Watergate revisited

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

/daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.)

Speaking of legacies:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

You **** me off, Dave. *Scott* was supposed to post to roff this
horrible news on Libby. I had a lot of money on it. You were a close
second, if that helps.

d;o)

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

/daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice
legacy.)

Speaking of legacies:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

You **** me off, Dave. *Scott* was supposed to post to roff this
horrible news on Libby. I had a lot of money on it. You were a close
second, if that helps.

d;o)





Sorry you lost your bet, Dave. I was just happy with the conviction, but
I never expected him to serve a day in prison.

Of course, there seem to be many who believe that the commutation was to
keep Libby from opening the lid on the outright lies out of Cheney's
office about the run-up to the incompetently managed war (hell, if you're
going to hold an illegal war, at least go out of your way to win the damn
thing). I don't share such concerns, as I think Libby would have said
anything, and Cheney no longer cares if these things come to light, as
we're reaching the times when him and his buddies have stolen all the
money from the people that they could reasonably expect to.

However, as soon as I heard the news, I immediately knew that a rousing
chorus of "Clinton Too" would be coming from your side of the room, and
you didn't disappoint.

Dave, it's the in thing now to be a true conservative that jumps off the
Bush bandwagon. The man is ruining your party. He kept telling the
party leadership he knew what he was doing, when what he really meant was
"bend over, here it comes". His entire strategy is to steal money, and
then whip up the religious right with meaningless issues. His lying and
incompetence cost you guys the Senate and the House, and unless you're
party does something, the next election will really slam down the lid,
not to reopen for decades. I long for the day when you say "I don't like
Bush"-- it'll even be ok if you follow it up with "I don't like Clinton
even more". Try it. You'll feel good. Maybe it will prep you, and you
won't get quite as ill on the day you wake up and Hillary is POTUS.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Wow. Such a verbose reply.

It is the hypocricy I am speaking of, Scott.

Remember Cisneros, Deutch, et al?

I don't mind you being outraged at this decision, but where was the
outrage when Clinton *pardoned* all those crooks. What, something
like 25 or so drug dealers, a couple of terrorists, a few politicians,
and a whole bunch of very bad criminals. Drug dealers! Terrorists!
These were outragious pardons and one can only believe that he lined
his own pockets with them.

All I'm asking is some consistency with your outrage. Instead I get
hypocricy from you and Tatosian. Remember, this is a commutation, NOT
a pardon. He should never have been sentenced to prison. Clinton and
Cisneros lied under oath. They are guilty of the same crime. Did
they get a prison sentence? Libby is now a convicted felon who has to
pay a $250,000 fine. Cisneros and Clinton paid nothing for their
crimes.

Consistency, Scott. It's the only fair way.

And, I *am* surprised that you didn't post the news last night when it
broke.

Ott, have a nice day.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Speaking of legacies:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

OK, now that you've gotten that out of the way, answer us a question
or two, Dave: Do you agree with Bush commuting Libby's sentence? If so,
why? If not, why not?


Chuck Vance (and try to answer without evoking Bill or Hillary,
as neither one is president ... right now)

On 3 Jul 2007 12:44:46 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Maybe it will prep you, and you
won't get quite as ill on the day you wake up and Hillary is POTUS.

Forgot to add: Yeah, and ya wanna bet that she too will be impeached.
Un-****in'-believable. I actually find myself cheering for her to
win, however I doubt she will.

Hypocricy is thy name, Scott.

Dave

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the
Watergate rulings right before an election, huh?

But first, Yet Another Distraction!

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

/daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.)

Interestingly, Libby was one of the attorneys that reviewed and
(unofficially) "signed off" on Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus
Green, and in doing so was called a "distinguished" and "honorable"
attorney by both Clintons in various statements defending the _pardons_.
Some of those statements sounded very much like Bush's official
statement made regarding the _commutation_ of Libby's sentence.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070702-3.html

Hillary may regret opening her cakehole about this one...

TC,
R

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

I don't mind you being outraged at this decision,

I'm not outraged by this decision. I expected it. It's Bush's right, and
I'm a little surprised it wasn't an out-and-out pardon. This
administration has done plenty worthy of outrage. It's a distraction, no
more.

To put things in perspective, I've always thought that if the witch-hunters
weren't so focussed on Whitewater, filegate might have turned into
something huge. This issue is like a Whitewater, and Bush is probably
thankful that its getting the undue attention that it is.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Clinton and
Cisneros lied under oath.

Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. Libby lied under oath
about the Vice President's role in outing a CIA operative (maybe important,
maybe not) because the VP was ****ed about a lie about the the reasons he
started a war being pointed out.

Push comes to shove, a shoplifter stealing a loaf of bread is committing
the same crime as the bigwigs at Enron. Should they have the same
penalty??

Clinton was impeached-- is that "nothing"?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Forgot to add: Yeah, and ya wanna bet that she too will be impeached.


About the same likelihood that she'll end up pardoning Bush or Cheney



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

I'm not outraged by this decision. I expected it. It's Bush's right,
and I'm a little surprised it wasn't an out-and-out pardon. This
administration has done plenty worthy of outrage. It's a distraction,
no more.



Reflecting a little more, it's actually refreshing to watch Bush exercising
a Constitutional power that he actually has, as opposed to his more
standard "let's make them up as we go along" approach.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply