Once again, the marionette dances as the strings are pulled.
Who didn't see THIS one coming? The only surprise is that it wasn't a full pardon.
Yet.
But hey, there's still until January 20, 2009 at 11:59 am!
And by the way, (although a novel argument from people who like to trot out "strict constructionism" as a rationale when it suits them) I actually AGREE that Cheney is not a member of the executive branch, and I think we need to be clear about this from now on. There are FOUR branches of government in this administration:
The Legislative....
The Judicial....
The Executive....
Labels: If you're not appalled, politics
posted by "Ms. Cornelius" @ 6:51 AM
12 Comments:
Er, 11:59am on January 20th.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html
Having said that, I love the Star Wars comparison!
EEGGSELENT observation and comparison!
ROFL!!!!! Brilliant!
I'm adding my admiring voice - you hit this one DEAD on...
Mrs w-- you're right, and I wasn't thinking. I'll fix....
Ok, Since you can't figure it out, I'll help you.
1st they tell Libby all our Secrets, then they convict him of felony and send him to prison.
Uh Oh! Libby' will get mad if we send him to prison, he's gonna tell everybody our secrets to get even with us, and we'll get in trouble, Doh!
Ok, Libby we commute you and then we'll pardon you after 5 years is up.
There ain't no Gov't officials in prison and there ain't never gonna be.
The rest of you are the only ones subject to LAW
Someone on Radio IQ today pointed out that because the sentence was commuted and he wasn't pardoned, he can't be called as a witness against higher-ups -- (you know, those guys in the Imperial Branch of the govvamint) -- something about cases under appeal. I did't hear enough of the broadcast and I don't know enough law to know how accurate this is, does anyone else? If true, it sure sounds slick and long-planned to me.
(Love your insight into the fourth branch! Spot-on!)
Don't hold your breath. Accordig to my morning paper, The Pardon is on its way...
Oh, I believe the prdon will happen-- when the election of 08 is over, come what may. As head of the Republican Party, W cannot take the chance that the American people might suddenly awaken from their coma and pay attention to things like this before they vote for the next president.
Libby isn't gonna testify, anyway, especially while he holds out hope for getting a pardon for being a team player-- remember how much Bush values loyalty over even competence-- but frankly, if he was gonna sing, he'd have sung by now, before the conviction.
Remember, Poppy was involved in Iran-contra, and loads of pardons were passed around for that one, too.
What a mess. And how embarrassing?
If you've screamed about all the actual *pardons*, not mere commutations, that have occurred in the past, I'll take your concerns seriously. If you were screaming about Berger's theft of documents from the National Archives, I'll take your concerns seriously. Until then, I'll chalk them up to BDS and move on to your next post.
Darren, my friend, (and I do not mean this personally because I feel nothing but goodwill toward you) I do not believe that I "screamed." Nowhere did I even use an exclamation point, nor did I type in all caps. I'll take your comment seriously, my friend, if you stop engaging in over-the-top hyperbole in defense of the indefensible.
You have no idea what my opinion is toward the pardons to which you refer, so you have no right to assume that you know my opinion. Not that it is applicable to the current discussion. It's a red herring.
Do you believe the commutation was defensible? Because a knee-jerk response that is the equivalent of "Neener neener neener" is really not a response at all. Come, let us reason together, friend.
That said, I will always decry commutations or pardons of political cronies, pardons and commutations that serve one's own political interests. And this commutation was COMPLETELY self-serving.
I've always wondered why the authors of the Constitution felt it a good idea to borrow from the oppressive divine right of kings when they had been so virulently opposed to the establishment even remotely whiffing of the monarchy otherwise. Presidents-- and governors-- of all parties have been able to do whatever they want in subverting justice in this manner.
But let's not pretend that pardoning Marc Rich or David Borel or even of idiotic Baby Brother Roger Clinton is in any way equivalent to pardoning, oh, let's say, Caspar Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Alan Fiers, and Clair George. Nor is it equivalent to commuting the sentence of someone who technically did something illegal under your own oversight. It savors of cover-up. Like father, like son.
Come up with something of substance, friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home