I hope there's nobody here who took it seriously . . .

[Michael Tee]

 . . . when the Republicans went all ape-shit over Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.  What's really funny is that there were probably "Democrats" of the Lieberman stripe who did.

ahh, Jeezis, at least we know now it was all an act.

[BT]

Guess we will go apeshit when we see Mrs. Libby's check for the Bush Library.

[Michael Tee]

Yeah, like the Bush family really needs the Scooter's money.

[BT]

Yeah, like the Bush family really needs the Scooter's money.

Need isn't the question. Propriety is.

[Michael Tee]

I say it's improper to commute the sentence of a convicted felon when it was not excessive and followed the sentencing guidelines.  Not only that, but I now understand that there are even pardon guidelines and the exercise of the discretion to pardon did not conform to those guidelines either.  Talk about impropriety!

[BT]

The guidelines are in the constitution itself.

And you brought up Rich, and the apparent quid pro quo conflict.

You might want to pick a better example whilst damning one and praising the other.

[Michael Tee]

<<The guidelines are in the constitution itself.>>

The sentencing guidelines are a lot more specific than the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, which are the only Constitutional sentencing guidelines I'm aware of.  Thirty months doesn't seem particularly cruel or unusual in any event. 

<<And you brought up Rich, and the apparent quid pro quo conflict.>>

I brought up Rich as an example of Republican hypocrisy.

<<You might want to pick a better example whilst damning one and praising the other.>>

I praised the Rich pardon?  Where?  In your dreams?

[Lanya]

What's really funny is that the lawyer for Marc Rich was....Scooter Libby.

[BT]

I brought up Rich as an example of Republican hypocrisy.

How so. The dems didn't defend the Rich pardon?

[Xavier_Onassis]

As a Democrat, I certainly didn't defend the Marc Rich Pardon.

Presumably, if Scooter defended this clown, it means that either (a) Scooter has no principles, or (b) what principles he has are less important than money.

Both Scooter and Rich are (a) Jewish and (b) wealthy. So perhaps political affiliation is not the main link here.

[Michael Tee]

Scooter's Jewish??? Boy, he sure kept that little tid-bit well under wraps.  Better than Senator Macacawitz.   A Jew named Scooter.  Hilarious.  Well worth the price of admission all on its own.

 What a fucking disgrace, Jews in the service of racism, fascism and militarism.  As if they didn't know any better.

[BT]

Presumably, if Scooter defended this clown, it means that either (a) Scooter has no principles, or (b) what principles he has are less important than money.

Lawyers argue cases on the merit of the law, If principles were involved many criminals would not be adequately represented in court and not given due process and equal protection under the law.

Are you saying Shapiro and Cochran have no principles?