[DADoser]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

Slightly veering off topic - but not by much - here is a list of the recent number of pardons and commutations. I think it is interesting to see how the numbers given have actually decreased lately. Truman and Eisenhower were busy boys.

PARDONS AND COMMUTATIONS

George W. Bush (2001 - )
Pardons -- 13
Commutations -- 4

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Pardons -- 396
Commutations -- 61

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Pardons -- 74
Commutations: 3

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Pardons -- 393
Commutations -- 13

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Pardons -- 534
Commutations -- 29

Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Pardons -- 382
Commutations -- 22

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Pardons -- 863
Commutations -- 60

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
Pardons -- 960
Commutations -- 226

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Pardons -- 472
Commutations -- 100

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Interesting about the numbers for Truman and Ike.

I wonder if there were reasons?

Was Truman dealing with some wrongfull convictions of treason or other crimes against the state during WWII - that maybe after the war were looked at more objectively?

Ike - Were these numbers increased as a result of political procecutions - i.e. McCarthyism/fear of communism???

Anyone know or have any ideas on this. (I know I'm taking us off-topic from Libby/Bush here - but just curious.)

[chiefs70]

I wondered the same thing regarding Ike and Truman. I thought it may have been most related to WWII and especially the "choosing of sides" regarding the division of the world on pro/con communism. I would guess there were a lot of cases of prosecutions for pacifism, perceived aiding and abetting the enemy etc that when viewed with post-war eyes seemed harsh - just a guess.

I also thought that Kennedy's numbers were pretty high considering his short time in office relative to the others. I'll bet there is a list somewhere to look at who all of the pardoned folks were which would prove rather interesting.

[Old Crow]

If anyone is interested, here are a couple links to sites with information regarding Presidential pardons, commutations and amnesty. Pretty interesting stuff, like President Carter commuting the sentence of G. Gordon Liddy for the Watergate break-in and the elder President Bush pardoning Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-Contra mess.

And don't forget President Reagan pardoning George Steinbrenner (sorry Skunky ).

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htmhttp://

http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/Papers/paper3.htm

By the way, if anyone is in need of a pardon, here is the procedure: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

You're kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding. I may be incorrect in my view, but it seems to me that the whole "investigation" was rather pointless, as it had already been determed that Plume (if I remember her name correctly) was NOT an undercover CIA agent at the time she was supposedly "outed," and it was a Democrat who "outed" her...so why the long and expensive investigation. Secondly, Libby was convicted of allegedly lying about a conversation he had some time ago, as the other person (name escapes me at the moment) remembered the conversation differently. Who has perfect memory in such cases? And who is to say Libby's recollection was incorrect. Of course, a jury did, but it all seems pretty iffy to me.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

No, I'm not kidding. I may be incorrect in my view, but it seems to me that the whole "investigation" was rather pointless, as it had already been determed that Plume (if I remember her name correctly) was NOT an undercover CIA agent at the time she was supposedly "outed," and it was a Democrat who "outed" her...so why the long and expensive investigation. Secondly, Libby was convicted of allegedly lying about a conversation he had some time ago, as the other person (name escapes me at the moment) remembered the conversation differently. Who has perfect memory in such cases? And who is to say Libby's recollection was incorrect. Of course, a jury did, but it all seems pretty iffy to me.

Agree with you Captain. This was an absurd case. Most people complain that politicians get away with stuff we "ordinary citizens" would go to jail for. This is exactly the opposite. No way you or I would have been convicted of anything in this case, but Libby was, simply so that a special prosecutor could say he earned his pay after failing to prove anything on the original charges.

What a travesty...

FVD

[DADoser]

What’s funny is –
Every “little” thing in the Bush administration can be pulled out and defended as “no big deal.” But if one can look at the big picture…………………


Here’s what I don’t get in the whole Libby/Plame/Niger/Iraq/etc. affair:

Let's give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. Assuming they were acting on the best information they had at the time. Let’s even give Libby the benefit of the doubt – that he did have faulty memory because he was dealing with so much at the time. (Even though a jury, hearing all the evidence - procecution and defense - saw it differently.)

The Iraq war was launched on March 19, 2003. The tipping point for support of this war with the American people seemed to be the danger of WMDs – “mushroom cloud.”

May 1, 2003 - President Bush announces “Mission Accomplished” (I know that the later spin is that “Mission Accomplished” was meant for that carrier and its crew – but if one is honest, then that televised speech to the nation/photo op was taken as a larger message that for the crew of that ship. And as “expert” as this Administration’s communication/PR team was – they knew exactly the message they were presenting to the American people.)

July 6, 2003 – Ambassador Wilson’s Op ed. piece “What I didn’t find in Africa” is published in the NY Times.


Why did the Administration put sooo much time/effort into discrediting Joseph Wilson and his opinion.? They knew they would find the WMD’s. Rumsfeld had even talked at press conferences as if he pretty much knew where the WMD’s were located. Major combat operations were over. This seemed to be BEFORE the insurgency really started escalating. Why couldn’t the Administration simply wait until the WMD’s were found and then present the evidence to the American people, then making Wilson look like an ass?

We were/are in a war “of civilizations” between the West and Fundamental Islam? Bin Laden was (is) still at large. Al Queda was/is alive and active on the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan. And this Administration is putting THAT much time/effort into discrediting Joseph Wilson? (Joseph Wilson who served as ambassador to Iraq under Bush ’41 and was actually pretty heroic in standing up to Saddam in order to get American out of that country in Gulf War I.)

Again, If this Administration is/was confident in their evidence of WMD’s – why the rush or even need to discredit Wilson?

What reasonable/objective conclusions can one come to? (Again giving this administration the benefit of the doubt on pre-war intelligence.)

1. By July 6th, this Administration knew WMD’s did not exist in Iraq and would not be found? (Covering that they acted on bad intel.)

2. With the election coming up in November and any challenge to the Administration’s credibility had to be the #1 priority for re-election – Was this a bigger priority than the actual War on Terror itself?

3. Was there no actual administrative/governmental need to discredit Wilson, only a political one?

4. If this Administration didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, Why didn’t they just come out in the beginning on July 7th, 2003 (the day after Wilson’s op ed was printed) and counter Wilson openly and directly. Why the need to play the “secrecy” game? Info leaked on “background?” They never had a problem going after critics openly before (or since.) Wouldn’t the way they countered Wilson suggest there was something wrong in what they were doing? If one has something to hide, they do it in the dark. Why couldn’t Wilson have been countered in the “light.”

Plame Leak Timeline:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline

Niger Uranium Timeline:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/niger-uranium.php



I’d just like to see an Administration (Democrat or Republican) concentrate on actually running the country effectively; To actually get re-elected on their administrative competence, and actual accomplishments vs. their PR/rhetorical competence.

I understand folks wanting to defend/make excuses for these folks because they are your “team” – but I don’t know what they’ve done to make true conservatives proud?

What (objectively) has this Administration actually accomplished successfully (with a majority Republican congress for most of the time)?

Prescription Drug Reform? (That's ended up costing a fortune - that was hidden from the congress that passed it) Social Security Reform? Afghanistan? (is there not a Taliban resurgence?) Bin Laden brought to justice? Saudi and Pakistani terror connections rooted out? N. Korea? Iran? Katrina response? Iraq War? (Even if you agree we should be there, it has been waged incompetently. Anyone that seems to have been right was either ran out or didn’t say anything .– Zini? If this was a war of civilization – it sure hasn’t been fought that way.) Military neglect? (non-partisan experts, “outside the system”, I hear/read anyway point to non-replaced equipment and multiple tours.) Terry Schiavo? Immigration reform?

(I’m sure the first answer for a “win” by this administration is the appointment of 2 supreme court justices. While this is a “win” – it’s kind of like a winning by getting out of bed in the morning. 2 Justices leave. Republican President nominates. Republican senate approves. And Bush almost screwed that up by appointing Harriet Meirs! )

Don’t let me get started on congress (BOTH parties) – who would rather spend time politically on “Defense of marriage”; flag burning (incidents that occur on an average less than 5 time per year within the U.S.); and abortion (which they could address by passing a law against it instead of passing the buck to the Supreme court.) legislation……WHEN WE ARE AT WAR! (And if one believes the politicians – a crisis as great as when we faced Hilter/Japan/Mussolini in WW2)

I think maybe state/local government can deal with Marrige, abortion, gay rights, Terry Schiavo, flag burning, etc, I think the Federal Government could focus on the bigger issues of national defense. (And that, by –the- way in a founding Fathers/Constitutional/conservative point of view.)

Let’s run down some pillar conservative values and see how this Administration stacks up?

1. Nation building/spreading democracy – previously failed liberal idea – see President Wilson post WWI. Failed.

2. Small government – Bush has expanded the federal government. Look at the numbers – its not just defense. “No Child Left Behind”, prescription drug bill, etc. – a true conservative would advocate these should be left to the states or individuals. Failed.

3. Fiscal responsibility/cutting taxes/pay as you go – Sure they cut taxes – but if budget/spending doesn’t go along with it, it isn’t conservative. “Cut and borrow” is just as bad as “Tax and Spend.” Failed

4. Federal government staying out of your private life – Failed.

5. Secure borders – Failed. (However – probably no administration in recent history has passed this one. Not even Reagan.)


I’m with Pat Buchanan on this: There is NO CONSERVATIVE PARTY in AMERICA RIGHT NOW. At some point I’d like to see the conservatives in the Republican Party take their party back on strong fundamental conservative principles. As long as Republicans “carry water” for the team, instead of standing for true conservative principles, the GOP hurts itself and the country as a whole – literally with increased deficits and figuratively in other areas

(The fact that ANY criticism of this Administration – even when it is based on conservative/objective data – is met with accusations of being “liberal,” “unpatriotic,” or “not supporting the troops” – is an indication of the failure of this administration. Their competence/actions would silence the critics. They would not have to rely on rhetoric, spin, and name calling as counter arguments to their incompetence/failure.)

At some point, I hope, we as a nation will stop worrying about “our” party winning and start thinking about the country winning. At some point, practicality in governance has to win out over entrenched ideology (from BOTH sides). Politically America is resembling the trench warfare of WWI. I’m just waiting for someone to rise above the trenches and lead this country in a Blitzkrieg of practical, effective, competent governance.


Pro conservative principles/anti current Republican Party rant over……………
Back to diecast.

[FormerViperDriver]

DaDoser, what you say is interesting but it has NO relevance as to whether Libby should go to prison. He was not convicted of leaking anything.

FVD

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

DaDoser, what you say is interesting but it has NO relevance as to whether Libby should go to prison. He was not convicted of leaking anything.

FVD

No, he was, and still is convicted of perjury.


"As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration." Orin Kerr 7/307.


The CIA refered the case to the Justice Dept. because they thought a crime had occured - leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. The Justice Dept. recused itself and sent it to a special procecutor.

From the mouth of Patrick Fitzgerald Oct. 28, 2005 - press conference announcing Libby indictment:

..."Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. ...

...In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts....

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs. ...


...why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime. ...."

1 - The CIA seems to think their agent's identity was "classified.:
2 - The procecutor says the CIA agent's identity was "classified."
3 - The procecutor also said he couldn't get to the the "leaking" charge because - in his analogy - Libby's obstruction of justice threw sand in the umpire's eyes.

"Because there was no charged crime of leaking a classified agents identity - means there was no leaking of a CIA agent's identity. therefore Plame's identity was NOT classified - i,e, "Plame was not a covert agent" does not follow the logic of this case. It follows the spin of the Administration and pundits. The "obstruction of Justice" OBSTRUCTED the legal system getting to the facts - period.

[FormerViperDriver]

Yeah, yeah, I heard that little speech live when it happened. To say that the truth couldn't be known because one guy, Libby, lied and/or hid something is just about the most absurd thing one can say in this case. There were far too many other players. To say that it all hinged on Libby is sooooo lazy, it's unbelievable. The real truth is there was no case, either that or the special prosecutor and his team weren't able to put one together because they weren't competent (pick one).

FVD

[Cardinal]

DADdoser, your posts are welcomed as being both well reasoned and as objective as possible given the potentially contentious nature of this thread. The problem with this type of debate is that it all too often generates into 'taking sides' with the regrettable consequence that facts and logic become the first casualties .