• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush to commute Libby prison sentence

Cylinder

Philosopher
Cylinder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,062
Location
Arkansas
FNC is reporting that Pres. Bush will commute the prison sentence for Scooter Libby today.
 
"washington dc was built on a swamp. it stunk then, and it stinks now.”

Someone small and yellow once said that.
 
What is the civics lesson to be learned here?

It seems to be quite clear: those who are well-connected loyalist party insiders get special treatment, exemptions from the law, get out jail free cards.

Those who aren't so well-connected don't get these benefits.

And those who are in opposition have legal hurdles deliberately placed in their way.

Remember when we used to make fun of the Soviet Union for practices like this?
 
Brown said:
And those who are in opposition have legal hurdles deliberately placed in their way.

Remember when we used to make fun of the Soviet Union for practices like this?
Click to expand...

You mean like Sandy Berger? How much prison time did Pres. Clinton serve for perjury?
 
<snip>July 2 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush commuted Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence in the CIA leak case, sparing him from punishment the president called ``excessive.''

Bush acted after a U.S. appellate court today refused to let Libby, 56, stay out of prison during his appeal. Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of lying to investigators probing the 2003 leak of CIA official Valerie Plame's identity. Libby's backers had argued for a pardon.
Click to expand...

More at link
 
Complexity said:
I want them all in prison - both parties.
Click to expand...

BTW - just to make a fine point - I'm not arguing what punishments should or should not be. I was refuting the idea that the political opposition do not share some of the same legal perks as the party in power. This ain't the Soviet Union.
 
Brown said:
What is the civics lesson to be learned here?

It seems to be quite clear: those who are well-connected loyalist party insiders get special treatment, exemptions from the law, get out jail free cards.

Those who aren't so well-connected don't get these benefits.

And those who are in opposition have legal hurdles deliberately placed in their way.

Remember when we used to make fun of the Soviet Union for practices like this?
Click to expand...
You were right, in your prediction, and I was wrong, but I think I made the beer bet with someone else.

This just pisses me off.

DR
 
Holy ****!

This... This is like a Liberal's wet dream! Damn!

Is Bush effing retarded? His approval rating can go lower, he's not at zero yet.
 
"Well, Dick, what should ah do?"
"Grrr, commute the sentence. The little rat will squeal if he has to do time."
 
andyandy said:
"Someone small and yellow once said that.
Click to expand...

Admiral Yamamoto??? ;) :p

Only surprising thing is that he didn't wait a 'decent interval' like, say, 90-120days in prison "just to show Bushs' people are expected to follow the law" and then commute it.

If true, it's silly--someone will be contrasting this with Paris Hilton soon enough...
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Holy ****!

This... This is like a Liberal's wet dream! Damn!

Is Bush effing retarded? His approval rating can go lower, he's not at zero yet.
Click to expand...

As he rides out the end of his presidency, he may have decided the best way to kill time is to play some sort approval-rating-limbo. There's probably a betting pool around the oval office as to how low it'll get before he leaves office.
 
Saying what I'm thinking would get me sent to jail.

So much for freedom of speech.

Have a happy fourth of July, George.
 
Yeah I guess Libby was such a hardened criminal that he had to go to jail right away without pursuing his appeals.



STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom