Bush to commute Libby prison sentence

[SezMe]

Good....the pardon will come at the end of next year.

You mean like Sandy Berger? How much prison time did Pres. Clinton serve for perjury?

Bill Clinton pardoned his coke head brother. Thats all I have to say.

(and other posts in this thread)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Pointing the finger at previous sins does not pardon the current one. I'd like those who approve of this commutation to justify it on its own merits.

One hallmark I assoicate with traditional conservativism is its strong emphasis on personal responsibility. (As a personal aside, an emphasis I agree with.) In this case, I have not heard anyone argue that Libby is not guilty. He did the crime so he ought to do the time. So, again, I'd like to read a justification for this action based on conservative principles. And, finally, please don't weasel out by quoting someone else's words like Comrade did. What do YOU think?

 

[Texas]

(and other posts in this thread)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Pointing the finger at previous sins does not pardon the current one. I'd like those who approve of this commutation to justify it on its own merits.

One hallmark I assoicate with traditional conservativism is its strong emphasis on personal responsibility. (As a personal aside, an emphasis I agree with.) In this case, I have not heard anyone argue that Libby is not guilty. He did the crime so he ought to do the time. So, again, I'd like to read a justification for this action based on conservative principles. And, finally, please don't weasel out by quoting someone else's words like Comrade did. What do YOU think?

Well you didn't ask me but I will give it a shot. My problem was with the investigation proceeding at all after Fitzgerald had already determined that the statute that he was charged to uphold did not apply to the Plame case AND that it was known before the first contact with Libby that it was Richard Armitage that leaked her name. Once he declined to charge the actual leaker he should have folded his tent and gone home. Yes Libby apparently committed perjury as a jury convicted him for it. He got the absolute maximum sentence allowed.
My gripe and I think Bush's gripe was that Fitzgerald argued against bail pending appeals. For these types of crime bail is almost always allowed especially when there are substantial grounds for the sentence to be overturned on appeal. The Perjury charge was based on he said/he said testimony between Libby and Russert. I have not found a single case of a Republican political figure being acquitted by a DC circuit court jury. If you can find one I will retract that. If Libby lied he should have been found guilty but that is not what this action by Bush is about.

 

[President Bush]

Bush and Cheney are not going to be impeached.

Absolutely true. Impeachment would infringe upon my Article 2 Section 2 powers as Commander in Chief.

More the fool you. Impeachment, an administrative procedure, does nothing to impede the Executive powers in Article 2, Section 2, but a conviction renders them irrelevant.

Assume a virtue, if you have it not

William Shakespeare
-Hamlet

 

[Whiplash]

(and other posts in this thread)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Pointing the finger at previous sins does not pardon the current one. I'd like those who approve of this commutation to justify it on its own merits.

I can't speak for the others, but I know alot of people (like myself) who notice things like those past issues not because we feel it justifies the actions, but because we notice that the people who are the most worked up about what's going on now turned a completely blind eye to those said transgressions, even excused them completely. That seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[SezMe]

Fair enough, Whiplash.

 

[Whiplash]

Thank you SezMe. To be fair in return, I'll admit that I'm having a hard time condemning the latest actions myself, meaning I am also a hypocrite.

It's not just blind loyalty to my side however, I really don't know alot about this issue. I have seen and heard people who I respect, on both sides of the issue, and it leaves me a bit unsure of what is right or wrong with regards to it. I feel the same way with regards to global warming. I don't know what to think without some time taken studying the issues more closely and learning about things I don't fully understand, like the science of global warming, and the legalities of this entire fiasco.

One good thing that has come about as the result of me joining this forum is that it's causing me to question my convicitions. That can never be a bad thing.

 

[shecky]

Orin Kerr at volokh makes an interesting point about the accusation from the apologists, about the whole affair being politically motivated:

Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

The notion of presidential pardons, or in this case, commuting sentence, goes back a long way, and I don't necessarily have much problem with it. But clearly, the gravity and particulars of the whole situation simply underlines the craptacular performance of the Administration if it hasn't been obvious for a long time.

 

[RandFan]

Those who are convicted of breaking the law should be punished. I think Libby should have done some real time but I'm torn on libby's sentence. 30 months seems a bit long. I'm not sure though, what is fair? How long did Martha Stewert get? I always thought the investigation of Clinton's sex life was pure BS. However he did lie. How much time should Clinton have gotten?

I do not justify one act by the other. I'm honestly uncertain what the appropriate punishment should be. In any event, whatever it should be seems to have little to do with power and prestige.

 

[fishbob]

The investigation should have ended when Fitzgerald found out who the leaker was, . . .

And let Scooter get away with hindering the investigation?

The righties are a-whining about Scooter going down, slamming Fitzgerald for witch-hunting.

[CT MODE]I think this is a ploy. Recall that Fitzgerald's generally Republican affiliation was discussed when he was selected? Think about how helpful it is to the current administration when he catches the goat they staked out and then ends the investigation. Scooter gets his pardon, a few fund raisers will pay his fines, and by next year he will be power-mongering behind the scenes with his butt buddies.[/CT OFF]

 

[RandFan]

Primer on pardons by Clinton.

First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. 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.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting, from the previous link...

the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby...

 

[davefoc]

This is a repost of a quote from at TPM. I thought I'd repost it to give him some more credit for making an accurate prediction, one that wasn't put forth by many people:

The federal statute on bail pending appeal is pretty narrow. The judge must determine that there is some reasonable prospect that the defendant could win a reversal or a new trial from the appellate court. The test isn't whether is likely, or more probable than not, but simply that a reasonable argument can be made with respect to there being a trial error that could result in a reversal/new trial.
All Walton has done is put off setting a surrender date until the defense has an opportunity to make their case that there is some prospect for success on appeal. After they have briefed the issue, he can either grant bail or deny bail. If he denies it, he'll set a self-surrender date -- usually 8-12 weeks out. When Libby is notified by Bur. of Prisons about the facility to which he is designated, he can then surrender directly to that institution.
Bail pending appeal in the federal system is very much the exception. I'm guessing that Walton won't grant it, and Libby will have a surrender date sometime in August or September. But Bush will commute his sentence Libby will only have to pay the fine and serve probation. -- not issue a pardon -- and

The question of pardon -- which would wipe his conviction away -- can wait until the end of Bush's term. There is no need to do it now.
Posted by: shipwreckedcrew
Date: June 5, 2007 02:55 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003354.php

I also thought I'd repost some comments of mine that I made at the same time:

So if this guy is right Bush commutes sentence now and then pardons him on his way out. Question: If Scooter has paid the fine, can he get the money back if he is pardoned?

Personally, I have a hard time imagining that Bush is going to commute or pardon Libby until very near the end of his administration. But I think the arguments for doing it now in Bushco land are:
1. It guarantees he keeps his mouth shut.
2. It appeals to the base and it doesn't matter that it disgusts everybody else because they're already thoroughly disgusted.
3. It allows some time from the blow back of the pardon to die down before it might adversely affect the general election.

So take your choice, Bush made a noble effort to protect a loyal soldier in the fight for truth and the American way or Bush made a calculated move to protect a fellow crony and to keep him quiet into perpetuity.

Nobody has mentioned it but I thought the most disgusting thing that Bush said was the comment about Libby still receiving a substantial penalty. Has lying become that easy to this scumbag? What penalty? A $250,000 fine for somebody reputed to be as wealthy as Libby is sounds like it would be chump change for him and who said Libby will pay a nickel of it? Presumably his fellow neocon cronies and their various benefactors will pick up the tab for this the same way they did for his defense fund. So Libby walks almost without any penalty and what penalty he may actually receive could still be removed with a pardon at the end of Bush's term. I wonder if Libby would be disbarred over this? Can a pardon wipe out the cause of a disbarment?

 

[slingblade]

I didn't vote for him.

 

[RandFan]

Nobody has mentioned it but I thought the most disgusting thing that Bush said was the comment about Libby still receiving a substantial penalty. Has lying become that easy to this scumbag? What penalty? A $250,000 fine for somebody reputed to be as wealthy as Libby is sounds like it would be chump change for him and who said Libby will pay a nickel of it? Presumably his fellow neocon cronies and their various benefactors will pick up the tab for this the same way they did for his defense fund. So Libby walks almost without any penalty and what penalty he may actually receive could still be removed with a pardon at the end of Bush's term. I wonder if Libby would be disbarred over this? Can a pardon wipe out the cause of a disbarment?

Hey Dave,

You seem pretty strong in your wording. Is it simply that Libby lied or are you also upset with Libby's politics (you mention neocon cronies)?

 

[SezMe]

How long did Martha Stewert get?

I'm troubled by this question, RandFan. At worst, Stewart gamed the system to avoid a monetary loss. At best, Libby lied to impede an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent. More likely, he lied to cover up his boss' (Cheney) drive to take the nation to war. The crimes - and thus the penalties - are hardly comparable.

 

[The Painter]

I think this is great. 30 months was an excessive sentence. He was convicted for lying about a crime he didn’t commit. I don’t know when saying “I don’t remember” became lying?

I also think it’s great just because it makes so many of you crazy. In the big picture, it doesn’t matter.

The Dems should love this. They can scream about this and take the focus of the fact that their Congress can’t get anything done.

 

[SezMe]

No, The Painter, he was NOT convicted for lying about a crime he didn't commit. He was convicted for impeding an investigation of a crime. By lying. Whether he himself did, or did not commit that crime is immaterial.

 

[The Painter]

And what was that lie? Quick, don’t look it up.

 

[Gurdur]

I think this is great..

Because turning your country into a ****hole joke of a place where rule of law is destroyed merely to suit your own party and to spite the others is just SUCH a great achievement.

Congratulations.

 

[The Painter]

Because turning your country into a ****hole joke of a place where rule of law is destroyed merely to suit your own party and to spite the others is just SUCH a great achievement.

Congratulations.

Check our history. Both parties have done this for decades. The rule of law has not been broken. Presidential pardons and commuting of sentences are legal.