Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

[Mr. Peabody]

As expected.....

Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

[DarkReign]

I really didnt expect anything less.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

OMG!

This comes as a shock to absolutely nobody.

[FromWayDowntown]

OMG!

This comes as a shock to absolutely nobody.

There has to be some kind of Clueless or Politically Unaware troll ready to pounce with "I'm shocked by this development" or "Who is Scooter Libby/George W. Bush," right?

[Kermit]

bush is really trying to make a run at harding for the "worst president ever" title.

[RighteousBoy]

What was the purpose of the trial?
Find out who outed Valerie Plame

Who outed Valerie Plame?
Richard Armitage

How do we know this?
He admitted it

Will he be punished?
Probably not

To put Libby in jail for a process cime, while Armitage walks free after having admitted guilt to the crime in question would be rediculous.

[boutons_]

"To put Libby in jail for a process crime"

The fucking Repugs impeached Clinton for a single "process crime" ("I didn't have (legal) sex with that woman").

Libby repeated his "process crime" 4 times, in trying to cover up Artmitage's illegality, which most definitely arose from dickhead's campaign to slime Wilson for daring to be anti-war/anti-dickhead.

As is so often the case, the cover up is worse than the original crime.

Pardoning Libby is just more proof that dubya/dichkead consider the Exec to beyond the reach of any laws.

As Repug scumbug Richard Nixon said years after he was chased out of office, "if the President does it, it's not illegal". The current Repug Exec continues in the tradition of Repug scumbagginess.

Along with dubya's packed SCOTUS crushing individual rights to protect and prefer institutions, which is the France political philosophy (the state is supreme, individuals are secondary), this Exec is extremely, profoundly French: "L'etat. C'est moi".

dubya thinks God wanted him to be president, and he's gone back to the royal "divine right" of governing.

[Yonivore]

Well done, Mr. President.

[boutons_]

"What was the purpose of the (Libby) trial?
Find out who outed Valerie Plame"

Wrong. To try Libby for lying to the feds. convicted.

What was the purpose of Fitzgerald's investigation?

To find out who outed Plame.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

No Way!!!

[Yonivore]

no fucking shame at all.
No, pardoning Marc Rich demonstrated "no fucking shame at all." Mr. Libby is still a convicted felon. The president only commuted his sentence.


the iraq war is officially bulshit. if you can't see that you are fucking stupid and blind.
Are these types of comments just reflexive and vomited out whatever the topic?

[PixelPusher]

Well done, Mr. President.
Where, oh where, have all the law-and-order Republicans gone?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"To put Libby in jail for a process crime"

The fucking Repugs impeached Clinton for a single "process crime" ("I didn't have (legal) sex with that woman").

Libby repeated his "process crime" 4 times, in trying to cover up Artmitage's illegality, which most definitely arose from dickhead's campaign to slime Wilson for daring to be anti-war/anti-dickhead.

As is so often the case, the cover up is worse than the original crime.

Pardoning Libby is just more proof that dubya/dichkead consider the Exec to beyond the reach of any laws.

As Repug scumbug Richard Nixon said years after he was chased out of office, "if the President does it, it's not illegal". The current Repug Exec continues in the tradition of Repug scumbagginess.

Along with dubya's packed SCOTUS crushing individual rights to protect and prefer institutions, which is the France political philosophy (the state is supreme, individuals are secondary), this Exec is extremely, profoundly French: "L'etat. C'est moi".

dubya thinks God wanted him to be president, and he's gone back to the royal "divine right" of governing.

If Bush is above the law for pardoning one person, what do you think of Bill Clinton? How many did he pardon his last day in office?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

no the iraq war is bullshit. I see young men come into the hospital every day w/o legs, arms, or no legs and no arms.........for what? you tell me fagivore. for a lying president that commutes a sentence for a convicted felon. what fucking country do I live in? Nazi, fucking, Germany?

Please tell me you were this outraged about all of Clinton's pardons. If not,

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ058.jpg

[Yonivore]

:lol :toast

on the money.
What? The conviction stands, he's still on the hook for the $250,000 fine, and he's a felon for the rest of his life.

I think it's a fair resolution.

But, on the other hand, I also believe the lefty outrage over this can only push the President's conservative polling number up. Thanks! :elephant

[Yonivore]

no the iraq war is bullshit. I see young men come into the hospital every day w/o legs, arms, or no legs and no arms.........for what? you tell me fagivore. for a lying president that commutes a sentence for a convicted felon. what fucking country do I live in? Nazi, fucking, Germany?

who the fuck is acting like hitler now.....for god sakes our government has become a joke.......I am not proud to be an American right about now.
Okay.

[Yonivore]

If Bush is above the law for pardoning one person, what do you think of Bill Clinton? How many did he pardon his last day in office?
For the record, Clinton's wasn't a "process crime." Real people were harmed by his perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice. His crime -- had it gone undetected -- would have denied Paula Jones a fair and full adjudication of her lawsuit against then President Clinton.

Scooter Libby's perjury harmed no one and obstructed nothing. The questions that were the subject of the entire investigation had already been answered.

Pretty big distinction.

[FromWayDowntown]

I could care less about the decision by the President. Big deal.

I'm more interested in the willingness of our Right wing to resort to some sort of moral relativism: the "if Clinton did it (and, perhaps, several times worse) then Bush is absolutely justified" rationalization. I never realized that the very President who was demonized in 2000 for his supposed lack of a moral compass is now the standard by which the acts of subsequent Presidents should be measured? If Republicans were right about President Clinton in 2000, that would certainly seem to make the standard we expect of a President's behavior to be fairly low; otherwise, perhaps President Clinton wasn't as bad as Republicans told us he was in 2000.

[Yonivore]

no one should be above the law. bill and hiliary included.

dumbass its not clinton vs. bush. its law and order vs. cronyism.

this goverment is doing things that are benificial to its friends, not its citizens.


AND THAT FUCKING MEANS BOTH PARTIES YOU DIPSHIT.
I don't know about you but, I'd rather have been a crony of Clinton's than of Bush's.

Clinton pardoned his cronies (although it probably had more to do with a quid pro quo than it did with any sense of friendship). President Bush, on the other hand, merely commuted Libby's sentence...he's still a convicted felon with all the restrictions and lost liberties that entails; and, he's still liable for the $250,000 fine.

Yeah, I'd rather be a Clinton "crony."

I hope you're checking your blood pressure, you seem a little unhinged about this.

[Yonivore]

I could care less about the decision by the President. Big deal.

I'm more interested in the willingness of our Right wing to resort to some sort of moral relativism: the "if Clinton did it (and, perhaps, several times worse) then Bush is absolutely justified" rationalization. I never realized that the very President who was demonized in 2000 for his supposed lack of a moral compass is now the standard by which the acts of subsequent Presidents should be measured? If Republicans were right about President Clinton in 2000, that would certainly seem to make the standard we expect of a President's behavior to be fairly low; otherwise, perhaps President Clinton wasn't as bad as Republicans told us he was in 2000.
Well, as for me, I think the president's decision today was the right thing to do. Libby committed a "process crime" that harmed no one -- except for the institution of justice; something many in government have been doing with impugnity for quite some time.

I think the president showed respect for the law by not pardoning Scooter Libby while demonstrating his understanding of the unfairness of it all (Scooter going to prison while Sandy Berger remains free) by commuting his jail time.

Tell me, FWD, (and I think you try to be analytical and reasonable on these matters most of the time), what would have been served by Libby going to prison? It's not like anyone's day in court was delayed or denied because of his crime.

[boutons_]

Other people will pay Libby's fine, just like other peope paid the Clinton's many $Ms in legal fees to defend themselves against Repug witch hunting.

don't cry for Libby's pocket book, he will b taken care of.

And Repug law firms will hire him, his career will be taken care of.

Lying to the feds is seen by the Repugs as fully justifiable when a Repug does it, but when Clinton did it, he was impeached.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, as for me, I think the president's decision today was the right thing to do. Libby committed a "process crime" that harmed no one -- except for the institution of justice; something many in government have been doing with impugnity for quite some time.

I wonder, though, if you'd feel the same way if this was a Democrat President (say, President Clinton, for instance) and the convicted official was Al Gore's Chief of Staff. I suspect that if that question was answered genuinely by everyone who posts here, the ideologues among us would view an action like today's very differently -- right-wingers would see the act as an abuse of office or some such, while left-wingers would see it as a wholly justified act, likely for the very reasons that you cite.


I think the president showed respect for the law by not pardoning Scooter Libby while demonstrating his understanding of the unfairness of it all (Scooter going to prison while Sandy Berger remains free) by commuting his jail time.

Personally, I don't think this decision is that nuanced. I think the White House knows it would face a major blowup if Libby had been fully pardoned and understood that the better way to deal with this politically was to commute the sentence.


Tell me, FWD, (and I think you try to be analytical and reasonable on these matters most of the time), what would have been served by Libby going to prison? It's not like anyone's day in court was delayed or denied because of his crime.

I don't disagree with your premise that prison time for Libby would have been mostly for show and not aimed at achieving any real end. That's why I noted initially that I don't really care about this. (and I mis-spoke in my original post -- I meant to say that I couldn't care less about this). It's a non-story made into a story only by virtue of the identities of those involved.

There are far greater ills being visited upon our society by this Administration, IMO, than commuting the sentences of bureaucrats.

[greenroom]

If Bush is above the law for pardoning one person, what do you think of Bill Clinton? How many did he pardon his last day in office?


Well we will see when Mr. Bush has his last day then we will be able to compare. Most Presidents do the pardon's on their last day in office.

[exstatic]

Please tell me you were this outraged about all of Clinton's pardons. If not,

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ058.jpg
Why are you talking about pardons? No one's been pardoned.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

no one should be above the law. bill and hiliary included.

dumbass its not clinton vs. bush. its law and order vs. cronyism.

this goverment is doing things that are benificial to its friends, not its citizens.


AND THAT FUCKING MEANS BOTH PARTIES YOU DIPSHIT.

I just wanted to hear you clarify.

For the record, I think what Bush did today was bullshit. I also think Clinton's pardoning spree was bullshit.

I'm just tired of jackasses like boutons holding Bush and Co. to one standard while completely ignoring it for those on their side of the aisle.

Honestly, I'm sick of all the politicians in D.C. The disconnect between politicians and the general American public has never been greater than it is today.

Those assholes have no perspective relative to what anyone on this board or any other American has. And it's even creeped to the state level, with guys like Perry getting bought off by Cintra for the TTC.

It's all bullshit, and has this country on the express lane to ruin.

Edited - that was a little over the top. But Congress still blows.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well, as for me, I think the president's decision today was the right thing to do. Libby committed a "process crime" that harmed no one -- except for the institution of justice; something many in government have been doing with impugnity for quite some time.

Yoni, what Bush did today was bullshit and if you weren't being so fucking partisan, you'd admit it.

[DarkReign]

Well we will see when Mr. Bush has his last day then we will be able to compare. Most Presidents do the pardon's on their last day in office.

A solid point. We'll see on his last day.

Just because the previous scumbag president pardoned other scumbags, doesnt mean the next president should.

But alas, this isnt politics anymore as much as some of you would like to believe, its about $$ and information. You must have one or both to make it with the big dogs.

My guess, Libby has info. Info that certain people want kept to himself.

President pardons (terribly predictable), Libby stays quiet and lives the rest of his life on Happy Road sipping Pinacoladas with that big, bad felony ring around his neck.

Oh shucks, he cant vote anymore. Like thats ever made a difference.

[DarkReign]

I just wanted to hear you clarify.

For the record, I think what Bush did today was bullshit. I also think Clinton's pardoning spree was bullshit.

I'm just tired of jackasses like boutons holding Bush and Co. to one standard while completely ignoring it for those on their side of the aisle.

Honestly, I'm sick of all the politicians in D.C. The disconnect between politicians and the general American public has never been greater than it is today.

Those assholes have no perspective relative to what anyone on this board or any other American has. And it's even creeped to the state level, with guys like Perry getting bought off by Cintra for the TTC.

It's all bullshit, and has this country on the express lane to ruin. I hate to be this cynical, but it's gotten to the point if some terrorists blew up Congress they'd probably be doing us all a favor.

Holy...fucking shit!

FINALLY! This isnt Dem vs Rep, its Us vs Them. You can either suck their dick like a good toadie (Yoni, Boutons, etc) or at least acknowledge that our masters never had any interest in Us or America in general.

What to do about it? Those are conversations better left off of internet forums.

[Yonivore]

I wonder, though, if you'd feel the same way if this was a Democrat President (say, President Clinton, for instance) and the convicted official was Al Gore's Chief of Staff. I suspect that if that question was answered genuinely by everyone who posts here, the ideologues among us would view an action like today's very differently -- right-wingers would see the act as an abuse of office or some such, while left-wingers would see it as a wholly justified act, likely for the very reasons that you cite.
We'll (hopefully) never have to find out what a President Gore would have done. But, tangentially to this whole discussion is the fact that Presidential Pardons and Commutations are constitutional and, thus, a perfectly legitimate part of the legal system.

I think the arguments are ideological alone. Where we (those who support President Bush's decision) can articulate a reasonable justification for President Bush commuting Libby's sentence (to which you allude below), I believe President Clinton would have a more difficult time justifying Marc Rich's or, for that matter, some of the other pardons granted on his last day in office.


Personally, I don't think this decision is that nuanced. I think the White House knows it would face a major blowup if Libby had been fully pardoned and understood that the better way to deal with this politically was to commute the sentence.
I think you'll be proven right if President Bush issues a pardon at the end of his term. Something that is still available in this case. But, I think you'll have to concede it was a much more thoughtful resolution if, after President Bush leaves office, Scooter Libby is still a convicted felon, on probation, and paying out his fine.


I don't disagree with your premise that prison time for Libby would have been mostly for show and not aimed at achieving any real end. That's why I noted initially that I don't really care about this. (and I mis-spoke in my original post -- I meant to say that I couldn't care less about this). It's a non-story made into a story only by virtue of the identities of those involved.

There are far greater ills being visited upon our society by this Administration, IMO, than commuting the sentences of bureaucrats.
That's fair, although we'd probably disagree on what you consider to be "far greater ills."

[Yonivore]

Yoni, what Bush did today was bullshit and if you weren't being so fucking partisan, you'd admit it.
Explain why it's bullshit? But, before you do that, explain why the framers of the Constitution gave the president the power to pardon and commute.

I eagerly await your lesson on bullshit presidential powers.

[PixelPusher]

Bush 41, circa 1999: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

Bush 43, circa 2003:
“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Explain why it's bullshit? But, before you do that, explain why the framers of the Constitution gave the president the power to pardon and commute.

I eagerly await your lesson on bullshit presidential powers.

Spare me this Framers bullshit. The Framers put that provision into place because they lived in a time where the aristocracy in Europe would wrongly incriminate and condemn people.

They wanted to give the president an out to protect people from partisan bullshit and witch hunts.

Libby is guilty, it's not even a disputed fact. The pardon today had everything to do with the fact that Libby has dirt on other prominent Republicans, probably even Cheney and Bush. It had nothing to do with being excessive or protecting an innocent man.

$250K punishment? For Libby? Are you fucking kidding me? That's chump change for someone in his position, the lobbyists have probably already cut the check.

Now that I answered your question, answer mine. Why the fuck do you feel Libby should have been spared prison time? He could have gotten someone killed with what he did.

I remember you many a time claiming Clinton should be impeached for what he did. Clinton should have been impeached, but Libby should get off free for what he did and Bush should cover for him?

That's bullshit. But who am I kidding, you're a Republican kiss ass and can't see what's happening to this country.

[Yonivore]

Spare me this Framers bullshit. The Framers put that provision into place because they lived in a time where the aristocracy in Europe would wrongly incriminate and condemn people.

They wanted to give the president an out to protect people from partisan bullshit and witch hunts.
Exactly.


Libby is guilty, it's not even a disputed fact. The pardon today had everything to do with the fact that Libby has dirt on other prominent Republicans, probably even Cheney and Bush. It had nothing to do with being excessive or protecting an innocent man.
First it wasn't a pardon. He's still a convicted felon. Second, what kind of dirt?


$250K punishment? For Libby? Are you fucking kidding me? That's chump change for someone in his position, the lobbyists have probably already cut the check.
I can see where a fan of Democrats might have this impression of government employees. However, it might surprise you to find out many actually draw a salary with which they pay their bills. And, I doubt Libby's approached $250K a year.


Now that I answered your question, answer mine. Why the fuck do you feel Libby should have been spared prison time?I've already explained the "process crime" concept.


He could have gotten someone killed with what he did.
Really? Who?


I remember you many a time claiming Clinton should be impeached for what he did.
Yep.


Clinton should have been impeached, but Libby should get off free for what he did and Bush should cover for him?
Well, aside from the differences between pardon and commutation that you seem to have trouble understanding, there's a difference between a sitting president committing a crime and an employee. Libby can't be impeached.


That's bullshit. But who am I kidding, you're a Republican kiss ass and can't see what's happening to this country.
Actually, I'm still a Libertarian.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I can see where a fan of Democrats might have this impression of government employees. However, it might surprise you to find out many actually draw a salary with which they pay their bills. And, I doubt Libby's approached $250K a year.

:lmao It has nothing to do with being a fan of the democrats. Do you even fucking read, or are you the conservative version of the boutons bot? Good lord, I have defended Bush and the Republicans about as much as can be done in the past, but I'm more of a centrist and call it as I see it.

Trust me, I'm sick of both parties equally, I just find the liberals to be a *tad* more hypocritical, and definitely more socialistic.

See, your comments are the type of shit that pisses me off. You act like you're so much fucking smarter than everyone else. You'd be a great politician, because you have that condescending "I'm always right" shit going on.

It might surprise me to find many make a salary? The hell you say! This isn't about their government paycheck you fucking nitwit, it's about all the money that changes hands behind the scenes.

I don't know if you're that fucking ignorant, or just a partisan zealot. Or maybe some of both. Either way, spare me the holier than thou shit, I deal with politicians every hour and every day of my work week, 52 weeks a year.

[Yonivore]

:lmao It has nothing to do with being a fan of the democrats. Do you even fucking read, or are you the conservative version of the boutons bot?

Trust me, I'm sick of both parties equally, I just find the liberals to be a *tad* more hypocritical, and definitely more socialistic.
Well, at least you're that smart.


See, your comments are the type of shit that pisses me off. You act like you're so much fucking smarter than everyone else. You'd be a great politician, because you have that condescending "I'm always right" shit going on.
You're pissed off? Who cares?


It might surprise me to find many make a salary? The hell you say! This isn't about their government paycheck you fucking nitwit, it's about all the money that changes hands behind the scenes.

I don't know if you're that fucking ignorant, or just a partisan zealot. Or maybe some of both. Either way, spare me the holier than thou shit, I deal with politicians every hour and every day of my work week, 52 weeks a year.
Sounds like you've witnessed some crimes your not reporting...if, in fact, you've witnessed such "behind the scenes" money deals.

[Yonivore]

Marc Rich, 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Yeah, just like Libby who, by the way, only had his sentence commuted.

PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm) to see the other few hundred.

[Jamtas#2]

Some reaction to President Bush's decision Monday to commute the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

---

"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

---

"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules - one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law." - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

---

"While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." - Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

---

"Accountability has been in short supply in the Bush administration, and this commutation fits that pattern." - Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

---

"President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby. The prison sentence was overly harsh and the punishment did not fit the crime." - House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

---

"This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years." - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

---

"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct." - former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

---

"Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world." - former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

---

"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

---

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

---

"The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed." - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

---

"It is time for the American people to be heard - I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law." - Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

---

"President Bush's 11th-hour commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence makes a mockery of the justice system and betrays the idea that all Americans are expected to be held accountable for their actions, even close friends of Vice President Cheney." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

---

"By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, the president continues to abdicate responsibility for the actions of his administration. The only ones paying the price for this administration's actions are the American people." - Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

---

"This decision sends the wrong message about the rule of law in the United States, just as the president is meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. How can we hold the line against injustices in other countries when our own executive branch deliberately sets out to smear its critics, lies about it and then wriggles away without having to pay the price in prison?" - Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

---

"The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_QUOTES?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-07-02-20-24-17)

Let's see how people feel about this..quick everyone with a "D" by your title, bash Bush...everyone with an "R" defend him...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You're pissed off? Who cares?

Do you feel our country is being led in the right direction?

Fuck, the approval rating for our president is at 30%, Congress is 25%. They have a word for that in Europe. France.



Sounds like you've witnessed some crimes your not reporting...if, in fact, you've witnessed such "behind the scenes" money deals.

Me personally, no. I have seen potential clients swayed by gambling trips to Vegas, hooker runs across the border to Matamoros, 'marketing reps' going back to rooms with married men, etc. - all in moves by our competition to steal business.

You just don't get it. It's about how these people (politicians) are wired. They don't think or act like you or me or anyone on this site, especially on the federal level. If you can't do something for them, they don't even want to talk to you.

Answer me this Yoni:

1. Do you feel that all of our Congressmen/women are ethical?

2. Do you feel that the majority of those in Congress have or have not taken money from special interests?

Do you realize that running for president of this country is approaching being a billion dollar campaign? Do you think that those making donations are doing so because they like the guy/gal? Fuck no, they're doing it for access to the office and all the 'perks' being a money backer of the president bring.

I really don't know what to say, you're as conservative and clueless as boutons is mindless and liberal.

[exstatic]

"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules - one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. :lol No one in this administration should be above the law." - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Paris obviously didn't donate enough to the Bush campaign. That, or being an administration flunky will get you one of these...
http://www.ilstu.edu/~dfgrayb/Personal/JailCard.jpg

[Extra Stout]

You just don't get it. It's about how these people (politicians) are wired. They don't think or act like you or me or anyone on this site, especially on the federal level. If you can't do something for them, they don't even want to talk to you.

Do you realize that running for president of this country is approaching being a billion dollar campaign? Do you think that those making donations are doing so because they like the guy/gal? Fuck no, they're doing it for access to the office and all the 'perks' being a money backer of the president bring.

I really don't know what to say, you're as conservative and clueless as boutons is mindless and liberal.
In pretty much every Latin American country, one political party appeals to the lowest common denominator by trading patronage and handouts for votes, and the other exists solely to exploit and manipulate the entire populace of the nation in the service of a small wealthy oligarchy.

How blessed we are to live in the United States, which is nothing like that at all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Bush should've just completely pardoned the guy. It wouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone if he had.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

In pretty much every Latin American country, one political party appeals to the lowest common denominator by trading patronage and handouts for votes, and the other exists solely to exploit and manipulate the entire populace of the nation in the service of a small wealthy oligarchy.

How blessed we are to live in the United States, which is nothing like that at all.


I was waiting for you to weigh in on this, good post

[George Gervin's Afro]

What? The conviction stands, he's still on the hook for the $250,000 fine, and he's a felon for the rest of his life.

I think it's a fair resolution.

But, on the other hand, I also believe the lefty outrage over this can only push the President's conservative polling number up. Thanks! :elephant


So can we all agree that lying under oath is a bad thing? If anyone does it they deserved to be punished.

[Yonivore]

So can we all agree that lying under oath is a bad thing? If anyone does it they deserved to be punished.
I agree.

[spurster]

Restoring integrity and character to the White House?

[Jamtas#2]

Restoring integrity and character to the White House?

We need to address our Congress first (both parties). Get the money out of Congress and we'll be better off. An ethical Congress that works for the good of the people rather than the good of a party would be the best remedy.

[Yonivore]

Do you feel our country is being led in the right direction?

Fuck, the approval rating for our president is at 30%, Congress is 25%. They have a word for that in Europe. France.

Me personally, no. I have seen potential clients swayed by gambling trips to Vegas, hooker runs across the border to Matamoros, 'marketing reps' going back to rooms with married men, etc. - all in moves by our competition to steal business.

You just don't get it. It's about how these people (politicians) are wired. They don't think or act like you or me or anyone on this site, especially on the federal level. If you can't do something for them, they don't even want to talk to you.

Answer me this Yoni:

1. Do you feel that all of our Congressmen/women are ethical?

2. Do you feel that the majority of those in Congress have or have not taken money from special interests?

Do you realize that running for president of this country is approaching being a billion dollar campaign? Do you think that those making donations are doing so because they like the guy/gal? Fuck no, they're doing it for access to the office and all the 'perks' being a money backer of the president bring.

I really don't know what to say, you're as conservative and clueless as boutons is mindless and liberal.
I've read this response a couple of times and still can't find how it's related to the Libby commutation or the subject of the executive prerogative to pardon criminals and commute sentences.

Nice use of your time.

[Yonivore]

The Constitution gives the president the exclusive and unfettered (except for cases of impeachment) privilege to pardon and to commute sentences. There is nothing said about any criteria needing to be met such as a belief in innocence as has been suggested by some in here.

The problem is that there are no formal or informally agreed upon standards with which to evaluate a president's decision in these cases. We can look at the practices of past presidents, -- and we're doing that in this forum -- but it's a very imperfect guide. For example, we wouldn't want our presidents to emulate President Clinton's practice of pardoning those whose family members contributed to his presidential library.

But, in the Libby case, there are several factors that -- for me -- seem to speak in favor of commuting the sentence (and made out an arguable, though less compelling, case for a pardon). The two most important factors are Libby's public service and the fact that, at the time Libby made the false statements in question, the prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he had come to Washington to investigate.

Indeed, it seems likely that but for the high profile and political context of the investigation, the prosecutor would not have asked Libby these questions at all.

The left's hyperventilating over this is more amusing than anything. Watching George Stephanopolous gnash on about the abuse of power, this morning, was downright irony.

[boutons_]

"Libby's public service"

... has really been an Repug partisan political operative, and henchman for dickhead.

"Libby made the false statements in question, the prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he had come to Washington to investigate."

Starr knew Clinton has sex with Lewinsky, but he hounded Clinton anyway. There were tons of questions, esp about consensual sex between legal adults, that should have never been aksed of Clinton at all.

dubya sniffed in his first pres campaing at how immoral and lax Clinton was, dubya thinks God put him in the WH, "born again" dubya exploits his alleged religiousty to pander to the dumbfuck "Christian" right, but when the moral/ethical chips are in play, dubya is no better than Clinton.

[Yonivore]

Here's a defense of Bush's commutation...


Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant “Reprieves and Pardons” for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted “[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit“ (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that “[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . .” (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington’s pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding’s commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon’s commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush’s 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.

[Yonivore]

Here's a criticism of Bush's commutation...


When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, “politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.”

Not so for Mr. Bush, the president. Judging from his decision yesterday to commute the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. — who was charged with perjury and convicted — untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base.

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush’s drive to war with Iraq — whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

It seems clear from the record that Vice President Dick Cheney organized a campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Libby, who was Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, was willing to lie to protect his boss.

That made Mr. Libby the darling of the right, which demanded that Mr. Bush pardon him. Those same Republicans have been rebelling against Mr. Bush, most recently on immigration reform, while Democrats in Congress have pursued an investigation into whether Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney lied about Iraq’s weapons programs.

All of this put immense pressure on the president to do something before Mr. Libby went to jail. But none of it was justification for the baldly political act of commuting his sentence.

Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.

Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were “harsh punishment” enough for Mr. Libby.

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

[Yonivore]

Ooops! I'm sorry, the defense I posted was of President Clinton's over 400 pardons and commutations.

But, they were both the defense of Clinton (2/18/01) and the criticism of Bush (07/03/07) did share one thing in common. They're both editorial opinions of the New York Times.

What bias? The New York Times spends it considerable opinion capital excusing and explaining Clinton's use of the Constitutional executive power while employing it to criticize President Bush.

[j-6]

List of all pardons by a US president - last four in office bolded. For whoever asked earlier, Clinton pardoned 140 people his last day in office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt- 3687
Woodrow Wilson- 2480
Harry S. Truman- 2044
Calvin Coolidge- 1545
Herbert Hoover- 1385
Ulysses S. Grant- 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson- 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower- 1157
Grover Cleveland - 1107
Theodore Roosevelt - 981
Richard Nixon- 926
William McKinley - 918
Rutherford B. Hayes- 893
Warren G. Harding- 800
William H. Taft- 758
Andrew Johnson- 654
Benjamin Harrison- 613
John F. Kennedy- 575
Jimmy Carter- 566
Bill Clinton- 456
James Monroe- 419
Gerald Ford- 409
Ronald Reagan- 406
Andrew Jackson- 386
Abraham Lincoln- 343
Chester Arthur- 337
James K. Polk- 268
John Tyler- 209
James Madison- 196
John Quincy Adams- 183
Millard Fillmore- 170
Martin Van Buren- 168
James Buchanan- 150
Franklin Pierce- 142
Thomas Jefferson- 119
George W. Bush- 117
George H. W. Bush- 77
Zachary Taylor- 38
John Adams- 21
George Washington- 16
James Garfield- 0
William H Harrison- 0

[Yonivore]

List of all pardons by a US president - last four in office bolded. For whoever asked earlier, Clinton pardoned 140 people his last day in office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt- 3687
Woodrow Wilson- 2480
Harry S. Truman- 2044
Calvin Coolidge- 1545
Herbert Hoover- 1385
Ulysses S. Grant- 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson- 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower- 1157
Grover Cleveland - 1107
Theodore Roosevelt - 981
Richard Nixon- 926
William McKinley - 918
Rutherford B. Hayes- 893
Warren G. Harding- 800
William H. Taft- 758
Andrew Johnson- 654
Benjamin Harrison- 613
John F. Kennedy- 575
Jimmy Carter- 566
Bill Clinton- 456
James Monroe- 419
Gerald Ford- 409
Ronald Reagan- 406
Andrew Jackson- 386
Abraham Lincoln- 343
Chester Arthur- 337
James K. Polk- 268
John Tyler- 209
James Madison- 196
John Quincy Adams- 183
Millard Fillmore- 170
Martin Van Buren- 168
James Buchanan- 150
Franklin Pierce- 142
Thomas Jefferson- 119
George W. Bush- 117
George H. W. Bush- 77
Zachary Taylor- 38
John Adams- 21
George Washington- 16
James Garfield- 0
William H Harrison- 0
I'm impressed to see both Bush's squarely in the thick of a bunch of founding fathers on this issue.

And, I'm completely unsurprised to find FDR at the top of the heap.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm impressed to see both Bush's squarely in the thick of a bunch of founding fathers on this issue.


what else should be expected from the greatest presidents who ever lived?

[Yonivore]

what else should be expected from the greatest presidents who ever lived?
Exactly.

Well, maybe not the greatest but, as with his pardons and commutations -- in that league.

Thanks for recognizing this, Oh Gee!! There may be hope for you yet. :spin

[smeagol]

:lmao @ liberals defending Clinton and attacking Bush on this issue, and neocons defending Bush and attacking Clinton.

Same ol', same ol'.

Props to Aggie. I do read his takes and he is defends Bush in most of them. But he puts his partisanship aside on this issue.

I have never ever seen political forum hardline posters do that. Ever.

[Yonivore]

:lmao @ liberals defending Clinton and attacking Bush on this issue, and neocons defending Bush and attacking Clinton.

Same ol', same ol'.

Props to Aggie. I do read his takes and he is defends Bush in most of them. But he puts his partisanship aside on this issue.

I have never ever seen political forum hardline posters do that. Ever.
Where were you when many of the President's supporters, me included, bashed his compromise "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" piece of trash into the dust where it belonged?

Is it partisan to believe the President did the right thing in this case? And, as far as bashing Clinton, I've only done so on a few of his pardons or commutations. Hell, he granted 496 of 'em, there's bound to have been one that was deserved. I only complained about the 4 or so that were newsworth and clearly some kind of quid pro quo.

[Nbadan]

Hey Yoni, how many convicted felons did Clinton commute or pardon in the middle of his term?

How many years did Mark Rich and other conspirators in the White water scandal do in Prison, including solitary confinement?

That's the ethical difference that wing-nuts like Yoni refuse to acknowledge between the Clinton and Bush pardons, Rich did about a couple years in prison, if Rich was gonna spill the beans on any other Clinton dirt he possibly had to get a pardon, he had ample time in prison. Scooter, on the other hand, won't have to do a day in prison.

Thanks Cheney.


Fucken IMPEACH NOW!

[Yonivore]

Hey Yoni, how many convicted felons did Clinton commute or pardon in the middle of his term?
I don't know but, had you looked at the list of pardons you would have seen he granted them on several different occassions during his presidency;

November 23, 1994
April 17, 1995
December 23, 1997
December 24, 1998
February 19, 1999
December 23, 1999
February 19, 2000
March 15, 2000
July 7, 2000
October 20, 2000
November 21, 2000
December 22, 2000
January 20, 2001

He granted 496 Pardons and Commutations so, subtract the 140 granted on his last day in office, there were 356 during his term in office. I believe all were convicted of felonies.

Some of his most controversial pardons?

Marc Rich, who you mention below.

16 FALN terrorists in 1999 (opposed by most of America, including his then Senatorial candidate wife. Invoked executive privilege when asked for documents that would have probably explained his reasons for pardoning a bunch of terrorists)

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory who had their pardon bought through Hillary's brother.

Melvin J. Reynolds, and Illinois Congressman convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault (maybe Clinton identified), and other charges related to child porn.

Roger Clinton, his brother.

Dan Rostenkowski

Susan McDougal

Carlos Vignali, a convicted cocaine runner who just happened to pay $200,000 to Hillary's brother to represent him in the clemency hearing.

Almon Glenn Braswell, mail fraud and perjury...also paid $200,000 to Hugh Rodham.


How many years did Mark Rich and other conspirators in the White water scandal do in Prison, including solitary confinement?
Nope. He fled the country and came home when his wife sucked a pardon out of Clinton's penis.


That's the ethical difference that wing-nuts like Yoni refuse to acknowledge between the Clinton and Bush pardons, Rich did about a couple years in prison, if Rich was gonna spill the beans on any other Clinton dirt he possibly had to get a pardon, he had ample time in prison. Scooter, on the other hand, won't have to do a day in prison.

Thanks Cheney.
And that my friends, is the ethical difference between the Clinton and Bush pardons. Libby committed a crime that was immaterial to the investigation in which he was being questioned. The principle question of the investigation had been answered and there's no pretense on the part of Fitzgerald that Libby's perjury caused any harm to his investigation.

The people I listed above, including Marc Rich, committed real crimes with real victims and caused real harm.


Fucken IMPEACH NOW!
:lmao On what high crime or misdemeanor?

[Yonivore]

Hey, Nbadan, here's an interesting little tidbit I did not know about Marc Rich.

According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.

Probe: $1.8B diverted to Hussein regime (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/oil.food.report/index.html)


The report said Marc Rich & Co. financed 4 million barrels of oil under a 9.5-million-barrel contract awarded to the European Oil and Trading Co., a French-based shell company.

"Surcharges were imposed on the oil," the report said, and "Marc Rich & Co. directed BNP Paris not to disclose its identity to BNP NY in connection with its financing of the U.N. contract."

It added, "According to an individual familiar with the companies, EOTC and Marc Rich & Co. agreed that the premium paid to EOTC would cover a commission and a surcharge. The premium paid by Marc Rich & Co. of 30-40 cents per barrel was sufficiently high to cover both."

The company responded that it "continues to dispute vigorously" the report's conclusion.
Some good that pardon did. Goes from dealing with Iran to dealing with Iraq. Jeeze!

[Nbadan]

I don't know but, had you looked at the list of pardons you would have seen he granted them on several different occassions during his presidency;

November 23, 1994
April 17, 1995
December 23, 1997
December 24, 1998
February 19, 1999
December 23, 1999
February 19, 2000
March 15, 2000
July 7, 2000
October 20, 2000
November 21, 2000
December 22, 2000
January 20, 2001

He granted 496 Pardons and Commutations so, subtract the 140 granted on his last day in office, there were 356 during his term in office. I believe all were convicted of felonies.

Some of his most controversial pardons?

Marc Rich, who you mention below.

16 FALN terrorists in 1999 (opposed by most of America, including his then Senatorial candidate wife. Invoked executive privilege when asked for documents that would have probably explained his reasons for pardoning a bunch of terrorists)

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory who had their pardon bought through Hillary's brother.

Melvin J. Reynolds, and Illinois Congressman convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault (maybe Clinton identified), and other charges related to child porn.

Roger Clinton, his brother.

Dan Rostenkowski

Susan McDougal

Carlos Vignali, a convicted cocaine runner who just happened to pay $200,000 to Hillary's brother to represent him in the clemency hearing.

Almon Glenn Braswell, mail fraud and perjury...also paid $200,000 to Hugh Rodham.


Nope. He fled the country and came home when his wife sucked a pardon out of Clinton's penis.


And that my friends, is the ethical difference between the Clinton and Bush pardons. Libby committed a crime that was immaterial to the investigation in which he was being questioned. The principle question of the investigation had been answered and there's no pretense on the part of Fitzgerald that Libby's perjury caused any harm to his investigation.

The people I listed above, including Marc Rich, committed real crimes with real victims and caused real harm.

I don't know the circumstances to every individual case, but Clinton isn't the first President to pardon felons, in fact, Bush41 pardoned a few convicted felons of his own (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm). The point is that all of these Presidential Pardons were granted years after the convictions and imprisonments, these felons served years in prison.

Libby knew where Cheney's bodies are buried, he was his former chief of staff, and for that he gets to be above the law of us normal peasants.

[Nbadan]

Hey, Nbadan, here's an interesting little tidbit I did not know about Marc Rich.

According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.

Probe: $1.8B diverted to Hussein regime (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/oil.food.report/index.html)


Some good that pardon did. Goes from dealing with Iran to dealing with Iraq. Jeeze!

Hey Yoni, as we've seen, the UN and IAAE inspections were working. The sanctions and embargo should never have to placed in the first place.

[Yonivore]

I don't know the circumstances to every individual case, but Clinton isn't the first President to pardon felons, in fact, Bush41 pardoned a few convicted felons of his own (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm). The point is that all of these Presidential Pardons were granted years after the convictions and imprisonments, these felons served years in prison.
Well, no, that's not the point. Besides the fact that Marc Rich didn't serve one day in prison -- the point is the crimes for which these people were convicted.


Libby knew where Cheney's bodies are buried, he was his former chief of staff, and for that he gets to be above the law of us normal peasants.
If this is true, Bush should have pardoned him. Not only does he have to pay a $250,000 fine, he's still a convicted felon with all the attendant restrictions on his liberty; and, he'll be disbarred, thus, depriving him of his principle method of earnings.

Oh yeah, he's probably ineligible for his previous job of Vice President's Chief of Staff.

Some deal. I'm not sure I'd maintain my silence over "buried bodies" for this kind of "conservative compassion."

You're an idiot Dan.

[Mr. Peabody]

Bush says doesn't rule out pardon for Libby
Tue Jul 3, 2007 12:30 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he did not rule out a full pardon for Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a day after he spared the former White House aide prison time for his perjury conviction in the CIA leak case.

Asked whether he would rule out a full pardon for Libby, Bush replied: "As to the future I rule nothing in and nothing out."

[Yonivore]

Bush says doesn't rule out pardon for Libby
Tue Jul 3, 2007 12:30 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he did not rule out a full pardon for Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a day after he spared the former White House aide prison time for his perjury conviction in the CIA leak case.

Asked whether he would rule out a full pardon for Libby, Bush replied: "As to the future I rule nothing in and nothing out."
Bush doesn't rule out Spinach for dinner either.

Exactly what would it profit him to answer such a question. The left already hates him and, nothing -- absolutely nothing -- this president says or does will ever be satisfactory.

I say, leave 'em guessing.

[Nbadan]

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[citation needed] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[5] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy)

[Mr. Peabody]

Bush doesn't rule out Spinach for dinner either.

Exactly what would it profit him to answer such a question. The left already hates him and, nothing -- absolutely nothing -- this president says or does will ever be satisfactory.

I say, leave 'em guessing.

I don't think there needs to be much guessing as to what he will eventually do with Libby's conviction.

[Nbadan]

I don't think there needs to be much guessing as to what he will eventually do with Libby's conviction.


There's no doubt that a full pardon is coming as soon as Dubya is out.

[Yonivore]

I don't think there needs to be much guessing as to what he will eventually do with Libby's conviction.
Only time will tell.

[Nbadan]

Well, no, that's not the point. Besides the fact that Marc Rich didn't serve one day in prison -- the point is the crimes for which these people were convicted.

Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]

Rich has never returned to the U.S...

[Yonivore]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy)

Dan, you emphasized the wrong passages. Here, let me help:


On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[citation needed] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[5] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
I wonder how much they donated to the Clinton Library for that kind of treatment. Hell, the President even ignored his wife's displeasure.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't think there needs to be much guessing as to what he will eventually do with Libby's conviction.

reinstate it?

[Yonivore]

Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]

Rich has never returned to the U.S...
Your point?

[Yonivore]

I don't think there needs to be much guessing as to what he will eventually do with Libby's conviction.
You're right, what would be the point?

[Yonivore]

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
That's [Marc] Rich! Literally.

Wow, she must have the luxury of possessing a bug brain with a memory to match.

[Yonivore]

Statement by the President on Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html)


The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

# # #
Just in case you hadn't read it and, by the looks of many of the comments in here, not many have.

[j-6]

That's [Marc] Rich! Literally.

Wow, she must have the luxury of possessing a bug brain with a memory to match.


Wasn't Scooter Marc Rich's attorney?

[Yonivore]

Wasn't Scooter Marc Rich's attorney?
I'll be damned, he sure was. He represented him on various matters from 1985 until 2000.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Of course, good lawyers are retained by a whole bunch of different types of characters.

[j-6]

I'll be damned, he sure was. He represented him on various matters from 1985 until 2000.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Of course, good lawyers are retained by a whole bunch of different types of characters.

Absolutely. Especially filthy rich guys. I'm sure Scooter wasn't cheap.

I wonder if their association dissolved once Clinton pardoned him, or when he was tabbed to be Cheney's Cheney.

Speaking of lawyers, Rudy Giuliani was the US Attorney on the indictment that caused Rich to flee the country. That was a couple of years before Rich retained Scooter though.

[Yonivore]

Speaking of lawyers, Rudy Giuliani was the US Attorney on the indictment that caused Rich to flee the country. That was a couple of years before Rich retained Scooter though.
I did know that.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting. What do I see? Democrats and liberals are vindictive twits! What ever happened to being nice? This was a simple and clear thing for president Bush to do. Libby was no threat to anyone. It would not have happened if Libby did not have to go to prison until after the appeal process, in which the case has a high probability of being overturned.

Is it right to let someone spend time in jail who may be exonerated?

[Yonivore]

Interesting. What do I see? Democrats and liberals are vindictive twits! What ever happened to being nice? This was a simple and clear thing for president Bush to do. Libby was no threat to anyone. It would not have happened if Libby did not have to go to prison until after the appeal process, in which the case has a high probability of being overturned.

Is it right to let someone spend time in jail who may be exonerated?
Yeah, you beat me to that point. There's a possibility the conviction will be overturned on appeal and, therefore, making the whole question moot.

I wonder if those who criticize the President for commuting the sentence will equally praise his sagacity if Libby is exonerated.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Is it right to let someone spend time in jail who may be exonerated?

Probably not, but the POTUS rarely gets involved in those cases.

[Yonivore]

Probably not, but the POTUS rarely gets involved in those cases.
Oh well, it's a rare case.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh well, it's a rare case.

yep, being pardoned is the rare case

[Nbadan]

I think Biden said it best when he stated that last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law.

Other notable statements:


"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."

— Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.


"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules — one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law."

— Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democrats are unified now on labeling Bush as a person who holds himself and his administration above the law. The press can't possibly ignore this much longer, right?

[Yonivore]

yep, being pardoned is the rare case
Well, he wasn't pardoned.

[Yonivore]

Democrats are unified now on labeling Bush as a person who holds himself and his administration above the law. The press can't possibly ignore this much longer, right?
You're funny. As if this hasn't been the case all along. :lmao

[Nbadan]

TPMtv: Libby's Liberation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjD6kCrot7A)

See he kept his word he said who ever was at the bottom of it would be taken care of. He took care of scooter and cheney and richard armitage.

[Yonivore]

TPMtv: Libby's Liberation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjD6kCrot7A)

See he kept his word he said who ever was at the bottom of it would be taken care of. He took care of scooter and cheney and richard armitage.
So, why's everyone bitchin'?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Only time will tell.

Please, that shit gets pardoned Bush's last day in office.

[Yonivore]

Please, that shit gets pardoned Bush's last day in office.
Why not just pardon him today? It's not like the Democrats could be any more ridiculous over the matter than they are right now.

[PixelPusher]

I don't know what everyone is bitching about...Bush didn't do anything for Libby he wouldn't have done for anyone else requesting their sentence be commuted...


Just "routine"... (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/03/snow-commutation/)
QUESTION: And just as a follow-up, can you shed any light on the president’s process of deliberations, his — how we went about thinking about this decision which you said he considered over weeks and weeks?

SNOW: Only to a very trivial extent because, as you know, there’s a very important debate going on in Washington about the importance of maintaining the sanctity of deliberations within a White House.

I will leave at this: The president spent weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed. And they looked at a whole lot of options and they spent a lot of time talking through the options and doing some very detailed legal analysis.

QUESTION: (inaudible) outside the White House?

SNOW: I’m not going to characterize beyond that. […]

QUESTION: Can I follow on that? If there are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation — not pardons, but commutation — in the federal system, under President Bush, will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the president applied to Scooter Libby?

SNOW: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Tony, I’m trying to get a handle on it. Are you saying this White House handled this in an extraordinary manner or in a routine manner?

SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the president took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.

QUESTION: But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn’t even ask for it?

SNOW: I just think it’s just the president, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.

QUESTION: But absent a request, he wouldn’t even have known about this case if it didn’t involve his formeraide.

SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact — you talk about if it had not involved a formeraide. This is the thing that has been in the headlines for quite awhile

[PixelPusher]

...I mean, c'mon all you Bush hating little brains! The Bush Administration has always looked out for the little guys who got screwed over by "excessive" punishment for victimless legal technicalities! How dare you suggest he doled out a special favor for one of his boys!


Sentencing Standards (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commutecnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: July 4, 2007

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.

Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

On Monday, President Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence.

That left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.

“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State who runs the blog “Sentencing Law and Policy.”

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.

“The president of the United States has come in on his own and said, ‘30 months is not reasonable in this case,’ ” said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other charges.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside of Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it.

No one disputes that Mr. Bush has the authority under the Constitution to issue pardons and commutations for federal crimes. But experts in the area, pointing to earlier political scandals in the Reagan, Truman and Grant administrations, said Mr. Bush had acted with unusual speed.

“What distinguishes Scooter Libby from the acts of clemency in the other three episodes,” said P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor who studies pardons at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., referring to Mr. Libby by his nickname, “is that in those episodes they generally served their time and some other president pardoned them.”

Mr. Bush repeated yesterday that he had found Mr. Libby’s punishment to be too severe. But experts in federal sentencing law said a sentence of 30 months for lying and obstruction was perfectly consistent with the tough sentences routinely meted out by the federal system.

“One what legal basis could he have reached that result?” asked Frank O. Bowman III, an authority on federal sentencing who teaches law at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said of the commutation. “There is no legal basis.”

But nor is there a reason to think that the Justice Department has changed its thinking about the sentencing system generally. Indeed, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales last month said the Justice Department would push for legislation making federal sentences tougher and less flexible.

Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court, the Justice Department persuaded the Supreme Court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law,” while Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed adequately to consider his history and circumstances, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, posted a copy of the government’s brief in the Rita case on his blog yesterday and asked: “Why is the president flip-flopping on these criminal justice decisions?”

The Justice Department also took a hard line last year in the case of Jamie Olis, a midlevel executive at the energy company Dynegy convicted of accounting fraud. The department argued that Mr. Olis deserved 292 months, or more than 24 years. He was sentenced to six years.

Sentencing experts said that Mr. Libby’s sentence was both tough and in line with general trends.

“It was a pretty harsh sentence,” Professor Berman said, “because I tend to view any term of imprisonment for nonviolent first offenses as harsh. But it certainly wasn’t out of the normal array of cases I see every day.”

[Wild Cobra]

My opinion:

Anyone who thinks Libby should be in jail right now is an absolute idiot. He is not a threat to anyone. The charges are clearly wishy-washy and convicted by a DC jury that is likely very liberal.

My biggest grievance with the conviction is that charges were brought against him after it was known that Armatige was the leak, and not charges with anything. This is what the case was about. Who leaked her name! How can anyone with a strait face say the Libby obstructed justice when the truth was already known? It is crystal clear that the highest official possible was targeted just as a political weapon.

This is absolutely un-American in my eyes.

Kangaroo court anyone?

Drumhead trial anyone?

Pick your term. That's all it was anyway.

[Nbadan]

Perjury, obstruction of Justice....lying to federal investigators isn't a wishy-washy joke. Presidents have been impeached and there are real people serving years in prison for the same or lesser offenses. This isn't about liberal-versus-Wingnuts, this is about an adminstration which feels that laws that they create for the rest of us don't apply to them.

Don't expect Libby to do any probation time either...


Bush eliminated Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term and left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release—a form of probation—is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it's unclear what happens next.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton posed the question to Libby's attorneys and to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald: Does this mean Libby won't actually be required to serve supervised release? Should he just have to report to probation officials as if he spent time in prison?

The law, Walton said in court documents, "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."

For now, it appears Libby is in legal limbo. Walton gave both sides until Monday to respond.

AP (http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_6290920)

[Nbadan]

My biggest grievance with the conviction is that charges were brought against him after it was known that Armatige was the leak, and not charges with anything. This is what the case was about. Who leaked her name! How can anyone with a strait face say the Libby obstructed justice when the truth was already known? It is crystal clear that the highest official possible was targeted just as a political weapon.

Armitage was just one leaker, almost everyone in the administration, including Libby, was leaking Plame's relationship to Joe Wilson to the Press. Plame was a covert agent still on active duty investigating the proliferation of WMDs....

[Nbadan]

Equal protection under the law? yeah right...

LAT: Harsh for Libby but not for others
Bush called 30 months "excessive," but the average term for obstruction is twice that.
By Richard B. Schmitt and David G. Savage, Times Staff Writers
July 3, 2007


WASHINGTON — In commuting the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, President Bush said the former vice presidential aide had suffered enough and that the 30-month prison term ordered up by a federal judge was "excessive."

But records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in many cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice -- one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March -- got some jail time. According to federal data, the average sentence the defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.

Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about a machine gun he had purchased. The vet had a record of public service -- fighting in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War -- and had no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines.

That Bush chose to make an exception for a political ally is galling to many career Justice Department prosecutors and other legal experts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.

The critics include some Republicans who said Bush's decision does not square with an administration that has been ardently pro law-and-order. "It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions," John S. Martin, Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in New York, said of the commutation....

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6710317.story?coll=la-home-center)

[Nbadan]

Wild Cobra should find this interesting...

In even more Libby-irony (which wing-nuts here hate), the Judge who sentenced Libby to 2.5 years was a Dubya 'tough-on-crime' appointee...

NYT/AP: Attorneys See Irony in Libby Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 3, 2007


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.

A former deputy drug adviser, federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge, Walton seemed a perfect fit for the new president. And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for.

Until now.

When erasing former White House aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being too harsh....

***

''The party who appointed him is now unhappy with what he appointed him to do,'' said Scott L. Fredericksen, a defense attorney who served as a prosecutor under every president since Ronald Reagan.

Also noteworthy, defense attorneys said, was seeing the White House urge leniency just weeks after the Bush administration announced a tough new crime bill that would bar judges from going easy on criminals. They would be free to impose longer sentences, but not shorter ones....

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak-Judge.html)

[xrayzebra]

Oh, the hand wringing, the whaling and wrongness of it all,
commuting part of a sentence for someone convicted of a crime
for a non-crime.

Yet, didn't we have a big debate over granting amnesty to about
12-20 million law breakers, who also more than like compounded
their crime by stealing others identity. But, but, but they only
wanted a better life. And all championed by the same bunch
who are bitching now. Give me a break.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, you beat me to that point. There's a possibility the conviction will be overturned on appeal and, therefore, making the whole question moot.

I wonder if those who criticize the President for commuting the sentence will equally praise his sagacity if Libby is exonerated.

That strikes me as a relatively flimsy excuse. There's a possibility that just about any conviction will be overturned on appeal, making the entire prosecution moot. I don't know that the possibility that there will be a reversal on appeal is a justification for commuting the sentences of political allies.

At that, I'm not sure that it doesn't jeopardize the separation of powers doctrine for the executive to assume that he knows what the judiciary might do in a particular case.

[Yonivore]

That strikes me as a relatively flimsy excuse. There's a possibility that just about any conviction will be overturned on appeal, making the entire prosecution moot. I don't know that the possibility that there will be a reversal on appeal is a justification for commuting the sentences of political allies.

At that, I'm not sure that it doesn't jeopardize the separation of powers doctrine for the executive to assume that he knows what the judiciary might do in a particular case.
I don't recall that being the President's reason for the commutation.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't recall that being the President's reason for the commutation.

I never said it was. I was simply responding to your suggestion that it might justify the President's decision.

[The Janitor]

Sounds like the White House needs a janitor to clean the place up... in return, I want my squirrel army back.

[Nbadan]

Olbermann bats a 10-10....Wow! :clap

Keith Olbermann - Special Comment: Bush, Cheney Should Resign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmrcpDiv_ac)

[xrayzebra]

Armitage was just one leaker, almost everyone in the administration, including Libby, was leaking Plame's relationship to Joe Wilson to the Press. Plame was a covert agent still on active duty investigating the proliferation of WMDs....

Hey dan, a question, has it ever been proven that
Ms. Wilson was actually a "secret agent man"? Or
just a glorified clerk at CIA and everyone knew who
she worked for.

[Yonivore]

I never said it was. I was simply responding to your suggestion that it might justify the President's decision.

Yeah, you beat me to that point. There's a possibility the conviction will be overturned on appeal and, therefore, making the whole question moot.

I wonder if those who criticize the President for commuting the sentence will equally praise his sagacity if Libby is exonerated.
So you read that as a justification of the President's decision? Because I intended it as a illustration of how ridiculous is the current position of those who opposed the president's decision to commute instead of pardon.

The president didn't use this as justification for his decision but, I merely pointed out that if his reasons are as nefarious as some would have us believe then, should Libby be exonerated, he should be given credit for being more forward-thinking than those who would criticize him.

After all, considering all the crap he's taking on this decision, I think he'd of been better off just pardoning Libby if that is going to be the eventual outcome. Because, there's absolutely nothing he could have done to satisfy his critics in this case. Even if he'd let Libby go to jail -- only to be exonerated -- the left would have ridiculed him for NOT taking action. And, finally, if he had allowed Libby to go to jail and the appeal was lost, he would have been criticized for letting Libby take the fall for Cheney...

There's no way for the president to win this argument so, I presume he just did what he thought was right. Plus, it's the outcome that stands the biggest chance of being the appropriate thing -- should, in fact, Libby be exonerated.

Hope you followed that.

[Yonivore]

You almost can't help but grudgingly admire the absolute and total shamelessness of Billary, the former and possibly future first ladies. Given Ms. Rodham's lesser half's troubled history with the pardon power, you might have expected it to be an awkward moment for her when President Bush spared Scooter Libby prison time in the Valerie Plame non-crime. How would she finesse this one?

Well, as it turns out, being completely brazen about it. The Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070301209.html) reports from Keokuk, Iowa, that Mrs. Clinton "drew a distinction" between the Libby commutation--"which she has harshly criticized--and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office":


Her husband's pardons, issued in the closing hours of his presidency, were simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none were aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy, she said.
Earlier, Ms. Rodham issued a statement (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271) saying, "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

Really now? So, let's go back and review some of Mr. Clinton's pardons. The one everyone remembers is that of Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader who renounced his citizenship and whose wife was a big Clinton donor.

Courtesy of CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html), here's a contemporaneous list of other 11th-hour pardons:


Roger Clinton, who was convicted of drug-related charges in the 1980s. He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants.

Susan McDougal, a former real estate business partner of the Clintons. She was sentenced in 1996 and released from prison in 1998. She was convicted of four felonies related to a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband, James McDougal, never repaid. One tenth of the loan amount was placed briefly in the name of Whitewater Development, the Arkansas real estate venture of the Clintons and the McDougals. . . .

Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development during Clinton's first term in office. He was convicted of making false statements to FBI agents conducting a background investigation of him when he was nominated to the Cabinet post in 1993. They included misleading investigators about cash payments he made to a former mistress.

Former CIA Director John Deutch. The one-time spy chief and top Pentagon official was facing criminal charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on a home computer.
Among the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's pardons, then, were his own brother, a central figure in the Whitewater scandal, and two members of his own cabinet, one of whom, unlike Libby, actually faced charges of mishandling national secrets. Yet Mrs. Clinton can keep a straight face while throwing around charges of "cronyism"? This borders on sociopathy.

Those of us who try to compare the Libby commutation to Clinton's "pardongate" are quickly berated for dragging ancient history into the fray while also claiming they, too, were outraged by Clinton's abuse of the pardon power (yeah, right).

But, maybe there is a relevant reason to look at "pardongate" in the context of current politics. Because, after all Slick Willy's better half is running for the same office. So, maybe, what she has to say on the Libby commutation can inform us about how she would exercise such power should she be elected President.

[xrayzebra]

^^^ Yoni, Yoni, you keep on confusing things by quoting
facts. Why do you do that. It only makes them mad and
confrontational. You know all the pardons Clinton made was
because of Bush or Karl Rove or was it Cheney?

I cant r e c a l l or have no memory of it. Well it worked for
Billary.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

yep, we have to stop using facts. Facts are to liberals like kryptonite is to superman!

[Nbadan]

How to alienate half your Base 101:


WASHINGTON (CNN) – A majority of Americans and nearly half of all Republicans disapprove of President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence, according to a new American Research Group poll out Friday.

Fully 64 percent of all Americans and 69 percent of voters said they disapproved of the commutation in the new poll. Broken down by party affiliation, 76 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of Republicans, and 80 percent of Independents said they disapproved.

Meanwhile, 84 percent of all adults and 84 percent of voters said they oppose a full presidential pardon for Libby. Broken down by party, 82 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of Republicans, and 97 percent of Independents oppose a pardon.

Defending his decision to grant Libby clemency, Bush indicated on Tuesday he hasn’t ruled out granting the former White House aide a full pardon.

Linky (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/06/poll-majority-disapprove-of-the-libby-commutation)

[Yonivore]

How to alienate half your Base 101:

Linky (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/06/poll-majority-disapprove-of-the-libby-commutation)
Do the numbers reveal whether they disapproved because they thought he should have been pardoned or because they thought he should have been allowed to serve jail time?

[Nbadan]

Do the numbers reveal whether they disapproved because they thought he should have been pardoned or because they thought he should have been allowed to serve jail time?

yeah, that's it, they all supported a full Libby pardon instead....

...and in other news, a majority of Americans feel more alienated from their elected representatives than ever....

[Yonivore]

yeah, that's it, they all supported a full Libby pardon instead....
Who said all of them? It just would be nice if pollsters would make clear how the number break out. Because, personally, I know of a bunch of people who disapproved because they thought he should have pardoned Libby.


...and in other news, a majority of Americans feel more alienated from their elected representatives than ever....
Well, with the do-nothing-but-300-administration-investigations-in-100-days Congress in Session, is it any wonder?

[Wild Cobra]

Who said all of them? It just would be nice if pollsters would make clear how the number break out. Because, personally, I know of a bunch of people who disapproved because they thought he should have pardoned Libby.
That was my initial thought as well. I was happy for Libby, but pissed at Bush. However, this still gives Libby the process of a full reversal of the charges in the appeal process. I figure that is very likely since he wouldn't be in fromn of a juryt from DC liberals. After some thought, I think our president did what was best.

[sabar]

AHF and FWD need to post here more often. They represent the people of the United States and all that is good and moral.

boutons and dan have the left blindly covered and xray and yoni have the right blindly covered. Those preceding 4 represent everything that is wrong with this country and embody the word "zealotry". They occasionally disagree with their party to create a fake image of being in the middle, but are obviously nothing but sheep. They are the ones that get voted into office.


Why not just pardon him today? It's not like the Democrats could be any more ridiculous over the matter than they are right now.

You know very well it would put his approval rating even more in the toilet and cement his place as the worst president ever over Nixon. It would affect the rest of his term too and lose republican support of those republicans already disillusioned and on-the-fence.


Where were you when many of the President's supporters, me included, bashed his compromise "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" piece of trash into the dust where it belonged?

Is it partisan to believe the President did the right thing in this case? And, as far as bashing Clinton, I've only done so on a few of his pardons or commutations. Hell, he granted 496 of 'em, there's bound to have been one that was deserved. I only complained about the 4 or so that were newsworth and clearly some kind of quid pro quo.

Bashing the president doesn't matter, you all did it because he betrayed his own conservative ideology that you blindly follow to your death. Because the one time the guy thought for himself and not his party's hard-line stance. You'll get 1 point of being more centrist when you bash a conservative ideal or libertarian ideal. A blind zealot is still a blind zealot anyways when they are still 99% for their party, regardless of circumstance.

[AFE7FATMAN]

I'm SHOCKED DO YOU HEAR ME shocked :lol

[xrayzebra]

AHF and FWD need to post here more often. They represent the people of the United States and all that is good and moral.

boutons and dan have the left blindly covered and xray and yoni have the right blindly covered. Those preceding 4 represent everything that is wrong with this country and embody the word "zealotry". They occasionally disagree with their party to create a fake image of being in the middle, but are obviously nothing but sheep. They are the ones that get voted into office.



You know very well it would put his approval rating even more in the toilet and cement his place as the worst president ever over Nixon. It would affect the rest of his term too and lose republican support of those republicans already disillusioned and on-the-fence.



Bashing the president doesn't matter, you all did it because he betrayed his own conservative ideology that you blindly follow to your death. Because the one time the guy thought for himself and not his party's hard-line stance. You'll get 1 point of being more centrist when you bash a conservative ideal or libertarian ideal. A blind zealot is still a blind zealot anyways when they are still 99% for their party, regardless of circumstance.

Blindly follow. Bet Bush wouldn't agree with you after
some of the missives I have sent to his 1500 Penn.
address. Bet my Senators and Congressman wouldn't
agree with you either.

No I don't blindly follow anyone. But conservative I am.
I don't deny it and I have never said I am middle of
any road. Because I am definitely not. But I am
entitled to my opinion and to express it, just as you are.
And you or anyone else is entitled to disagree with it,
as I am yours or anyone else opinion.

I do become somewhat puzzled though. I often have to
wonder if some on this board have enough common
sense to actually read something other than the MSM
or listen to someone other than the network newscast,
including FOX.

You know one thing that really bothers me. If you even
really care. Is polls and politicians who read them.
The Clintons and dimms follow them religiously. Like
Dan and boutons. Politicians who do are followers, not
leaders. And what we need more than anything else are
leaders. Bush is one to a degree, but he has a liberal
streak in him a mile wide, just like his father. The
really sad thing is that I don't see a leader on the
horizon, maybe Fred Thompson or Guillani, but that
is to be seen later. The dimm-o-craps are running the
same old bunch with the same old tunes. America is
a racist, uncaring bunch of fools who needs to learn to care for the poor, downtrodden and medically deprived. That
government is the only answer and they will solve all
the ills of the country. My God, how many years have we heard this same tune sung by the same group, who have done nothing to cure anyone of anything. And that group of who they supposedly champion keep right on voting for them and praising them for keeping them in the same
situation generation after generation.

Except for one little thing. Many of those in the
minority are actually doing something for themselves
and joining the middle class and really don't like the
dimms who keep telling them they are the downtrodden,
and stupid when they aren't and really never were.

And funny thing happened on the way to success,
the dimms decided that those of that class who did
succeeded are traitors to their race. You know like
Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Albert Gonzales.
There are many other examples.

Anyhow, yes color me what ever color you want, just
remember I never laid claim to anything except being
a conservative and someone who supports their country.
And my countries interest. Whether it be oil or any
other thing.

Another peeve of mine is the liberals and their
diversity crap. Diversity never did anything for anyone.
And that is a fact.

[George W Bush]

No I don't blindly follow anyone. But conservative I am.
I don't deny it and I have never said I am middle of
any road. Because I am definitely not. But I am
entitled to my opinion and to express it, just as you are.
And you or anyone else is entitled to disagree with it,
as I am yours or anyone else opinion.

:dizzy