T1B

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:You're officially a "banana republic" now.

Because a President commuted a sentence?!?



Oooookay.

True enough. We became a banana republic the day Chimpy was allowed to steal the election in 2000.

Pssst. He stole '04 as well.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Pssst. He stole '04 as well.

Why do you say that? Just because that electronic voting machines of one particular manufacturer were used in certain districts that were overwhelmingly democat-voting thoughout modern times, but just happened to turn up results that gave those pivotal districts to the repubs, since there was essentially no security whatsoever on that electronic network?

Is that why you would say such a thing?

Y2K wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote: All pardons and commutations are, by definition, an executive thumb up the ass of the judicial system.

How many of them occur PRIOR to the criminal serving any time?

How many of them have as their primary goal to protect the administration from further embarassment?


Face it.

This is one more example of the total lack of disregard for the rule of law (along with all the other shit he's done to trample the constitution and bill of rights into the dirt) that this piece of shit adminsitration doesn't think they have to answer to.

Good God Bushice, did you just wake up from some long nap and figure out that Bush would actually use his power to cover his NeoCon pals just as Clinton covered HIS buddies asses and Nixon and Reagan and Bush 42?
Good Morning Sunshine.

No of course not. I'm just so sick of being represented by such a soul less asshole who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything but his own agenda but pretends that its the other way around. When the other presidents pardoned their pals, they didn't spin it to justify their actions as if what they did was good for America.

Besides Ford protecting Nixon (which was the right thing to do at the time, imo), who else of the modern day presidents has stepped in to stop a jail term of a crony after it was decided and before it was served?

It's pathetic that we have to have such a complete numbnuts as a ruler.

Seriously, the harm he's done/ is doing to the US will resonate for years to come.

I agree and yet disagree, it's more than just the POTUS that's worthless and it's changing attitudes for the better. Some big changes may be in store for quite a few of Washington's elite. That is a good thing, too bad a 2X4 across the head is what it takes for people to get a fucking clue.

And I agree and yet disagree with you.

Yes, people want change. That part I agree with.

Unfortunately for all of us, the two ruling parties have a chokehold on Washington, and they are infested with criminals dressed up as "representatives of the people".

Third parties have no chance. Until this empty souled generation of political demons dies off and another generation can (hopefully) bring back some sense of honesty, we are all stuck with this bullshit lack of true representation.

Virtually all of them are reprehensible assholes who have agendas that don't represent the people as much as they do the special interest groups that financed their election.

Fuck em all. I will waste all my future votes on anyone else but those two useless parties.

Mister Bushice wrote:Fuck em all. I will waste all my future votes on anyone else but those two useless parties.

How about Ron Paul?

The Republican? From Texas?

We're not doing so well with one of those at present.

mvscal wrote:Sorry, but this:

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

...is not law. It is not legal precedent. In fact, it really isn't even a logically compelling argument.

The overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum are now in agreement that Article II prevents the criminal prosecution of a sitting President. A former President is another matter, of course, but there you still have potential issues with respect to statutes of limitation.

With respect to the people I have referenced: (a) they are better qualified than you to make such a determination; and (b) even if that weren't the case, you would still be in the distinct minority. And certainly, the conclusion that a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution under the Constitution is more credible than is Cheney's recent argument that the Office of the Vice-President is not part of the Executive Branch.

Mister Bushice wrote:Third parties have no chance.

Agree with this, but you seem to skim over the reason why this is the case.

The Constitution makes no mention of political parties, and in fact the Framers were distrustful of the very notion of political parties. Of course, they later arose, and today the two major political parties act as unofficial extraconstitutional gatekeepers of elected positions within the federal, and to a lesser extent, state governments.

The reason, sadly, is the Electoral College. For third parties to have any chance, the Electoral College has to go. Perot got 19% of the popular vote in '92, but not a single electoral vote. The last third-party candidate to receive an electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968, and you have to go all the way back to 1912 for the last time a third-party candidate fared better than one of the two major party candidates.

As long as the Electoral College is still around, you might see the occasional Bernie Sanders or Jesse Ventura elected, but you'll never see a significant number of elected officials from third parties.

Mister Bushice wrote:The Republican? From Texas?

We're not doing so well with one of those at present.

Sounds like you don't know much about him.

poptart wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:The Republican? From Texas?

We're not doing so well with one of those at present.

Sounds like you don't know much about him.

The concrete walls in Bushice's suburban bunker are fairly thick. Not much gets through.

You'll have to reduce your communications to basic "good/bad" "us/them" presentations.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: Because a President commuted a sentence?!?



Oooookay.

True enough. We became a banana republic the day Chimpy was allowed to steal the election in 2000.

Pssst. He stole '04 as well.

Do you ever stop crying? Jeezus Christ. Let it fucking go man.

Pardons and commuted sentences are the President's right. Is it right? Probably not, but it's in b/w in the Constitution. Bush didnt do anything Clinton, his father, Reagan or any other president has done. Deal w/ it and move on.

I will make sure I quote Bush next time I have a client getting too "severe" a sentence.

Rack Bush on this one.

poptart wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:The Republican? From Texas?

We're not doing so well with one of those at present.

Sounds like you don't know much about him.

The only campaign I've actually seen out there dealing with The People.

Even got me a Ron Paul bumper sticker... not that I'd ever put a sticker on my vehicles, but if I did, it would be that one. It has a picture of Thomas Jefferson, and it reads "I'd vote for Ron Paul -Thomas Jefferson."


Pretty cool. But unfortunately, Paul's honesty about foreign policy isn't consistant with the rampant psuedo-patriotism, so he won't get far. The nerve of the man who suggested that America's foreign relations/terrorism/international resentment might actually be a function of our foreign policy is a little too honest for most. His stance that having troops in 130 foreign countries will only bring resentment isn't what corporate fatcats will endorse, since they profit from it on the taxpayers' backs.


And that whole deal about "walking a mile in the other guy's shoes"? Are you kidding? Suggesting that we treat the other human beings of the world like human beings is asinine. I mean, that whole bit about "how would you feel if China decided it was in their better interest to put troops on the streetcorners in your town"... I mean, where does that come from?

"This national offense thing isn't working... maybe we should revert to national defense instead." Yeah, whatever.


And that whole deal about to hell with the global economy, keeping things within our own borders, and charging tarriffs on the shit we do get elsewhere? Which then brings about the Old Days, where there is no personal income tax, and you don't have to pay a yearly fee to be free in this country?



Yeah, we can't have any of that shit.

poptart wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:The Republican? From Texas?

We're not doing so well with one of those at present.

Sounds like you don't know much about him.

What does it matter? If he's bad, like most of them are, he'll win, we'll lose.

If he's good, he won't get elected. We all lose.

Haven't you figured out this system yet?

RACK Dinsdale!

I don't think he'll win either, Bushice.
However, he's got, far and away, the best platform of any candidate.
Nobody in the same league.

JMO.

Back to Libby . . .

In a sense, I have to rack the evil genius that is this Administration (although its source is almost assuredly somebody other than W). It seems like they hit on the perfect solution here.

Clemency, but not a pardon.

What that means is that Libby's appeal remains pending. Thus, since the criminal case still technically exists, Libby is free to continue to invoke the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

With a full pardon, Libby's appeal would have been rendered moot. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have commenced a lawsuit, and without an appeal pending, they could depose Libby. With the appeal pending, it would be pointless, as he'll only invoke the 5th Amendment.

By the time more light is shed on this, if that day ever comes, Bush and Cheney will be out of office, and the American people will no longer be interested.

Brilliant, I have to admit.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum are now in agreement that Article II prevents the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.

That doesn't mean squat.

It certainly means more than your assertion that they're wrong.

In a sense, I have to rack the evil genius that is this Administration (although its source is almost assuredly somebody other than W). It seems like they hit on the perfect solution here.

I'll heartily agree - right on down to hanging W out to try in the latter stages of his presidential term. It hurts none of them...in fact, it focuses attention on a guy you can't touch, rather than the rats jumping off the ship.

mvscal wrote:My assertion is based on the fact that the Constitution does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution to any civil officer of the US government.

Then do me a favor. Go ahead and link me up to exactly where in the Constitution I'll find the following phrases:

Executive privilege
Judicial review

I'll give you a little hint: you can't do it, because those phrases aren't explicitly set out anywhere in the Constitution. But nobody in their right mind would argue that the Constitution hasn't created executive privilege or judicial review.

No, we're talking about concepts that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but everyone agrees that they're there.

Everyone except you, that is.

mvscal wrote:No, we're talking about criminal immunity, you stupid fuck.

Based on the Constitution. As is executive privilege and judicial review.

Are you really this dense, or are you just trolling?

Terry in Crapchester wrote: What does Clinton have to do with it, anyway?

Well, in fact Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's attorney for two years!

mvscal wrote:There is no criminal immunity based on the Constitution, you stupid fuck.

This isn't even a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's an issue with two distinct sides.

On one side are some of the brightest Constitutional scholars in the country. And in fact, it's actually been the more conservative ones who have been more willing to embrace this concept.

On the other side, we have a GED-toting loudmouth know-it-all who posts on an internet message board.

Who am I to believe?

Nor does executive privilege or judicial review shield anybody from criminal prosecution at any time for any reason.

The GED strikes again.

I never claimed that it did. You tried to argue that since it is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, that a sitting President therefore does not have immunity from criminal prosecution. I merely cited to executive privilege and judicial review as examples of ideas that are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, but everyone who has studied the Constitution agrees that they're there.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:You tried to argue that since it is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, that a sitting President therefore does not have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Wha... :?

Nice double speak there.

This is why we should kill all lawyers.

You're both right.

Nixon is a case study in that. He would have most likely been the first president both impeached and convicted had he not resigned, and had not Ford used his executive privilege to pardon him, they would have roasted Nixon on a spit.

Speaking of executive privilege, Bush just invoked it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_ ... gress_bush

I bet it will end up in court anyway.

Mister Bushice wrote:You're both right.

Nixon is a case study in that. He would have most likely been the first president both impeached and convicted had he not resigned, and had not Ford used his executive privilege to pardon him, they would have roasted Nixon on a spit.

As I understand it, "executive privilege" refers to the right of the President to keep some communications within the Executive Branch confidential, due to the President's right to receive confidential advice.

Pardons are a different story. IIRC, without checking Article II, I believe that it specifically gives the President the right to pardon. There's no explicit mention of executive privilege in Article II, which was my entire reason for bringing it up in the first place.

As for the clemency granted to Libby, I think the Nixon comparison isn't a great analogy. Ford's pardon of Nixon was about moving the country forward, imho, rather than being stuck on Watergate for the foreseeable future. Certainly, if you look at it from the standpoint of how many people know/care about it, it's not analogous. By way of example, I was about the same age when Nixon resigned/was pardoned as my son is now. I didn't completely understand all the ramifications back then, of course, but I at least knew the basics as much as a kid could. I don't think my son has ever heard of Scooter Libby. And if he has, he certainly has less grasp of what happened in his case than I had about Nixon back then.

Imho, Libby's clemency was more analogous to Poppy Bush's pardon of Cap Weinberger on the eve of his trial relative to Iran/Contra, which was to begin shortly before the '92 Presidential election. It was designed primarily to spare the current Chief Executive from embarassment, although in Weinberger's case the events had happened during the previous Administration.