What a bunch of crap! According to CNN, Bush reviewed the case and decided Libby's sentence was too harsh. I guess his judgement is better than an actual JUDGE. After all, Bush is the "decider."

Thats why the President has absolute power to pardon federal sentences.

To correct obvious miscarriages of justice.

"To correct obvious miscarriages of justice."

I guess that means the next president can send Bush and Cheney to prison if she wants to.

This is why we don't want to vote GOP.

Nope, the president can pardon or commute sentences, he/she cant give them out.

"This is why we don't want to vote GOP."

Yeah, well then let's hear your defense of the Marc Rich pardon.

If there ever was a bogus pardon, it was that one by Mr. Clinton.

Herb

Clinton was convicted of lying to a Judge, about a crime, that he commited. He paid a fine and was disbarred.

Libby was convicted of lying to a judge, about a crime he was never even charged with. Now he has to pay a fine, and has been disbarred.

Nobody cares about whether Scooter serves his time except a think slice of inside-the-beltway loyalists. Yet Bush puts the desires of those people above the system, the courts, public opinion - oh yea, and justice.

If Bush was really worried about harsh sentences, Karla Faye Tucker would be alive today and doing good work for the Lord.

A double murder, who claimed to have orgasims while killing her prey.


Of course a lot of liberals think Leonard Peltiere, who murdered 2 FBI agents should be pardoned.

Bush obviously knew Scooter would be the fall guy, knew Libby would get nailed, knew that he could pardon him. No matter what the sentence, Bush's plan was to step in and pardon him. It's not about correcting justice - give me a fucking break. It's about protecting his own and nothign else. He knows he's got nothing left to lose on any political respectablity chart - he may as well just full-on do whatever he wants. The will of ANYone else be damned. He wears it like a badge. Makes him feel tough.

And there is NO way anyone can be surprised that Bush did this. It's par. Fully within his rights and practially encouraged when it's reasonable. It's just that everything he touches has got the opposite fo the midas touch and I hate it when he is involved in anything. He's just not smart enough for me to be excited about his abilities to do anything.

I will say, however, that this is the kind of thing that i have feared for a while; We have beat down Bush so hard for SO long that I'm afraid that he will fully embrace the " well, I have nothing to lose now - I may as well just go hog wild. Start sending nukes to Cuba. I'm Texan! " And so if Libby is as bad as that scenario gets - I'll thank GOD. If he likes that inch though, he's got a penchant for taking a mile.

And with that I cannot hang.

"A double murder, who claimed to have orgasims while killing her prey."

That's why she would stay in prison for life - NOT be pardoned. But Bush would have nothing to do granting even a 30 day stay of her death sentence.

Bush, 2/3/98: "The role of the state is to enforce our laws and to make sure all individuals are treated fairly under those laws. The courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have reviewed the legal issues in this case, and therefore I will not grant a 30-day stay."

Of course, a lot of conservatives think that the courts are bastions of liberalism and Bush is better qualified to decide guilt or innocence.

(Hey! This "a lot of xxx think..." game is fun! Thanks for the tip, Nwokie!)

I'm thinking we need to hit Cheney with more investigations, then hit him again and again.

Strangely missing from the liberal's posts in this thread are comments on Clinton's selling pardons for major contributions to his library. Where's the outrage there?

That's why you're here Dean, to set them straight.

Again, this thread was about Scooter, was it not?

Does two wrongs make a right? I sure was not raised that way, and I'll bet a ton of you were raised the same. So, selling pardons for the library is a bad thing. Yep. Bad ass. Horrible. Shouldn't be done right?

So WTF? Bush doing this is bad ass horrible too right? Shouldn't be done right?

Yeah, thought so.

The difference is that Bush did the right thing. Libby did very little wrong. He was simply a scapegoat for Fitzgerald coming up with something to justify spending millions chasing something that never happened.

It's never been established that Plame was a covert agent and it wasn't Libby who leaked her name, it was Richard Armitage.

This is all politics and it isn't right for someone to spend 2 1/2 years in prison as a political prisoner.

So lying to federal investigators and obstructing justice is OK with you, eh Deane? As long as it's a Republican?

Andrew

Andrew, I believe the precedent was set by Clinton. If the President of the United States can do it, why shouldn't everyone else be able to.

My guess is that most Democrats in Washington believe that Bush did the right thing, but since they are running hard against him, and with nothing else to run on, they will all make a big deal about it. It's just politics. What it does for the Democrats is stir up the base since they have nothing on their minds except hating Bush and the Republicans.

If they had proved the underlying charge, but they didnt even try, they never indicted anyone.

He was convicted of mistating a date, from severalyears ago.

Try having a few FBI agents come in unannounced, and start interrogating you about events several years ago, and see how right you can get your dates.

Nwokie, you have it right. That's why wise politicians simply testify that they can't remember. These prosecutors, and I despise the whole bunch of them, play all sorts of tricks to try and get a conviction of some sort to justify their existence.

Fitzgerald is one of the worst of them.

Remember, if your not a "suspect' the police dont have to read you your rights, your best bet, is not say anything. I have a brother that is a Police chief, and I have a cousin thats a Sheriffs captain, and I served as a reserve officer for over 6 years.

"These prosecutors, and I despise the whole bunch of them, play all sorts of tricks to try and get a conviction of some sort to justify their existence. Fitzgerald is one of the worst of them."

And Ken Starr is the worst, right?

BTW, what was the underlying crime of the obstruction of justice charge against Bill Clinton?

Deane writes:
Andrew, I believe the precedent was set by Clinton. If the President of the United States can do it, why shouldn't everyone else be able to.

Clinton was impeached, paid a fine, and disbarred - for lying in a civil case. Libby lied in a federal criminal investigation. Big difference.

Andrew

Deane, I've gotta give you some credit. Your ability to still tie everything that happens back to Clinton is truly amazing.

Nwokie writes:
If they had proved the underlying charge, but they didnt even try, they never indicted anyone.

The law in question (intentionally exposing the identity of an intelligence agent) has a very high standard of proof and, apparently, Fitzgerald was unable to meet it. That doesn't mean that if a prosecutor believes a crime has been committed that he shouldn't try to make a case - and if in the process someone lies to investigators or to a grand jury, that should be prosecuted, too.

He was convicted of mistating a date, from several years ago.

Oh bullshit. MISSTATING a date? You aren't really so naive that you believe that, are you? People correct their testimony all the time in investigations. And the Feds didn't simply bust open the doors and question the Vice President's chief of staff. He well knew he was going to have to testify and he had plenty of time to prepare for it. If he didn't recall a date he could have simply said he didn't recall.

And for some reason Richard Armitage had no problem at all remembering anything - go figure, huh?

Andrew

>>>"And Ken Starr is the worst, right?"

At least as bad a Fitzgerald, probably worse.


>>>"Clinton was impeached, paid a fine, and disbarred - for lying in a civil case. Libby lied in a federal criminal investigation. Big difference."

I'm glad you're able to find a pathway to making Clinton's lies acceptable.

If Clintons lies are unacceptable (and that's true), then this mess is unacceptable. There is no justification for allowing any of it period.

That's what is wrong with this whole affair. Setting an example, if a bad one, does not grant future transgressions any credence, unless one finds that to be favorable to their agenda.

None of it's ok, which is exactly why the whole, "Clinton did it too." thing is just crap.

Deane writes:
I'm glad you're able to find a pathway to making Clinton's lies acceptable.

And I said that...where?

Andrew

"I'm glad you're able to find a pathway to making Clinton's lies acceptable."

You're spinning, Deane. Andrew's point is that Clinton's lies were NOT acceptable - he received the punishments listed (perhaps not as much as you might think he deserved, though). Libby was convicted of the same misdeed in a FEDERAL CRIMINAL case, and you are arguing for a lesser punishment than Clinton got! Considering the gravity of the case, doesn't it make sense that Libby's punishment should be at least that of Clinton, and probably more?

Perhaps the difference between myself and some is that I don't find any kind of lying acceptable.

Yet you apparently want to punish the lying differently. Libby lies in a federal criminal case and you think he should get a lighter sentence than others convicted of the same crime - sorry, Clinton's not applicable - compare Libby to others convicted of the same crime. A federal judge agreed that Libby's sentence was approprate and upheld it.

Why do you think Libby should not serve jail time while others convicted of lying to the feds in a criminal case should serve? Or is the law too harsh and people who lie in federal criminal investigations should not serve time?

Andrew

"Some" say that Deane and Nwokie use Rush and O'Reilly as their primary opinion leaders. But now me, of course...

I'm glad you don't find any kind of lying acceptable, Deane. So why did you lie when you said this?-

"It's never been established that Plame was a covert agent..."

MSNBC 5/29/07: "An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."

Yes, lying is always bad. I'm going to go wake my 4-year old daughter and tell her the truth about Santa and the Easter Bunny now...

So....Scooter can get out of it but poor ol' Paris had to serve her time....Where's the justice in that?

"So, selling pardons for the library is a bad thing. Yep."

That's as much of a mea culpa on the Marc Rich pardon as we're likely to get from this crowd.

Herb

So Herb, Deane and Nwokie - are any of you in disagreement with Bush doing this for Libby? I know you can point to things about Clinton - yeah yeah yeah. We ALL can and do. But on this one - with Bush - are you OK with it? Why or why not?

No Clinton or Nixon. Just stay focused and try not to get so distracted by other situations 30 years ago. Talk about today.

I'm not a fan of anyone who lies to a judge.

Throw the book at ANY one who willfully perjures themself, democrat or republican.

Having said that, and from what I've read, it appears that the one who is guilty here is not Mr. Libby. If there is someone who is guilty, it's likely higher up the food chain.

Herb

"...it appears that the one who is guilty here is not Mr. Libby."

Guilty of what?

Even though the court said otherwise?

"If there is someone who is guilty, it's likely higher up the food chain."

Again, guilty of what?

Wasn't the charge lying under oath?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Herb

Close enough.

So you do NOT agree with Bush on this one?

I say throw the book at anyone who perjures themself.

From what I've read, Mr. Libby may not have known much, as well as not remembering specific details. But someone else may have. And while I find Ms. Plame to be not much of a victim, we should not play politics with our spy agencies.

That should be off-limits to outing anyone. Otherwise, our people could get killed by dastardly foreign commie or terrorist governments.

Herb

We agree on that one.

So you think the penalty should have been MORE severe and should not have been communted, right? I'm not setting you up for anything - just getting down to hearing you say what you believe, out loud. No implying.

Herb, you're right - Libby is likely taking the fall for Cheney or maybe even Bush by lying as he did.

Andrew

I believe the charge was lying under oath, but it had to do with confusing dates. Libby reportedly has a terrible memory.

The lesson many have learned from this is just say "I don't remember" to every question.

Actually it wasnt even lying under oath, it was lying to an investigator. He wasnt under oath at the time. But was being questioned by FBI agents, he wasn't even under investigation at the time, because if he had been they would have been required to read him his rights, which they didnt do.

I asked my brother about that, and he doesnt remember of any case where someone was prosecuted only for that, when the crime under investigation also wasnt prosecuted.

Jesse Jackson is now calling for Bush's impeachment over the commutation of a portion of his sentence, an act done completely within the law. That's how stupid this political stuff gets.

Actually, its Jesse jackson Jr, congressman from Chicago. The Rev's son. one of the ones the rev got a beer distributorship for, by threatening to boycot the beer company.

Deane wrote:
I believe the charge was lying under oath, but it had to do with confusing dates. Libby reportedly has a terrible memory.

The lesson many have learned from this is just say "I don't remember" to every question.

I was listening to an interview today with a reporter who covered the Libby trial. He said Libby answered "I don't remember" to a lot of questions, and that that's perhaps one reason Libby was given a commutation now, before facing the real prospect of going to prison and suddenly having his memory clear up about a lot of things and letting Patrick Fitzgerald know about this.

FYI, one of the big breaks in the Watergate cover-up case came when one of the convicted Watergate burglars, facing jail, finally fessed up to the prosecutor that "others were involved" in the cover-up.

Jesse Jackson is now calling for Bush's impeachment over the commutation of a portion of his sentence, an act done completely within the law. That's how stupid this political stuff gets.

It might have some merit to impeach Bush and Cheney for the actual campaign to out Plame and the cover-up. Libby's commutation without a pardon protects Bush and Cheney and therefore prohibits much further investigation (no incentive for Libby to talk with no threat of prison and no automatic immunity conferred by a pardon). Impeachment (which is really an indictment) might be the only way to ever get to the bottom of what happened at this point, if indeed there was more criminal wrong-doing than Libby's lying.

I didn't hear what Jackson said - I'm no fan of his - but I wonder if you've characterized his statements correctly? Dig up a quote for me before I pass judgement.

Andrew

So, your willing to send an innocent man to jail, to possibly coerce him to giving evidence against someone else?

Isnt that like torture is acceptable, if the outcome is for a good cause?

One more time, for you soft-on-crime conservatives: Scooter Libby was NOT "innocent." He lied to federal investigators (and to a jury I think) and was convincted by a jury of obstruction of justice. That's not INNOCENT. He was sentenced by one judge and a higher court judge upheld his sentence.

Just because Libby may have been taking the fall for Cheney or others doesn't make him INNOCENT. It simply means others may have committed crimes besides him.(Fitzgerald seemed to think so but could not prove them in a court of law). You must be familiar with the concept of guilty people cooperating with the prosecutor to help an investigation for a reduced sentence? Offering to cooperate doesn't make one "innocent." The Watergate burglar wasn't innocent either - he still broke the law, even though "others" were involved.

Andrew

>>>"Dig up a quote for me before I pass judgement."

I read the headline too quickly, it was Jesse Jr. who made the statement, however, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

http://cbs2chicago.com/homepage/local_story_183225657.html

Deane_johnson writes:

Jesse Jackson is now calling for Bush's impeachment over the commutation of a portion of his sentence, an act done completely within the law. That's how stupid this political stuff gets.


Stop insulting our goddamn intelligence already!

If this was Clinton you, Herb and every other conservative would be calling for his head AND YOU ALL KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S how stupid this political stuff gets.

I'm tired of this right wing hypocricy.

>>>"Stop insulting our goddamn intelligence already!"

I presume you're using the word intelligence in it's loosest form, based on your post.


>>>"If this was Clinton you, Herb and every other conservative would be calling for his head AND YOU ALL KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!! "

You're losing it Aok. I have repeatedly posted my opposition to the way Clinton was treated by the Republicans through the special prosecutor. I have repeatedly posted my opposition to his impeachment.

Politics aside - the legal stuff will be very interesting to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_confusion

I know it's CNN, thus a liberal slant, so take it with a salt lick.

I had totally forgot about supporters of Libby coming to his aid financially. I read a story that said he has about 5 million in donations for his legal defense fund - but paid the 250K fine on his own. I wonder what happens to that 5M now? Or whatever is left over. I like the fact that people can do that - it completely escaped me that that could happen. I'm not suggesting anything sinister - just curious about how that is covered legally. If at all.

If I remember correctly, Clinton received over 10 million in legal defense help from supporters.

Libby is still appealing his conviction, so he still needs money for lawyers. There's still a remote chance his conviction could be overturned on appeal and this whole nonsense would be moot.

Andrew

Is there an equally remote chance that Bush's decision could be overturned?

On what constitutional basis would Bush's decision be overturned? As I understand it, the president's power to pardon and commute sentences is virtually absolute.

Andrew

There is no chance the pardon could be overturned, the Presidents power of pardon , in federal courts, is absolute.

The only question about his pardon powers, is could a president pardon himself? And most constitutional scholers think the ansqwe is yes.
It wouldnt stop an impeachment, but it could stop any prosecution after his/her term.

If you are asking me, I have no idea. I wasn't implying that there was basis for it. I was just wondering if it was a situation in which appeal was tried for, then missed, would Bush's decision stand? Probably. But what if it could be overturned? Legally, I mean. Then does the risk of appealing open the doors to " You get what you get and you don't throw a fit! "?

But then Bush could re-pardon him, I guess.

So really, it looks like it can only get better, but not worse. Right?

Who cares.........
Everyone and anything to do with the Bush administration is toast....
Flame on neo-CONers!

DUDE!