More reactions to the Libby sentence
Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Miami Township:
"The constitution gives every president the power to commute sentences that they deem too harsh. Every modern president has done so. Mr Libby will pay a price for his conviction. The specifics of that price are left to the judiciary and the executive. I have not read the briefs or the judicial opinion. Nor do I care to contribute to a partisan dialogue. The constitution grants these powers and my only obligation is to honor and defend it. "
Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Hebron:
"The President's decision is fair and will end this controversy. It is time for us to get past this and move on to other matters," said Davis' press secretary, Amanda Keating.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Cleveland:
"Sen. Voinovich is declining comment," his office said.
No responses from Sens. Mitch McConnell or Jim Bunning. Or, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood.
13 Comments:
at 2:36 PM, July 05, 2007 
Unknown said...
-
-
at 3:58 PM, July 05, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4:43 PM, July 05, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 5:27 PM, July 05, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 5:31 PM, July 05, 2007 
Brah Coon said...
-
-
at 9:47 PM, July 05, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:21 AM, July 06, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:28 AM, July 06, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 5:48 AM, July 06, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:39 AM, July 06, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:14 AM, July 07, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:30 AM, July 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:47 PM, July 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Can't Jean Schmidt write a 1 paragraph press release without embarrassing herself? She needs to capitalize the first letter in the word Constitution. When referring to, "Mr Libby" there should be a period at the end of Mr. It wouldn't hurt to capitalize President, Judiciary, and Executive either.
You'd think a woman with 2 college degrees could write a better press release. Oh wait...
Nor do I care to contribute to a partisan dialogue.
what a big surprise. just what you would expect from a deer frozen in the headlights. afraid to defend the shrub and afraid to speak the truth about the shrub
Bush, in commuting Libby's sentence, removed all motivation for Libby to tell the truth. Bush gave Libby this deal in order to silence him. This is just one more of so many reasons to vote Democratic in the future and to never, ever, vote Republican.
Both political parties abuse the power to pardon - we are the ones who are responsible because we don't demand a change -- this is ridiculous.
As for the comparison between Clinto and Libby - there is a legally significant difference. Lying under oath has to be RELEVANT AND MATERIAL to the matter of inquiry. For example, if you witness a crime and testify that the culprit was wearing a red dress when the dress was really blue - and you knew it --- that's perjury because it is relevant and material. If you testify that you were wearing clean underwear when you witnessed it and you knew you weren't and lied because it embarassed you - that's lying, not perjury, because it isn't relevant.
While any fact could be construed as relevant, relevance and materiality are - well, relevant when determining whether one committed "perjury" or is just a common liar.
Clinton is a common liar - impeachment was a political stunt on that basis.
Libby, on the other hand, lied under oath about a matter that was relevant, material and very significant -- he's guilty.
Dear Schmidt, careful dear when tangling with that Constitution. You might rip the lid off a Pandora's box ... of probably the 18th century.
So Jean Schmidt, Miss Moral Clarity herself, takes a dive. I wonder how dismissing speaking out about perjury by a government official as "contributing to a partisan dialogue" squares with defending and honoring the constitution.
And just like that, she's fulfilled her "only obligation?" Does she think she was elected to go to Washington to give her personal take on the Constitution? I'm curious to know if she's noticed the word Representative in her title, because I guarantee that at least this one voter who lives in her district doesn't need to go check the constitution to figure out that lying to the FBI is very definitely a big deal.
But I have to say she had the grace to at least dodge the question, and I have to hand it to John Boehner who has never tried to pretend to be anything other than the party hack that he is.
Steve Chabot, on the other hand... A coward of the worst kind. Not afraid to sit in judgment when it's convenient, not afraid to vote to send other people off to war, now hides under a desk rather than make a choice between what's easy and what's right.
Jeff you a really a goof ball...how many times has Jean Schmidt's statement been retyped to make it on this website. Go kiss up to Heimlich...maybe he'll give you position at the unemployment office! Best!
Jean, Jean, Jean: Please, a little less Batavia and more University of Cincinnati. Correcting Rep. Schmidt's grammar and punctuation is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. Still, we may also add this correction: She writes:"The constitution gives every president the power to commute sentences that they deem too harsh." A bit of a pronoun antecedent problem here: "president" and "they"? The pronoun should be "he or she" to refer to the singular "president." No, wait: it should be just "he"--- I forget, we live in the male world of politics.
Did anybody else smell the rubber burning off the end of that stamp? Don't get too comfortable Jean... I do more before breakfast than most people do all day...
Our forefathers gave us clear instructions what to do at a time like this, when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.
In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.”
James Madison responded: [I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..
It doesn’t take minutiae to prove that Bush has “sheltered” someone whose crime was “advised by himself.” It takes Libby’s notes and grand jury testimony.
The punishment for the abuse of the pardon power is clear: impeachment. Just as the punishment for Libby’s obstruction was clearly 30 months. If we’re going to complain about the commutation itself, we have no business letting Bush off with nothing more than censure.
Clinton is both - a common liar and a perjurer - plus the other three counts on which he was impeached. Libby's "lie" (i.e. faulty memory) was irrelevant by definition because there was no underlying crime and the prosecuter knew it - now THAT'S a political hit job. The President only partially corrected the wrong.
joe c, did you click your ruby slippers togther as you where saying clinton did it?
Racist ("if you don't vote for me blacks will move into your neighborhood") Chabot is a coward...what a way to go out. At least Boehner & the others had the guts to comment.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home