Boy fauxnews is exploding

[vidcc]

Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice :yup:

[zapjb]

He fell on his sword for dick & w. Wait, w will pardon him. Or if the republicans win. Maybe guiliani will.

[vidcc]

Issuing and accepting a pardon would confirm guilt. At this stage Libby's lawyers (and many right wing pundits) are claiming a miscarriage of justice.

[zapjb]

Just wait. If no "miscarriage" is found. PARDON! Bet on it.

[Biggles]

Just wait. If no "miscarriage" is found. PARDON! Bet on it.

Thought GW didn't do forgiveness. :whistling

[ilw]

saw somewhere that the max penalty is 25 years, obviously he won't get anywhere near that for this sort of level of crime, but if he does get any sort of reasonable jail time then i'd bet on a final day pardon from George.
He couldn't let a friend go down for 'fighting the good fight'

[Busyman™]

The Dems should change the pardoning rules.:dry:

Clinton pardoning Mark Rich was a sham.

[vidcc]

The Dems should change the pardoning rules.:dry:

Clinton pardoning Mark Rich was a sham.
I can't see how they would have the votes to do that.

[Busyman™]

The Dems should change the pardoning rules.:dry:

Clinton pardoning Mark Rich was a sham.
I can't see how they would have the votes to do that.

They could try. They could appeal loudly to Republican constituents' sense of logic about corruption and possibly get Republican congressman to vote their way.

The limitless pardoning power allows for too much corruption. It circumvents the court process in appalling ways.

One can break the law helping the President and the President gives them a GOJFC.

If the Dems try to push it through and the Repubs stop them, it'll be yet another thing that Dems can use to say that Repubs don't wanna stamp out corruption.

[vidcc]

Well I've seen many cases put forward for a pardon, most of which have nothing to do with the crime he actually committed and some based just on the fact that they think Libby is "a nice guy" (as the jurist said)

This one really stood out. It seems that one is not guilty upon conviction unless the convicted admits the guilt. Something to think about next time someone is convicted of a murder or rape:dry:
Note the double standard on perjury.


_h96bDhO1k8

I have to say that listening to this shows the importance of an independent judicial system. One where (as in this case) guilt is determined on the facts of the case and the law.


Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice :yup:

Or as foxnews reported it

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/928/libbywy2.jpg :rolleyes:

[bigboab]

Well I've seen many cases put forward for a pardon, most of which have nothing to do with the crime he actually committed and some based just on the fact that they think Libby is "a nice guy" (as the jurist said)

This one really stood out. It seems that one is not guilty upon conviction unless the convicted admits the guilt. Something to think about next time someone is convicted of a murder or rape:dry:
Note the double standard on perjury.


_h96bDhO1k8

I have to say that listening to this shows the importance of an independent judicial system. One where (as in this case) guilt is determined on the facts of the case and the law.


Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice :yup:

Or as foxnews reported it

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/928/libbywy2.jpg :rolleyes:

I think you are not allowed 'parole' on a murder conviction unless you admit guilt. Does not seem fair if someone is genuinely innocent.:(

I seem to remember that Clinton let a friend go down.:cry:

[vidcc]

I think you are not allowed 'parole' on a murder conviction unless you admit guilt. Does not seem fair if someone is genuinely innocent.:(

I seem to remember that Clinton let a friend go down.:cry: The point I was making is that she says he should be pardoned because he says he is innocent. To her that's proof enough and his conviction means nothing.
However in the law an acceptance of a pardon is an admittance of guilt. What she wants is to bypass the jury system and have the president overrule the verdict.

[Ava Estelle]

Bush should be impeached, then he won't be pardoning anyone, and if it was done over the end of next year, there, hopefully, won't be another Rep president to pardon him, as Johnson did with Nixon.

It's about time this whole presidential pardon was either abolished, or each pardon needing a 65% majority in the senate.

[Biggles]

Well I've seen many cases put forward for a pardon, most of which have nothing to do with the crime he actually committed and some based just on the fact that they think Libby is "a nice guy" (as the jurist said)

This one really stood out. It seems that one is not guilty upon conviction unless the convicted admits the guilt. Something to think about next time someone is convicted of a murder or rape:dry:
Note the double standard on perjury.


_h96bDhO1k8

I have to say that listening to this shows the importance of an independent judicial system. One where (as in this case) guilt is determined on the facts of the case and the law.


Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice :yup:

Or as foxnews reported it

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/928/libbywy2.jpg :rolleyes:

I recognise the guy in the bottom picture ... Fred Barnes (I think) I have seen him on my rare visits to Fox. He is a little to the right of a very right thing. Sometimes he gets so irritated with non-right things it looks like his head will explode - superb stuff :lol:

[vidcc]

Bush should be impeached, then he won't be pardoning anyone, and if it was done over the end of next year, there, hopefully, won't be another Rep president to pardon him, as Johnson did with Nixon.

I admit there may be some case I am unaware of and you are talking about a different case, but........ :unsure: ;)



It's about time this whole presidential pardon was either abolished, or each pardon needing a 65% majority in the senate.


I've never been keen on the way it's used and the openness to abuse it has, however I am not convinced that approval from congress makes it anything other than make it more political.
Sure it could prevent political based pardons when the congressional majorities are a different party than the presidents but think what would have been happening if the repubs still held power. (checks and balances)

I think pardons are sometimes appropriate when people do wrong for the right reasons. What qualifies as the "right reasons" is debatable though.

[zapjb]

Bush should be impeached, then he won't be pardoning anyone, and if it was done over the end of next year, there, hopefully, won't be another Rep president to pardon him, as Johnson did with Nixon.

It's about time this whole presidential pardon was either abolished, or each pardon needing a 65% majority in the senate.
Pres. Ford pardoned Nixon. Years later Ford said wanted to spare his friend further pain. Not as he claimed at the time, "To heal the nation."

[Busyman™]

Whenever I see stuff like the lady (she ain't alone in her thinking) in vid's link or watch how people clammor over things like Goji Juice, I lose faith in man to sustain themselves.

[MagicNakor]

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

"News" network, eh?

:shuriken:

[vidcc]

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

"News" network, eh?

:shuriken:

I think it's hilarious the way fox is complaining about the withdrawal from the Nevada democratic presidential debate.