor taxes.

I supported those pardons.