Article

2007-07-03 Home Front: Politix

DU-niks scream, throw things, stamp tiny feet in impotent rage over Libby pardon

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2007-07-03 06:17|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Their objections all seem built around the original lie - that Libby was a traitor for 'outing' Plame. If they were honest about it, and focussed on the actual charges, I could see a point to it, but it is clear it is still just more of what it always was - political grandstanding.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-07-03 07:29|| 2007-07-03 07:29|| Front Page Top

#2 If I was in office, I would go with the strategy that the more the left screams and throws tantrums, the more I would know what I was doing is the right thing to do.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-03 07:48|| 2007-07-03 07:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Mark Levin was calling them the "lefty crash test dummies crawling out of the woodwork". I giggled all the way home.

They'll be geting their seethe on for days, like a rent-a-mob in Multan.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-07-03 07:59|| 2007-07-03 07:59|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe Bush can cause a few cranial arteries to burst if he pardons Nixon again.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 08:02|| 2007-07-03 08:02|| Front Page Top

#5 I read a bunch of comments from a bunch of idiots that don't even know what is going on. All they know is that a republican is getting pardonned instead of going to prison. Many of them keep using the word dictatorship, as if clinton and every other democrat prez didn't issue pardons to suit themselves also.
This whole Bushitler thing is getting tiresome. Do they really think another president will make the world all "flowers and kittens"? If they really do, they are dumber than even I think they are.

Posted by Ho Chi Glealing4328 2007-07-03 08:36|| 2007-07-03 08:36|| Front Page Top

#6 When a Republican is president and the Democrats have a congressional majority, the DUniks want a parliament that can shove the president around and remove him from office for any reason or none.

When a president refuses to be led around by the nose, he's a dictator or an emperor.

Posted by eLarson 2007-07-03 09:43|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-07-03 09:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Some info to balance the discussion...

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

I was amazed at the length of the list.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2007-07-03 10:27|| 2007-07-03 10:27|| Front Page Top

#8 Compare and contrast:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/02/commutation-computations/

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-07-03 10:47|| 2007-07-03 10:47|| Front Page Top

#9 I ain't no donk and yet, as an American, I've got a real problem with special treatment for special criminals. The rule of law means little when a convicted criminal's politics can shield him or her from responsibility for a crime involving lying to investigating law enforcement officers. It's not good. Do you really think this is a good thing?

Posted by Tkat 2007-07-03 13:27|| 2007-07-03 13:27|| Front Page Top

#10 I still say they need to takte th next step and charge Fitz with procutorial misconduct. He knew no crime was committed 5 minutes after he started his witch hunt and should have ended it at that time. Instead he jog right down the path of partisianship in an attempt to catch someone in a lie or mis-statement. I don't think that Libby was intentionally trying to mislead the investigation since he knew that he had committed no crime vis-a-vis outing Plame. I still hope he appeals the verdict and has the whole thing thrown out, makes the goverment pay his legal fees, and gets a fat settlement on top.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-07-03 13:57|| 2007-07-03 13:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Libby was Commuted, not pardoned Tkat. He just doesn't have to serve jail time. It's still on his record, he still had this whole thing attached to his name until the moonbats die of old age, and he still has to pay $250,000 fine. As for the actual charge he was convicted on, perjury, it would have been overturned on appeal. The prosecutor has to PROVE that the person KNOWINGLY lied about conversations. Libby did all the lawyer double-speak and never actually incriminated himself. The prosecutor couldn't prove it at all. The whole real reason he was convicted of anything was because of name, just like Paris Hilton was thrown into jail because of her name when no-name illegals get off 5 times more before serving any jail time.

As for criminals, there are plenty more out there who instead of "Forgetting" a conversation instead stole national secrets. There was a Millionaire guilty of MASSIVE tax evasion in 2000 that Clinton pardoned. His wife donated money to Hillary's Senate campaign and he was pardoned magically. Seriously, if you're going to talk about criminals look for ones who actually committed something heinous.

Did Libby lie? Irrelevant really. They can't prove he did lie and the conviction is a paper tiger at best. If you want to know the whole reason Bush stepped in it's simple: Libby would have to be in jail during his appeal. That's the reason. This will be overturned on appeal and any jailtime he served would be unjust imprisonment I believe. Bush stepped in and saved him from the Prison time only. The appeal still has to be had for the rest.

Posted by Charles 2007-07-03 14:05|| 2007-07-03 14:05|| Front Page Top

#12 As soon as BabyBusHitler is out of office, gumdrops will fall from cotton candy clouds in the ice cream sky.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 14:26|| 2007-07-03 14:26|| Front Page Top

#13 The rule of law means little when a convicted criminal's politics can shield him or her from responsibility for a crime involving lying to investigating law enforcement officers.

True enough as a principle, Tkat, though we might have some disagreements as to the application in this particular case. I think it doubly worse in the case of a president lying under oath, but for some reason the DU types and the other Dems were a lot more lenient about this stuff nine years ago. Wonder why?

Posted by Mike 2007-07-03 14:40|| 2007-07-03 14:40|| Front Page Top

#14 you're right Tkat. As soon as the rule of law applies to the Kennedy family, you bring that outrage back to the table. Until then....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-07-03 20:32|| 2007-07-03 20:32|| Front Page Top

23:53 3dc
23:52 Super Hose
23:50 Eric Jablow
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Super Hose
23:47 Zenster
23:45 Ulavise Scourge of the Antelope7037
23:41 Pappy
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 Pappy
23:36 Super Hose
23:35 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:29 Zenster
23:22 Zenster
23:12 JohnQC
23:08 Zenster
22:56 Mike N.
22:50 trailing wife
22:38 Broadhead6
22:37 wxjames
22:34 JohnQC
22:33 Mike N.
22:28 Broadhead6