Above the Law....

Witch hunt or not, George Bush created his own destiny. Conservatives are the ones that are fully within their rights to throw this pseudo conservative out of office, after pandering votes from the Christian faith, then becoming the liberal that he is.

 

Actually, I don't watch the news. I no longer have any news channels and I don't watch network news at all. I don't listen to any talk radio except for Jim Rome on occasion and local sports shows. I occasionally (if I am in the car) listen to the local morning show with Paul W. Smith. My total radio/tv news time in a week is generally less than an hour.

I wouldn't know how to begin searching for something like that. But your comments led me to think you were talking about someone on this board, and I hadn't seen it so I was wondering who.

Tone? How do you pick tone up from gray words on a blue background? You should read closer. My post suggested that I was curious as to who you were talking about. I didn't think you lied. I just didn't know who you were talking about, which was why I asked.

Don't be so testy and judgmental. Just because we disagree on some stuff doesn't mean you should read the worst into everything I say. Believe it or not, when you get your bias out of the way, I am generally a pretty nice guy.

I listen to none of them. I have never heard Snow (aside from a few press briefings), Savage, or Ingram (isn't in Ingraham though?). I have heard OReilly less than one hour total during his whole broadcasting career and can't stand to listen to him. The only time I heard his radio show, Napolitano was guest hosting. I haven't listened to Rush for longer than five minutes in probably eight years or more.

I have not seen anything from any of these people. But silent or supporting? That's a pretty wide range. Is it your view that anyone who does not openly condemn the Libby commutation (that left the jury verdict, fine, and probation in place) is in favor of it?

I don't think there was anything egregious in commuting the sentence. I think Democrats are hypocrites to complain about prison overcrowding because of white collar criminals in prison (as some did on the Tavis Smiley debate pandering to a black audience) and then complain that prison isn't being populated by Libby (the ultimate white collar crime ... covering up something that never happened to begin with).

I am kind of wondering why you think Libby should have so much greater a punishment than Clinton had for doing the same thing? (Except Clinton lied by saying something didn't happen when it did. Libby lied about saying something didn't happen when it didn't, apparently.)

Clinton didn't get any jail time and didn't lose his job. He paid less of a fine. So in the end, I don't really care. But I wonder about why you think Libby's sentence should not have been commuted.

 

:laugh:

Very succinct.:thumbs:

No need to wonder. I believe MP believes Clinton should have gotten a pass because he lied about a "personal matter", even though it was for personal gain.

Libby apparently lied about a political matter for no gain at all, since he wasn't the leaker.

 

It's interesting, but I have noticed that for the most part (don't get your {collective your} panties in a wad) liberals rarely reject their beliefs once formulated, regardless of facts, but conservatives (witness the conservative rejection of Bush AND the R party elite) will shift their opinions in light of the new-found evidence.

Pastor Larry seems to fit, as do I, and several others as we have shifted from support for this POTUS to a condemnation of his actions and policies.

There are exceptions on both sides, but overall I think it's as I describe.

BIG QUESTION---WHY??

 

The lying is immaterial. All politicians are expected to lie.

The impeachable offense is Bush publically stating that he will ignore the Constitution and the acts of Congress and that he orders the administrative branch of govt to ignore the Constitution and the acts of Congress.

 

Wow. I didn't hear this statement. When did he say this?

 

He didn't.

It's a very liberal paraphrase with a heavy dose of opinion.

 

Surely if Bill Wald said the president said something, then the president must have actually said it. Surely no one would resort to outright lying would they, even to gain political points?

 

Bush haters do it all the time.

 

Nope. But it wouldn't surprise me at all.

OK, I misread your intent...easy to do. I was deriving tone from syntax.

If I came across as testy, I apologize. It is a debate forum. I have no doubt you are a fine fellow, as am I. If we knew each other in real life, we'd likely be on friendly terms. Political debate can sound rude at times.

Of course not, but sometimes silence speaks volumes, especially from this usual cast of characters and their criticism and political witch hunt of President Clinton.

I never said that I think Libby should have a greater punishment than Clinton, so I don't know where that is coming from. However the crime itself, while the same, is one of greater degree from Libby. Clinton lied about a sexual encounter (shouldn't have done it either); Libby obstructed justice about the unmasking of a covert CIA agent to further a political agenda. Much worse IMO...just as one who steals a loaf of bread and one who robs a bank are both thieves and guilty of stealing, it is a matter of degree.

In any case Larry, I wish you a wonderful remainder of the weekend. Don't let political dialogue get to you personally. It is just politics...we are both people who no doubt love our country and our fellow man, even though we have varying viewpoints of how best to accomplish a better world.

 

Well said, MP. NOthing personal here. I enjoy the dialogue, even in heated disagreement. Have a great rest of the Lord's day.

 

It doesn't make it unlawful to deny it either.

President Is Denied Executive Privilege

By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm


A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.

In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said.

The decision made Clinton the first president to take a claim of executive privilege to court and lose since the dramatic Watergate showdown in 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Richard M. Nixon to turn over the secret Oval Office tapes that ultimately led to his resignation. Clinton's case also seems headed for the high court as sources indicated that the White House likely will appeal.

Johnson's ruling could amount to a significant political as well as legal setback for Clinton, lending ammunition to Republican critics, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who have charged that Clinton is trying, in Nixonian fashion, to impede Starr's investigation with invalid privilege claims.

 

Correct. Why? He foolishly tried to cover up his consultations on a "personal" matter, not official government matters.

Care to quote the occasions when the courts agreed with the use of "executive privilege"? Clinton won far more times than he lost. Especially when his reasons were legitimate.