Bush Pardons Libby

[noreaster]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html

President Bush commuted Monday the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

How, if the executive branch can pardon its members, can the American public convict it of its crimes? If lying was a serious enough charge to impeach a twice popularly elected president, why isn't it serious enough to leave the punishment visited upon a Republican, by a Republican judge, a prosecutor appointed by the Republican-run DOJ, and convicted by a jury of Americans, whose appeals have so far been upheld by other Republican judges?

This is embarrassing to me as an American.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hyperbole alert!

You're not going to force me to dredge up the list of Clinton commutations, now, are you? Were you equally embarrassed when Marc Rich was pardoned for tax evasion and commodities trading with Iran during the hostage crisis?

Every expert saw this coming, especially being that Libby was essensially nothing more than a scapegoat in the Plame case. Hardly worth any embarrassment.

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

From hyperbole to hypocrisy.

[noreaster]

What in my post is anything but fact?

Let's just be very clear here. There has been no President in the history of the United States who had someone in his own administration sentenced to jail, for doing something he was instructed to do by the administration - in this case, lie about treason - that then just commuted the sentence of the convicted, without even letting the appeals process complete. Let's also note that he did not even follow the traditional guidelines for commuting: waiting until the appeals have finished, having the convicted begin their jail time, have the convicted admit their wrong doing.

This is the very definition of cronyism. If you don't pardon or commute anyone (he's done that the least of any president) except the thanksgiving turkey, then just commute for your friends, that's cronyism. I don't care for Hillary, but her quote is spot on. In fact, this whole ordeal is very close to the definition of fascism.

[S2RT]

Hyperbole alert!
Now this should be embarrassing: "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

From hyperbole to hypocrisy.

Nah! The pardon and "her" response just proves that the hacks on both sides of the public trough have no shame at all...The shame is on the electorate.

S

[S2RT]

What in my post is anything but fact?
....Let's also note that he did not even follow the traditional guidelines for commuting: waiting until the appeals have finished, having the convicted begin their jail time, have the convicted admit their wrong doing.....


Look at it this way, W's just helpin the Justice Department spent their slice of pie more efficiently...Who knows, maybe they'll have some leftover since they don't have to prosecute the appeal.

[Mr_Cheeze]

What in my post is anything but fact?

Let's just be very clear here. There has been no President in the history of the United States who had someone in his own administration sentenced to jail, for doing something he was instructed to do by the administration - in this case, lie about treason - that then just commuted the sentence of the convicted, without even letting the appeals process complete. Let's also note that he did not even follow the traditional guidelines for commuting: waiting until the appeals have finished, having the convicted begin their jail time, have the convicted admit their wrong doing.

This is the very definition of cronyism. If you don't pardon or commute anyone (he's done that the least of any president) except the thanksgiving turkey, then just commute for your friends, that's cronyism. I don't care for Hillary, but her quote is spot on. In fact, this whole ordeal is very close to the definition of fascism.

First off you need to understand my use of the term 'hyperbole'. This is a charge laid upon you, noreaster, and anyone else (get a hold of the apoplexy on display at Huffington Post for example) who acts - and it is acting, make no bones about it - who acts as though this is such an outrage all while knowing that they didn't bat an eyelash when their favored party President would do, and did do, exactly the same things as afforded to them under the law. I'm not saying it makes it all right. Do not mistake my comments as being in defense of Bush.

The Libby commutation and Rich pardon, outside of the obvious specifics of their respective cases, are no different from one another. So, the facts, as you would have it, are completely beside the point. Cronyism or not, this is just more politics as usual. Hillary is a complete and utter hypocrite. One party protects their own and the other cries foul. To anyone who can take off the blinders and look at this as S2RT has, it is plain to see just another reason to never again vote for one of these major party people.

[kernel crash]

Here's a list of the pardons granted by Clinton. But I warn you, you may need a bigger hard drive to download this list.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

[noreaster]

Explain to me what Clinton has to do with any of this? He's not my "favored party President." And if you don't approve of Clinton's pardons, how can you not be outraged by this one? Do two wrongs make a right? Isn't perjury still illegal? It was illegal for Clinton, right?

The Libby commutation and Rich pardon, outside of the obvious specifics of their respective cases, are no different from one another.

This is simply untrue. What disturbs me in all of this is that the President is excusing one of his own men, who worked in the executive branch under his command, from a jail sentence. This is an extreme conflict of interest. Does this mean anyone who works for the executive is above the law, because their boss will just spring them from jail?

That's exactly what it says, and this is why it's dangerous, if not criminal. I don't care if it's technically legal. It should be outlawed. This is a dangerous precedent.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I never said I approved of anything, but I am not 'outraged' by any of it. It doesn't affect my life one way or the other. What Clinton has to do with it is the hyprcrisy laden in the politics. Marc Rich was also labeled a traitor, and yet he was pardoned. Oh, I'm sorry, he wasn't a crony. No, he was just a Clinton financial supporter.

I find it pretty hilarious the level at which the left are beside themselves here. The person they really wanted was Carl Rove, and they didn't get him. So Scooter Libby was the consolation prize, so they thought. Now you don't even have Libby. Oh the freaking horror of it all.

Give me a break. This commutation is neither dangerous nor criminal, and it certainly does not set a precedent. It comes nowhere near Ford pardoning Nixon. Not even in the same zip code.

You know and I know that Libby was not the real "traitor". Maybe it was Rove, maybe it wasn't. Maybe you should ask Robert Novak.

[noreaster]

You don't get it. Clinton pardoning Rich was also cronyism. No one is debating this but you. However, Clinton acted upon precedent, stating that cases similar to Rich's were settled in civil and not criminal court. Rich had to pay his $100 million in fines before receiving clemency.

But this is worse because Rich did not work within the executive branch. He was not instructed by the president (or anyone inside the executive branch) to commit his crimes.

Libby lied under oath in regards to a treasonous act. I'm not saying he's the supreme bad guy, but is undoubtedly a bad guy (fall guy and bad guy often fall upon the same guy) and deserves a trail by a jury of his peers and to serve the same sentence just like every other person who is convicted of lying under oath.

Side note: check out this coincidence, found by searching Wikipedia for Marc Rich -

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001]

[Mr_Cheeze]

What happened to Clinton for lying under oath? Pretty much nothing. So there you go. Libby still has the conviction on his record, as well as the probation and $250,000 fine. Friends in high places will always serve to thwart justice. Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is, and the Democrats are no less guilty of doing it when they have had their opportunities.

BTW, the only people I have ever known to use the term 'fascism' in relation to this administration are either leftists or conspiracy theorist whackos, and you don't seem to belong to the latter group. Tell you what. If Bush declares a police state before the 2008 election, extending his term, ending Democracy as we know it, THEN i'll buy into the fascism idea.

[heckler]

Just to stir the pot here (like it is really needed), there was debate over the last few weeks as to the length of LIbby's sentance. Seems there is plenty of precidence for an even harsher jail time. Others have done less and spent more time. So, since our good President felt Libby's sentance was too harsh, does that now open the door for lawsuits for the other poor souls who didn't work for the King- um, I mean president?

[Mr_Cheeze]

So, since our good President felt Libby's sentance was too harsh,

You have been judged guilty for first degree spelling errors. I hereby sentence you to read one book per week for the next 2 years, followed by 2 years of probationary 1 book per month.

Too harsh?

[heckler]

You have been judged guilty for first degree spelling errors. I hereby sentence you to read one book per week for the next 2 years, followed by 2 years of probationary 1 book per month.

Too harsh?


Not at all! I accept my punishment. But I will continue to misspell sentEnce regardless. It is just one of those words. Can we get Libby to read a book while not in jail?