- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 31,009
- Reaction score
- 9,029
- Location
- The Lone Star State.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The pardon was in reference to Nixon, here with Hillary I doubt we'll ever see a prosecution!
Which has nothing to do with your rambling thanks.
Surely even with a pardon, she won't be able to hold public office.
Ford pardoned Nixon within a month of attaining office, effectively stopping prosecution.
What makes you think Obama will direct the Department of Justice to prosecute Hillary?
[Please bear in mind President Obama also has directed ICE to *not* deport or prosecute illegal aliens]
Yes... he was charged for "forgetting".let us be certain what the charges were for which scooter libby was found guilty:
There is a very meaningful distinction between the two. A pardon forgives someone of their crimes and wipes their record clean just as if the crime never took place. The commutation handed down by president Bush did not forgive Libby of the crimes he was convicted of and didn't wipe his record clean. What it did was eliminate the 30 month prison sentence, while leaving in place the other penalties handed down by the judge. Libby is still a convicted felon and in my opinion, if the judge had sentenced Libby to a more reasonable prison term, Bush would have never commuted it.
The reason I engaged Absentglare on his use of the word "pardon" wasn't just because it was incorrect, but because the word falsely implies Libby was forgiven for his actions and his record wiped clean by the administration.
I agree totally. Although I understood Bush's reasoning, I was still surprised when he commuted his prison sentence.
BS... Somehow I just knew you would try and defend your misstatement.
actually it did. you asked a question I gave you an answer that proved you wrong as usual.
Wishful thinking on your part.
No, Hillary would have to have lied under oath rather than simply to the public.
Yes... he was charged for "forgetting".
Pursuant to the grand jury leak investigation, Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. He was acquitted of one count of making false statements.
Libby did not leak Plame's name...
Hillary... measured by the Scooter Standard... will make Felonious Bill a free man.
Judith Miller testimony on 2003 meeting with Libby:Libby did not leak Plame's name...
Judith Miller testimony on 2003 meeting with Libby:
Q: Did there come a time following the publication of [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's op-ed [July 6, 2003] that you met with Mr. Libby again?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that?
A: July 8th.
[...]
Q: Was there discussion at any time about Mr. Wilson's wife [Plame] on this occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us what you recall about that?
A: Yes. Mr. Libby was discussing what he called two streams of reporting on uranium and on efforts by Iraq to acquire sensitive materials and components. He said the first stream was reports like that of Joe Wilson. Then he said the second stream, and at that point he said, once again, as an aside, that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at WINPAC.
Q: Can you tell us what WINPAC is?
A: Yes, WINPAC is, stands for Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. It's a part of the CIA which is specifically focused on weapons of mass destruction.
Yours is a fair assessment in historical and political terms, however I wasn't anticipating an official public intervention, but rather the President using his influence behind closed doors.Because Ford's decision to pardon Nixon was based on the idea that the trial of a former President would be devastating to the nation. He knew that doing so would mean the end of his political career, but he chose to do it anyway. Hillary going to trial wouldn't be devastating to the nation, so I doubt that Pres. Obama will protect her. Doing so would mean that there was something that she needed protection from and that would substantially taint her chances of winning and would keep a lot of Dem. voters at home on Election Day. It's a huge negative for the Dem. Machine for the President to intervene. It would also stain Pres. Obama's legacy with something that will destroy his political career, just as pardoning Nixon destroyed Ford's.
True.That's the consensus but, stranger things have happened. Most of us never thought they would come down on Bill either.
you are wrong as usual.
lying to law enforcement is a crime during an investigation.
she lied to the FBI during an investigation that is at least a misdemeanor.
WINPAC is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence. Why is this significant?The thing everyone forgets is, the reason nobody could be prosecuted for leaking Plame's identity is because nobody from the CIA ever informed anyone at the WH that Plame was considered a covert operative. The law clearly states that a person must "knowingly" disclose the identity of a covert operative and to this very day, I have never heard of any documents or testimony that the WH had been informed of such prior to disclosing her role in getting her husband the gig in Africa. Disclosing the name of someone who works for WINPAC at langley is not illegal.
You're not being specific.
Some statements she made to the public turned out to be inaccurate.
You can't use those inaccuracies to declare her guilty of any crime.
read my previous email I was specific. as usual you ignore pretty much everything someone posts
to go on some strawman rant.
so you are telling me that she was not aware that she was using an email server when she said she wasn't?
Hillary has made about a dozen false statements including the fact she never sent any classified info even though
they have thousands of emails that they found that are classified and some above top secret that she sent through there.
she was also caught lying when she said she didn't use it prior a certain date but then it was found out that she was.
it doesn't help that the state department is trying to thwart the investigation by not turning over requested information.
they have plenty to hang her with.
regardless of what she thinks she isn't above the law nor should she be.
I assume you mean here :
Well you seem to be very vague here. Lots of info is determined classified after the fact, lots of that information was propagated by someone else, and it turns out that previous secretaries of state had the exact same "problem" of having some "classified" info on unclassified servers.
She said she wasn't using it as part of her job as secretary of state until March. Sending an email to Petraeus doesn't necessarily qualify.
You can be wrong in a statement if you thought you were accurate at the time.
Your personal opinion is not terribly convincing.
nope not vague at all.
the FBI investigation has found thousands of classified emails that she supposedly never sent.
not to mention she was using the server before when she said she wasn't.
so you have to be completely obtuse to say that she didn't know what she was doing.
if you say that she didn't know what she was then she is incompetent and should never have held the position
to begin with.
if that is the case that alone is enough to disqualify her from presidency.
my opinion is based on FBI investigation facts. sorry you don't like them.
are you wanting us to believe that she didn't know that what she was doing was not correct
even though she was warned to stop doing it?
if so then she is a bigger moron than what we already knew.
Yours is a fair assessment in historical and political terms, however I wasn't anticipating an official public intervention, but rather the President using his influence behind closed doors.
I assume you mean here :
Well you seem to be very vague here. Lots of info is determined classified after the fact, lots of that information was propagated by someone else, and it turns out that previous secretaries of state had the exact same "problem" of having some "classified" info on unclassified servers.
She said she wasn't using it as part of her job as secretary of state until March. Sending an email to Petraeus doesn't necessarily qualify.
You can be wrong in a statement if you thought you were accurate at the time.
Your personal opinion is not terribly convincing.
This isn't something that the President could do "behind closed doors", it's something that by definition would be a public matter. One single FOI request and the whole thing would be blown out of the water.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?