So guys, be sure and thank the owner of this site. He is sheltering you from a reality you would never be able to handle. And for we in the reality-based community, he also performs an important role, in demonstrating just how hollow your worldview actually is.

You are damned lucky I don’t know who you really are, because I would sue you for libel so fast it would make your head spin.

Bruce, Dan, Joe and the rest of the bloggers here know that I am not a liar, nor a compulsive one at that. I demand both an apology and a retraction of that statement.

Furthermore, since you have pretty much destroyed your credibility by your infantile remarks, I believe you have forfeited your right to any type of answer from me, especially in light of that statement above.

You see, if I should answer your questions, you would immediately brand me a liar. So why should I even bother?

I won’t ask Bruce and/or Dan to ban you from this board, even if what you are saying is violating community standards. But you will indeed reap what you have sown.

Regards,
Peter H.

Here it is. Time to change the Depends:

I am both amused and appalled by this.

Amused, because only a child would be so foolish as to get angry at such a statement, which has no apparent purpose other than to bait and insult another person into reacting out of anger.

Appalled, because only a child would use such a statement in an argument…..but this seems to be coming from someone of voting age.

Furthermore, the person using this insult is demanding facts and responses…..but clearly is incapable of telling the difference between a pardon and a commutation, or even recognizing that he has confused the two.

Next up, Libby paid. ‘Nuff said.

And finally, Paul, I shall not answer. Not because I can’t, but because doing so in response to your insults would only encourage more of them — and give credence to a person who has already demonstrably ignored facts in an attempt to make an argument.

Really? How do you know? Do you have the same crystal ball that Shrillary used to predict cattle futures for a net gain of $300,000?

Would you care to make a wager? I’m being perfectly serious. Say $50. This site administrator has both our email addresses, and connect us to sort this out.

Again, your proof?

You’re asking for proof that Libby will not pay the $250k. That proof will come as soon as the fine is paid, so you’d better start looking for somewhere else to hang the crux of your argument.

In the meantime, here are some places where Libby might find some cash:
Read this.
And this.
This is quite interesting too.
But I guess you believe that, rather than take the money from there, he’s going to take a hammer to his daughter’s piggy bank?

The President didn’t pardon Libby, but listening to the wailing and keening by Dhimmicrats and their willing accomplices in the MSM, you would have thought Bush had not just commuted Libby’s sentence but had fully pardoned him and presented him with the Medal of Freedom.

That’s because the net result is the same as if Bush had pardoned him. Also, given that Bush will pardon him before his term ends (an eventuality you’d better get used to), it’s a silly argument to nitpick the differences between a full pardon and a commutation-leading-to-pardon.

President Bush, by commuting a portion of Libby’s sentence, left the jury’s verdict intact.

Exactly. The jury decided that Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice to protect his boss. Bush doesn’t contest that. However, in return for Libby’s lies, Bush removes any negative consequences he might have suffered. Basically, the president pardoned himself and the vice president, in a slightly roundabout way.

Wrong, Paulie. The proof (that Libby was at fault) consists of an assertion by Fitzgerald in a court filing – but this is no proof at all.

What bullshit! What do you think the jury decided? Who exactly was it that they found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Libby [edited for language]! Your statement above contains the most shameless set of lies on this page.

It was handed down by a jury whose spokesperson told the press “we did this because we hate Bush.” Google it if you don’t believe me.

Okay. I see that I’m dealing with a compulsive liar.

Peter, I ask you (rhetorically, because liars first and foremost lack the courage to answer a question directly), what does it feel like when the only way you can defend your point of view, is to fabricate things completely? I mean, you might get away with this in a conversation, but on the internet, you just look like a fool. Expressed this way, your ideas will only attract idiots, and repel intelligent people. Personally, I think you’re performing a very useful service in showing exactly what comprises the pro-Bush mentality. But I do wonder, what does this feel like from your end? My guess would be, faintly humiliating.

A jury which you yourself admit was obsessed with punishing Bush and Cheney.

I didn’t say that. I said the jury was from Saturn, sent here to enslave the human race. Erm, actually, I didn’t say either of those things, but since you can’t deal with what I’ve actually said, you’re in the embarrassing positon of having to make up arguments to refute. That must suck.

By the way, North Dallas Thirty, here’s that question that makes you wet your pants each time. I’ll keep posting it until you can bring yourself to answer it. But as you continue doing your best to ignore it, you need to know that you are giving away the precise limits of your argument by showing exactly what you have no answer for.

Here it is. Time to change the Depends:

If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.

“Between now and 1/20/09, Libby will be receiving a pardon.”

Really? How do you know? Do you have the same crystal ball that Shrillary used to predict cattle futures for a net gain of $300,000?

Bush hinted that “all options were on the table.” Didn’t say he would pardon Libby. Didn’t say he wouldn’t. Didn’t think he needed to tell the press corps what he might or might not do 18-or-so months down the road. And why should he? If I were Bush, damned if I would tell an old Arab like Helen Thomas what my next move would be.

Your point is invalid. Next:

“Of course, since Libby won’t be paying the $250k, and since the probably is now in serious question, the remaining “punishment” is meaningless.”

Again, your proof? Libby can still appeal his probation, and the chances are good that it will not be overturned. He will still be considered “guilty” for all intents and purposes. Moot point, again.

“And, of course, finally we get to your “two wrongs makes a right, as long as the 2nd wrong was committed by a republican [sic]. Again, let me say I sure hope you don’t have kids.”

I never said that. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The President didn’t pardon Libby, but listening to the wailing and keening by Dhimmicrats and their willing accomplices in the MSM, you would have thought Bush had not just commuted Libby’s sentence but had fully pardoned him and presented him with the Medal of Freedom.

By contrast, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had fled the country to avoid prosecution. He was pardoned without ever presenting himself before the US justice system. President Bush, by commuting a portion of Libby’s sentence, left the jury’s verdict intact.

In his explanation of why he pardoned Marc Rich, President Clinton – in effect – named himself both the decider of fact and the arbiter of punishment. Bush did neither.

As far as your last point – as if it is any of your business, I don’t have any children of my own. But as Her Shrillness says, “it takes a village.”

Again, your argument is without merit. Let us continue:

“[H]ypocrisy from the Clintons has absolutely no bearing on the wisdom or legitimacy of Bush’s actions. Unless you’re saying that, because Clinton abused the pardon power, that means Bush needs to abuse it as well.”

Now I call “bullshit.” Bush didn’t pardon Libby, and we don’t know if he will or won’t. My point is that the Clintons have no moral authority to call out Bush’s executive decision, any more than I have to tell people how to raise their kids.

And here’s the kicker. Via Matt Drudge, here’s what Bill Clinton, the DNC Patron Saint, wrote in a NY Times op-ed piece published in February 2001:

“The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be.”

Read that last phrase again: “regardless of how unpopular a decision might be.” Yes, Slick Willie said that. Next:

“A jury determined without a reasonable doubt that Libby was purposely lying, just as you are in trying to paint this differently.”

Wrong, Paulie. The proof (that Libby was at fault) consists of an assertion by Fitzgerald in a court filing – but this is no proof at all. He relies on an internal CIA employment summary, which also has its problems –the CIA uses “covert” and “classified” interchangeably, even though only one is covered by the statute in question (the IIPA).

Plus, none of this sheds light on whether the leaker thought Plame was covert when he blabbed his mouth to half of Washington. This is a required element of a violation of said law.

Oh, and BTW, Richard Armitage was the guy who leaked Plame’s name. And Fitzgerald knew this beforehand, but still went after Libby.

“If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does.”

I don’t have a problem with the verdict, either. I have a problem with the punishment. It was handed down by a jury whose spokesperson told the press “we did this because we hate Bush.” Google it if you don’t believe me.

You may go to your room now.

Regards,
Peter H.

And yet, despite having only one trick, you can’t do anything about it.

That is because you lied. The proof is there that you lied. And you can belittle, tear down, or do whatever you like to me, but you can’t change that fact.

With the small distinction that Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers.

A jury which you yourself admit was obsessed with punishing Bush and Cheney.

About your comment regarding “Democrat justice,” you’ve compared the unfair “trial by media” that Nifong did, with a trial by jury that Libby underwent, and have equated them completely.

Actually, the equating was of your witch hunt for Bush and Cheney.

So I’m wondering: do you always have this much contempt for the American justice system, and if so, what are your ideas for improving it? Or do you just have this much contempt for it when you don’t prefer the result?

(I look forward to your detailed reply…aw, who am I kidding? All you’re going to say is that I lied and said Libby was pardoned. Go ahead and insert that comment below. You can copy and paste if you’re too tired of typing it.)

And again you try to lie that a pardon and a commutation are the same thing.

You’re quite the one trick pony, aren’t you? In Libby’s case, the difference between a commutation and a pardon is that the commutation has come first, and the pardon will follow. There is no other possibility, short of impeachment (which is even less likely). But you can continue to disagree with me, for no longer than the next 15 months.

The rest is nothing more than the application of Democrat justice nee Mike Nifong

With the small distinction that Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. But I know, that’s all that “American justice” stuff that you don’t believe in anyway. Honestly, I wish you could see that your mad comparisons are not helping your argument at all.

Anyhow, I can still see that you’re not convinced that Libby committed a real crime. So I ask you again (each time you ignore this question, you appear more and more foolish):

If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.

And again you try to lie that a pardon and a commutation are the same thing.

Because Libby was lying (a fact proven in court), and because he refused to tell the truth at any point in his trial (never even took the stand until the closing statements), one is left to wonder why.

Um….we have an entire amendment to our Constitution that says, in essence, “You have the choice — and cannot be forced — of whether or not you choose to testify in your own trial, and that means nothing in terms of whether you are or are not guilty.”

The rest is nothing more than the application of Democrat justice nee Mike Nifong — you start thinking the person involved was guilty by virtue of who or what they were, then try to build your case backwards, ignoring anything that doesn’t suit your preconceived notion.

And that is why I called you and your fellow Democrat Party members “Truthers” above; like them, you start out with the conclusion, then try to piece together facts to prove it while ignoring anything that would contradict your conclusions.

The hypocrisy point is simple; Hillary has no business complaining about commuting a sentence when she and her husband blithely removed ALL of a sentence AND the conviction itself completely.

That’s pretty much what I said.

I also said that anyone who has a problem with the Clintons’ pardons, but not with the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is also a hypocrite for exactly the same reason.

Furthermore, since you insist Libby’s measly commutation is proof of criminal action on the part of Bush and Cheney, you must, in order to be consistent, clearly state that Rich’s pardon, which was even broader, was proof of criminal action on the part of Bill and Hillary.

Sounds reasonable, apart from mischaracterizing the removal of a prison sentence as “measley.” The Clintons’ crime was, defined broadly, influence peddling. Rich’s ex-wife paid to the Clinton Library, and in return, her ex-husband was pardoned. Pretty sleazy.

Bush’s crime included that, but with far more nefarious implications. Because Libby was lying (a fact proven in court), and because he refused to tell the truth at any point in his trial (never even took the stand until the closing statements), one is left to wonder why. Who is he protecting by not telling the truth? The answer, to anyone with at least 2 brain cells to rub together, is that he was protecting his employer. Seriously, who else would it be? And with this commutation, Bush has validated this theory. It appears highly likely that Libby was told to continue lying, stick to the cover story, and when he is found guilty, Bush would pardon him.

In this way, Bush’s action violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution regarding presidential pardons, in that in a roundabout way, he essentially pardoned himself. And that, I would say, is worse than what the Clintons did. Clinton’s pardon of Rich meant that Rich was not answerable to US law. Bush’s commutation-cum-pardon of Libby means that the Bush Admin is not answerable to US law. One of these has more long-term consequences for the health of our republic under the rule of law than the other. Can you tell which is which?

1. Libby got a commutation, not a pardon.

This is easily the most belabored point on this page. Between now and 1/20/09, Libby will be receiving a pardon. Not much more to say about this now, other than that you’d better start stopping around for a more robust argument.

2. The commutation left in place the $250,000 fine and two years’ probation, for which Libby is responsible.

And yes, that’s the 2nd most belabored point. You’re not missing anything. Of course, since Libby won’t be paying the $250k, and since the probably is now in serious question, the remaining “punishment” is meaningless.

3. Marc Rich and about 140 other people were fully pardoned by the Clintons – including ANY AND ALL jail time that was justly handed down by impartial juries.

And, of course, finally we get to your “two wrongs makes a right, as long as the 2nd wrong was committed by a republican. Again, let me say I sure hope you don’t have kids.

When you think about the previous administration and the pardons issued on the VERY LAST DAY of their “co-presidency,” and the fact that they have the gall and audacity to criticize Bush’s decision well into his second term of office, it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Me too. However, hypocrisy from the Clintons has absolutely no bearing on the wisdom or legitimacy of Bush’s actions. Unless you’re saying that, because Clinton abused the pardon power, that means Bush needs to abuse it as well. Is that your point? Because that will probably mean that the next president will feel the need to abuse it also. How far do you want this to go?

And you are worked up over a former VP chief of staff whose only crime was not remembering correctly?

Okay, I’m calling bullshit. The crime was not one of bad memory. A jury determined without a reasonable doubt that Libby was purposely lying, just as you are in trying to paint this differently.

Which brings us back to the question that you’re too cowardly to even address:

If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.

Hillary is a hypocrite to criticize Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence (although it’s still fair for her to point out the differences between Libby’s and Rich’s cases).

Which you then turn around and obscure the differences on yourself.

Everyone posting on this page who had any disagreement whatsoever with the Rich pardon, but who accepts the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is a hypocrite.

The hypocrisy point is simple; Hillary has no business complaining about commuting a sentence when she and her husband blithely removed ALL of a sentence AND the conviction itself completely.

But again, you try to lie and confuse a commutation with a pardon — as you did previously.

The reason is clear; you cannot criticize Shrillary without trying to make a feeble attempt at claiming “the Republicans are worse”.

Furthermore, since you insist Libby’s measly commutation is proof of criminal action on the part of Bush and Cheney, you must, in order to be consistent, clearly state that Rich’s pardon, which was even broader, was proof of criminal action on the part of Bill and Hillary.

1. Libby got a commutation, not a pardon.
2. The commutation left in place the $250,000 fine and two years’ probation, for which Libby is responsible.
3. Marc Rich and about 140 other people were fully pardoned by the Clintons – including ANY AND ALL jail time that was justly handed down by impartial juries.

So let’s DO talk about hypocrisy, shall we?

It seems to me that the hypocrisy demonstrated by Dhimmicrats on this issue is rather startling. When you think about the previous administration and the pardons issued on the VERY LAST DAY of their “co-presidency,” and the fact that they have the gall and audacity to criticize Bush’s decision well into his second term of office, it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

If – and this is a big if – Bush decides to issue a full pardon in Libby’s case, it would be nowhere near as devastating as the Clinton’s pardoning of perpetrators such as these:

The 16 FALN members – actual terrorists who were parts of a large conspiracy – were pardoned in 1999.

William Arthur Borders Jr. was one of the people who were taking part in the Alcee Hastings bribery scandal. Pardoned as well.

Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned for his mail fraud and perjury convictions.

Clinton also pardoned outright several friends of his who had been convicted of crimes ranging from fraud to tax evasion.

Clinton pardoned a LOT of people who did pretty bad things, ranging from perjury to cocaine trafficking. And you are worked up over a former VP chief of staff whose only crime was not remembering correctly?

Try again.

Regards,
Peter H.

And irony of ironies, Algore even makes a feeble attempt to distance himself from his former criminal-in-chief while at the same time keeping his son’s criminal record under wraps.

Such is the order of the goddess Themis (ask Dan for clarification if necessary).

Regards,
Peter H.

I suppose you would be saying that, given that I provided clear proof that you wilfully lied — twice — about it.

According to a jury who reviewed all the facts and spent days in deliberation, Libby did not make mistakes; he lied.

Mhm.

The same jury which, you gleefully pointed out above, made statements after the trial indicating that their primary desire and motivation in this entire process had been to punish Bush, Cheney, and Libby by any means possible.

I made no such blanket statement.

Mhm.

You said the same thing for Marc Rich — that, since it would come out of his personal fortune, he wasn’t punished enough.

Just say, Paul, that you believe rich people should automatically have greater punishments because they’re rich.

Judge Walton said Tuesday that the law did not allow for imposing a period of supervised release on an individual who had not first completed a jail sentence.

Check it out.

But I’m sure Libby will still suffer consequences for committing perjury to a grand jury. I’m sure he’ll feel real bad that his legal defense has to take $250k out of the $5M to pay his fine, when he’d promised an ice cream social for all his supporters.