SCOOTER IS TOSSED A SMALL BONE
The Basin predicted this some time ago. I also said I had no particular problem with it (I'll skip my rationale). Here's what I would like now. Could some of my hard right friends come in here and tell me truly how they feel about this one? I don't want to argue with you. I want to hear it from you, unfiltered. Was this not enough? You want the whole enchilada? No boring Joe Wilson bashing (He's in the dictionary under "easy target"), no "Richard Armitage" red herrings. Just tell me how you feel about the clemency. Please, Jump in. Inquiring minds want to know.
posted by UMRBlog @ 07:56
28 comments
28 Comments:
I agree with it. My only complaint is that it should have happened sooner. :)
President Bush did the right thing in commuting I. Lewis Libby's jail sentence. Libby's appeals can now continue without him having to serve any prison time, and the remaining fine and probation can be addressed by a successful appeal, should justice ultimately prevail. A further pardon can be enacted if the appeal fails.
Good for President Bush
I'm proud of him for commuting Libby's prison sentence. The entire Fitzgerald prosecution was a sham, and everyone (including my lib friends) have said the same thing.
The entire enterprise was a 'Get Karl Rove' operation from the very beginning, even the mainstream press corps has admitted as much. It was a travesty and shows what happens when the press decide to manufacture a scandal for political reasons.
It is my earnest hope that Libby will get the entire sentence overturned on appeal.
If anyone believes this was anything but a political witch hunt from the beginning is dillusional. The only motive behind it was to get Cheney and/or Rove.
The Democrats are still at it with Leahy and Henry(Nostrisdamus) Waxman. It's investigate, investigate, investigate until they find something. Anything.
Wilson lied and asked for the attention by going public.
The leak came from a man who did not sympathize with the Bush Administration - Armitage.
Wilson's wife recommended Wilson for the trip to Niger - not Cheney.
In the end, no crime was committed and the investigation and prosecution should have been stopped.
Libby tried by a jury of his peers? I've not done a head count and I could be mistaken, but if you can find a jury that doesn't contain 12 liberal Democrats in Washington DC, you are truly gifted. That goes for the judge too.
Where was the uproar regarding the so called journalists who supposedly never forget the facts to a story. Many of them could not recollect things that happened accurately any better than Libby.
If ever there was a reason for a pardon, this was it.
It also amazes me that Hillary has the gall to even complain about President Bush's pardons after looking at the number her husband granted.
It sounds to me like he is just getting his prison sentence waived. So he will still have a record, still pay a penalty and whatever professional repercussions that might happen there after.
I think, all in all, both sides should be happy. The left should be pleased because Libby did get convicted of a crime, and the right should be pleased because he did not go to prison. (To the best of my knowledge he had no prior record so 30 months in prison seemed out of step with what he should have received.)
I just hope the Democrats know they have nothing to complain about on the subject of presidential pardons. I don't think they want a rehash of Clinton's pardons.
KAM
I can’t say that the President’s decision - which he has every right to make - is one I necessarily agree with. There are many arguments made by those in favor of commutation and pardon that are entirely legitimate such as the following the fact that Fitzgerald knew before the investigation started that Libby didn’t leak the name, and did not commit the underlying offense. Agreed on that one 100%. The investigation should have never taken place. If anything it was the Bush Administration and the Justice Department that should be ashamed for buckling to political pressure in appointing him in the first place.
Yes, the investigation was nothing more than a “perjury trap” on issues not germane to the underlying offense. But the way to avoid such a “trap” is to not commit perjury in the first place.
I am not a lawyer and could not tell you if clemency, and commuting are the same thing. I think clemency means showing mercy. I fall down on the issue this way though. Libby was not pardoned, that is to say his slate was not wiped clean of any wrong doing. His life as a lawyer is over, he is till a convicted felon. He can't vote and he can not own a gun. His livlihood is gone. That said the court that made the sentencing did not appear to bias to me. So I would set back and let the chips fall where they may for Libby. He most likely would have only served 12 months of the 30 anyway. I feel that Gee dubya, is in such sorts these days he does not care much what people think about him. I mean how much worse can his approval ratings get.
Now for the political jab that all lefties use when it suits them. "No one died when Scooter lied"
(A Normal Tone) The judicial system took another blow this week. As a result, I have a feeling that this is going to set a bad precedence in other cases. Namely the NSA spying program. if all else fails just commute them as well...
Basically, The dude needed to be made an example of and his fellow club member bailed him out. Excessive punishment? I think that's subjective. It's kind of up there with the word "reasonable".
That's just my two food stamps.
Whether or not the investigation should have taken place, perjury is a serious offense that undermines the whole justice system. What drives me nuts about the Clinton impeachment apologists is when they say it was “just about sex”.
Nonsense. It was about lying under oath and impeding the legal rights of Paula Jones to have her case decided fairly by the justice system. Whatever you think of Paula Jones, she had a right to a fair shot in court without the truth being obscured.
The fact is that a jury of 12 people heard all the evidence in the case and found the Scooter Libby committed crimes. We may not like the jury verdict, but they were the only ones who heard all the evidence, and they made their decision.
Just because we disagree with their decision, or even the bringing of the case in the first place, doesn’t mean the President should commute the sentence.
I also disagree with the President when he said the sentence was “excessive”. In fact, it was in the federal sentencing guidelines, so it’s hard for me to buy that argument. Yes, the Probation Department recommended a lesser sentence, but the Judge is not required to follow it.
The one area in which I agree with the President is that things were brought up the sentencing by the prosecutor were never presented to the jury. But that is an appellate issue.
Again, I’m not saying the President doesn’t have the right to do this. Under the Constitution he alone has the sole discretion to pardon, commute, or issue executive clemency.
There are two separate issues here. Libby being found guilty of a crime is one, and the witch hunt to use him as a tool to “get” the administration is another. One does not hinge upon the other. I can accept Libby’s guilt without accepting the smarmy process that resulted in the verdict.
954
“Yes, the investigation was nothing more than a “perjury trap” on issues not germane to the underlying offense. But the way to avoid such a “trap” is to not commit perjury in the first place.”
Nope. The way to avoid such a trap is to not testify at all, ever. “I’m sorry, but I simply don’t remember the events in question well enough to risk being prosecuted when the prosecutor finds someone who remembers things slightly differently”.
That’s what anyone at all paying attention will do in the future.
1421,
"I don't remember" is a great response, if it happens to be true, but there are lots of problems with "I don't remember" when the declarant has a recollection.
Refusing to testify is a different animal. Bush said anybody taking the fifth would have to leave the administration which put a choice onto Libby. Libby should have taken door number two. Imagine how differently his life would have played out if he simply took the fifth and got back to making serious money.
TYFCB
0941,
How do you conclude it was "political"? Fitzgerald, as District Attorney, is a Bush appointee and has certainly never left tracks as a democrat.
Is it possible you just mean an overzealous and ambitious prosecutor as opposed to a "political" witch hunt?
I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying understand your argument.
TYFCB
Just to get the record clean, there is no evidence that FitzG knew anything of Armitage's sourcing when he interrogated or charged Libby. He did know before the Trial began.
People,
As I said before many times, Joe Wilson is an elitist jerk and unsympathetic. Let's not waste time on that.
Is anybody bothered, even a little, by the fact that Bush did not wait for the appellate process to play out or at least for the Dept. of Justice to a work-up?
Remember the grief over WJC moving on Mark Rich without a work-up?
Just that part of it trouble anybody?
Please let me hear from you. I really want to get my arms around the public commentary on the right here. Thanks.
KAM,
Hey, good to see you! You're right. 30 was right in middle of the FSG but he had two factors in aggravation: breach of public trust and failure to take responsibility (I'm not making this up, in the federal system, you're punished for not confessing.) and two mitigators, clean record and history of charitable good works.
"Excessive" is a little bit of a stretch, but Scooter would not do time gracefully, even at Allenwood.
TYFCB
The ideal behind the Presidential pardon is that unjust sentences are overturned. However, that begs the question of who determines “unjust.” A lot of people think Libby’s sentence was unjust, & a lot don’t. Again, that’s why you have appeals. What’s happened with the pardon system is that it’s turned into a way for Presidents to reward campaign donors–like Clinton pardoning Marc Rich.
So, I think the system needs to be eliminated. It always amazes me that Dems don’t seem to grasp the simple concept of “what benefits you will ultimately benefit the other guy; what goes against the other guy will ultimately go against you.” As in the Special Prosecutor. They loved it when it was Nixon going down. Not so fond of it when Clinton went down. Now they love it again–until the next time a SP investigates a Democrat. Ditto for sandbagging Bork. Great when they did it, but when Rs stonewall & sandbag a Democratic candidate, oh then they don’t like it.
Same here. If it’s ok for Clinton to pardon his campaign donor, then it’s ok for Bush to pardon Libby. I don’t like either one, as I’ve said. I think the whole thing should be done away with (altho I wonder whether Hilary would like that idea, since she thinks she’s going to be Pres, & may have to pardon Sandy “Ants in my Pants” Berger). But if you’re going to keep it, then BOTH sides need to live with who’s pardoned & shut up about it
bush did the right thing - now he needs to do the same thing for the border guards.
Fitz was hired to investigate a leak that was already known when he came to the special prosecutors office (one made through extraordinary means that are of questionable legality) If Fitz was such an honorable man why didn’t he just close up shop after finding out who actually leaked what he was assigned to investigate. He wanted the glory and the prestige pure and simple.
I’m sorry, but I simply don’t remember the events in question well enough to risk being prosecuted when the prosecutor finds someone who remembers things slightly differently”.
basically by busting libby for whatever reason Fitzy made it harder for all prosecutors in the future going after guys like Libby in any organization
I think Commuting the sentence wasn’t a bad call…And I think at the very least Libby deserves it because of the numerous factors that made it impossible for him to get a fair trial.
1303,
I can't tell if you're the same anon who said before it was political. I tend to agree that it was more personal ambition than politics.
There are a couple of things wrong with your "leak sourcing" theory, though. First, you assume there was only one leak. We know from the two contempt-sentenced reporters that is not the case. Clearly, Armitage was a gossip leak. FitzG was within his power and not really around the bend to continue to pursue the "talking points" leaks.
Second, when he learned that Armitage was one leak source, he had already had Miller do time. It was a little late in the game for him to say, "hey, it's all over. No harm, no foul." Miller is another unsympathetic figure but the New York Times and the Wash Post would have editorialized ballistic if reports go to jail and politicians are not prosecuted. It would be the end of FitzG as anything but mid-level civil servant....And, they'd have had a point.
TYFCB
1519,
Actually, that's not exactly the idea of executive clemency. The idea was simply that we were used to somebody (King) having clemency power. We were uncomfortable without it being in our new form of Gov't and there was really no place to put it except the executive branch. It was more a question of who gets the ultimate say in a citizen's disposition rather than a specific cure for feared injustices.
I take the rest of your points though and thank for for making them.
TYFCB
I really thank everybody for the comments here. I'd love to hear more. This story doesn't really fascinate me but but THE REACTION TO it is really interesting.
Thanks for sharing your points of view.
I do not agree with commuting the sentence in the least. Never mind whether the investigation was legitimate or not, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying to obstruct the investigation. Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush and is a strict law and order type so saying the whole thing is politically motivated is a bunch of FOXesque propaganda. Anyone else would have done time or cooperated and bargained but not when you have dirt on the administration. It seems to me that Bush commuted the sentence to avoid any disclosure. Personally I think this is the most unethical administration in recent history, extramarital blowjobs aside.
The idea of Libby being used as a tool to get to the administration is fair. He was used as a tool by the administration to cover up their if not illegal, then embarrassing behavior. So Libby is just another big tool.
Fitz didnt ask to prosecute this case -- and he didnt ask Libby to lie under oath.
In 2003 CIA Director Tenet asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak of Plame's name to the press.
Even President Bush said he would fire anyone caught leaking the name of a CIA agent.
Justice department started an investigation.
Ascroft recused himself from the case, and got Fitz to investigate.... during this investigation, Libby apparently lied, and the lie was impeding the investigation.
So Fitz had to do something. He indicts Libby for perjury... and Libby is found guilty.
Tell me again -- why is that a sham? Dont just repeat "it was a sham" - show how it was a sham? Which part -- the CIA asking for it? The Justice department doing it? Fitz taking over when Aschcroft recused?
Was the CIA doing the sham, or Bush, or Aschroft? Let me know..
2112,
Thanks for a good job and a clean, straightforward debate job.
Where ya been? This is an old post.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home