Al Gore's son arrested on drug suspicion

Uh. Hello. Clinton was declared to be in contempt of court. Oh. You are talking about the Senate – not the Judiciary. My mistake. Carry on.


Good. So we agree, that comparing Libby's crimeS (i.e., his four felony convictions), is in no way analogous to Clinton's civil misdeameanor and civil fine.

So why do you suppose Bush fans keep drawing the analogy? Just curious.
 
Good. So we agree, that comparing Libby's crimeS (i.e., his four felony convictions), is in no way analogous to Clinton's civil misdeameanor and civil fine.

So why do you suppose Bush fans keep drawing the analogy? Just curious.

I’m tired or this is too complicated an issue for me. It seems like we are “splitting hairs”. As far as I’m concerned, to tell a lie is to tell a lie. To be punished for telling a lie is to be punished for telling a lie. Clinton misbehaved and got punished. Libby misbehaved and got punished. It is a valid comparison. The details are minimal and insignificant.
 
I’m tired or this is too complicated an issue for me. It seems like we are “splitting hairs”. As far as I’m concerned, to tell a lie is to tell a lie. To be punished for telling a lie is to be punished for telling a lie. Clinton misbehaved and got punished. Libby misbehaved and got punished. It is a valid comparison. The details are minimal and insignificant.


No, the "rule of law" matters, as GOPers were so eloquent in telling us in 1998. So those are the rules we're playing by:

Libby was convicted on four felonies.

Clinton wasn't convicted of a single criminal act. He was found to be in civil comtempt of court, and ordered to pay a fine. That is not a felony. What he did was wrong, but it did not rise to the level of a felony or perjury. This are the facts of the case, no matter how much Bush-fans want to stamp their feet on the ground and proclaim clinton a convicted felon.


simply hoping and wishing that Clinton's case and Libbys case are exactly the same, is not the same as they actually being the same
 
No, the "rule of law" matters, as GOPers were so eloquent in telling us in 1998. So those are the rules we're playing by:

Libby was convicted on four felonies.

Clinton wasn't convicted of a single criminal act. He was found to be in civil comtempt of court, and ordered to pay a fine. That is not a felony. What he did was wrong, but it did not rise to the level of a felony or perjury. This are the facts of the case, no matter how much Bush-fans want to stamp their feet on the ground and proclaim clinton a convicted felon.


simply hoping and wishing that Clinton's case and Libbys case are exactly the same, is not the same as they actually being the same

Okay. So Clinton pays a small fine for a small crime and Libby pays a big fine for a big crime. $200000 and 2-year probation is still a big punishment. All things considered, and all Democrat and Republican “criminals" for the past 20 years considered, I think that the courts have been over-all consistent. A mistake might have been made concerning a Democrat but adjusted by a mistake made concerning a Republican (and vice versa). I don’t think that there is a strong degree of differences. Clinton had Ken Starr. Libby had Patrick Fitzgerald.
 
So Libby wasn't under oath when he lied in front of a grand jury?

Are you people alive? Is this a bot board?

If you wish to discuss Libby, there are several threads dedicated to him specifically. I'm sure musicman, among others, will be more than happy to accomodate you.

Who is and is not a bot would be a matter of perspective, would it not?
 
I was going to get to that part with the big tough sgt man. But first I wanted to see if he could read a post. And I like to take my time, especially when I've found myself a repressed case.

Dude, I don't give a damned WHO or WHAT you think you are, but if you don't want MY attention devoted to you, I'd suggest you lay off disprespecting a military vet for being a military vet on this board.
 
And it is tightly controlled, you couldn't get refills, the doctor had to write a new prescription every month for me.

Actually it wasn't weak, I took one by mistake one evening-I was off the walls. Now I drink a pot or more of coffee everyday, so certainly didn't hit me like caffeine.

If you were on Ritalin, it may have seemed mild to you, you needed it. There are reasons no phone or 'may refill' refills.
 
Clinton DID commit a Felony. That he was not charged for it is the whole point. The comparison keeps being brought up because it is valid and appropriate for the situation.

As for the Impeachment, I suggest you read the Constitution, it is very clear, that is NOT a criminal process. Any ruling the Senate makes has NO bearing on the Judicial process. Politics saved Clinton and Politics doomed Libby. I do not know the law for sure, but I think a convicted felon can be stripped of their law license for ever. So Clinton loses his law license for a couple years and Libby loses his forever.

The President ONLY acted because the Judge was being inconsistant. Libby should have been allowed to remain OUT of jail until his appeals were exhausted. In fact those appeals would take longer than Bush will be president most likely, so Libby would, if all appeals failed, have eventually served his jail term if the Judge were not allowing politics to cloud his decision.

My personal hope is that Bush pardon Libby on his last day if the courts have not seen fit to remove this political conviction. If Clinton can pardon the biggest tax cheat, one that the Justice Department was completely opposed to, for money, and the press basicly make it a non story, this broha is hillarious.
 
Ridley Rips Gore: Save Son, Not Ice Caps
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on July 6, 2007 - 07:14.
John Ridley might be an NPR regular, someone who says he likes the "center-left" and even professes admiration for Al Gore's work. But that didn't stop the "Morning Joe" panel member from ripping Gore on the MSNBC show this morning at 7:20 a.m. EDT for his choice of continuing his Live Earth concert tour rather than being at the side of his troubled son.

A clip was aired of Gore telling MSNBC's Chris Jansing that despite his son's latest run-in, his plans hadn't changed to attend the series of Live Earth concerts around the world. In a mantra reminiscent of his "no controlling legal authority" line from years ago regarding questionable fund-raising, Gore informed Jansing and other media that he was treating his son's situation as "a private family matter." Ridley went off on an extended tirade. Excerpts:

MORNING JOE PANEL MEMBER JOHN RIDLEY: Why isn't he with his son? He's in New York yesterday doing all these media hits. His son is in California. If my son were in crisis, I would be home with my son.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13932
 
Global warming is to blame

Al lectures us how global warming does cause vegetation to grow in places it normally does not

So it is the fault of Pres Bush and his harmful enviromental policies

Could we roll this back around to Gore's kid? This doesn't need to be yet another "libssuckclintondidithillarysucksobamasuckswe'rewinninginiraqlibbysinnocent et al" thread.
 
Too bad you end up not helping anybody, including yourself.

You know libs will try and spin it and say it is not really his fault

It seems Daddy Al is not worried - he took off in his private jet to spread the fear about the myth of global warming overseas
 
ok to be fair. bush's girls got caught with what, underage drinking.

girls gone wild: the bush twins.

Showing off more then the bush :p

go ahead, make fun of the bush girls, its fair game brother.


Dang. With all of this slamming of Gore and his son, will anyone say anything to concur with me that Bush’s daughter got in trouble with the law too? My post seems to be sitting out there all by itself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top