Letters to the Editor
-
Attention James Somers
It is customary for outgoing presidents to pardon people convicted of various crimes. The standard procedure is for the outgoing president to receive recommendations for pardons, then make his selections.
In the case of Mark Rich, the recommendation for pardon came from a Mr. I. Lewis Libby.
And it was opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice, but Clinton did it anyway. As was his exective clemency of Puerto Rican terrorists who part of an organization responsible for more than 30 bombings, 4 deaths, and dozens of maimings. Yet Clinton did it anyway to help Hillary's NY senate campaign. (And spare me the drivel that Hillary opposed this: she was also supposedly a lifelong Yankees fan. She "opposed" it purely for political cover while still benefiting from it.)
Then Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.
Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.
Please stop trying to dismiss this, folks. It is not irrelevant. It shows that the Olbermanns of the world are complete hypocrites, because he and his ilk were totally silent when this money/political benefit-for-pardons scheme was going on.
The issue is and remains the complete hypocrisy of Olbermann, Pelosi, Hillary (!) and the Salonistas.
-
morons on parade
Who do we have to rely on for the veracity of this tale [about Richard Armitage], Bob Novack a premier political hack if ever there was one and of course Armitage who is described as a gossip. --Stagger Lee
Um, there's the small matter that this fact is verified and admitted to by Prosecutor Fitzgerald himself.
Really, can you be that dumb?
-
Don't you wish we had it on YouTube
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Happy July 4th! A republic...if you can keep it.
-
To Hornet Driver and philliejoe...
I posted this at the thread in response to Sidney Blumenthal's piece on "Bush and Cheney walk, too" but Hornet Boy didn't respond there so I guess the point has to be repeated:
I would buy the absurd Mark Rich argument, IF Mark Rich had been a member of Bill Clinton's White House staff. But he wasn't. And as far as I can recall, Bill Clinton never pardoned (or commuted the sentence of) any member of his staff.
Bush just did, and not just any member of the White House staff, but his Vice's Chief of Staff - a man who lied and - say it along with me - OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
So comparing Bush's actions on behalf of Scooter with Clinton's pardoning of anyone is simply another phony Right Wing Talking Point. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere, trolls.
Aside to philliejoe: If Ronald Reagan can metamorphosize into a president (or a fair facsimile of one), I think Keith Olbermann can go from being a sportscaster to someone who speaks truth to power without any problem.
-
just to recap...aka the twisted logic of a neocon
1)Keith Olbermann is nothing but a sportscaster who has no credibility to speak of such matters...
2)Keith Olbermann never spoke out against Clinton's pardons, so that makes him a hypocrite.
but wasn't he naught but a sportscaster in '98?
apparently for Olbermann to have any legitmacy he should've been screaming down the house at ESPN all about Clinton's pardons instead of telling us about Sosa and McGwire. However, if he was as insane to actually do that in '98, he would've been pilloried for not knowing his place...
oh the logic is beginning to implode...it's starting to sag under the weight of its sheer insanity/audacity. Maybe good times really are on the way!
-
SWKirby
No, sir, what Clinton did with many of his actions benefitted him and Hillary personally and politically. And the crimes were far greater (bombing, murder, drug pushing, defrauding investors) than a he-said, she-said battle with a politicized prosecutor and politicized jury.
The verdict came down to one thing: whom do you believe, Tim Russert or Scotter Libby. Well, the jury had already admitted before the trial was over that they were ready to convict not just Libby but Cheney and Rove, who weren't charged with any crime. And the prosecutor knew before he ever indicted Libby that no crime had been committed, but the only other people on earth who knew that, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell, were told to keep quiet.
That is prosecutorial abuse, plain and simple.
And chief and foremost, as I've said over and over, is the issue is the hypocrisy. The Dems and Olbermann and their ilk were absolutely silent during Clinton's pardons-for-personal-benefit. Their outrage is fake and politically motivated, which makes it even more sickening.
-
Bush 43 is certainly consistent
Adam Liptak in a New York Times article today said, “In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.”
The great Decider didn't consult the Justice Department because he didn't want anyone telling him he shouldn't do what he did. Nothing changes. That's the same rational he used for the Iraq invasion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?em&ex=1183694400&en=099e5073200596c9&ei=5070
-
but ...
I'm willing to bet that the "anything" he drives isn't owned by the taxpayers, unlike your precious F-18.
-- angryflower
I'm also will to be that he doesn't put his life on the line for your benefit every time he straps on his "anything," too. Big difference.
-
Too much extraneous fluff on Countdown?
Yeah, I get irritated by the crap and fluff Keith throws in too. But who else even comes close to reporting the way he does? Last night I was blown away as Keith spoke truth to power in his special comment.
After that I left Dan Abrams on. I will never complain about Keith's fluff again. Abrams devoted a very few minutes to condescendingly reporting on Libby's commuted sentence and then spent the entire rest of his show trying to pick a fight over the tragic death of a wrestler and his family.
And isn't Abrams the head of MSNBC news?
Maybe the problem is that Olbermann is fighting to do as much as he does.