Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[Kathianne]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_trial&printer=1;_ylt=ArqvXZg.FzZHljDgANphWOiWwvIE



Bush spares Libby from prison

14 minutes ago

President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term on Monday, issuing an order that commutes his sentence.

This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals panel unanimously ruled Monday.

The decision is a major setback for Libby, who is running out of legal options and who probably will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Libby believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. In a two-sentence ruling, the court refused.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the decision.

Libby's supporters, who raised millions of dollars for his defense fund, immediately renewed calls for a pardon.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby's defense fund. "It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take

...

[avatar4321]

this is a victory for justice against witch hunting prosecutors.

[Gunny]

Hey you witch hunting buttheads crying in your soup ... here's a little something for ya'!

:fu:

[stephanie]

Heads are exploding....over at the DUunderground...

Very entertaining....:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjlkNWMwM2IxMDJlZDdkMDg5YzIyYTliMTc5MjAyZjI=


STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT



The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.



I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.



From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.



After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.



This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.



Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.



Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.



Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.



I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.



My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.



The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.



07/02 05:56 PM

[OCA]

Yes, it was just a witch hunt from the get go anyway!

[MtnBiker]

PsychoBlues is going to go apeshit over this one. :D

[manu1959]

commuting a sentence for not remembering the facts about a non-existent crime.....


:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

How do you justify the hypocrisy?

The Republicans insisted on Impeaching president Clinton for an Obstruction of Justice count and a perjury count.

But NOW you cheer the commuting of these same crimes as Clinton, only more felonies, and a conviction of these crimes by a jury of Libby's peers? ... because HE is a republican and one of your own?

What gives?

YOu cheer when martha stewart goes to jail for obstruction?

You cheer when Paris Hilton is sent off to spend prison time for a mismeanor, not even a felony?

What's your reasoning?

The Law, only applies to everyone but your own?

How do you justify your own hypocrisy on this?

[manu1959]

How do you justify the hypocrisy?

The Republicans insisted on Impeaching president Clinton for an Obstruction of Justice count and a perjury count.

But NOW you cheer the pardoning of these same crimes as Clinton, only more felonies, and a conviction of these crimes by a jury of Libby's peers, because HE is a republican and one of your own?

What gives?

YOu cheer when martha stewart goes to jail for obstruction?

You cheer when Paris Hilton is sent off to spend prison time for a mismeanor, not even a felony?

What's your reasoning?

The Law, only applies to everyone but your own?

How do you justify your own hypocrisy on this?

i think libby should serve the same time clinton did..........

[Kathianne]

i think libby should serve the same time clinton did..........

Now they will.

[JohnDoe]

i think libby should serve the same time clinton did..........


Clinton was not convicted of these crimes, he was acquitted, by the vote of the Senate.

Libby was convicted of 4 felonies, by a jury of his peers, in a usa court of law.

I'm surprised you and Kathianne did not know this?

[OCA]

Yep, Libby and Bubba will do exactly the same time.

[OCA]

Clinton was not convicted of these crimes, he was acquitted, by the vote of the Senate.

Libby was convicted of 4 felonies, by a jury of his peers, in a usa court of law.

I'm surprised you and Kathianne did not know this?

So you are saying Buba is totally innocent of anything? Why the six figure payoff to Paula Jones then if the guy never did anything?

[manu1959]

Clinton was not convicted of these crimes, he was acquitted, by the vote of the Senate.

Libby was convicted of 4 felonies, by a jury of his peers, in a usa court of law.

I'm surprised you and Kathianne did not know this?

i do know this, and libby was aquitted by the president.....

[Kathianne]

i do know this, and libby was aquitted by the president.....

Yep, I knew it too. When was Clinton acquitted, that I didn't know?

[manu1959]

Yep, I knew it too. When was Clinton acquitted, that I didn't know?

i am sure he will tell us.....

[JohnDoe]

You have lost all chances of getting your party in to power again for a long time imo, because this will ignite the Democratic base.

And I am not saying necessarily that this commutation was not the right thing to do, because Libby was just following orders, so to say, and he basically took the fall for the vp, and he and his family have already been through hell for it.

He still was fined the $250k, which I am sure HE will not have to pay out of his own pocket, but from his legal defense fund.

He still was DISBARRED from EVER practicing law again and he was also banned from ever holding a government paid position again.

[JohnDoe]

Are you telling me that you two do not know that Clinton was Acquitted for his high crimes in the impeachment trial by the senate? The Senate tried Clinton, with the SC Chief Justice residing over the trial....?

[Kathianne]

You have lost all chances of getting your party in to power again for a long time imo, because this will ignite the Democratic base.

And I am not saying necessarily that this commutation was the right thing to do, because Libby was just following orders, so to say, and he basically took the fall for the vp, and he and his family have already been through hell for it.

He still was fined the $250k, which I am sure HE will not have to pay out of his own pocket, but from his legal defense fund.

He still was DISBARRED from EVER practicing law again and he was also banned from ever holding a government paid position again.

Clinton was acquited by the Senate when and how?

[manu1959]

You have lost all chances of getting your party in to power again for a long time imo, because this will ignite the Democratic base.

And I am not saying necessarily that this commutation was not the right thing to do, because Libby was just following orders, so to say, and he basically took the fall for the vp, and he and his family have already been through hell for it.

He still was fined the $250k, which I am sure HE will not have to pay out of his own pocket, but from his legal defense fund.

He still was DISBARRED from EVER practicing law again and he was also banned from ever holding a government paid position again.

are you saying the dim base has not been en feugo?

can you proove he was following orders........no....because if he was, there would have been a trial about it ......

didn't clinton loose his license?

[JohnDoe]

are you saying the dim base has not been en feugo?

can you proove he was following orders........no....because if he was, there would have been a trial about it ......

didn't clinton loose his license?Yes manu, you can read the trial of Scooter Libby, then you will understand what I am talking about.

Yes, I believe Clinton did lose his licence temporaily in Arkansas....it was part of an agreement on a CIVIL law suit that he settled with....Paula Jones.

[nevadamedic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_trial&printer=1;_ylt=ArqvXZg.FzZHljDgANphWOiWwvIE

:laugh2: Yeay! :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Are you telling me that you two do not know that Clinton was Acquitted for his high crimes in the impeachment trial by the senate? The Senate tried Clinton, with the SC Chief Justice residing over the trial....?

clinton was convicted of lying to a grand jury. He was impeached by the senate. He was not removed from office but did lose his license to practice law. He was not given a prison term but was sentured by congress. Basically he did the same thing Libby was accused of doing. So why should Libby get prison time when clinton didn't.

When clinton does 30 months in prison then Libby should too.

[stephanie]

:poke:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/2004684010425192340_rs.jpg

[manu1959]

Yes manu, you can read the trial of Scooter Libby, then you will understand what I am talking about.

Yes, I believe Clinton did lose his licence temporaily in Arkansas....it was part of an agreement on a CIVIL law suit that he settled with....Paula Jones.

ahhhhhhhh, a condecending lib, i am stunned......

who was he following orders from? what orders? to do what?

and how much time did big bill serve?

now tell me of the sodomy laws in DC..........

[nevadamedic]

How do you justify the hypocrisy?

The Republicans insisted on Impeaching president Clinton for an Obstruction of Justice count and a perjury count.

But NOW you cheer the commuting of these same crimes as Clinton, only more felonies, and a conviction of these crimes by a jury of Libby's peers? ... because HE is a republican and one of your own?

What gives?

YOu cheer when martha stewart goes to jail for obstruction?

You cheer when Paris Hilton is sent off to spend prison time for a mismeanor, not even a felony?

What's your reasoning?

The Law, only applies to everyone but your own?

How do you justify your own hypocrisy on this?

Yea but Scooter didn't stick a cigar in the ummm well cigar cutter part of the female body. :laugh2: This was a witch hunt from the beginning period, he should have got a full pardon. In a sense Clinton got away with it as he was still acting President after being impeached. Also Clinton has been committing his sex offenses over the years even before the White House and with Scooter this supposed incident was just a one time deal.

[JohnDoe]

clinton was convicted of lying to a grand jury. He was impeached by the senate. He was not removed from office but did lose his license to practice law. He was not given a prison term but was sentured by congress. Basically he did the same thing Libby was accused of doing. So why should Libby get prison time when clinton didn't.

When clinton does 30 months in prison then Libby should too.

Gaffer Clinton was NOT convicted of either perjury or of obstruction of Justice. He was found NOT GUILTY by the Senate in his impeachment trial.

If Clinton had been found guilty of the count of perjury and the count of obstruction of Justice, he would have been impeached from office, and then another Criminal trial of the same crimes could have been brought against him in a court of Law.

But I repeat, Clinton was acquitted of his perjury charge and his obstruction charge.

I think maybe you do not understand what Impeachment entails?

The House of Representatives Charged the President with crimes in their part of the Impeachment process. The house voted on these charges, I think originally there were 4 but the house voted that only two of them should be sent on to the Senate, for the Impeachment Trial.

There is no trial or convictions in the House of Representatives, there is no opportunity for Clinton to defend himself in the House, this takes place in the Senate, and all the Senators are sworn in as jurrors, and the Chief Justice resides over the tial.

It takes 2/3's majority vote of the Senate to find the President GUILTY of his crimes.

In President Clinton's case, they found him NOT GUILTY of his charges.


A motion sponsored by Democrats to adopt a censure resolution as an alternative to the proposed impeachment was defeated on December 8. On December 11 and 12, the Committee approved four articles of impeachment for presentation to the full House, and on December 16 released its full Report supporting its recommendation. After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:

I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life. And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response. That approach was rejected today by Republicans in the House. But I hope it will be embraced by the Senate. I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.

The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public.

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.



The Senate, heard the trial

[manu1959]

libby should do the same time as clinton...they both forgot what they told a grand jury......

[JohnDoe]

Yea but Scooter didn't stick a cigar in the ummm well cigar cutter part of the female body. :laugh2: This was a witch hunt from the beginning period, he should have got a full pardon. In a sense Clinton got away with it as he was still acting President after being impeached. Also Clinton has been committing his sex offenses over the years even before the White House and with Scooter this supposed incident was just a one time deal.
Can you honestly say that the Clinton trial/impeachment was not a witch hunt?

[nevadamedic]

:poke:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/2004684010425192340_rs.jpg

I can't wait to hear Senator Reid's response to this. Im sure he will be the immature pick whe have come to know and hate.

[Yurt]

i do know this, and libby was aquitted by the president.....

Technically it was only a "commutation" the conviction still stands.

[nevadamedic]

PsychoBlues is going to go apeshit over this one. :D

Same with G W in Ohio. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Johndoe:

Wasn't Clinton "impeached?"

[JohnDoe]

libby should do the same time as clinton...they both forgot what they told a grand jury......
Clinton WAS NOT convicted of this crime and in our country you are not guilty if you have not been convicted. Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate of these crimes. (Even if we all think he did it or know he did it)

On the other hand Libby was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt on 2 counts of perjury, one count of lying to Fbi Investigators and 1 count of obstruction of justice in a court of law, by a jury of 12 peers.

[Gunny]

libby should do the same time as clinton...they both forgot what they told a grand jury......


You aren't really expecting fairness from a damned libtard are you? The whole trial was farce and Bush, for once at least in recent days. did the right thing.

[manu1959]

Johndoe:

Wasn't Clinton "impeached?"


based on my quick google....by the house not the senate....

[manu1959]

You aren't really expecting fairness from a damned libtard are you? The whole trial was farce and Bush, for once at least in recent days. did the right thing.

exactly........

[nevadamedic]

Melanie Sloan, legal counsel to Joe and Valerie Wilson
“First, President Bush said any person who leaked would no longer work in his administration. Nonetheless, Scooter Libby didn’t leave office until he was indicted and Karl Rove works in the White House even today. More recently, the vice president ignored an executive order protecting classified information, claiming he isn’t really part of the executive branch. Clearly, this is anadministration that believes leaking classified information for political ends is justified and that the law is what applies to other people.”

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and presidential candidate
“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York
“As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada
“The President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter ofnational security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California
“The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people. The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.”

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and presidential candidate
“Last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law. It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

Former Sen. John Edwards, presidential candidate
“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush’s America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, presidential candidate
“It’s a sad day when the President commutes the sentence of a public official who deliberately and blatantly betrayed the public trust and obstructed an important federal investigation,” said Governor Richardson. “This administration clearly believes its officials are above the law, from ignoring FISA laws when eavesdropping on US citizens, to the abuse of classified material, to ignoring the Geneva Conventions and international law with secret prisons and torturing prisoners.

There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration’s disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking.

Will the President also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?”


Rest of the Article............
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/02/libby-commutation-washington-responds/#more-682

[nevadamedic]

Johndoe:

Wasn't Clinton "impeached?"

He was but he was able to finish out his term because there was so little time left, I think the only condition was that President Clinton was not to be in posestion of any cigar. :laugh2:

[stephanie]

The Memo..for the Dems. talking points, sure got around fast.....:laugh2:

July 2, 2007
Email this Print this Blog this Digg this
Following the announcement that President Bush commuted the sentence of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a crime since the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“Once again President Bush and the GOP have undermined a core American value: equal justice under the law for every American. By commuting this sentence, President Bush is sending a clear message that the rules don’t apply to the Bush White House or loyal Republican cronies. After promising that anyone who violated the law would be 'taken care of,' President Bush instead handed Scooter Libby a get out of jail free card. Though Libby was convicted by a jury of lying about a matter of national security, President Bush is sparing him the consequences ordinary Americans would face. This conviction was the first moment of justice in a Bush Administration void of accountability. It’s a sad day for America when the President once again puts protecting his friends ahead of equal justice under the law.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/07/dean_bush_gives.php

[JohnDoe]

Johndoe:

Wasn't Clinton "impeached?"


yurt, there are 2 parts to an impeachment...

One the house of representatives comes up with charges, if warranted...

the House INDICTS the defendent. (the president)
This is only a charge. And if the House votes on Articles to charge him on, in this case they charged that he lied and he obstructed.
Then, this indictment of these charges goes to the Senate, this is the TRIAL STAGE of the impeachment, in the trial, the chief justice is the presiding Judge and the Senators are sworn in as the jurrors.

The Senate then hears all evidence from both sides on the charges, (articles of impeachment and in this case perjury and obstruction) and then they vote...as a jury would. They need 2/3's according to the constitution voting yes on the charges.

on the first charge of perjury the JURY(senate) found him not guilty 45/55.

On the second charge of obstruction the JURY (senate) found him not guilty 50/50

Clinton's Impeachment was not successful, he remained in office.

So what we have here, is that Clinton was Indicted on perjury and obstruction, but Clinton was found not guilty.

That's just the way it is... I am not trying to make something up, honestly.

[manu1959]

great.....clinton did not....

cheat on his wife

commit sodomy

lie to a grand jury

since the senate did not convict him it did not happen

scooter.... lied about his memory of a crime that did not happen....

seems fair

[nevadamedic]

yurt, there are 2 parts to an impeachment...

One the house of representatives comes up with charges, if warranted...

the House INDICTS the defendent. (the president)
This is only a charge. And if the House votes on Articles to charge him on, in this case they charged that he lied and he obstructed.
Then, this indictment of these charges goes to the Senate, this is the TRIAL STAGE of the impeachment, in the trial, the chief justice is the presiding Judge and the Senators are sworn in as the jurrors.

The Senate then hears all evidence from both sides on the charges, (articles of impeachment and in this case perjury and obstruction) and then they vote...as a jury would. They need 2/3's according to the constitution voting yes on the charges.

on the first charge of perjury the JURY(senate) found him not guilty 45/55.

On the second charge of obstruction the JURY (senate) found him not guilty 50/50

Clinton's Impeachment was not successful, he remained in office.

So what we have here, is that Clinton was Indicted on perjury and obstruction, but Clinton was found not guilty.

That's just the way it is... I am not trying to make something up, honestly.

Clinton WAS impeached, he was allowed to carry out his term because it was at it's end anyways.

[JohnDoe]

He was but he was able to finish out his term because there was so little time left, I think the only condition was that President Clinton was not to be in posestion of any cigar. :laugh2:

That is simply not true. Clinton was impeached by the house, (he was CHARGED with crimes, accused of crimes, indicted of crimes), but Clinton was found NOT GUILTY after the Impeachment TRIAL of the Senate.

if he had been found guilty, he would have been impeached from office, removed.

Libby on the other hand was fount GUILTY in his trial by a jury.

[JohnDoe]

Clinton WAS impeached, he was allowed to carry out his term because it was at it's end anyways.

Oh goodness! You really need to READ your OWN Constitution.

[nevadamedic]

Oh goodness! You really need to READ your OWN Constitution.

Other way around.

[JohnDoe]

You aren't really expecting fairness from a damned libtard are you? The whole trial was farce and Bush, for once at least in recent days. did the right thing.


Please explain how the trial was a farce? was the judge corrupt? was the jury corrupt?

[manu1959]

Oh goodness! You really need to READ your OWN Constitution.

so what is YOUR country?

[manu1959]

Please explain how the trial was a farce? was the judge corrupt? was the jury corrupt?

so what was the crime that libby was lying of covering up?

[nevadamedic]

Please explain how the trial was a farce? was the judge corrupt? was the jury corrupt?

Democrats have been known for corruption.

[manu1959]

That is simply not true. Clinton was impeached by the house, (he was CHARGED with crimes, accused of crimes, indicted of crimes), but Clinton was found NOT GUILTY after the Impeachment TRIAL of the Senate.

if he had been found guilty, he would have been impeached from office, removed.

Libby on the other hand was fount GUILTY in his trial by a jury.

impeached does not equal removed?

[JohnDoe]

Other way around.

No Nevada, you need to read the Constitution regarding impeachment process.

The House and the Senate have two specific and different jobs regarding impeachment.

The House is like the special investigator...they gather all the information and they call grand juries to hear testimony, etc, and then the House votes on whether to indict the President on crimes, in this case they decided via vote, to indict the president on Obstruction and perjury. These two indictments then go to the Senate, for the TRIAL....every man is innocent until proven guilty, in the trial stage of the impeachment, President Clinton was found not guilty.

[manu1959]

No Nevada, you need to read the Constitution regarding impeachment process.

The House and the Senate have two specific and different jobs regarding impeachment.

The House is like the special investigator...they gather all the information and they call grand juries to hear testimony, etc, and then the House votes on whether to indict the President on crimes, in this case they decided via vote, to indict the president on Obstruction and perjury. These two indictments then go to the Senate, for the TRIAL....every man is innocent until proven guilty, in the trial stage of the impeachment, President Clinton was found not guilty.


clinton admited to his crime.... he is guilty...only reason he didn't do time is he was president.....nixon didn't do time either...great company

[JohnDoe]

impeached does not equal removed?

When the House impeaches, it just means that the House is charging the President with crimes.

When the Senate impeaches, it would mean that they are CONVICTING him of a crime.

The Senate voted not to impeach him, by voting not guilty on the two crimes that the House charged him with.


I don't know how else to say it guys and gals? This is simply facts, no spin involved, and History.

And as I have said, on the other hand Libby was convicted for his crimes, not just charged with crimes but convicted of them.

Paris Hilton did more time in Jail than Libby for his much worse crimes according to our laws?

[manu1959]

When the House impeaches, it just means that the House is charging the President with crimes.

When the Senate impeaches, it would mean that they are CONVICTING him of a crime.

The Senate voted not to impeach him, by voting not guilty on the two crimes that the House charged him with.


I don't know how else to say it guys and gals? This is simply facts, no spin involved, and History.

And as I have said, on the other hand Libby was convicted for his crimes, not just charged with crimes but convicted of them.

Paris Hilton did more time in Jail than Libby for his much worse crimes according to our laws?

did clinton lie to a grand jury?

[JohnDoe]

did clinton lie to a grand jury?

I personally THINK he did Manu, HOWEVER a jury, the Senate, found him not NOT GUILTY.

So in the Senate, Clinto was not impeached, and it is the Senate's decision, that removes a president from office. If he were found GUILTY in the Senate trial, then he would have been IMPEACHED FROM OFFICE.

Maybe you didn't read what I posted earlier from Rutgers University on this which goes in further depth.


A motion sponsored by Democrats to adopt a censure resolution as an alternative to the proposed impeachment was defeated on December 8. On December 11 and 12, the Committee approved four articles of impeachment for presentation to the full House, and on December 16 released its full Report supporting its recommendation. After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:

I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life. And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response. That approach was rejected today by Republicans in the House. But I hope it will be embraced by the Senate. I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.

The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public.

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.



Go to the link and read the whole article regarding the whole incident, here's the Link:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

It should help with your understanding of the impeachment process. Also, I would recomend you go to the Constitution and read the Impeachment part. I will see if I can find you a link for it and post it when I do! :)

[manu1959]

I personally THINK he did Manu, HOWEVER a jury, the Senate, found him not NOT GUILTY.

So in the Senate, Clinto was not impeached, and it is the Senate's decision, that removes a president from office. If he were found GUILTY in the Senate trial, then he would have been IMPEACHED FROM OFFICE.

Maybe you didn't read what I posted earlier from Rutgers University on this which goes in further depth.



Go to the link and read the whole article regarding the whole incident, here's the Link:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

It should help with your understanding of the impeachment process. Also, I would recomend you go to the Constitution and read the Impeachment part. I will see if I can find you a link for it and post it when I do! :)

why do you assume you know what you believe i do not....

clinton lied to a grand jury

libby lied to a grand jury

they both are guilty and will both do the time the deserve ....

[JohnDoe]

why do you assume you know what you believe i do not....

clinton lied to a grand jury

libby lied to a grand jury

they both are guilty and will both do the time the deserve ....


I guess I thought you were a reasonable person? My mistake, sorry! :poke:

No, they are not both guilty in a court of Law.

Libby was convicted of his crimes and

Clinton was acquitted of his crimes.

Yes, maybe to you and me they are both guilty, but NOT with the Law of this Great county of ours.

Enough said. Have a good evening.

[manu1959]

I guess I thought you were a reasonable person? My mistake, sorry! :poke:

No, they are not both guilty in a court of Law.

Libby was convicted of his crimes and

Clinton was acquitted of his crimes.

Yes, maybe to you and me they are both guilty, but NOT with the Law of this Great county of ours.

Enough said. Have a good evening.

i am reasonable...you seem to think i can't read

they both lied to a grand jury....clinton got off cuz he was the pres.

i doubt you are a member of this country....

[Yurt]

When the House impeaches, it just means that the House is charging the President with crimes.

When the Senate impeaches, it would mean that they are CONVICTING him of a crime.

The Senate voted not to impeach him, by voting not guilty on the two crimes that the House charged him with.


I don't know how else to say it guys and gals? This is simply facts, no spin involved, and History.

And as I have said, on the other hand Libby was convicted for his crimes, not just charged with crimes but convicted of them.

Paris Hilton did more time in Jail than Libby for his much worse crimes according to our laws?


Regardless of the process, he was "impeached" by the house. Sure it is more akin to an indictment, but that "indictment" is far more powerful than an ordinary indictment in an ordinary case. Surely you know that. The process for the House to impeach is far more intensive than in an ordinary case. He was found "not" guilty by the senate solely for political reasons and you cannot deny that.

If you read about the evidence before the House, it is clear he lied and that it was his failure to admit it that played a part in this. His obstruction is also clear. Or do you proclaim his innocence? His arrogance caught up with him, however, he knew that there was simply no political will to remove him from Office. You simply cannot compare Libby's conviction to Bill's alleged "aquittal."

[JohnDoe]

Regardless of the process, he was "impeached" by the house. Sure it is more akin to an indictment, but that "indictment" is far more powerful than an ordinary indictment in an ordinary case. Surely you know that. The process for the House to impeach is far more intensive than in an ordinary case. He was found "not" guilty by the senate solely for political reasons and you cannot deny that.

If you read about the evidence before the House, it is clear he lied and that it was his failure to admit it that played a part in this. His obstruction is also clear. Or do you proclaim his innocence? His arrogance caught up with him, however, he knew that there was simply no political will to remove him from Office. You simply cannot compare Libby's conviction to Bill's alleged "aquittal."

I really don't understand what everyone is so upset with me for only listing and posting the FACTS regarding this.

And no, I honestly do not think it was harder for the Congress to impeach him than it would be for a grand jury to indict me for a crime.... especially with a republican majority House of representatives, and the house only needing a majority to indict him.

To me it is clear that he lied and I did not go through and read all of the hearings as I should have, I presume.

But I did read the Libby trial transcripts and reviewed all of the evidence submitted on pdf files our government provided on the Libby Trial and it is Clear as Day that Libby was guilty on the four felonies that the Jury FOUND him guilty for...

So, they are NOT EQUAL OFFENSES according to OUR Laws. Libby, according to our laws, COMMITTED 4 Felonies. Clinton committed NONE according to our laws, so according to our Justice system, Libby should spend more time in jail than /clinton, otherwise our Justice system will ultimately be UNJUST, no?

Anyway, commuting Libby has nothing to do with Clinton except that YOUR SIDE felt very strongly at one point in time about obstruction of justice and about perjury BUT NOW, you don't. That is just SIMPLE, and evident imo, unless the hypocrisy and fervor against Clinton for doing the same as Libby can some how be explained off, after taking the opposite view towards these same crimes against one of the highest ranking officials in office, who worked first hand with both the President and Vice President?
I dunno?

I think I am just calling it how I see it. And I'm certain you feel you are also, only with your view.

[stephanie]

List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Ya better be sitting down to read all of Clinton's, could take ya awhile... :poke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton

List of people pardoned by George W. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

I love all the made up outrage over this...

Even on the Dems. lame stream media networks..

Headline...Controversial pardon....

:laugh2:

[manu1959]

joe,

i do not believe you are a us citizen.....your posts give you away...

libby's punishment fits his crime

[manu1959]

List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Ya better be sitting down to read all of Clinton's, could take ya awhile... :poke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton

List of people pardoned by George W. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

I love all the made up outrage over this...

Even on the Dems. lame stream media networks..

Headline...Controversial pardon....

:laugh2:

presidents can pardon who they like...call it a perk....

[OCA]

yurt, there are 2 parts to an impeachment...

One the house of representatives comes up with charges, if warranted...

the House INDICTS the defendent. (the president)
This is only a charge. And if the House votes on Articles to charge him on, in this case they charged that he lied and he obstructed.
Then, this indictment of these charges goes to the Senate, this is the TRIAL STAGE of the impeachment, in the trial, the chief justice is the presiding Judge and the Senators are sworn in as the jurrors.

The Senate then hears all evidence from both sides on the charges, (articles of impeachment and in this case perjury and obstruction) and then they vote...as a jury would. They need 2/3's according to the constitution voting yes on the charges.

on the first charge of perjury the JURY(senate) found him not guilty 45/55.

On the second charge of obstruction the JURY (senate) found him not guilty 50/50

Clinton's Impeachment was not successful, he remained in office.

So what we have here, is that Clinton was Indicted on perjury and obstruction, but Clinton was found not guilty.

That's just the way it is... I am not trying to make something up, honestly.

Wrong, the HOR impeaches a president, the senate then has the trial on whether to remove from office. Please get it straight.

[OCA]

Saturday, December 19, 1998 Published at 19:40 GMT


Clinton impeached

A historic day in the House

William Jefferson Clinton has become only the second president in the history of the United States to be impeached.



The first vote was 228 to 206 in favour of impeaching President Clinton for perjury in front of a grand jury. Congressmen also passed another charge on obstruction of justice by 221 to 212.

However, he will not yet be removed from office.

Both votes were split down partisan lines, with only five Republicans abandoning their party in the first instance.

Article One is passed: Clinton Impeached

The House also voted down two other articles which accused Mr Clinton of perjury in the Paula Jones civil case and abuse of power.

On a count of 435 members, 218 votes are needed for a majority. (For full vote results click here.)

Earlier, the White House affirmed that Mr Clinton will not resign in the event of an impeachment vote. He is expected to address the American people later on Saturday.

Constitutional procedure states that Mr Clinton must now go to the Senate for a full-scale trial that could last anything between a few days and several months.

Sensational day in House




The second and final day of the impeachment debate began with a bombshell when Republican Bob Livingston resigned as incoming speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr Livingston, who was due to take over the speaker's job from Newt Gingrich in the new year, said he was stepping down after it was revealed earlier this week he had been unfaithful in his marriage. He pledged to leave the House altogether in six months.

His announcement stunned fellow representatives and may have hardened resolve among conservatives who want to oust Mr Clinton from office over his handling of the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones affairs.


But the day was not without drama on the Democrats' side. Minority Leader Dick Gephardt led a walkout after a censure motion was ruled irrelevant to the impeachment debate.

The congressmen and women returned 10 minutes later to begin voting on the first article of impeachment.

13-hour session




The Saturday session follows 13 hours of back-and-forth debate on Friday.

However, the underlying arguments remained the same until that session finally broke up at 2200 (0300 GMT).

While Republicans insisted Mr Clinton's actions amounted to the "high crimes and misdemeanours", the definition of impeachment, Democrats claimed censure would be more appropriate.

On Friday, Vice President Al Gore said there was more chance of a "meteor strike" than "the resignation of the president".

With a Republican majority in Congress, the vote was all but a foregone conclusion.



Full vote:
Article 1: Yes - 228 No - 206
Article 2: Yes -205 No - 229
Article 3: Yes - 221 No - 212
Article 4: Yes - 148 No - 285

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/238784.stm

[avatar4321]

How do you justify the hypocrisy?

The Republicans insisted on Impeaching president Clinton for an Obstruction of Justice count and a perjury count.

But NOW you cheer the commuting of these same crimes as Clinton, only more felonies, and a conviction of these crimes by a jury of Libby's peers? ... because HE is a republican and one of your own?

What gives?

YOu cheer when martha stewart goes to jail for obstruction?

You cheer when Paris Hilton is sent off to spend prison time for a mismeanor, not even a felony?

What's your reasoning?

The Law, only applies to everyone but your own?

How do you justify your own hypocrisy on this?

Hypocrisy? Major difference between Libby and Clinton. Clinton actually committed a crime.

[avatar4321]

Can you honestly say that the Clinton trial/impeachment was not a witch hunt?

There are about a dozen women he harassed that can testify that it wasnt.

[JohnDoe]

Wrong, the HOR impeaches a president, the senate then has the trial on whether to remove from office. Please get it straight.

TO oca (and others)
Please don't take this as though it is meant directly for you OCA, BUT it is amazing to me HOW LITTLE American citizens know about THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION. Don't they teach civics in school anymore? What the heck is going on here with EVERY PERSON on this board...showing complete ignorance on our own Constitution and what precisely the Impeachment process of a President is, and the fact that all of you deny that Clinton was found NOT GUILTY ON HIS CRIMES OF IMPEACHMENT, article 1 and article 2 in the impeachment TRIAL ITSELF which takes place in the Senate of the USA and ONLY in the Senate of the USA?

The HOUSE is who charges him with crimes, he does not get to defend himself. This is like the Libby Indictment of his obstruction and the 4 other felony crimes he was charged with....

So yes, Clinton was Impeached by the HOUSE....This MEANS he was Indicted for crimes and or misdemeanors...he was CHARGED with crimes and misdmeanors, therefore HE GETS A TRIAL.... Just like Libby got a trial to defend himself. Libby, after defending himself, was found GUILTY. Clinton after defending himself, was found NOT GUILTY.

What can I say? The truth hurts sometimes, especially if it seems to be an injustice, "called" Justice.

Clinton was found NOT GUILTY in the Senate for his Impeachment crimes or misdemeanors, thus he continued his term in Presidency.


Article 2
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article 1
Secrion 3... 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.



the "judgement" of in this case of impeachment, was Not Guilty, in the Trial by the Senate.

Also NOTE!

If found guilty on the Charges that the House wanted to Impeach him on by the Senate via trial, his judgement "shall not extend further than removal from office", not without a Criminal trial in the same justice system that Libby was allowed to have... which is considered more just than the impeachment,

Clinton could NOT be sentenced to any jail time as Libby was, he would have to go through a criminal trial, and be convicted in our Justice system, for him to have the same penalty as Libby, AND THAT IS THE LAW, ok?

Oh and I might add it takes 100% of jurors in a Criminal trial to CONVICT and find a defendent guilty, not the measley two thirds, as in the Senate.

[manu1959]

listen up joe from blow,

clinton lied to a grand jury

clinton committed sodomy

clinton got off, in more way than one, cuz he was the pres....

libby got the same sentence without the happy ending

[JohnDoe]

listen up joe from blow,

clinton lied to a grand jury

clinton committed sodomy

clinton got off, in more way than one, cuz he was the pres....

libby got the same sentence without the happy ending

Whatever manu1959...(sure HOPE that is not the year you were born):poke:

[manu1959]

Whatever manu1959...(sure HOPE that is not the year you were born):poke:

got whatevered.....your gen means i got you....and what pray tell is wrong with 59.....pity you are not merican

[nevadamedic]

That's the beauty of the 5th Amendment. If I was ever guilty of a crime I would sure as hell hide behind that as im sure any Attorney would advise.

[JohnDoe]

Hypocrisy? Major difference between Libby and Clinton. Clinton actually committed a crime.Libby MOST CERTAINLY committed his crimes, all evidence pointed to such and 9 people testified in his trial that contradicted his "song and a dance", (there is no other thing to call it that is appropriate for a public board imo), which he gave the Grand jury and FBI investigators, with his lies involved with covering up his, and the vp's actions. Document after document after document was presented in to evidence that showed Libby intentionally lied to the grand jury and the fbi..., yes intentionally....there must be "intent" to lie, in order to be charged and convicted of it. It was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

He was fairly tried,(by a Republican Prosecutor and with a Republican Judge of his choice) and (Libby is not appealing because of the trial process) in a court of Law and he was convicted unanimously, of one charge of lying to FBI investigators, 2 counts of perjury, and one charge of Obstruction of Justice, and found not guity of one count of lying to FBI investigators, by a jury of his peers. This happens to be fact, history.

Clinton NEVER was given the chance in our Justice system, where politics is (suppose to be) left outside the door of the court room, which according to our constitution, he will get the chance to do if charged by our criminal Justice System.

Clinton did not commit an impeachment crime according to our Laws and the Impeachment process. Even if Clinton had been Impeached by the Senate, (which he probably should have been, but they knew all the evidence and I do not, so I guess I would give them the benefit of the doubt) he still would not have been convicted of a crime in our Justice system and there were no penalties of jail applied to it.

ONLY if he were charged after he was impeached, in our justice system where he would get a fair trial with a jury of 12, and they convicted him, would there be any kind of Jail time given as penalty.

Both houses Impeachment does not "count" in our Justice system as far as being something necessarily "fair".... this is why the Constitution makes it clear that our Justice System and all the innocent until proven "dohickees" out there to protect the defendent must be in place, and the defendent's chance to defend oneself, and be judged by a jury of his peers with it taking all of them to convict, not just a majority like in the house indictment or 2/3's like what the Senate needs to convict, but 100% of jurors finding him guilty in order to find guilty and convict, and give penalties such as jailtime.

Btw, what makes you say that Libby was innocent of what he was found guilty for? Do you have specific things that you disagreed with that came out in the trial?

[JohnDoe]

got whatevered.....your gen means i got you....and what pray tell is wrong with 59.....pity you are not merican
Born and bread here, a military brat. I bet you are not an American with your lack of knowledge of the Constitution! Nothin's wrong with '59, it's a great year! :cheers2:

[nevadamedic]

Born and bread here, a military brat. I bet you are not an American with your lack of knowledge of the Constitution! Nothin's wrong with '59, it's a great year! :cheers2:

Ummmmmm Manny is patriotic and extremly educated, no reason to attack him personally. He is a good guy.

[JohnDoe]

Ummmmmm Manny is patriotic and extremly educated, no reason to attack him personally. He is a good guy.

And I am not a good person? Is that what you are saying?

Manny has accused me 2-3 times already of not being a USA citizen, and you have no bark with that Nevada? Oh wait, you don't know me, so you don't really know that I am an American, right?

Well, I don't know you or Manny and I don't know if you are American...especially with the lack of Knowledge regarding our own constitution that's been evident.

When I was young, this was taught in School. Maybe it was only taught in the schools I went to because they were on Military bases for the most part? I am uncertain why most Americans don't know it the way a Military brat of past, would know it...?

I was only applying the same standards that Manny applied to me, to him, and in jest, because I am certain he is an American, as with all of us on this discussion...

Why?

Because no one in their right mind from another country, would bother arguing about this trivial crap...for hours without end.

[nevadamedic]

And I am not a good person? Is that what you are saying?

Manny has accused me 2-3 times already of not being a USA citizen, and you have no bark with that Nevada? Oh wait, you don't know me, so you don't really know that I am an American, right?

Well, I don't know you or Manny and I don't know if you are American...especially with the lack of Knowledge regarding our own constitution that's been evident.

When I was young, this was taught in School. Maybe it was only taught in the schools I went to because they were on Military bases for the most part? I am uncertain why most Americans don't know it the way a Military brat of past, would know it...?

I was only applying the same standards that Manny appled to me, to him, and in jest, because I am certain he is an American, as with all of us on this discussion...

Why?

Because no one in their right mind from another country, would bother arguing about this trivial crap...for hours without end.

I didn't say you wern't a good person, I don't know you so I can't make that judgement. I know Manny enough to think that about him.

[gabosaurus]

This is pretty obvious from the beginning. You have to protect your own. Goes back to Ford pardoning Nixon. No Bush insider is going to face justice. At least not until the Dems take over in 2009.

[stephanie]

This is pretty obvious from the beginning. You have to protect your own. Goes back to Ford pardoning Nixon. No Bush insider is going to face justice. At least not until the Dems take over in 2009.

Yeah right...

And Sandy Burglar got caught stealing classified documents,(down his undies and socks,) and he got a slap on the hand...

Didn't see the Dems. and libs......bellyaching over that...INJUSTICE.

I am laughing my arse off over this...

I guess what's good for a Democrat Goose, isn't good for a Republican gander....:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

One corrupt political act is as good as another. Anything Clinton can get away with, Bush can always get away with.
Not that I would ever expect Bush to take the high road on anything. This is a man who enjoys sending kids to their deaths.

[nevadamedic]

One corrupt political act is as good as another. Anything Clinton can get away with, Bush can always get away with.
Not that I would ever expect Bush to take the high road on anything. This is a man who enjoys sending kids to their deaths.

Can't you go play in traffic somewhere?

[nevadamedic]

Yeah right...

And Sandy Burglar got caught stealing classified documents,(down his undies and socks,) and he got a slap on the hand...

Didn't see the Dems. and libs......bellyaching over that...INJUSTICE.

I am laughing my arse off over this...

I guess what's good for a Democrat Goose, isn't good for a Republican gander....:laugh2:

Democrats are hipocrits.

[GW in Ohio]

this is a victory for justice against witch hunting prosecutors.

Yeah, and Scooter Libby is a great American. And outing a CIA operative because her husband wouldn't go along with the Bush team's fiction narrative about the reasons for the Iraq war was necessary. Had to teach him a lesson.

And anybody who thinks this was Bush's decision probably also thinks Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs.

What really happened.......

Dick Cheney strides into the Oval Office without knocking.

The President is playing video games at his desk.

Cheney: "Scooter's a good soldier. I told him if he takes the fall, he doesn't serve a day in jail. Make that happen."

Bush: "Okay, Uncle Dick."

[glockmail]

I really don't understand what everyone is so upset with me for only listing and posting the FACTS regarding this....... Upon reading this the only one who appears to be upset is you.:poke:

[glockmail]

Yeah, and Scooter Libby is a great American. And outing a CIA operative because her husband wouldn't go along with the Bush team's fiction narrative about the reasons for the Iraq war was necessary. Had to teach him a lesson..... When was Libby convicted of this?

[GW in Ohio]

So poor Scooter has to be on probation for two years and pay fines of $250,000.

Cheney will get him a VP job at Halliburton that pays $800,000.

Scooter will walk into his probation officer's office wearing a $1,000 suit (the probation officer will be wearing an off-the-rack suit from J.C. Penney). The probation officer will call him Mr. Libby and defer to him.

Libby walks.......nobody talks........

And Dick Cheney, that Mafia don of a vice president, will smirk his way to the country club, where his regular masseuse will be waiting.

Life is good when you're a member of the Bush administration and a Master of the Universe....

:dance::salute::dance:

[Dilloduck]

So poor Scooter has to be on probation for two years and pay fines of $250,000.

Cheney will get him a VP job at Halliburton that pays $800,000.

Scooter will walk into his probation officer's office wearing a $1,000 suit (the probation officer will be wearing an off-the-rack suit from J.C. Penney). The probation officer will call him Mr. Libby and defer to him.

Libby walks.......nobody talks........

And Dick Cheney, that Mafia don of a vice president, will smirk his way to the country club, where his regular masseuse will be waiting.

Life is good when you're a member of the Bush administration and a Master of the Universe....

:dance::salute::dance:

Politics as usual-----they all protect thier own. Personally I find it boring to watch them trash each other instead of winning with ideas, answers and class.

[CockySOB]

BTW people, GWB commuted Libby's sentence, he did NOT pardon him. Perhaps that's a minor difference to some who wanted Libby in "Club Fed" but the distinction is pronounced for Libby.

As it stands, Libby still has the criminal convictions on his record, as well as the fine and probation. What some people are forgetting is that the DC Bar Association indicated that Libby should be disbarred if he was convicted for any of the felony counts. The Pennsylvania State Bar Association already disbarred him for "moral turpitude" if I remember correctly.

I agree with GWB that the sentence handed down was excessive and was determined at the high end of the sentencing guidelines by linking Libby to an alleged crime for which he was neither charged nor convicted.

[JohnDoe]

Yeah right...

And Sandy Burglar got caught stealing classified documents,(down his undies and socks,) and he got a slap on the hand...

Didn't see the Dems. and libs......bellyaching over that...INJUSTICE.

I am laughing my arse off over this...

I guess what's good for a Democrat Goose, isn't good for a Republican gander....:laugh2:

Stephanie,

Here is most of the scoop on Sandy Berger:


On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unlawfully mishandling classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots.

When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed that the removal of the top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors.[13] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.

Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."[14] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[15]

Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record. Public statements to this effect have been made by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh,[16] former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris,[17] USA Today reporter Jack Kelley,[18] multiple times by Fox News correspondent John Gibson (the last as recently as December 2006[19]), and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois), who said: "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?"[20]

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed. [21] His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.[22][23]

On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger plead guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[24][25]

The report also stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents." In the end, according to the report, "[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification" in deciding to remove the documents.[26]

In January 2007, departing Republican staff of The United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report titled Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions. It states that the FBI or the Department of Justice never questioned Berger about two earlier visits he made on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003, when he reviewed White House working papers not yet inventoried by the National Archives, and speculates that, had Berger previously been entirely successful in actions at which he was later caught, "nobody would know they were gone." It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision".[27][15][28]

The report did, however, cause the Wall Street Journal to, in January 2007, retract their initial opinion of the case, saying there are substantial questions concerning the truth of Berger's statements and that other documents may have been removed. They now argue that Berger's taking of multiple copies of the same document contradict his statement that he took them only for his personal research, since they note that he could have simply taken one copy.[29][30] Mr. Berger continues to insist that he took the copies of the same document for personal convenience, and thought them overclassified (i.e. the information they contained was not actually sensitive to national security).

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Deptartment investigation. Saying, "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license." He added that, "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examinination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.[31]



Now, he was trying to do something...I would LOVE to read that one classified document that he was trying to remove from the archives...

All five documents that he took were the EXACT SAME document? That is just nutzoid, why would berger do this.... for what purpose?

You and I will never know because we do not have access to the document, I don't believe? Unless it has been declassified? I would just love to read it!

Anyway, I would like to point out to you Stephanie, that Sandy Berger's crime was a misdemeanor, according to our Justice System and this is why his sentence was less than Libby's... not favoritism of any kind.

Libby's crimes, obstruction and perjury, were considered Felonies under our Justice system and removing classified documents is only considered a misdemeanor.

I suppose if there was proof that Burglar gave these classified documents to someone that did not have classified clearance his crimes would have been much more of a serious nature according to our Laws?

[JohnDoe]

I will say one thing, as a devout Christian, I had to rely on my inner belief in Him and what He taught us, to make it through this long thread, and not once wanting to renege on turning my cheek or walking that extra mile with my evident adversary.

It has been a pleasure debating this issue with all of you, especially regarding how Impeachment works in both the House and the Senate. Thank you for the lengthy discussion. JD

[JohnDoe]

BTW people, GWB commuted Libby's sentence, he did NOT pardon him. Perhaps that's a minor difference to some who wanted Libby in "Club Fed" but the distinction is pronounced for Libby.

As it stands, Libby still has the criminal convictions on his record, as well as the fine and probation. What some people are forgetting is that the DC Bar Association indicated that Libby should be disbarred if he was convicted for any of the felony counts. The Pennsylvania State Bar Association already disbarred him for "moral turpitude" if I remember correctly.

I agree with GWB that the sentence handed down was excessive and was determined at the high end of the sentencing guidelines by linking Libby to an alleged crime for which he was neither charged nor convicted.

2 convictions of perjury, (Intentionally lying under oath to a grand jury)
1 conviction of lying to fbi investigators
1 conviction of obstruction of Justice

and you say that 30 months was too much?

Could President Bush have commuted his sentence for his 4 felony convictions in half, instead of the full amount of his time due under the Law? (I honestly do not know the answer to this and was wondering if you did?)

I disagree with you that Libby's sentence for his 4 felonies was "excessive" and I believe if you do some research on it, you will find it was a fair sentence or if anything, lenient, imo and from what I have read?

And as far as your other stuff.... Martha Stewart was convicted for only one count of obstruction of Justice and had to serve a year in prison for it, WHILE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME?

Paris had to spend a near month in the slammer for misdemeanor offenses?

The only way a Justice system is Just is if it is applied fairly to all and if punishments relate to the intensification of the crimes, according to the crime....you know this is how it has to be in order to be just don't you?

[JohnDoe]

Cocky, let me add that the reason it was excessive imo, is because Libby was just following orders.

It was unfair that he was given up for Rove and others, like the vp imo.

But I DO NOT want to get in to this discussion again, unless of course you have read the evidence and transcripts involved with the trial... then, and only then I will consider it!!!! lol.... I am just kidding around, ok? :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Ya better be sitting down to read all of Clinton's, could take ya awhile... :poke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton

List of people pardoned by George W. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

I love all the made up outrage over this...

Even on the Dems. lame stream media networks..

Headline...Controversial pardon....:laugh2:


I,ll add a little to this the following link has what they did as well and it's straight from the USDOJ

This is a great sight: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Joseph A. Yasak N. D. Ill. 1988 Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623


Heres just one of my favorites. Look familiar???????????:poke::salute:

[glockmail]

....

Life is good when you're a member of the Bush administration and a Master of the Universe....

.... And life must suck when you're a mindless liberal drone......

[Dilloduck]

2 convictions of perjury, (Intentionally lying under oath to a grand jury)
1 conviction of lying to fbi investigators
1 conviction of obstruction of Justice

and you say that 30 months was too much?

Could President Bush have commuted his sentence for his 4 felony convictions in half, instead of the full amount of his time due under the Law? (I honestly do not know the answer to this and was wondering if you did?)

I disagree with you that Libby's sentence for his 4 felonies was "excessive" and I believe if you do some research on it, you will find it was a fair sentence or if anything, lenient, imo and from what I have read?

And as far as your other stuff.... Martha Stewart was convicted for only one count of obstruction of Justice and had to serve a year in prison for it, WHILE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME?

Paris had to spend a near month in the slammer for misdemeanor offenses?

The only way a Justice system is Just is if it is applied fairly to all and if punishments relate to the intensification of the crimes, according to the crime....you know this is how it has to be in order to be just don't you?

The only thing this whole situation has to do with justice is that politicians are abusing it to screw each other around. Think about it----nearly 10 years of the two parties playing legal "gotcha". Pathetic.

[nevadamedic]

And life must suck when you're a mindless liberal drone......

:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

The White House said today that "a pardon is not out of the question" for Libby. Which means Bush will do it sometime before he leaves off.
Criminals love criminals. Libby will get off. Rove will never be prosecuted.

[-Cp]

Can you honestly say that the Clinton trial/impeachment was not a witch hunt?

I can say that.... cause it wasn't a witch hunt.. .it was a cigar/stained-dress hunt... :)

[Nukeman]

The White House said today that "a pardon is not out of the question" for Libby. Which means Bush will do it sometime before he leaves off.
Criminals love criminals. Libby will get off. Rove will never be prosecuted.


Your right!!!

Please reread post number 95

You might learn something about your own partry for a change:poke::slap:

[avatar4321]

Libby MOST CERTAINLY committed his crimes, all evidence pointed to such and 9 people testified in his trial that contradicted his "song and a dance", (there is no other thing to call it that is appropriate for a public board imo), which he gave the Grand jury and FBI investigators, with his lies involved with covering up his, and the vp's actions. Document after document after document was presented in to evidence that showed Libby intentionally lied to the grand jury and the fbi..., yes intentionally....there must be "intent" to lie, in order to be charged and convicted of it. It was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

He was fairly tried,(by a Republican Prosecutor and with a Republican Judge of his choice) and (Libby is not appealing because of the trial process) in a court of Law and he was convicted unanimously, of one charge of lying to FBI investigators, 2 counts of perjury, and one charge of Obstruction of Justice, and found not guity of one count of lying to FBI investigators, by a jury of his peers. This happens to be fact, history.

Clinton NEVER was given the chance in our Justice system, where politics is (suppose to be) left outside the door of the court room, which according to our constitution, he will get the chance to do if charged by our criminal Justice System.

Clinton did not commit an impeachment crime according to our Laws and the Impeachment process. Even if Clinton had been Impeached by the Senate, (which he probably should have been, but they knew all the evidence and I do not, so I guess I would give them the benefit of the doubt) he still would not have been convicted of a crime in our Justice system and there were no penalties of jail applied to it.

ONLY if he were charged after he was impeached, in our justice system where he would get a fair trial with a jury of 12, and they convicted him, would there be any kind of Jail time given as penalty.

Both houses Impeachment does not "count" in our Justice system as far as being something necessarily "fair".... this is why the Constitution makes it clear that our Justice System and all the innocent until proven "dohickees" out there to protect the defendent must be in place, and the defendent's chance to defend oneself, and be judged by a jury of his peers with it taking all of them to convict, not just a majority like in the house indictment or 2/3's like what the Senate needs to convict, but 100% of jurors finding him guilty in order to find guilty and convict, and give penalties such as jailtime.

Btw, what makes you say that Libby was innocent of what he was found guilty for? Do you have specific things that you disagreed with that came out in the trial?

um Hello!? Your story is completely inconsistant. Why on earth would he be trying to cover up the Vice President???? The Vice President didnt do anything. We know who the so called leak was. It was Armitage. Everyone knows that. Hello the prosecuter knew that within two weeks of his investigation. How on earth can he be covering up for Vice President when there is absolutely NOTHING to cover up.

And completely ignore the jury selection irregularities. Nevermind the fact that he was being prosecuted in a heavy anti Bush area. Never mind the fact that the judge excluded tons of evidence for the defense and then threw the book at Libby.

Nevermind that the only evidence to the crime is that he has a bad memory while willingly helping the prosecutor investigate a crime that never occured. yeah he deserved years in prison.

[avatar4321]

And I am not a good person? Is that what you are saying?

well who is upset that a man who committed no crime isnt getting punished as much?

[avatar4321]

This is pretty obvious from the beginning. You have to protect your own. Goes back to Ford pardoning Nixon. No Bush insider is going to face justice. At least not until the Dems take over in 2009.

See if Libby was facing justice he would be acquitted and Joe Wilson and Fitzgerald would be investigated.

[avatar4321]

Yeah, and Scooter Libby is a great American. And outing a CIA operative because her husband wouldn't go along with the Bush team's fiction narrative about the reasons for the Iraq war was necessary. Had to teach him a lesson.

And anybody who thinks this was Bush's decision probably also thinks Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs.

What really happened.......

Dick Cheney strides into the Oval Office without knocking.

The President is playing video games at his desk.

Cheney: "Scooter's a good soldier. I told him if he takes the fall, he doesn't serve a day in jail. Make that happen."

Bush: "Okay, Uncle Dick."

Libby had nothing to do with Valerie Plame's leak, which wasnt even a crime. Armitage was. Fitzgerald knew this within two weeks of t he investigation. but it wasnt a crime. so he went on a witch hunt.

But its obviously you are absolutely ignorant of the investigation. Otherwise you wouldnt be acting as if Libby was the leak when the leak has been identified and was not prosecuted: Because there was no crime.

And btw Saddam did have WMDs. simply because you guys forced us to wait long enough for them to move them doesnt mean they no longer existed. Especially when he has used them.

[avatar4321]

Cocky, let me add that the reason it was excessive imo, is because Libby was just following orders.

It was unfair that he was given up for Rove and others, like the vp imo.

But I DO NOT want to get in to this discussion again, unless of course you have read the evidence and transcripts involved with the trial... then, and only then I will consider it!!!! lol.... I am just kidding around, ok? :laugh2:

The only order Libby is guilty of us if working with the witch hunt.

Cause its obvious he wasnt covering anything up because we know who the real leak was.

Of course, you guys are going to continue to ignore this because it doesnt fit your worldview of a corrupt and conspiratorial administration.

Thankfully the truth cuts through all that nonsense.

[gabosaurus]

If Clinton can corrupt power, I guess that allows Bush to do it as well. Since two wrongs obviously equal a right.

[Nukeman]

If Clinton can corrupt power, I guess that allows Bush to do it as well. Since two wrongs obviously equal a right.

Nope just pointing out that it has always been done by politicians. Does that make it right not really but quit with the pointing of fingers.

thers an old saying "remeber that when you point a finger at another there are 3 more pointing back at you"

I personally think everyone should remeber that whenever they decide to strat pointing fingers.....

[OCA]

I love this!

If Senate Democrats hadn't abdicated their responsibility in 1998 and acquitted the murderer, adulterer and sexual predator in chief Bubba then this would not be happening today, don't understand how Demos can be such hypocrites and be pissed off right now.

I love that Bush said eat shit to Demos and commuted Scooter whether he was guilty or not. Hope the pardon is next.

[OCA]

Yes, thats right, the murderer in chief......can't wait to see the link attacked and not the facts.


Bloody Bill Clinton - American Caligula
President Clinton may be in his final year of office but he leaves in his wake a trail of allegations that, if true, would rank him alongside some of history’s most notorious criminals. He has been implicated in cocaine use by none other than his younger brother Roger Clinton, himself a convicted drug trafficker. In an Arkansas State Police surveillance audio tape, obtained by freelance journalist Scott Wheeler, Roger Clinton can be heard describing how he smuggled large amounts of cocaine through airports. Most significant were his comments about the then Arkansas State Governor, “Got to get some for my brother; he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.”

This is not just groundless speculation. In 1990 Sharlene Wilson, an informant for the Seventh Judicial drug task force in Arkansas, testified under oath that she had supplied Governor Bill Clinton with cocaine. Shortly thereafter the drug task force was closed down and Wilson herself was charged with drug violations. In 1992 she was sentenced to 31 years for selling half an ounce of marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine. Clinton’s misdemeanors amount to more than drug use though, much more. One of the first things Clinton did on assuming the presidency was to appoint Patsy Thomasson - a top lieutenant of convicted drug dealer Dan Lasater - as White House chief of personnel. Clinton then installed his friend Webster Hubbel as “shadow” Attorney General, until Hubbel was jailed for fraud. Prior to his becoming assistant Attorney General he had been over billing clients at the Rose Law firm, in Little Rock Arkansas, where he had been a partner with Hilary Clinton.

Then we have the “suicide” of Vincent Foster. As reported in The SPOTLIGHT, featured in the previous edition of The Seeker, Forster had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and had been in the process of preparing a potentially damming report. So Clinton had good reason to want him out of the way and as many suspect his death was not a suicide; eyewitness accounts by police and ambulance crew members who recovered Foster’s body and official autopsy findings are distinctly at odds. One of the reasons that Clinton has been able to get away with so much is the compliance of the mainstream media. As one of the few journalist’s who has covered Clinton’s time in office with any honesty and insight, Ambrose Pritchard-Evans noted:
“The Washington press corps has chosen not to report this sort of thing, of course, because it always gives more weight to the utterings of an “official” source, with a title, than it does to the testimony of a common citizen.”

As a result Clinton has been allowed to get away with murder, almost literally. Yet he is guilty of far more. He has been implicated in rape, sexual assault, mass murder (Waco) and, as we detailed in a previous issue, War crimes in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that history may well place Bill Clinton alongside the likes of Nero and Caligula. Here then is a list of people who have been connected in some way with Bill Clinton and who have died in rather suspicious circumstances:

1) Susan Coleman: said to have had an affair with Clinton before he became President. Told friends she was expecting his child and was 7 months pregnant when she found dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Verdict, suicide.

2)Larry Guerrin: killed while investigating the INSLAW case. In brief this involved the US Justice Department using stolen software, modifying it for intelligence purposes and then selling it to foreign governments and making millions in the process.

3) Kevin Ives and Don Henry: two 16 year old boys who may have stumbled across drug running operations involving Clinton at Mena airfield in Arkansas in 1987.Initial reports, by State Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak, suggested that the boys had fallen asleep on the railway line and been crushed. However when the parents kicked up a fuss another forensic report showed Kevin’s skull had been crushed prior to being placed on the track whilst Don had been stabbed in the back.

4) Keith Coney said he had information on Ives and Henry deaths. Died in a high-speed motorcycle crash in 1989,said to have involved a car chase.

5) Keith McKaskle, said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Stabbed to death in November 1988.

6) Gregory Collins, once again said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths and once again killed, this time by a gunshot wound to the face.

7) Jeff Rhodes was also said to have information on the deaths of Ives and Henry.He was found on a waste heap in April 1989 with a gunshot wound to the head.

8) James Milam also had information on the Ives and Henry deaths but before he could talk too widely he was found decapitated. Once again the State Medical Examiner, Fahmy Malak, ruled the death due to natural causes.

9) Richard Winters, a suspect in the Ives and Henry case had offered to cooperate and give evidence. However he died in a ‘robbery’, which was subsequently proved to have been a set-up.

10) Jordan Kettleson was also said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was found shot dead in his pick-up in June 1990.

11) Danny Casalaro, a journalist investigating Mena airstrip, the Arkansas coke trade and INSLAW. Had warned his family that he had learnt too much and not to believe it was suicide if he turned up dead. Shortly thereafter he was found in a bathtub in the Sheraton Hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Both his wrists had been slashed, one ten times, all his research material was missing and has never been recovered

12) Victor Raiser, the National Co-Chair for the “Clinton for President” campaign, died in an airplane crash in July, 1992.

13) R Montgomery Raiser also worked on the Clinton campaign and died in the same crash.

14) Ian Spiro, said to have supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings in the INSLAW case. His wife and three children were found murdered in their home in November 1992.All had gunshot wounds to the head. Ian’s body later was found in a car in the Borrego Desert. FBI reports concluded that he had shot his family and then committed suicide by taking cyanide.

15) Paula Grober, Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf. Killed in car smash with no other cars involved and no witnesses. She is said to have been very attractive and traveled extensively with Clinton prior to her death in December 1992. All the above died prior to Clinton’s inauguration in January 1993.In its aftermath the deaths not only continued but became even more numerous.

16) Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeahan and Conway LeBleu were the only four BAFT men killed at Waco.In an autopsy performed by a “private Doctor” all four were found to have near identical “execution style” head wounds. All four had previously been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in April 1993.

17) Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt.Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley and Capt. Scott Reynolds. Once again all four men had been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in a helicopter crash near Quantico, Va. Reporters were barred from the scene whilst firefighters responding to the crash had their video tapes seized and a fire cheif described a scene where, “security was tight” with “lots of marines with guns.”

18) Paul Wilcher was found dead shortly after presenting Attorney General Janet Reno with a report on Waco, death ruled to “unknown causes.” See extracts from the report in this issue.

19) White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster was said to have been preparing a potentially damming report on Waco at the time of his death. As reported in the previous issue he had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and his death, in July 1993, was officially labeled a “suicide.”.

20) Stanley Heard and Steven Dickson were members of Clinton’s Health Advisory Committee. Both died in an air crash in September 1993.

21) Jerry Luther Parks, Chief of Security at Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in Little Rock. He was shot through the rear window of his car, the killer then went to the driver’s side of Park’s car and pumped three more 9mm bullets into him. His family reported that shortly before his death their home had been broken into, despite a top line security system. Park’s had been preparing a dossier on Clinton’s activities, the dossier was stolen.

22) Ed Willey, a Clinton fundraiser, was found shot dead in November 1993.Once again the death was ruled suicide. His wife Kathleen, who was working as a White House volunteer at the time, claimed that Clinton sexually assaulted her when she had approached him, distraught over the loss of her husband.

Indeed allegations of sexual assault and even rape go back a long way with Clinton.As far back as 1969 in fact when Clinton was still a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. A retired State Department employee said he believed a young English woman who claimed she had been raped by Clinton.
“There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,” he said. “But we were under tremendous pressure to aviod the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.”
She is not the only woman who has accused Clinton of rape. Early in 1999 Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Clinton’s campaign when he was attorney general in 1978, told NBC that he had raped her.Claiming pressure from the White House NBC shelved the report.
Then we have the case of Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas who claimed that Clinton had forced himself on her shortly after she won the State crown. In 1999 she told an interviewer that she did have sex with him but that it was consensual; she later recanted saying that she had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual. And still the killings go on...

23) Dr Roland Rogers a Dentist from Arkansas. Died on his way to the Sunday Telegraph in London to reveal “sensitive” information about Clinton in March 1994

24) Kathy Furguson, a 38-year-old hospital worker whose ex-husband was a co-defendant in the Paula Jones case. She died in May 1994, from a gunshot wound to the head, ruled suicide; curiously next to the body were several packed suitcases, as if she was getting ready to go somewhere.

25) Bill Shelton was Kathy’s boyfriend and an Arkansas police officer. He was found on her grave the following month with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Judged to be “suicide”.

26) Alan G Whither, oversaw Clinton’s Secret Service detail. He was transferred to a field office in Oklahoma City in October 1994.Whatever warning was given to the other BAFT agents in the building (none of whom came to work that day) failed to reach him, he died on April 19 1995 in the infamous Oklahoma City bomb blast. Incidentally the families of the victims of the blast are now preparing to sue the U.S. Government, saying it had prior knowledge of the bombing.

27) Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary died along with 35 other people on April 3,1996, in an air crash involving Airforce 2. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated and had spoken publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecuters. According to one report he allegedly told Clinton, “he was not going down alone.” However his death brought that possibility to an abrupt end. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the back of Brown’s head that resembled a gunshot wound. And we are not counting the other 35 people who died in the same crash.

28) Shelly Kelly, an Air Force stewardess was onboard the same flight, at the back of the plane, and suffered only minor cuts and bruises in the crash. Indeed she was able to board a rescue helicopter without assistance. She died later died in hospital, supposedly from a loss of blood. According to journalist Joe L Jordan, an autopsy revealed a three inch cut over her main femoral artery which was sustained over three hours after all her other cuts and bruises. Thereafter Clinton ordered the bodies of all the victims cremated.

29) Barbara Wise, a Commerce Department employee. She was found dead in her locked office, partially nude and covered in bruises, following a long weekend. Officially she is said to have died of natural causes.

30) Christine M Mirzayan, Clinton intern killed on August 1 1998.In the publicity prior to the Paula Jones law suit Newsweek revealed that “a former White House staffer” with the initial “M” was about to go public with a story about sexual harassment at the White House. Thereafter Christine was found beaten to death with a heavy object near Georgetown University, Washington.

31) Mary Mahoon was another former White House intern who was about to go public with a story of sexual harassment at the White House. Before she could though some unknown characters entered a Washington Starbuck’s, where she was working, and shot her dead. Her two assistants’, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory Evans were taken to a room along with Mary and pumped full of bullets. Mary was shot in the chest, face and back of the head, probably with silencers as nobody in the densely populated area heard anything. Even though the killers left $4000 in the cashbox untouched, the police categorized the killings as a robbery whilst acknowledging its “execution style”.

As reported in the previous issue of the Seeker four members of Delta Force have recently died in training “accidents”. They were Lt Col Anthony A. Boyles and Sgt Eric Ellingson, killed in river “training accidents.” Master Sgt Gaetano Cutino, killed while “exiting” from a helicopter. And Sgt Jamey Dimase killed while participating in marksmanship training. These were the men who had actually gone into the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and carried out the killings of 86 men, women and children. These men were hardened professional killers, yet even they had been disturbed by what they had been ordered to do and actually done. So much so that given immunity from prosecution they had been prepared to come forward and testify. Although Paul Wilcher does not name them in his report these were the very individuals whose testimony could have demolished Clinton’s Presidency.

The Wilcher Report was buried along with Paul Wilcher and for a while things went on as before, in other words the killings went on and on. Then in 1999 the Wilcher Report resurfaced, when Attorney General Janet Reno was told she expressed “total anger”. According to unnamed eyewitnesses quoted in the Drudge Report: “Her face was flushed, she was clearly shaken.” In the following months the four Delta Force men all died in “training accidents”: to quote Paul Wilcher, “to silence their testimony forever.”

Gennifer Flowers was a bit smarter. She had a 12 year affair with Clinton, in its aftermath her apartment was broken into and ransacked and she and her mother received threatening phone calls. Realising that she was in danger she assumed a higher profile, launched legal proceedings against Clinton and embarked on a series of media appearances. Smart girl, it was probably this that saved her life, had she not done so she too would have been on this list. Finally it should be noted that this is only a partial list, for a more comprehensive picture we would refer you to some of the sources listed below.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=14

[Kathianne]

I love this!

If Senate Democrats hadn't abdicated their responsibility in 1998 and acquitted the murderer, adulterer and sexual predator in chief Bubba then this would not be happening today, don't understand how Demos can be such hypocrites and be pissed off right now.

I love that Bush said eat shit to Demos and commuted Scooter whether he was guilty or not. Hope the pardon is next.

Sorta. Yet there is a world of difference between impeachment and conviction v the constitutional power of executive to pardon or commute.

I'd say that if Berger had been given a real punishment and Clinton hadn't done the wholesale midnight pardons, there would be more of a conversation deserved. Even that may not be fair to Scooter, since his 'crime' wasn't of the same importance long term as Berger's.

[OCA]

Such a shame that Bubba would have two teenage boys whacked just to protect his coke importing business......what did they do?

[OCA]

Sorta. Yet there is a world of difference between impeachment and conviction v the constitutional power of executive to pardon or commute.

I'd say that if Berger had been given a real punishment and Clinton hadn't done the wholesale midnight pardons, there would be more of a conversation deserved. Even that may not be fair to Scooter, since his 'crime' wasn't of the same importance long term as Berger's.


Oh but Sandy wasn't lifting anything of importance or so we are to believe.:pee:

[Kathianne]

Oh but Sandy wasn't lifting anything of importance or so we are to believe.:pee:

My point exactly.

[gabosaurus]

Clinton was an idiot. He did a lot of stupid things.
Tell me what war he started, though. Did he allow America to be attacked under his watch? Did he send more than 3,500 kids to their deaths? Fornicator? yes. Liar? yes. International terrorist? no.
Clinton wasn't in bed with Arab terror groups either.

[OCA]

Tell me what war he started, though. Did he allow America to be attacked under his watch?

Kosovo.

Yes, 9/11 planning and surveillance happened under his watch plus he was offered Bin Laden 3 times and refused 3 times. 9/11 was all him.

[stephanie]

Did he allow America to be attacked under his watch?

First Trade Center bombings..

Muir building-Oklahoma

and impeached for being a lying fornicator..

:poke:

[JohnDoe]

The only order Libby is guilty of us if working with the witch hunt.

Cause its obvious he wasnt covering anything up because we know who the real leak was.

Of course, you guys are going to continue to ignore this because it doesnt fit your worldview of a corrupt and conspiratorial administration.

Thankfully the truth cuts through all that nonsense. I'm sorry, but you CLEARLY have not read the trial transcripts and evidence presented in the Libby case. I hOnestly can't go through arguing with others that don't know the entire case, again and again.

It's up to you to want to know the facts and the truth, not me.

Please read the pdf evidence files from the Libby trial, you will clearly see the vp's involvement.

[manu1959]

I'm sorry, but you CLEARLY have not read the trial transcripts and evidence presented in the Libby case. I hOnestly can't go through arguing with others that don't know the entire case, again and again.

It's up to you to want to know the facts and the truth, not me.

Please read the pdf evidence files from the Libby trial, you will clearly see the vp's involvement.

then tell me why the vp was not charged?

[manu1959]

Clinton was an idiot. He did a lot of stupid things.
Tell me what war he started, though. Did he allow America to be attacked under his watch? Did he send more than 3,500 kids to their deaths? Fornicator? yes. Liar? yes. International terrorist? no.
Clinton wasn't in bed with Arab terror groups either.

he started the bosina war without UN approval

yes US soil and interests were attack on at least six different ocasions

no he sent a handfull into somalia then pulled out same with rawanda

clinton gets most of his money from arabs.....can you say Dubai

[Yurt]

Clinton was an idiot. He did a lot of stupid things.
Tell me what war he started, though. Did he allow America to be attacked under his watch? Did he send more than 3,500 kids to their deaths? Fornicator? yes. Liar? yes. International terrorist? no.
Clinton wasn't in bed with Arab terror groups either.

Stop being obtuse.

Do you want Saddam in power, yes or no? And do you really think Afgan was a "mistake?"

What about those cruise missiles Impotent sent after Osama? Kosovo? His prodding for Yugoslavia?

Take the wooly hatred hat off your head ...

[JohnDoe]

Sorta. Yet there is a world of difference between impeachment and conviction v the constitutional power of executive to pardon or commute.

I'd say that if Berger had been given a real punishment and Clinton hadn't done the wholesale midnight pardons, there would be more of a conversation deserved. Even that may not be fair to Scooter, since his 'crime' wasn't of the same importance long term as Berger's.


Really? how so? Berger's crime, removing classified docs, was a misdemeanor under our very laws of this great land, and Libby committed 4 Felonies according to our laws.

What Libby did was much worse, much, much, much worse according to the Law?

So Kathianne, what's up with your thinking?

care to clue me in?

[JohnDoe]

i do know this, and libby was aquitted by the president.....Libby was not aquitted by the President?

Libby's Sentence was Commuted by the President, his crimes were not pardoned, his sentence for his crimes was commuted, not acquitted.

Libby is still guilty of 4 felonies. At least until Bush decides to Pardon him later, on his way out, which Bush has left opened as an option. Why he wants to drag this out is beyond me, if he wanted to pardon him instead of commute his sentence then WHY DIDN'T he just do it now? Some say it is because the Whitehouse/Bush/Cheney/Tony Snow can hide behind the fact that since Libby is still appealing the case, THEN they still can say "We can't answer your questions about this issue because it is an on going case..." kind of stuff.

Clinton was found not guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, by a jury, the 100 Senators sworn in as jurors during the impeachment TRIAL.

Libby was found guilty on 4 Felonies, unanimously, by 12 jurors... his 30 month sentence for his combined 4 Felonies was just commuted by the president, and no one really knows why the President did such, when Libby never asked to be commuted? Some believe that it was Libby's payoff by the White house for "taking the fall" for them?

Some believe that this commutation could be continuing obstruction of justice in the Plame case.

We will see...

[nevadamedic]

really? how so? berger's crime, removing classified docs, was a misdemeanor under our very laws of this great land, and Libby committed 4 Felonies according to our laws.

what libby did was much worse, much, much, much worse according to the Law?

so kat, what's up with your thinking?

care

*Yawn*

[JohnDoe]

My point exactly.We KNOW what he lifted. He lifted 5 copies of the same document, writen by Clarke.

Yes, 5 Copies of the SAME document, is what the Final investigation on this concluded. Also stated in the final investigation report, it confirmed that these 5 COPIES, were just that, copies, and that the archive had the document he stole on hard disk.

But why was he removing 5 copies of the same document? I wonder what was in this one document? It is like he thought he could "scrub" this one document from the records?

[JohnDoe]

*Yawn*
Your maturity astounds me! ;) :poke:

[JohnDoe]

then tell me why the vp was not charged?I don't know why he or Armitage or Rove and others were not charged other than what Patrick Fitzgerald said, Which is that Libby obstructed Justice in the Plame investigation, that it was like Libby had thrown sand in the umpire's eyes as the ball was crossing the plate, and that he was the umpire. This is what Obstruction does, and this is why obstruction of justice is a pretty serious crime, including Clinton's, (even if clinton wasn't convicted for it imo)

I personally think that Fitzgerald is afraid to go up against the vp, but maybe not, because he said outright that a dark cloud is over the vp, regarding this Plame outing case. It was weird, Fitzgeralds entire case and all the evidence and documents he presented in the case were mainly documents surrounding the VP and from the vp to scooter, with the vp's hand writen notes etc. It was as though he had put the vp on trial too...

Maybe because he is a republican, he decided not to go further with this case, who knows? I can't possibly do anything but speculate on this unfinished business.

Fitzgerald had confirmed how sensitive Valerie Plame's position really was with the CIA within the indictment/trial, perhaps this just needs to be ended because we have exposed enough secret and classified information to our enemies already, with the outing?

[OCA]

Yes, thats right, the murderer in chief......can't wait to see the link attacked and not the facts.


Bloody Bill Clinton - American Caligula
President Clinton may be in his final year of office but he leaves in his wake a trail of allegations that, if true, would rank him alongside some of history’s most notorious criminals. He has been implicated in cocaine use by none other than his younger brother Roger Clinton, himself a convicted drug trafficker. In an Arkansas State Police surveillance audio tape, obtained by freelance journalist Scott Wheeler, Roger Clinton can be heard describing how he smuggled large amounts of cocaine through airports. Most significant were his comments about the then Arkansas State Governor, “Got to get some for my brother; he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.”

This is not just groundless speculation. In 1990 Sharlene Wilson, an informant for the Seventh Judicial drug task force in Arkansas, testified under oath that she had supplied Governor Bill Clinton with cocaine. Shortly thereafter the drug task force was closed down and Wilson herself was charged with drug violations. In 1992 she was sentenced to 31 years for selling half an ounce of marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine. Clinton’s misdemeanors amount to more than drug use though, much more. One of the first things Clinton did on assuming the presidency was to appoint Patsy Thomasson - a top lieutenant of convicted drug dealer Dan Lasater - as White House chief of personnel. Clinton then installed his friend Webster Hubbel as “shadow” Attorney General, until Hubbel was jailed for fraud. Prior to his becoming assistant Attorney General he had been over billing clients at the Rose Law firm, in Little Rock Arkansas, where he had been a partner with Hilary Clinton.

Then we have the “suicide” of Vincent Foster. As reported in The SPOTLIGHT, featured in the previous edition of The Seeker, Forster had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and had been in the process of preparing a potentially damming report. So Clinton had good reason to want him out of the way and as many suspect his death was not a suicide; eyewitness accounts by police and ambulance crew members who recovered Foster’s body and official autopsy findings are distinctly at odds. One of the reasons that Clinton has been able to get away with so much is the compliance of the mainstream media. As one of the few journalist’s who has covered Clinton’s time in office with any honesty and insight, Ambrose Pritchard-Evans noted:
“The Washington press corps has chosen not to report this sort of thing, of course, because it always gives more weight to the utterings of an “official” source, with a title, than it does to the testimony of a common citizen.”

As a result Clinton has been allowed to get away with murder, almost literally. Yet he is guilty of far more. He has been implicated in rape, sexual assault, mass murder (Waco) and, as we detailed in a previous issue, War crimes in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that history may well place Bill Clinton alongside the likes of Nero and Caligula. Here then is a list of people who have been connected in some way with Bill Clinton and who have died in rather suspicious circumstances:

1) Susan Coleman: said to have had an affair with Clinton before he became President. Told friends she was expecting his child and was 7 months pregnant when she found dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Verdict, suicide.

2)Larry Guerrin: killed while investigating the INSLAW case. In brief this involved the US Justice Department using stolen software, modifying it for intelligence purposes and then selling it to foreign governments and making millions in the process.

3) Kevin Ives and Don Henry: two 16 year old boys who may have stumbled across drug running operations involving Clinton at Mena airfield in Arkansas in 1987.Initial reports, by State Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak, suggested that the boys had fallen asleep on the railway line and been crushed. However when the parents kicked up a fuss another forensic report showed Kevin’s skull had been crushed prior to being placed on the track whilst Don had been stabbed in the back.

4) Keith Coney said he had information on Ives and Henry deaths. Died in a high-speed motorcycle crash in 1989,said to have involved a car chase.

5) Keith McKaskle, said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Stabbed to death in November 1988.

6) Gregory Collins, once again said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths and once again killed, this time by a gunshot wound to the face.

7) Jeff Rhodes was also said to have information on the deaths of Ives and Henry.He was found on a waste heap in April 1989 with a gunshot wound to the head.

8) James Milam also had information on the Ives and Henry deaths but before he could talk too widely he was found decapitated. Once again the State Medical Examiner, Fahmy Malak, ruled the death due to natural causes.

9) Richard Winters, a suspect in the Ives and Henry case had offered to cooperate and give evidence. However he died in a ‘robbery’, which was subsequently proved to have been a set-up.

10) Jordan Kettleson was also said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was found shot dead in his pick-up in June 1990.

11) Danny Casalaro, a journalist investigating Mena airstrip, the Arkansas coke trade and INSLAW. Had warned his family that he had learnt too much and not to believe it was suicide if he turned up dead. Shortly thereafter he was found in a bathtub in the Sheraton Hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Both his wrists had been slashed, one ten times, all his research material was missing and has never been recovered

12) Victor Raiser, the National Co-Chair for the “Clinton for President” campaign, died in an airplane crash in July, 1992.

13) R Montgomery Raiser also worked on the Clinton campaign and died in the same crash.

14) Ian Spiro, said to have supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings in the INSLAW case. His wife and three children were found murdered in their home in November 1992.All had gunshot wounds to the head. Ian’s body later was found in a car in the Borrego Desert. FBI reports concluded that he had shot his family and then committed suicide by taking cyanide.

15) Paula Grober, Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf. Killed in car smash with no other cars involved and no witnesses. She is said to have been very attractive and traveled extensively with Clinton prior to her death in December 1992. All the above died prior to Clinton’s inauguration in January 1993.In its aftermath the deaths not only continued but became even more numerous.

16) Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeahan and Conway LeBleu were the only four BAFT men killed at Waco.In an autopsy performed by a “private Doctor” all four were found to have near identical “execution style” head wounds. All four had previously been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in April 1993.

17) Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt.Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley and Capt. Scott Reynolds. Once again all four men had been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in a helicopter crash near Quantico, Va. Reporters were barred from the scene whilst firefighters responding to the crash had their video tapes seized and a fire cheif described a scene where, “security was tight” with “lots of marines with guns.”

18) Paul Wilcher was found dead shortly after presenting Attorney General Janet Reno with a report on Waco, death ruled to “unknown causes.” See extracts from the report in this issue.

19) White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster was said to have been preparing a potentially damming report on Waco at the time of his death. As reported in the previous issue he had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and his death, in July 1993, was officially labeled a “suicide.”.

20) Stanley Heard and Steven Dickson were members of Clinton’s Health Advisory Committee. Both died in an air crash in September 1993.

21) Jerry Luther Parks, Chief of Security at Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in Little Rock. He was shot through the rear window of his car, the killer then went to the driver’s side of Park’s car and pumped three more 9mm bullets into him. His family reported that shortly before his death their home had been broken into, despite a top line security system. Park’s had been preparing a dossier on Clinton’s activities, the dossier was stolen.

22) Ed Willey, a Clinton fundraiser, was found shot dead in November 1993.Once again the death was ruled suicide. His wife Kathleen, who was working as a White House volunteer at the time, claimed that Clinton sexually assaulted her when she had approached him, distraught over the loss of her husband.

Indeed allegations of sexual assault and even rape go back a long way with Clinton.As far back as 1969 in fact when Clinton was still a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. A retired State Department employee said he believed a young English woman who claimed she had been raped by Clinton.
“There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,” he said. “But we were under tremendous pressure to aviod the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.”
She is not the only woman who has accused Clinton of rape. Early in 1999 Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Clinton’s campaign when he was attorney general in 1978, told NBC that he had raped her.Claiming pressure from the White House NBC shelved the report.
Then we have the case of Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas who claimed that Clinton had forced himself on her shortly after she won the State crown. In 1999 she told an interviewer that she did have sex with him but that it was consensual; she later recanted saying that she had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual. And still the killings go on...

23) Dr Roland Rogers a Dentist from Arkansas. Died on his way to the Sunday Telegraph in London to reveal “sensitive” information about Clinton in March 1994

24) Kathy Furguson, a 38-year-old hospital worker whose ex-husband was a co-defendant in the Paula Jones case. She died in May 1994, from a gunshot wound to the head, ruled suicide; curiously next to the body were several packed suitcases, as if she was getting ready to go somewhere.

25) Bill Shelton was Kathy’s boyfriend and an Arkansas police officer. He was found on her grave the following month with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Judged to be “suicide”.

26) Alan G Whither, oversaw Clinton’s Secret Service detail. He was transferred to a field office in Oklahoma City in October 1994.Whatever warning was given to the other BAFT agents in the building (none of whom came to work that day) failed to reach him, he died on April 19 1995 in the infamous Oklahoma City bomb blast. Incidentally the families of the victims of the blast are now preparing to sue the U.S. Government, saying it had prior knowledge of the bombing.

27) Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary died along with 35 other people on April 3,1996, in an air crash involving Airforce 2. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated and had spoken publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecuters. According to one report he allegedly told Clinton, “he was not going down alone.” However his death brought that possibility to an abrupt end. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the back of Brown’s head that resembled a gunshot wound. And we are not counting the other 35 people who died in the same crash.

28) Shelly Kelly, an Air Force stewardess was onboard the same flight, at the back of the plane, and suffered only minor cuts and bruises in the crash. Indeed she was able to board a rescue helicopter without assistance. She died later died in hospital, supposedly from a loss of blood. According to journalist Joe L Jordan, an autopsy revealed a three inch cut over her main femoral artery which was sustained over three hours after all her other cuts and bruises. Thereafter Clinton ordered the bodies of all the victims cremated.

29) Barbara Wise, a Commerce Department employee. She was found dead in her locked office, partially nude and covered in bruises, following a long weekend. Officially she is said to have died of natural causes.

30) Christine M Mirzayan, Clinton intern killed on August 1 1998.In the publicity prior to the Paula Jones law suit Newsweek revealed that “a former White House staffer” with the initial “M” was about to go public with a story about sexual harassment at the White House. Thereafter Christine was found beaten to death with a heavy object near Georgetown University, Washington.

31) Mary Mahoon was another former White House intern who was about to go public with a story of sexual harassment at the White House. Before she could though some unknown characters entered a Washington Starbuck’s, where she was working, and shot her dead. Her two assistants’, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory Evans were taken to a room along with Mary and pumped full of bullets. Mary was shot in the chest, face and back of the head, probably with silencers as nobody in the densely populated area heard anything. Even though the killers left $4000 in the cashbox untouched, the police categorized the killings as a robbery whilst acknowledging its “execution style”.

As reported in the previous issue of the Seeker four members of Delta Force have recently died in training “accidents”. They were Lt Col Anthony A. Boyles and Sgt Eric Ellingson, killed in river “training accidents.” Master Sgt Gaetano Cutino, killed while “exiting” from a helicopter. And Sgt Jamey Dimase killed while participating in marksmanship training. These were the men who had actually gone into the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and carried out the killings of 86 men, women and children. These men were hardened professional killers, yet even they had been disturbed by what they had been ordered to do and actually done. So much so that given immunity from prosecution they had been prepared to come forward and testify. Although Paul Wilcher does not name them in his report these were the very individuals whose testimony could have demolished Clinton’s Presidency.

The Wilcher Report was buried along with Paul Wilcher and for a while things went on as before, in other words the killings went on and on. Then in 1999 the Wilcher Report resurfaced, when Attorney General Janet Reno was told she expressed “total anger”. According to unnamed eyewitnesses quoted in the Drudge Report: “Her face was flushed, she was clearly shaken.” In the following months the four Delta Force men all died in “training accidents”: to quote Paul Wilcher, “to silence their testimony forever.”

Gennifer Flowers was a bit smarter. She had a 12 year affair with Clinton, in its aftermath her apartment was broken into and ransacked and she and her mother received threatening phone calls. Realising that she was in danger she assumed a higher profile, launched legal proceedings against Clinton and embarked on a series of media appearances. Smart girl, it was probably this that saved her life, had she not done so she too would have been on this list. Finally it should be noted that this is only a partial list, for a more comprehensive picture we would refer you to some of the sources listed below.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=14

Well old Mr. John Doe the furriner thinks this is garbage.

Hey Johnny can you refute any of this? If not piss off, oh and BTW you've got to have some sort of rep power built up to affect me when you neg me.

Either refute these facts or bow out of this argument.

[OCA]

It is absolutely astounding how uneducated and misinformed the furriner John Doe is about my government and how it functions and the actual historical record of my government particularly the congress. The HOR convicts, the senate decides to remove or not.

Here is the official record:

Clinton, William Jefferson (President, 1998-99) -- Result: Impeached
Impeachment Citations
Congressional Record and Predecessors
105/2 Record H453, S6, S19, S468, S625-628, S638-639, S706;
H582, H584, H616, H618, H840, H880-881, S803-805, S1195-1197;

H919, H1155, H1172, H1242, H1286, H1302-1303, H1332-1334, S1817-S1819;

H1417, H1452, H1557, H1650, H1686, S2696-2699;

H2126, H2442, H2444, S3581;

H2752, H2819, H3074, H2821, S5427-5429;

H4482, H4539;

H4641, H5253, H5267, S6436;

H5641, S8466-8468;

H5969, H6065, H6420, H6515, H6869, H6884, H7426, S9542-9544;

H7435, H7468-7469, H7480-7485, H7498, H7557, H7581, H7611-7613, H7617, S10231, S10233;

H7619, H7675, H7698-7699, H7786, H7811, H7889, H7895, H7903-7910, H7926-7930, H8073-8075, H8079, H8464, H8502, H8516-8522, H8623, H8720, H8974;

H9087, H9595, H9648, H9651, H9669-9680, H9729, H10008, H1015-10032, H10083-10120, H10223, H10511, H10527, S11189, S11952-11958;

H11749-11752 H11768, H11774-11783, H11785, H11788-11795, H11797-11798, H11803, H11897, H11808, H11812-11815, H11818-11832, H11837, H11847-11849, H11853, H11857-11864, H11867, H11879-11880, H11882-11885, H11988, H11893-11895, H11897, H11900-11907, H11909-11919, H11931, H11933-11936, H11938, H11951, H11953, H11959-11960, H11968, H11950, H11953, H11959-11960, H11968-12043;

S12996;

106/1 Record H6, H211-217, H309, S5, S8-9, S31, S39-40 [Senate trial proceeding S41-42, S50-51, S59-251, S259-279, S281-301, S312, S483-495, S720, S729-733, S810-849, S869-892, S933-960, S961-974, S991-1010, S1017-1018, S1069-1074, S1105-1109, S1117, S1199, S1207-1254, S1289-1318, S1329, S1337-1365, S1385-1388, S1406, S1411-1412, S1437-1438, S1452, , S1457-1460, S1462-1637, S1669-1671] S1651-1652, S1682, S1703-1723, S1790, S1793-1794, 1799

Serial Set Reports and Documents
See Congressional Committee Hearings, etc.
Y4: Hearings, Prints; and [Unpublished Hearings]
98 H520-6 through H520-12;
98 H521-29;

98 H522-3, 4, 6, 12, 13;

98 H523-40, 44;

98 H681-5; 98 S680-2;

99 H521-1 through H521-3;

99 H522-1, 2;

99 S920-1 through 920-28

Resolutions
105 H.Res. 525, 531, 545, 546, 581, 611, 614;
105 S.Res. 276;

106 H.Res. 10;

106 S.Res. 2, 16, 17, 30, 37

Note
Lying to Grand Jury, obstruction of justice, and other charges. References cover 1998-99 impeachment proceedings. Previous Whitewater and other peripheral investigations are not included.
Page produced on: 08/04/1999

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/research_resources/impeachment/

[OCA]

Johnny are you just not that smart? Or are you purposely obfuscating? Maybe you should stick to lecturing us on the House Of Commons, American government just isn't your cup of tea.

[Kathianne]

We KNOW what he lifted. He lifted 5 copies of the same document, writen by Clarke.

Yes, 5 Copies of the SAME document, is what the Final investigation on this concluded. Also stated in the final investigation report, it confirmed that these 5 COPIES, were just that, copies, and that the archive had the document he stole on hard disk.

But why was he removing 5 copies of the same document? I wonder what was in this one document? It is like he thought he could "scrub" this one document from the records?

Actually, all that was what he admitted to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001344_pf.html


Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept.

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; A13

In a chandeliered room at the Justice Department, the longtime head of the counterespionage section, the chief of the public integrity unit, a deputy assistant attorney general, some trial lawyers and a few FBI agents all looked down at their pant legs and socks.

While waving his own leg in the air in illustration, Paul Brachfeld, inspector general of the National Archives and Records Administration, asked the group rhetorically if "something white" could be easily mistaken if it was wrapped around their legs, beneath their pant legs.

Under debate during the Nov. 23, 2004, meeting was Brachfeld's contention that President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants, as National Archives staff member John Laster reported witnessing.

Brachfeld said he was worried that during four visits in 2002 and 2003, Berger had the opportunity to remove more than the five documents he admitted taking. Brachfeld wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger's actions -- in combination with a bungled Archives response -- might have obstructed the commission's review of Clinton's terrorism policies.

The Justice Department spurned the advice, and some of Brachfeld's colleagues at the Archives greeted his warnings with accusations of disloyalty. But more than three years later, as Brachfeld and House lawmakers have pushed new details about Berger's actions onto the public record -- such as Berger's use of a construction site near the Archives to temporarily hide some of the classified documents -- Brachfeld's contentions have attracted fresh support.

A report last month by the Republican staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said for the first time that Berger's visits were so badly mishandled that Archives officials had acknowledged not knowing if he removed anything else and destroyed it. The committee further argued that the 9/11 Commission should have been told more about Berger and about Brachfeld's concerns, a suggestion that resonated with Philip Zelikow, the commission's former executive director.

Zelikow said in an interview last week that "I think all of my colleagues would have wanted to have all the information at the time that we learned from the congressional report, because that would have triggered some additional questions, including questions we could have posed to Berger under oath."...

[Gaffer]

Your maturity astounds me! ;) :poke:

Your blind partisanship astounds me.

[JohnDoe]

Johnny are you just not that smart? Or are you purposely obfuscating? Maybe you should stick to lecturing us on the House Of Commons, American government just isn't your cup of tea.


Oh, great! Now you too? Questioning my ''Americanism'', my citizenship?

How low can you go, just to try to make your opponent ''lesser'' than your insecure self, and your thoughtless ''cloned cut and paste'', which you put out, which was created by your mind controlling spinmeisters, to deflect from a serious issue that shows the ''true colors'' of their own political entity, who you give your undivided support and love to, with no real contemplation or thought given to it, it appears?

Hatred, is ugly.

Have a Great Fourth, fellow American. You are forgiven.

[OCA]

Oh, great! Now you too? Questioning my ''Americanism'', my citizenship?

How low can you go, just to try to make your opponent ''lesser'' than your insecure self, and your thoughtless ''cloned cut and paste'', which you put out, which was created by your mind controlling spinmeisters, to deflect from a serious issue that shows the ''true colors'' of their own political entity, who you give your undivided support and love to, with no real contemplation or thought given to it, it appears?

Hatred, is ugly.

Have a Great Fourth, fellow American. You are forgiven.

Can't refute it can you? Didn't think so, there is more than enough factual evidence in each and everyone of these cases so that if Bubba didn't have Washington and Arkansas in his pocket he would've been shanked in the gut a long time ago at some freakin penitentiary.

Johnny i'm not the one who takes pot shots at America from a foriegn country, you decided to do that and as such makes you a furriner and cheapens your opinions.

[JohnDoe]

fyi...

Fitgerald pipes in on Libby commutation:


Office of Special Counsel
Patrick J. Fitzgerald Chicago Office: Dirksen Federal Building Washington Office: Bond Building
Special Counsel 219 South Dearborn Street, Fifth Floor 1400 New York Avenue, Ninth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Washington, DC NW 20530
(312) 353-5300 (202) 514-1187
Please address all correspondence to the Washington Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACT:
MONDAY JULY 2, 2007 Randall Samborn 312-353-5318


STATEMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Statement of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald regarding today’s decision by President
Bush to commute the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby:

“We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are
a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that
prerogative.


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.
Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment,


Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to
seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.”
# # # #

[JohnDoe]

Can't refute it can you? Didn't think so, there is more than enough factual evidence in each and everyone of these cases so that if Bubba didn't have Washington and Arkansas in his pocket he would've been shanked in the gut a long time ago at some freakin penitentiary.

Johnny i'm not the one who takes pot shots at America from a foriegn country, you decided to do that and as such makes you a furriner and cheapens your opinions.

No OCA, I am not going to spend my time ''refuting'' your cut and paste, intentionally MEANT to bring this thread off topic.

I can as easily cut and paste a similar document listing all of the people Bush and Cheney have killed, and the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed which the Far Left has put out... as a ''nanny nanny boo hoo'' to your list of supposed atrosities.

That is below me and below you imo, and below the brain that God gave you to use.

I apologize, for being initially rude, that was wrong of me.

[JohnDoe]

Can't refute it can you? Didn't think so, there is more than enough factual evidence in each and everyone of these cases so that if Bubba didn't have Washington and Arkansas in his pocket he would've been shanked in the gut a long time ago at some freakin penitentiary.

Johnny i'm not the one who takes pot shots at America from a foriegn country, you decided to do that and as such makes you a furriner and cheapens your opinions.

btw, what pot shots have I taken at my own country? NONE! This thread has not been filled with any ''pot shots'' from me, what so ever!

This thread has been filled with discussion on the Libby commutation and a side bar, introduced by your side, on Clinton's purported perjury and obstruction "charges" and his Acquital of such charges, and the Constitution regarding Impeachment, and the duties of Impeachment of both the House and the Senate.

You are wearing on my patience.

[OCA]

btw, what pot shots have I taken at my own country? NONE! This thread has not been filled with any ''pot shots'' from me, what so ever!

This thread has been filled with discussion on the Libby commutation and a side bar, introduced by your side, on Clinton's purported perjury and obstruction "charges" and his Acquital of such charges, and the Constitution regarding Impeachment, and the duties of Impeachment of both the House and the Senate.

You are wearing on my patience.

I'll wear on your patience and discuss whatever the fuck I want in whatever thread I want, understand that newbie?

Clinton is on congressional record as being impeached, the house convicts the senate votes on removal from office, it really is very simple to understand.

Now are you saying there is no merit to any of those charges against Bubba? If so you have lost some grey matter along the way.

America is not your country any longer.

[JohnDoe]

I'll wear on your patience and discuss whatever the fuck I want in whatever thread I want, understand that newbie?

Clinton is on congressional record as being impeached, the house convicts the senate votes on removal from office, it really is very simple to understand.

Now are you saying there is no merit to any of those charges against Bubba? If so you have lost some grey matter along the way.

America is not your country any longer.

you are being a "child".


For your information:

The House Indicts ONLY.

The Senate has the SOLE responsibility to try the President on the Impeachment Charges, according to our Constitution.

So, President Clinton was "Charged" by the house with 2 articles of impeachment. In the House there is no opportunity for the President or whoever is brought up on Impeachment charges, to defend themselves.

The House Impeachment responsibility is to Investigate and bring up "charges" and then to vote on whether they think those charges are worthy to go to the Impeachment trial, in the Senate. it only takes a majority vote to move the impeachment on to the Senate on the individual charges.

The Senate's responsibility is the trial, with our Chief justice presiding over the Impeachment trial, swearing in ALL Senators as JURORS. All the evidence is brought before them, the person being impeached gets to introduce their evidence in defense of the accusations, the Senators review all of the evidence presented from both sides, and individually, come to their decisions on whether the defendant intentionally committed the impeachment crimes that the ''articles'' accuses them of...

2/3's of the Senators must vote guilty of such articles to impeach the president of his crimes, anything less is a not guilty verdict.

In our justice system, it takes 100% of jurors to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66%, as with Impeachment in the Senate trial.

This is recognized by our Constitution. It deals with the partisanship that could take place with impeachment by restricting the punishment for such, with removal from office and government positions ONLY for the President impeached in the Senate Trial,

and states that Charges can be brought against him in a Court of Law later on if the Justice system requests it, which would address punishment, jailtime, if it was required by the due punishment according to the Law.

In this trial, which is considered "more fair", the non partisan jurors must come to 100% agreement on the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66% of the Senators that have to find a president guilty of the Impeachment articles/crimes.

This is just the way it is OCA, it is spelled out in our Constitution. Why don't you know this, if you ARE an American?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

you are being a "child".

For your information:

The House Indicts ONLY.

The Senate has the SOLE responsibility to try the President on the Impeachment Charges, according to our Constitution.

So, President Clinton was "Charged" by the house with 2 articles of impeachment. In the House there is no opportunity for the President or whoever is brought up on Impeachment charges, to defend themselves.

The House Impeachment responsibility is to Investigate and bring up "charges" and then to vote on whether they think those charges are worthy to go to the Impeachment trial, in the Senate. it only takes a majority vote to move the impeachment on to the Senate on the individual charges.

The Senate's responsibility is the trial, with our Chief justice presiding over the Impeachment trial, swearing in ALL Senators as JURORS. All the evidence is brought before them, the person being impeached gets to introduce their evidence in defense of the accusations, the Senators review all of the evidence presented from both sides, and individually, come to their decisions on whether the defendant intentionally committed the impeachment crimes that the ''articles'' accuses them of...

2/3's of the Senators must vote guilty of such articles to impeach the president of his crimes, anything less is a not guilty plea.

In our justice system, it takes 100% of jurors to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66%, as with Impeachment in the Senate trial.

This is recognized by our Constitution. It deals with the partisanship that could take place with impeachment by restricting the punishment for such, with removal from office and government positions ONLY for the President impeached in the Senate Trial,

and states that Charges can be brought against him in a Court of Law later on if the Justice system requests it, which would address punishment, jailtime, if it was required by the due punishment according to the Law.

In this trial, which is considered "more fair", the non partisan jurors must come to 100% agreement on the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66% of the Senators that have to find a president guilty of the Impeachment articles/crimes.

This is just the way it is OCA, it is spelled out in our Constitution. Why don't you know this, if you ARE an American?

I am sorry, you are incorrect. The House votes to Impeach, the Senate votes on whether to remove. No amount of your confusion is going to change that fact. You continually try to state the wrong infomration. Please cut and paste from the constitution your basis for your inaccuracies, and I will gladly admit I am incorrect.

[OCA]

you are being a "child".


For your information:

The House Indicts ONLY.

The Senate has the SOLE responsibility to try the President on the Impeachment Charges, according to our Constitution.

So, President Clinton was "Charged" by the house with 2 articles of impeachment. In the House there is no opportunity for the President or whoever is brought up on Impeachment charges, to defend themselves.

The House Impeachment responsibility is to Investigate and bring up "charges" and then to vote on whether they think those charges are worthy to go to the Impeachment trial, in the Senate. it only takes a majority vote to move the impeachment on to the Senate on the individual charges.

The Senate's responsibility is the trial, with our Chief justice presiding over the Impeachment trial, swearing in ALL Senators as JURORS. All the evidence is brought before them, the person being impeached gets to introduce their evidence in defense of the accusations, the Senators review all of the evidence presented from both sides, and individually, come to their decisions on whether the defendant intentionally committed the impeachment crimes that the ''articles'' accuses them of...

2/3's of the Senators must vote guilty of such articles to impeach the president of his crimes, anything less is a not guilty verdict.

In our justice system, it takes 100% of jurors to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66%, as with Impeachment in the Senate trial.

This is recognized by our Constitution. It deals with the partisanship that could take place with impeachment by restricting the punishment for such, with removal from office and government positions ONLY for the President impeached in the Senate Trial,

and states that Charges can be brought against him in a Court of Law later on if the Justice system requests it, which would address punishment, jailtime, if it was required by the due punishment according to the Law.

In this trial, which is considered "more fair", the non partisan jurors must come to 100% agreement on the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, to find a defendant guilty, not just the 66% of the Senators that have to find a president guilty of the Impeachment articles/crimes.

This is just the way it is OCA, it is spelled out in our Constitution. Why don't you know this, if you ARE an American?

Wrong, i've already provided you with the information you needed to educate yourself, why did you disregard it? Why do you insist on continuing on with your charade?

Bill Clinton is on congressional record as being only the 2nd president in American history to be impeached, the HOR convicted him, the Senate voted on removal, do you not understand the word impeachED?

Please refrain form improperly using the word "our" in regards to America in the future, your cooperation which i'm sure i'll receive will be appreciated.

[JohnDoe]

Wrong, i've already provided you with the information you needed to educate yourself, why did you disregard it? Why do you insist on continuing on with your charade?

Bill Clinton is on congressional record as being only the 2nd president in American history to be impeached, the HOR convicted him, the Senate voted on removal, do you not understand the word impeachED?

Please refrain form improperly using the word "our" in regards to America in the future, your cooperation which i'm sure i'll receive will be appreciated.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

President Clinton was impeached by the HOUSE ONLY, which means the HOUSE charged him with crimes and or misdemeanors.

the HOUSE impeachment process/duties is where the ''charges'' against the president takes place after investigation, the indictments, the citations against the president are presented and voted on by our congressmen.

THESE are ONLY charges, citations and your specific article/link states such!

learn to read what you post!




Clinton, William Jefferson (President, 1998-99) -- Result: Impeached
Impeachment Citations


the Senate and only the Senate, is responsible for the Impeachment trial, where the president gets to defend himself against the crimes/articles of impeachment/indictments, that the HOUSE has accused him of committing.


Article 1, section 3

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.



The Senate, is responsible for judging the crimes the HOUSE presented to them in articles of impeachment, individually.

In Clinton's case, on the HOUSE impeachment citation of perjury, he was found not guilty, and on the impeachment citation of obstruction of justice, he was found not guilty by the Senate.

Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment citations/charges sent to the Senate by the House.

[OCA]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

President Clinton was impeached by the HOUSE ONLY, which means the HOUSE charged him with crimes and or misdemeanors.

the HOUSE impeachment process/duties is where the ''charges'' against the president takes place after investigation, the indictments, the citations against the president are presented and voted on by our congressmen.

THESE are ONLY charges, citations and your specific article/link states such!

learn to read what you post!





the Senate and only the Senate, is responsible for the Impeachment trial, where the president gets to defend himself against the crimes/articles of impeachment/indictments, that the HOUSE has accused him of committing.



The Senate, is responsible for judging the crimes the HOUSE presented to them in articles of impeachment, individually.

In Clinton's case, on the HOUSE impeachment citation of perjury, he was found not guilty, and on the impeachment citation of obstruction of justice, he was found not guilty by the Senate.

Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment citations/charges sent to the Senate by the House.

Again, i'm not sure as to why you are not following along but explain to me the meaning of the word "impeached" in regards to the HOR.

[JohnDoe]

Impeached by the HOR, means that the HOR charged the president with specific crimes or misdemeanors.

It means that the Congressmen believe that there is reason to indict the president of specific crimes or misdemeanors, based on the evidence that the special prosecutor presented to them.

This is a rarity, impeachment charges brought by the House upon a President.

It is not something trivial, and I am not trying to imply that it is, honestly, I am not.

But it is not what you and most of the public were lead to believe, imo, it was sort of twisted, to make political points, or to confuse.

The House of Representatives, found enough credible evidence in their opinion, to basically indict the president on 2 specific crimes, one obstruction of Justice and one Perjury charge, both Felonies under our criminal/justice system...

This, in and of itself is a black mark on Clinton.

This is the same level of there being enough evidence gathered by the prosecutor and the grand jury to indict Libby on the 5 felonies they felt he committed, and libby was convicted of 4 of them after being tried, on 1 of them he was acquitted.

This is also the equivalent of Tom Delay being Indicted. But Tom Delay has not had his day in court, to defend himself on the charges that were brought against him by the DA's grand jury.

So the House Impeachment is an Indictment, with specific Articles of Impeachment prepared to be sent to the Senate for trial listing the suspected crimes individually, one article of impeachment for each crime, or one indictment for each supposed crime.

I guess, I would put the House as having the duty of the "grand Jury", they review all of the evidence gathered by the Prosecutor, take testimony, and then the Grand Jury decides on what crimes warrant an indictment.

This is not a confirmation of any crime, but an accusation that there is probable cause that the defendant might have committed a crime.

The Impeachment in the Senate is the Trial of such crimes submitted by the House, via ''articles of impeachment''.

[OCA]

Impeached by the HOR, means that the HOR charged the president with specific crimes or misdemeanors.

It means that the Congressmen believe that there is reason to indict the president of specific crimes or misdemeanors, based on the evidence that the special prosecutor presented to them.

This is a rarity, impeachment charges brought by the House upon a President.

It is not something trivial, and I am not trying to imply that it is, honestly, I am not.

But it is not what you and most of the public were lead to believe, imo, it was sort of twisted, to make political points, or to confuse.

The House of Representatives, found enough credible evidence in their opinion, to basically indict the president on 2 specific crimes, one obstruction of Justice and one Perjury charge, both Felonies under our criminal/justice system...

This, in and of itself is a black mark on Clinton.

This is the same level of there being enough evidence gathered by the prosecutor and the grand jury to indict Libby on the 5 felonies they felt he committed, and libby was convicted of 4 of them after being tried, on 1 of them he was acquitted.

This is also the equivalent of Tom Delay being Indicted. But Tom Delay has not had his day in court, to defend himself on the charges that were brought against him by the DA's grand jury.

So the House Impeachment is an Indictment, with specific Articles of Impeachment prepared to be sent to the Senate for trial listing the suspected crimes individually, one article of impeachment for each crime, or one indictment for each supposed crime.

I guess, I would put the House as having the duty of the "grand Jury", they review all of the evidence gathered by the Prosecutor, take testimony, and then the Grand Jury decides on what crimes warrant an indictment.

This is not a confirmation of any crime, but an accusation that there is probable cause that the defendant might have committed a crime.

The Impeachment in the Senate is the Trial of such crimes submitted by the House, via ''articles of impeachment''.


No, impeached by HOR means that he was convicted, the Senate simply voted on whether to remove from office and since the Senate Demos abdicated their duty and decided not to remove the serial murderer, adulterer and sexual predator in chief from office we see Bush returning the favor and giving Scooter a pass since...you know........it was all a political witch hunt, right?

I wholly support the president in this move and believe him to be 100% justified.

[Kathianne]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

President Clinton was impeached by the HOUSE ONLY, which means the HOUSE charged him with crimes and or misdemeanors.

the HOUSE impeachment process/duties is where the ''charges'' against the president takes place after investigation, the indictments, the citations against the president are presented and voted on by our congressmen.

THESE are ONLY charges, citations and your specific article/link states such!

learn to read what you post!





the Senate and only the Senate, is responsible for the Impeachment trial, where the president gets to defend himself against the crimes/articles of impeachment/indictments, that the HOUSE has accused him of committing.



The Senate, is responsible for judging the crimes the HOUSE presented to them in articles of impeachment, individually.

In Clinton's case, on the HOUSE impeachment citation of perjury, he was found not guilty, and on the impeachment citation of obstruction of justice, he was found not guilty by the Senate.

Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment citations/charges sent to the Senate by the House.

You do have problems with comprehension. He was IMPEACHED by the House, he was NOT convicted by the Senate.

[GW in Ohio]

Such a shame that Bubba would have two teenage boys whacked just to protect his coke importing business......what did they do?

You're a very sick man, and you should seek professional help.

[JohnDoe]

You do have problems with comprehension. He was IMPEACHED by the House, he was NOT convicted by the Senate.that's what i said?

[OCA]

You're a very sick man, and you should seek professional help.


So you approve of Bubba clipping teenage boys to protect his coke importing business?

[OCA]

that's what i said?

No, he was convicted and impeached by the HOR but not removed from office by the Senate.

[JohnDoe]

No, impeached by HOR means that he was convicted, the Senate simply voted on whether to remove from office and since the Senate Demos abdicated their duty and decided not to remove the serial murderer, adulterer and sexual predator in chief from office we see Bush returning the favor and giving Scooter a pass since...you know........it was all a political witch hunt, right?

I wholly support the president in this move and believe him to be 100% justified.


Absolutely NOT. Impeached by the House does NOT in any way means he was convicted of such crimes. PERIOD.

Only the Senate can find him not guilty or guilty for the Articles of Impeachment.

Maybe this will help explain it better than my own mumbo jumbo?






Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.
If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.
If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.
If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).
The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.
The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.
The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.
After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

President's decision to commute sentence brings out worst in both parties
Bush defied his promise to hold wrongdoers accountable
Sen. Clinton, a Bush critic, was entangled in her husband's commutations

Democrats responded as if they don't live in glass houses, decrying corruption, favoritism and a lack of justice.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Don't miss
Bush commutes Libby's sentence
Judge questions Libby's probation
Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

It's hard to fathom that those pardons had absolutely nothing to do with cronyism or ideology, but Hillary Clinton defended them. She drew a distinction between her husband's pardons and Bush's commutation.
Full Story.............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/unpardonable.politics.ap/index.html

Now President Bush is talking about pardoning Scooter, and I hope he does. Senator Clinton doesn't have any room to talk on this issue. Her husband pardoned a hell of a lot more then President Bush has, and the crimes were even worse then Scooter's, which was just a witch hunt. Also not to mention the Clinton's and the Democratic Parties involvement in Enronand the scandal.

[OCA]

Absolutely NOT. Impeached by the House does NOT in any way means he was convicted of such crimes. PERIOD.

Only the Senate can find him not guilty or guilty for the Articles of Impeachment.

Maybe this will help explain it better than my own mumbo jumbo?

Wrong again furriner. Here in the U.S. us U.S. citizens watched it unfurl before our very eyes, not sure what you furriners did, i'll trust people inside the states like me know what actually did take place.

[Gunny]

Libby was not aquitted by the President?

Libby's Sentence was Commuted by the President, his crimes were not pardoned, his sentence for his crimes was commuted, not acquitted.

Libby is still guilty of 4 felonies. At least until Bush decides to Pardon him later, on his way out, which Bush has left opened as an option. Why he wants to drag this out is beyond me, if he wanted to pardon him instead of commute his sentence then WHY DIDN'T he just do it now? Some say it is because the Whitehouse/Bush/Cheney/Tony Snow can hide behind the fact that since Libby is still appealing the case, THEN they still can say "We can't answer your questions about this issue because it is an on going case..." kind of stuff.

Clinton was found not guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, by a jury, the 100 Senators sworn in as jurors during the impeachment TRIAL.

Libby was found guilty on 4 Felonies, unanimously, by 12 jurors... his 30 month sentence for his combined 4 Felonies was just commuted by the president, and no one really knows why the President did such, when Libby never asked to be commuted? Some believe that it was Libby's payoff by the White house for "taking the fall" for them?

Some believe that this commutation could be continuing obstruction of justice in the Plame case.
We will see...

Yep ... everyone that's been crying crocodile tears and dripping snot all over this thread.

[nevadamedic]

Yep ... everyone that's been crying crocodile tears and dripping snot all over this thread.

:salute:

[JohnDoe]

Yep ... everyone that's been crying crocodile tears and dripping snot all over this thread.It is certainly your perogative to call them ''crocodile tears'', I am clueless how you came to be such a know it all prick, maybe you could fill me in? :cheers2:

[JohnDoe]

Wrong again furriner. Here in the U.S. us U.S. citizens watched it unfurl before our very eyes, not sure what you furriners did, i'll trust people inside the states like me know what actually did take place.

IGNORANCE is Bliss, isn't it?

It's easier for you to fling accusations at me then to do a google and a little bit of research and reading o your own to find out the truth, isn't it?

What you were made to believe by the right wing spin or whomever?, on this, is false.

A conviction by the House is also not constitutional, and not possible.

The House does not have the power to convict a President of an impeachment crime, that duty is the Senates, per the constitution.

[manu1959]

IGNORANCE is Bliss, isn't it?

It's easier for you to fling accusations at me then to do a google and a little bit of research and reading o your own to find out the truth, isn't it?

What you were made to believe by the right wing spin or whomever?, on this, is false.

A conviction by the House is also not constitutional, and not possible.

The House does not have the power to convict a President of an impeachment crime, that duty is the Senates, per the constitution.

if you don't live here why do you care?

[manu1959]

It is certainly your perogative to call them ''crocodile tears'', I am clueless how you came to be such a know it all prick, maybe you could fill me in? :cheers2:

brave over the internet aren't we....

[glockmail]

if you don't live here why do you care?Lib foreigners see the US as a threat to their liberalism. Sort of like blaming your poverty on a neighbor who just bought a nice car.

[JohnDoe]

Lib foreigners see the US as a threat to their liberalism. Sort of like blaming your poverty on a neighbor who just bought a nice car. I'm a "foreigner" now to you too? Pretty bad when the only way to "debate" with an opponent around here is just to make up lies about them, so to "write them off"....??? geez. :(

[glockmail]

I'm a "foreigner" now to you too? Pretty bad when the only way to "debate" with an opponent around here is just to make up lies about them, so to "write them off"....??? geez. :( Based on manu's post I assumed that you were. I aplogize for the error.

[OCA]

I'm a "foreigner" now to you too? Pretty bad when the only way to "debate" with an opponent around here is just to make up lies about them, so to "write them off"....??? geez. :(


Do you currently reside on foriegn soil, yes or no?

[nevadamedic]

brave over the internet aren't we....

:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Do you currently reside on foriegn soil, yes or no?

NO, I live here. I'd rather not say the state I live in on the net, but it is in the northern coastal region. I have lived in over 15 different states. I was born here.

I did live overseas twice in my youth, because my father was transfered and stationed there, both times around 3 years each.

And I have traveled abroad many times, on some awesome vacations! :)

[Kathianne]

IGNORANCE is Bliss, isn't it?

It's easier for you to fling accusations at me then to do a google and a little bit of research and reading o your own to find out the truth, isn't it?

What you were made to believe by the right wing spin or whomever?, on this, is false.

A conviction by the House is also not constitutional, and not possible.

The House does not have the power to convict a President of an impeachment crime, that duty is the Senates, per the constitution.

Where can the House convict in impeachment? When have they tried? Are you saying IF they tried it would be not constitutional, but you think they might? Based on what?

[JohnDoe]

Where can the House convict in impeachment? When have they tried? Are you saying IF they tried it would be not constitutional, but you think they might? Based on what?

If you follow the thread Kathianne, OCA SAID several times in argument with me, that Clinton was CONVICTED of his crimes by the House of Reps. I have been arguing against his comments regarding this....

He refuses to accept this as fact....

[Kathianne]

If you follow the thread Kathianne, OCA SAID several times in argument with me, that Clinton was CONVICTED of his crimes by the House of Reps. I have been arguing against his comments regarding this....

He refuses to accept this as fact....

I've tried to read through it, what I saw is that OCA said Clinton was impeached. He was. He was NOT convicted, by the Senate, which is charged with trials of impeachment.

[JohnDoe]

Story Highlights

President's decision to commute sentence brings out worst in both parties
Bush defied his promise to hold wrongdoers accountable
Sen. Clinton, a Bush critic, was entangled in her husband's commutations

Democrats responded as if they don't live in glass houses, decrying corruption, favoritism and a lack of justice.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Don't miss
Bush commutes Libby's sentence
Judge questions Libby's probation
Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

It's hard to fathom that those pardons had absolutely nothing to do with cronyism or ideology, but Hillary Clinton defended them. She drew a distinction between her husband's pardons and Bush's commutation.
Full Story.............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/unpardonable.politics.ap/index.html

Now President Bush is talking about pardoning Scooter, and I hope he does. Senator Clinton doesn't have any room to talk on this issue. Her husband pardoned a hell of a lot more then President Bush has, and the crimes were even worse then Scooter's, which was just a witch hunt. Also not to mention the Clinton's and the Democratic Parties involvement in Enronand the scandal.

Who performed this "witch hunt"?

The Republican Prosecutor that was picked by the administration?

The 12 jurors that the Libby defence team allowed on the jury?

The Republican Judge that was picked for this case, after Libby's team rejected the 1st judge on partisan reasons?


Please, enlighten me on who performed this Witch Hunt against Libby that you speak about, and is the reason you say he should be pardoned for CLEARLY BREAKING THE LAW, Felonies, 4 TIMES OVER?

[JohnDoe]

I've tried to read through it, what I saw is that OCA said Clinton was impeached. He was. He was NOT convicted, by the Senate, which is charged with trials of impeachment.


No, OCA SAID that Clinton was impeached and CONVICTED BY THE HOUSE for his crimes and the Senate's vote was only to remove him from office.

And OCA, is absolutely INcorrect. Clinton was NOT convicted by the House for his impeachment crimes, he WAS ONLY CHARGED with those impeachment crimes, but found not guilty in the Senate for those crimes. yes, he was still impeached by the house, which means the House found at least 1 crime to "indict" him for.....to "accuse" him of....

[Kathianne]

No, OCA SAID that Clinton was impeached and CONVICTED BY THE HOUSE for his crimes and the Senate's vote was only to remove him from office.

And OCA, is absolutely INcorrect. Clinton was NOT convicted by the House for his impeachment crimes, he WAS ONLY CHARGED with those impeachment crimes, but found not guilty in the Senate for those crimes. yes, he was still impeached by the house, which means the House found at least 1 crime to "indict" him for.....to "accuse" him of....

He was not found 'not guilty', rather correctly IMO, the Senate chose not to convict. The 'incorrect' part though, was the undermining and justified arguments against perjury.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm


William Clinton

On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President William J. Clinton, claiming the president had "willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process." The Senate trial began on January 14, 1999, and once again arguments focused on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Falling short of the necessary two-thirds vote on either article of impeachment (Article I, 55 to 45; Article II, 50 to 50), the Senate acquitted President Clinton on February 12, 1999.

[JohnDoe]

I've tried to read through it, what I saw is that OCA said Clinton was impeached. He was. He was NOT convicted, by the Senate, which is charged with trials of impeachment.

here is JUST ONE of the times he has argued that Clinton was CONVICTED by the House.


Originally Posted by OCA
No, impeached by HOR means that he was convicted, the Senate simply voted on whether to remove from office

and since the Senate Demos abdicated their duty and decided not to remove the serial murderer, adulterer and sexual predator in chief from office we see Bush returning the favor and giving Scooter a pass since...you know........it was all a political witch hunt, right?

I wholly support the president in this move and believe him to be 100% justified.

[Gunny]

It is certainly your perogative to call them ''crocodile tears'', I am clueless how you came to be such a know it all prick, maybe you could fill me in? :cheers2:

I would say the "know it all" part is subjective, while the "prick" part is an absolute.

Rather than boring you with the obvious, how about I just buy you a case a Kleenex ...something you need more than to know the origin of my dislike for whiney-assed libs?

[JohnDoe]

i do know this, and libby was aquitted by the president.....:)

Libby was NOT acquitted by the President, Libby's "sentence" of Jail time was COMMUTED by the president, Libby is still a 4 time FELON, according to the Law.

Let's get the wording and what was done by the President, straight. ;)

[JohnDoe]

I would say the "know it all" part is subjective, while the "prick" part is an absolute.

Rather than boring you with the obvious, how about I just buy you a case a Kleenex ...something you need more than to know the origin of my dislike for whiney-assed libs?

How about I share those Kleenexes with you, it's not above me? :poke: Whiney con! :laugh2:

[OCA]

:)

Libby is still a 4 time FELON, according to the Law.



Until the pardon comes, and it is coming. I assume he'll be reimbursed his 250,000 fine, its the only right thing to do.

[JohnDoe]

Until the pardon comes, and it is coming. I assume he'll be reimbursed his 250,000 fine, its the only right thing to do.


Why didn't the President just Pardon him now, why did he go the route of commuting the sentence, only to later pardon? What PURPOSE or BENEFIT did that serve him?

Why waste TAX PAYER'S money on the Appeal process, or Libby's money for that matter?

Did Clinton commute the sentence of any 4 time felons BEFORE they served a day of their sentence for their crimes, or did he follow "pardon/commutation Protocol" set up by the Justice dept.?

... unlike President Bush's actions with this commutation of a 4 time felon that lied before the grand jury, and to FBI Investigators in an Investigation in to the possible wrong doing of the very Executive branch that the President presides over, (of which Libby worked for....)?

I don't think Clinton did, but I could be proven wrong and I will accept it. And I am NOT defending all of Clinton's pardons
on his last day. I was furious that he pardoned a few of those people, that seemed like he was just using his perk as president for no reason at all!

The republicans supporting this commutation of Libby that were in office during the Clinton Impeachment Process are being HUGE HYPOCRITES, and there is no other way to state it.


Rep. Henry Hyde

On the opening day of the Senate's proceedings, I suggested that the Senators had become "stewards of the oath." I was referring in particular to the judicial oath, the act of promising before God almighty to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


Guess that doesn't matter if it is a whitehouse aid and righthand man, who took the fall by obstructing Justice, lied to cover the VP's connection to releasing Valerie Plame's name and occupation, which through evidence presented at the trial, PROVEN.....to be lies and obstruction?

[Kathianne]

Why didn't the President just Pardon him now, why did he go the route of commuting the sentence, only to later pardon? What PURPOSE or BENEFIT did that serve him?

Why waste TAX PAYER'S money on the Appeal process, or Libby's money for that matter?

Did Clinton commute the sentence of any 4 time felons BEFORE they served a day of their sentence for their crimes, or did he follow "pardon/commutation Protocol" set up by the Justice dept.?

... unlike President Bush's actions with this commutation of a 4 time felon that lied before the grand jury, and to FBI Investigators in an Investigation in to the possible wrong doing of the very Executive branch that the President presides over, (of which Libby worked for....)?

I don't think Clinton did, but I could be proven wrong and I will accept it. And I am NOT defending all of Clinton's pardons
on his last day. I was furious that he pardoned a few of those people, that seemed like he was just using his perk as president for no reason at all!

The republicans supporting this commutation of Libby that were in office during the Clinton Impeachment Process are being HUGE HYPOCRITES, and there is no other way to state it.




Guess that doesn't matter if it is a whitehouse aid and righthand man, who took the fall by obstructing Justice, lied to cover the VP's connection to releasing Valerie Plame's name and occupation, which through evidence presented at the trial, PROVEN.....to be lies and obstruction?

I certainly agree that Bush should have just pardoned Libby and been done with it.

There is enough dirt and always has been regarding pardons and commutations, yet it's always stood and regardless of all that talk, will remain.

As for Clinton, his were certainly something else.

Roger accused of selling, not to mention himself being pardoned for cocaine and other problems. Yes, he served his term, but would be convicted again within a year and no longer have the 'previous sentence' factored in:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/burton.rich.02/

Then there was the FALN problem, an early terrorist group that Hillery had a soft spot for. Bill commuted the sentences of 16 of those members, with a promise of 'renouncing violence':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_%28Pue rto_Rico%29

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/gro/hgo60935.000/hgo60935_0.HTM

[glockmail]

Why didn't the President just Pardon him now, why did he go the route of commuting the sentence, only to later pardon? What PURPOSE or BENEFIT did that serve him?

Why waste TAX PAYER'S money on the Appeal process, or Libby's money for that matter?

...

He's just waiting for a news cycle that he wants to bury before he completes the job. :rolleyes:

[nevadamedic]

I would say the "know it all" part is subjective, while the "prick" part is an absolute.

Rather than boring you with the obvious, how about I just buy you a case a Kleenex ...something you need more than to know the origin of my dislike for whiney-assed libs?

:laugh2: