Posted on 11/25/2008 12:50:24 AM PST by flattorney
So, you can’t support your allegation.
Surprise, surprise! /s
You want to play internet defense attorney, knock yourself out.
Ramos and Campean can’t prove their version, which came as ‘no surprise’.
You don’t fire fifteen shots at a man’s back, then pretend otherwise, for a little bit of time, or forever. Not if you want to be a LEO.
Like I said, commute the sentence, its too harsh. But no pardon. They proved by their own actions they shouldn’t be LEO’s.
No.
I simply asked you to back up your allegation that they lied.
You couldn't.
He even pardoned Michael Vick!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent point.
Perhaps ‘lied’ was too strong.
They did something they both knew they shouldn’t have done, one being a firearms instructor.
Bottom line is they were convicted. As I said, the sentence was inappropriate in my view, and Bush should commute the sentence.
But no pardon. You cannot allow either of them to work as LEO’s ever again, not after this.
ROFL! Ain't that a turnaround!
("Read the trial transcripts. Yes, they clearly did [Lie]" ... "Likewise, you should know they did, if you read [the transcripts].
That you claim to have done so, but still state they didn’t speaks for itself")
Some folks will say anything and insult everyone until you are called to actually back it up with facts. Then you simply change your story. Sorry--I'm really tired of all the personal attacks that go along with this line of "debate."
Bottom line is they were convicted. ... Bush should commute the sentence. But no pardon.
But pardons for convicted drug dealers is okay with you?
I took you post seriously, decided your point had merit, and admitted ‘lied’ was too harsh.
I know its unusual in a internet forum to have that happen, so I’ll just attribute the childish ‘so your okay with pardons for drug dealers’ stuff to shock, and let it go.
Have a nice day tilting at that windmill.
Why, thank you!
The pardons given so far and the pardons not given are egregious in my book.
Which post--my third one? So, you post falsehoods, attack anyone who questions you, and defend at all costs, until pinned in a corner to put up or shut up? Then you decide that someone's post might "have merit"? How very magnanimous of you! /s
I know its unusual in a internet forum to have that happen...
Have what happen?
... so I’ll just attribute the childish ‘so your okay with pardons for drug dealers’ stuff to shock, and let it go. Have a nice day tilting at that windmill.
There you go again with the insults. What is 'childish' about my question? You state that Ramos and Compean shouldn't get a pardon because "Bottom line is they were convicted." Those drug dealers were convicted also. Do you support pardons of any kind?
Bush doesn't have to wait for anything. Nothing in the law mandates that the President must abide by DOJ recommendations before granting a pardon or clemency.
They were never required to prove their version. And tell us when Ramos or Compean pretended that they had not fired any shots.
>> He (Pres. Bush) can pardon anyone he wants, regardless of what the DOJ does or doesn’t do. <<
You are correct. There is a typo in the sentence. It should begin with the word “Formally” - - -
Formally, Bush cannot do anything until the DOJ makes a decision in this matter, although he can ask for a review and recommendation expedite.
Yes, posters are correct. POTUS Bush can “over-reach” at his discretion in commutations and pardons as he partially did in the Libby case.
Of interest, months ago, Pres. Bush publicly stated that he had never been asked to pardon Ramos and Compean. This statement was expressed despite previous formal pardon requests from a number of U.S. Congress members along with significant request petitions and letters from the public-at-large. One can only presume that Bush also accidentally left out the word “formally” in his statement. Formally meaning a pardon request by the border agents attorneys via the DOJ-OOP.
To quote...........
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power to pardon. There aren’t many limits to the president’s pardon power, at least when it comes to criminal prosecutions under federal law. The president’s clemency power has its origins in the practices of the English monarchy, and as a result, the Supreme Court has given the president wide leeway under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, with some exceptions. Virtually every presidential pardon comes in response to a pardon petition, filed with a special Department of Justice office. If the request has merit, the office interviews the prosecuting attorney, sentencing judge, and other law enforcement officials involved with each case. FBI investigators also compile a dossier on the applicant. The DOJ then completes a report on the request and offers a recommendation to the president on whether or not to grant a pardon.
The final decision belongs to the president, who could theoretically pardon an individual who had not filed a petition. Occasionally, a president will pardon someone who hasn’t even been convicted. Anticipatory pardons of this sort are generally given in the belief that they serve some national interest, such as when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon or when President Carter pardoned the Vietnam draft-dodgers. President H.W. George Bush also pardoned Caspar Weinberger after he’d been indicted, but before he’d been tried, which effectively short-circuited a trial. It makes sense that this power rests with the executive rather than the judicial branch, since it’s an explicitly political decision. - FlA
TAB
Good summary. Thanks FA
I thought a lot of the pardons were funny. If you read them over you’ll notice that several of those convictions had to have been cheered by green/PETA wackos. It almost looks like Bush wanted to give them one final spit in the face. Good for him.
Anyway, Bush still has nearly two months to do the right thing for a lot of people. This is by no means the end of the pardons. Guess we’ll see.
FRegards,
LH
Thanks for the added comments. Good points.
FRegards,
LH
“Yeah, but I am a real rightwinger that believes in law and order. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right?”
Then why can’t you answer the question asked above to name the laws broken?
My mother, not only taught me that 2 wrongs don’t make a right, she taught me the difference between right and wrong.
I’ll give you a little help on the last one. You should do your job. The job of Border Patrol is to secure the border. Ramos and Compean found the border was not secured so they secured it and are in prison for doing their job.
“Read the trial transcripts. Yes, they clearly did.”
To whom did they lie about discharge of their weapons?
That was a clean KO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.