|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 17:33:14 GMT -5
I disagree. These men spent time in prison. Mark Rich needs to spend time in prison. I have to pay taxes upon threat of jail, loosing my home and much more. He stole from all of the American people and never had to answer once for the crime. He is as clean as a new born baby, thanks to Bill. These two still have a felony on their record. That is what you fail to comprehend.  No, if anything you could argue that Rich needs to go to trial, but you can't argue that he needs to spend time in prison. He hasn't even been convicted of anything, let alone sentenced to prison time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jan 29, 2009 17:58:26 GMT -5
Exactly. The courts determined guilt and sentence. Then, Bush stood in the way of justice being served. Much worse than a pardon before a case was even heard. Don't give up your day job counselor. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has got you flummoxed. Please explain, in detail if you don't mind, just how a full and unconditional pardon prior to any trial or judicial proceeding is not worse from the perspective of justice than shortening the sentence through communation of someone who was convicted of the crimes, served time in prison for those convictions and whose convictions will remain against their personal ledger for the rest of their lives... read loss of constitutional rights including the vote and owning or possessing firearms to name but two. I'm very interested to see how you can twist logic around to explain that. No, if anything you could argue that Rich needs to go to trial, but you can't argue that he needs to spend time in prison. He hasn't even been convicted of anything, let alone sentenced to prison time. And Marc Rich can not be charged, tried or anything else, ever relative to his crimes because Bill Clinton gave him a free, total and unconditional pardon beofre any trier of fact could complete it's process. Even some of Clinton's most ardent supporters admit that going completely outside the normal scope of pardon for Rich, particularly when the pay for play angle was so blatantly obvious, was a serious mistake on Mr. Clinton's part... everyone that is except Barack's Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who was the point man on ramrodding the Rich pardon through, against advice of the pardon office, DOJ lawyers, the US Attorney who was trying to prosecute Rich and completely counter to all accepted practice on the granting of pardons. You are dancing on extremely thin legal ice with this one counselor. If you want to continue to insist that commutation post conviction is more of an obstruction of justice than full pardon prior to any trial taking place and when the recipient of the pardon is a fugitive and had been for more than a decade, then I'll have to insist you stop bogarting whatever it is you are smoking before you try arguing the law. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 18:06:38 GMT -5
One was pardoned before a trial could take place. I agree that Clinton stood in the way of determining guilt in Rich's case, but those are the powers the President is given.
On the other hand, Bush stepped in after a a guilty verdict and a sentence had been handed down by a court of law. The people (a jury of the officers' peers) handed down a fair sentence to the guilty men (which held up to an appellate review) yet they were let out early by Bush, due to pressure from conservatives who have a grudge against illegals.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jan 29, 2009 18:13:26 GMT -5
No sir.... the sentence was not fair because there was no judicial discretion available. The sentences were dictated by the Congress with no room for a judge to apply evidence or mitigation in order to better serve justice. The sentence should fit the crime, and because of the mandatory strictures the sentences were overly harsh and there was nothing the court could do about it.
Kind of like a lot of progressives hollered about how unfair the first iterations of three strikes were and got them changed to allow some judicial discretion to help the punishment fit the crime.
They were and are still guilty, which puts me at odds with a great many of my fellow conservatives. But most all of those fellow conservatives aren't LEOs so I think I have a little bit better perspective on what is and isn't fair on the sentencing.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 18:19:30 GMT -5
Fair enough. Like bolverk, I am humbled by your knowledge of this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 18:31:05 GMT -5
My God, I don't believe what I am reading. He is actually differing to someone's knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5
Not yours
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 19:05:31 GMT -5
Well, technically you are. Because my knowledge was to differ to someone who had a greater understanding of the whole incident and process. You followed suit. You just took the long painful route.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jan 29, 2009 19:36:10 GMT -5
So then you admit that Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was truly an obstruction of justice?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 30, 2009 1:37:45 GMT -5
So then you admit that Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was truly an obstruction of justice? It was absolutely an obstruction of justice since justice was never determined. But, those are the powers the President is given. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jan 30, 2009 2:27:14 GMT -5
so, in this case, it is perfectly alright for clinton to abuse his powers because those are the powers given to him. however, bush does not get the same consideration? you're not a hypocrite. no, not at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 30, 2009 11:41:20 GMT -5
It's different. Bush interfered with a sentence that had been handed down by a jury of the border agent's peers (implying that they did not get it right). Clinton bypassed the court system alltogether with his pardon.
|
|
