View Full Version : Libby's sentance commuted
KafirChobee
07-03-2007, 01:07
Tonight on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer it was reported that Prez Bush has commuted the jail sentence of Scooter Libby, saying it was too harsh. Libby will still have to pay the $250K, and be on parole - but no jail time.
Bet old Cheney was beating on his (Bush43's) desk 'til he agreed to save his little buddy Scooter from going to the big house.
Oh, well. Most of us figured he'ld get off entirely at some point, so this is a compremise of sorts. Even if 67% of Americans wanted to see Scooter in jail. It seems that "justice for all", is just a bit better for some than others.
:balloon2:
A couple of ironies to highlight:
Bush as Governor was famously averse to pardons and commutations, even for prisoners on death row with plenty of evidence they were wrongly convicted. In fact, he refused to pardon or commute the sentence of a retarded man (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200307/berlow) (reported to have the communication skills of a seven-year-old) scheduled for execution.
As President, he has issued remarkably few pardons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush).
It is also worth noting, strictly for irony's sake, that a Republican Congress believed that lying about a sexual affair was an impeachable offense, whereas today's Republicans believe that lying about a national security issue is a pardonable kinda thing.
Clearly, the law is for other people.
Papewaio
07-03-2007, 01:32
Should you be able to pardon someone who committed a crime within your office while you are still in office? Surely it should be up to the next elected president at worst, and at best another branch otherwise it seems that the executive is a law unto itself... hardly a checks and balance thing is it...
It would seem a good strategy to do all the dodgy stuff in the open right at the start and pardon right at the end... not exactly justice.
Watchman
07-03-2007, 01:38
Americans really should kick this two-party habit. It's obviously bad for one's health. :pimp2:
TevashSzat
07-03-2007, 01:50
Americans really should kick this two-party habit. It's obviously bad for one's health. :pimp2:
Hmm... you are right, we ought to make it one party with ME as its leader :2thumbsup: jk
KukriKhan
07-03-2007, 03:36
Hang on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. This might be the spark that lights the fuse to the fully-loaded cannon that is the frustration and outrage of the american people.
The only surprise here is that Libby's sentence was commuted instead getting an outright pardon. The outrage expressed is pretty comical though- our last president signed a stack of pardons (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm) longer than my arm (140) for his political flunkies on his last day office alone. This isn't even a pardon.
Get a grip.
Tachikaze
07-03-2007, 03:40
How does Bush get away with this stuff? Do US citizens understand who little control they have over their government? Or, should I say, how little control they want to take over their corrupt government?
I'll bet when Bush is impeached and convicted he'll pardon himself and no one will stop watching sports or reality shows long enough to notice or care.
We really might as well have a dictatorship.
This might be the spark that lights the fuse to the fully-loaded cannon that is the frustration and outrage of the american people.
And we will do what, exactly, with that outrage? Nobody really wants an impeachment. I think everybody's resolved to riding this lame horse out, and getting somebody else in a year and a half who will (hopefully) clean up the mess.
The only surprise here is that Libby's sentence was commuted instead getting an outright pardon. The outrage expressed is pretty comical though- our last president signed a stack of pardons (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm) longer than my arm (140) for his political flunkies on his last day office alone. This isn't even a pardon.
Get a grip.
Surely then this highlights a weakness in the presidency itself rather than in any particular political party?
Surely then this highlights a weakness in the presidency itself rather than in any particular political party?
Tough call. Pardons are a power that was very deliberately granted to the President, as chief executive, by our founding fathers- it's not some loophole that's being exploited- it's explicitly in the Constitution.
Here's (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022501a.htm) an informative article on the subject.
If they're abused, the obvious recourse would be for voters not to re-elect the president. However, that was in the time before term-limits on presidents. Now, it seems that lame duck pardons (particularly last day in office pardons) seem to have become an unseemly tradition in the White House. After all, the president doing the pardoning already knows he won't be re-elected, so there isn't much to lose. :shrug:
KukriKhan
07-03-2007, 05:02
And we will do what, exactly, with that outrage? Nobody really wants an impeachment. I think everybody's resolved to riding this lame horse out, and getting somebody else in a year and a half who will (hopefully) clean up the mess.
Fine question.
Issuing pardons/commutations is within his pervue, with precedent leading back to the other GW (Washington) and the Whiskey Rebellion, so not impeachable. They've all done it, Whig, Democrat, Progressive and Republican, usually at the end-of-term, as "get a grip" Xiahou referenced.
We reelected this guy because we thought we needed continuity during a crisis, and the other guy, war-vet or not, didn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to do the job.
Keeping him in office implied a level of high trust and confidence that his actions and words reflected the will of the people. "Do what you must do, within the law, to keep us safe and free." And ignorant, if you buy Tachikazi's lament.
This action, this uncharacteristic commutation of jail time for a clearly criminal offense - every bit as justified as Paris Hilton's driving unlicensed, for which the silly girl served her time - breaks that trust, that special confidence we repose in our CinC.
If Scooter gets off, so should the GI's and Marines and Air Forcemen and Sailors who've been convicted of crimes commited in the line of duty, as they understood it; an idea as antithetical to americanism as dictators, jack-booted stormtroopers and collective property ownership.
I neither endorse nor predict armed uprisings over this. I DO predict that this action will tip the balance, making the presidency even weaker than in the Carter years, rendering our word abroad laughable, and domestically automatically suspect. It will make our 20-somethings even less trusting of the perfectly good system that has evolved, and ultimately,
make us more vulnerable to attack physically (due to the inherent dithering of congress), and more vulnerable to our freedoms being thwarted, in the name of protecting us from that physical threat.
All in the name of personal loyalty.
Sorry. That's not enough for me when the fate of a country is at stake.
I think KurkiKhan is making way too much of this. As I've already covered, pardons (which this isn't) have a time-honored tradition and are entirely legal under the Constitution- for good or ill.
As a political move, it's actually a good one- which is a refreshing change from the Bush White House. He had nothing to lose by doing so, and stood to gain a little by doing it. People who hate Bush will still hate Bush- nothing is going to change that. The people who don't care about "Plamegate" still won't care- which is probably the largest group. And those that thought Libby was railroaded by Fitzgerald, will be undoubtedly pleased by this.
Papewaio
07-03-2007, 05:33
I take it a few more then the President can commute a sentence (for instance a judge).
Back to Pardons...should the President only be able to Pardon while they are 'fully' in office... say when another President has been elected but not taken the throne (so to speak)... during that period the outgoing President cannot make Pardons?
Or should Pardons be checked and balanced? Should they be able to vetoed on a 2/3s majority of House and Senate? Okayed by the Judiciary?
Should it have to be co-signed by the Vice President (he has the most to lose as he potentially has 2 terms to get elected to President up his sleeve)?
I'm just interested to see if you guys can sort out this issue before we become a republic ourselves... may 30, 40 years from now, so take it easy while you decide.
Devastatin Dave
07-03-2007, 05:50
Maybe Scooter and Marc Rich can bunk together in the Lincoln bedroom this Summer...Oh and by the way, this isn't the pardon (had to repeat it even though no one is listening), but don't let your frenzy derail your ignorant ravings. :laugh4:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595
I think Pape raises an excellent question. If the power to pardon (and commute, of course, Dave) is universally acknowledged to be abused by second-term Presidents, how could we check or balance that power without unduly weakening the Executive? How do we create a structural impediment to abuse?
And Dave, just out of curiosity, how would a "frenzy" derail "ignorant ravings"? I'm having a hard time picturing this ...
PanzerJaeger
07-03-2007, 07:03
Fine question.
Issuing pardons/commutations is within his pervue, with precedent leading back to the other GW (Washington) and the Whiskey Rebellion, so not impeachable. They've all done it, Whig, Democrat, Progressive and Republican, usually at the end-of-term, as "get a grip" Xiahou referenced.
We reelected this guy because we thought we needed continuity during a crisis, and the other guy, war-vet or not, didn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to do the job.
Keeping him in office implied a level of high trust and confidence that his actions and words reflected the will of the people. "Do what you must do, within the law, to keep us safe and free." And ignorant, if you buy Tachikazi's lament.
This action, this uncharacteristic commutation of jail time for a clearly criminal offense - every bit as justified as Paris Hilton's driving unlicensed, for which the silly girl served her time - breaks that trust, that special confidence we repose in our CinC.
If Scooter gets off, so should the GI's and Marines and Air Forcemen and Sailors who've been convicted of crimes commited in the line of duty, as they understood it; an idea as antithetical to americanism as dictators, jack-booted stormtroopers and collective property ownership.
I neither endorse nor predict armed uprisings over this. I DO predict that this action will tip the balance, making the presidency even weaker than in the Carter years, rendering our word abroad laughable, and domestically automatically suspect. It will make our 20-somethings even less trusting of the perfectly good system that has evolved, and ultimately,
make us more vulnerable to attack physically (due to the inherent dithering of congress), and more vulnerable to our freedoms being thwarted, in the name of protecting us from that physical threat.
All in the name of personal loyalty.
Sorry. That's not enough for me when the fate of a country is at stake.
This really isn't that big of a deal man. To be honest, no one aside from the political junkies care. Watergate, this is not.
And take a deeper look at the case, this guy actually didn't deserve the jail time.
For those who are deep in the throes of terminal frustration and disgust with the current President, here's a Firefox add-on (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3792) that may bring you comfort.
-edit-
To be honest, no one aside from the political junkies care.
Not sure if that's accurate. Reports are that the White House shut down their "comment line" (202-395-0805) today. Could be a coincidence, I suppose.
A blogger sums it up nicely:
The dirty unwashed masses who populate our juries are fit to judge each other, but evidently not the ruling class. David Broder can breathe a sigh of relief that People Like Him are safe from those overly zealous US Attorneys who might want to hold them accountable to the same absurd standards that the little people must live by.
How quaint.
Anybody else think that Libby had an understanding with the Executive that jail time = I talk? There was a telling quote from an insider that Bush didn't want to intervene in the process "until he had to."
PanzerJaeger
07-03-2007, 08:26
Not sure if that's accurate. Reports are that the White House shut down their "comment line" (202-395-0805) today. Could be a coincidence, I suppose.
Rush Limbaugh's phone lines are swamped every day, but that doesnt mean he's got even 1% of America interested in what he's saying or doing.
But who knows, you may be right. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
It is a pardon, to say it's not is just using spin & semantics to distort reality. His "parole" is nothing to him, no punishment whatsoever.
I knew this would happen with Libby.
Yet another example of how if you are rich & famous in the USA, you can break any law and never ever do hard-time for it. Even if you do go to prison it is not a real prison experience in gen pop.
This Libby atrocity ranks right up there with OJ, Robert Blake, Paris Hilton etc. etc.
America has a two-tier justice system.
As for this:
This action, this uncharacteristic commutation of jail time for a clearly criminal offense - every bit as justified as Paris Hilton's driving unlicensed, for which the silly girl served her time
She didn't serve her time in a normal prison in gen pop, like any non-rich and non-famous person would have to. So to simply say "she served her time" with the connotation attached that everything is fine in her case, does not seem correct.
I think KurkiKhan is making way too much of this. As I've already covered, pardons (which this isn't) have a time-honored tradition and are entirely legal under the Constitution- for good or ill.
As a political move, it's actually a good one- which is a refreshing change from the Bush White House. He had nothing to lose by doing so, and stood to gain a little by doing it. People who hate Bush will still hate Bush- nothing is going to change that. The people who don't care about "Plamegate" still won't care- which is probably the largest group. And those that thought Libby was railroaded by Fitzgerald, will be undoubtedly pleased by this.
I don't get it. If it isn't a pardon then what is it? If it isn't a pardon then how is it legal under the constitution? Does the President have extra-judicial powers beyond that of issuing an official pardon?
KafirChobee
07-03-2007, 20:15
A full pardon is still possible, probably inevitable in say 12-17 months (if not sooner).
Here is the report from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec07/libby_07-02.html
and here is CNN's coverage which includes Bush's comments, and Snow's spin:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/03/libby.sentance/index.html#cnnSTCText
Look cnn is messing with me, so go to where it directs you and click on the Scooter link - it will get you to a pic of his face and that will get you to the story I intended to show. so solly.
The latter also shows what each of our Prezs' have done - Ike to Bill. Dubya looks like a woose, but he hasn't reached the end of his tenure so he may atleast beat his Daddy, yet. Ike rules btw.
Don Corleone
07-03-2007, 21:15
I find this laughable and tragic, simultaneously. Go read up on Mark Rich, then we'll talk about outrageous acts by sitting presidents. As for Scooter Libby going to the Big House for 3 years, maybe if the Democrat sitting on the bench had used one ouce of reason when sentencing him, Bush would have let the sentence stand (such as, oh, I don't know 6-9 months, which is the usual going rate for lying to a federal grand jury).
Folks, Scooter Libby DID NOT leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage did, and then Karl Rove went around making certain everyone got the message. Scooter Libby got convicted of lying about what he remembered after he got dragged in front of a grand jury by that C%#KS%^KER Fitzgerald for the fifth time.
I hope and pray none of you ever get dragged in front of a grand jury by a hostile prosecutor operating well beyond any bounds of reason (and yes, before somebody says his name, Ken Starr counts here as well).
To me, this entire story ranks right up there with the Duke Lacrosse case. Actually, I'll give Mike Nifong the benefit of the doubt that he actually started out believing in what he was doing. Fitzgerald wanted to skin the hide of the highest ranking Bush official he could get his hands on and nail it to the barn door. That's not justice.
Watchman
07-03-2007, 21:32
It does rather sound like perfectly normal US political partisanism though.
As for Scooter Libby going to the Big House for 3 years, maybe if the Democrat sitting on the bench had used one ouce of reason when sentencing him, Bush would have let the sentence stand (such as, oh, I don't know 6-9 months, which is the usual going rate for lying to a federal grand jury).
Yeah, damn those Democrats! Oh, wait ... (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_01-2007_07_07.shtml#1183437010)
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060500150.html) 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.
Judge Reggie Walton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Walton) was appointed by the Great Leader, as was everyone else involved in the case. But don't let the facts get in the way ...
Crazed Rabbit
07-04-2007, 01:58
Oh please, Lemur. The dems were going crazy about 'Fitzmas' before Libby got tried. We all know being appointed by Bush does not make one a Republican.
whereas today's Republicans believe that lying about a national security issue is a pardonable kinda thing.
A national security issue? Are you aware of what he was found guilty for?
I don't get it. If it isn't a pardon then what is it? If it isn't a pardon then how is it legal under the constitution? Does the President have extra-judicial powers beyond that of issuing an official pardon?
It's commuting - Bush isn't pardoning him for his crime, but changing his sentence to a lesser one.
Don C said he was convicted for what he said after being put in front of a Grand Jury for the fifth time - now why wasn't the prosecutor satisfied with the first four times? 2.5 years is a long time in prison for having a bad memory.
CR
KukriKhan
07-04-2007, 02:22
So, where were you guys?
I'm out there in the street, face painted blue, 'Don't Tread on Me' flag unfurled and flapping furiously in the wind, chanting: "Up with America! Down with King George! Up with America! Down with King George!" at the top of my lungs for 2 hours. Finally, Mrs K walks out...
"Honey?..."
"...n with King George!... er, huh?
"Sweetie, come inside. I don't think anyone esle is coming."
"But this is important. Up with Amer..."
"They don't care. It's no big deal to them."
"Really?"
"Really."
"Damn"
"Come in and have some pie, Dear."
----------------------------------
So; I'll pick more popular fights next time.
:)
signed,
Kukri, Quixote, Khan
Oh please, Lemur. The dems were going crazy about 'Fitzmas' before Libby got tried. We all know being appointed by Bush does not make one a Republican.
But as it happens, that judge's connections and patrons are Republicans. Hard to believe they'd take a screaming Democratic activist under their wing. And it's a bit rich to complain about a vast, liberal conspiracy when every actor in the drama was appointed by the Great Leader.
A national security issue? Are you aware of what he was found guilty for?
Perjury and obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby#Verdict) in a case that dealt with the outing of a covert asset. Spin that as you please.
Kukri, I caught some news tonight, and there was talk of "widespread outrage," so don't feel completely lonely. But I think Xiahou is right in that positions have hardened to such an extent that this latest bit of cronyism won't make a big difference.
Where it will change things, however, is in the courts. Apparently Bush's dismissal of a Federal perjury sentence as "excessive" has lit up the boards across the nation, where lawyers and convicts are screaming "Me, too!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commutecnd.html)
By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.
“The president of the United States has come in on his own and said, ‘30 months is not reasonable in this case,’ ” said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other charges.
“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”
Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.
“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”
KafirChobee
07-04-2007, 05:35
Someone (CR) mentioned that the Bush appointments for U.S. attorney positions were not based on political party. All I can say is, "What planet you been living on the past 6 years?" All Bush's appointees to all government positions have been Republican - they went so far as actually putting it in their request for employment - which was suppose to be illegal. Also they required an oath of loyalty. I mean, name the Democrat on his staff, in his cabinet, in the Justice Department - anywhere.
The reason for not prosecuting the real culprits in this case of devulging a CIA operatives name? Well, lets be real - the original US attorney got a promotion and ceased further inquiries. Unfortunately, for Scooter, some issues had already been raised and he got caught up in it.
Not to worry though. Unless Bush pardons everyone concerned - we got a few years to prosecute them. Limitations and all that - so you will see the justice you crave CR. After all the next AG may not be as understanding as Gonzales. Heck, he may even know the Constitution.
:balloon2:
6-9 months, which is the usual going rate for lying to a federal grand jury.
This appears to be wrong as well, Don. ABC News interviewed a passel of former prosecutors (http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3343358&page=1), and they generally agreed that Libby's sentence was on the high side, but well within the norm for Federal perjury convictions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court just heard a case about a remarkably similar conviction, and ruled that sentences within Federal guidelines are presumed to be reasonable. Libby's defenders clearly know more than the judge, the jury, or the Supreme Court.
Libby's sentence appears in line with other cases.
The Supreme Court recently upheld a 33-month sentence for Victor Rita, a Marine and Army veteran convicted of lying to authorities in connection with an illegal gun investigation.
Rita received more than 35 awards and medals for his military service, according to court papers. The courts rejected his argument that he should have received a lesser sentence because of his record of military service — a similar argument to that made by Libby's lawyers.
"It's hard to say that Rita's crime is worse or even as bad as Libby's crime," said Douglas Berman, a sentencing law expert at Moritz College of Law.
And the most damning quote, from former prosecutor John Barrett:
"For many people, this may have been the first time they are acquainted with the fact that this is the way federal laws work," Barrett said.
Crazed Rabbit
07-04-2007, 07:44
Someone (CR) mentioned that the Bush appointments for U.S. attorney positions were not based on political party.
Either you're talking about some other CR, or you can't read. Here's a bit of help:
We all know being appointed by Bush does not make one a Republican.
But I guess we can't let facts get in the way of a good rant?
Apparently Bush's dismissal of a Federal perjury sentence as "excessive" has lit up the boards across the nation, where lawyers and convicts are screaming "Me, too!"
Gee, he still can't do a thing right.
CR
Yup, looks as though the fallout from the Great Leader's memo is going to be long-lasting and widespread (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html). There would have been far less damage if he had just gone ahead and pardoned the git.
Critics of the system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.
On Monday, Mr. Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence — handing an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of the president’s arguments in their own cases.
Given the administration’s tough stand on sentencing, the president’s arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.
“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who writes the blog Sentencing Law and Policy.
Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.
“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”
In related news, the NeoCons certainly take care of their own (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_bi_ge/wolfowitz_aei). Paul Wolfowitz went straight from resigning from the World Bank in disgrace to a plum position at the American Enterprise Institute.
Wolfowitz moves to DC think tank
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Mon Jul 2, 7:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Former World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz, who resigned amid a furor over his handling of a bank pay package for his girlfriend, has joined the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, as a visiting scholar.
AEI's president, Christopher DeMuth, made the announcement Monday. Wolfowitz will work on entrepreneurship and development issues, Africa and public-private partnerships, the group said in a release.
Wolfowitz's last day as head of the World Bank, a major poverty-fighting institution, was on Saturday, ending a stormy two-year run.
He was essentially forced to step down from the World Bank after a special panel found that he broke bank rules in arranging a hefty pay raise for Shaha Riza, his girlfriend and bank employee. Wolfowitz's handling of the pay package prompted a staff revolt and calls by Europeans and others for him to resign.
Before taking over the World Bank, Wolfowitz had served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, where he played a key role in mapping out the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
AEI's stated mission is to "defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism." The nonprofit institution, founded in 1943, is oriented to research and education on range of government, political, economic and social issues.
President Bush, who had tapped Wolfowitz for the World Bank post, turned to Robert Zoellick to replace him.
Zoellick took over as World Bank president on Sunday. He was Bush's former top trade envoy and No. 2 diplomat at the State Department. He left the administration last year to become an executive at Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs.
Even the Cato Institute is jumping into the game. Very amusing blog (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/07/03/commute-these-sentences-mr-president/) today:
Commute These Sentences, Mr. President
President Bush has pushed the envelope of every aspect of executive power, except for two that might ease the burden of government, the veto and the pardon. Now he’s threatening to protect the taxpayers with his veto pen, and he’s just discovered his power to pardon or commute the sentences of people convicted of crimes. Whether Scooter Libby was an appropriate recipient of a commutation is subject to much debate.
But there are plenty of other people who deserve presidential pardons or commutations. Families Against Mandatory Minimums has highlighted a number of good cases here (http://famm.org/ExploreSentencing/TheIssue/FacesofFAMM.aspx):
Mandy Martinson — 15 years for helping her boyfriend count his drug-dealing money.
DeJarion Echols — 20 years for selling a small amount of crack and owning a gun, causing Reagan-appointed federal judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. to say, “This is one of those situations where I’d like to see a congressman sitting before me.”
Weldon Angelos — 55 years for minor marijuana and gun charges, causing the George W. Bush-appointed judge Paul Cassell, previously best known for pressing the courts to overturn the Miranda decision, to call the mandatory sentence in this case “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.”
Anthea Harris — 15 years when members of her husband’s drug ring received sentence reductions to testify against her, although she had not been directly involved in the business.
A compassionate conservative should also use the pardon power to head off the DEA’s war against doctors (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3778) who help patients alleviate pain. He could start by pardoning Dr. Ronald McIver (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?ex=1183608000&en=2ed7b216fc1349b9&ei=5070), sentenced to 30 years for prescribing Oxycontin and other drugs to patients in severe pain. Or Dr. William Hurwitz (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27tier.html?ex=1183608000&en=e9d39f8cbbf513fa&ei=5070) of Virginia, sentenced to 25 years but then granted a retrial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/science/03tier.html), convicted again, and awaiting sentencing, which could still be 10 years.
Commute these sentences, Mr. President.
Crazed Rabbit
07-04-2007, 17:32
Another good article from Cato.
I'd add a pardon to that guy sentenced to death for killing someone breaking into his house.
CR
The complications (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/judge_questions.html) just keep coming.
When President Bush in granting clemency on Monday nullified the 30-month prison sentence Walton had imposed, the President said he would leave intact the part of the sentence that required two years of supervised release -- somewhat akin to probation, but not the same. But Walton on Tuesday noted that the federal law governing such a requirement states that it is to be served "after imprisonment."
The judge said in his order: "Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment....It is therefore unclear how [the statute] should be interpreted in unusual circumstances such as these."
Lawyers were ordered to file papers by Monday on "whether the defendant should be required to report to the Probation Office immediately, whether he should be allowed to remain free of supervision until some later, more appropriate time, or, indeed, whether the plain meaning of [the statute] precludes the application of a term of supervised release altogether now that the prison sentence has been commuted."
In other words, it's entirely possible that Libby cannot serve two years of probation without having served any time. The Decider is good at choosing interesting directions, not-so-good at consequences.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2007, 19:16
Of course no one has yet mentioned that this whole affair was in reality nothing more than a political witch hunt and Washingtons usual game of gotcha. They had to find some one guilty of something. As far as i can see his only crime was not remembering things exactly as Chris Mathews did. No one was ever found guilty of the charges that started this investigation. If he belongs in jail then Certainly Clinton and Berger along with a few 1000 other politicians do as well.
As far as i can see his only crime was not remembering things exactly as Chris Mathews did. No one was ever found guilty of the charges that started this investigation.
Two thoughts, reliable defender of the powerful:
Libby was convicted by a jury. Think you know better than them?
As for "no one was found guilty of the charges that started the investigation," ever heard the expression that it's not the crime, it's the coverup that gets you?
Marshal Murat
07-04-2007, 21:51
Which jury? The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2007, 23:03
Libby was convicted by a jury. Think you know better than them?
On what charge? Did anyone get convicted of the original so called crime?
As for "no one was found guilty of the charges that started the investigation," ever heard the expression that it's not the crime, it's the coverup that gets you?
What cover up? Just for the sake of accuracy, please remember the following.
1. Valerie Plame-Wilson was NOT a covert CIA operative at the time she was "outed". Every bartender in Georgetown knew she was CIA because she told them all. Heck, she waited all the way to the third date to tell Joe she worked for the CIA. She was a desk jockey at Langley, not some deep-cover spook. She did not (and does not) meet the statutory definition and therefore could not be "outed".
2. Fitzgerald knew very early in the investigation who the original source was, and it wasn't Libby, Cheney, Rove or Bush. It was Richard Armitage, a Clinton appointee.
3. History has shown that Reagan was a lousy judge of judges. Several of his picks turned out to be ultra-liberal.
So what we have here is the ultimate political witch hunt. Fitzgerald knew very early on, long before even interviewing Libby or anyone else, that no crime had been committed and the identity of the original source. The investigation should have stopped right then and there. Fitzgerald simply kept going until he "got" someone on a pure process crime. Fitzgerald had some evidence excluded for purposes of trial that he then wanted included for purposes of sentencing. In other words, Libby got "Nifonged".
Libby was essentially convicted for having a different memory of events than Tim Russert (and it's been shown that Russert's account of events doesn't pan out).
Tribesman
07-04-2007, 23:12
What cover up? Just for the sake of accuracy, please remember the following.
Would you like to make that following statement actually accurate before you advise people to remember things that are not factual:dizzy2:
Marshal Murat
07-04-2007, 23:26
Wall Street Journal Op. (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010154)
Fitzgerald Doubles Down
Prosecutor asks for a sentence based on never-seen evidence.
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is due to be sentenced next week, and--just in time--Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided this was a leak case after all. Last week he filed a brief with the court arguing that Mr. Libby should receive a prison sentence in line with crimes that neither he nor anyone else was ever accused of committing. If the court accepts Mr. Fitzgerald's logic, the sentence meted out in this fantastic case would at least double, to a minimum of 30 months. So it goes in a case brought by an unaccountable prosecutor now requesting an unreasonable penalty based on evidence he never introduced at trial. This is America?
Throughout Mr. Libby's prosecution, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted it made no difference to the case whether CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover. At one pre-trial hearing, he went so far as to argue it would make no difference to the case "if [Ms. Wilson] turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee." He also objected to defense requests for documents concerning her status, insisting this was a perjury trial, not a trial about leaking classified information.
His stonewalling on this point before the trial led the defense to seek an instruction from the judge barring the prosecution from discussing the nature of Ms. Wilson's job at the CIA. But now that the time for sentencing has come, Mr. Fitzgerald has decided that Ms. Wilson's role is relevant after all..
Watchman
07-05-2007, 00:00
This is America?Sure, unless there's something wrong with my map. So's Gitmo. Isn't it exciting to have such a varied, dynamic and multifaceted legal system ?
KukriKhan
07-05-2007, 00:16
Sure, unless there's something wrong with my map. So's Gitmo. Isn't it exciting to have such a varied, dynamic and multifaceted legal system ?
:laugh4: :laugh4:
So Gawain, since, according to you, the charges were based on false assumptions, the prosecutor was on a witch-hunt, the jury was stupid, and the judge was an automaton,
what is your take on POTUS only taking away the jail-time by commutation, rather than the full exoneration that a pardon would give? Is King George wrong too?
Marshal Murat
07-05-2007, 00:28
Is King George wrong too?
I thought all of them were dead....
Wait...
Why are you calling George Washington king?
:laugh4:
:2thumbsup:
:hijacked:
Mr. Fitzgerald insisted it made no difference to the case whether CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover.
So then this was about perjury. Perjury about what?
Marshal Murat
07-05-2007, 03:11
The CNN Op. Hypocrisy Abounds (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/unpardonable.politics.ap/index.html)
KukriKhan
07-05-2007, 03:25
From Marshal Murat's article:
..."There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."...
Yep. :shakes head:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2007, 03:26
So Gawain, since, according to you, the charges were based on false assumptions, the prosecutor was on a witch-hunt, the jury was stupid, and the judge was an automaton,
Not according to me according to the facts .
Read again
Fitzgerald Doubles Down
Prosecutor asks for a sentence based on never-seen evidence.
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is due to be sentenced next week, and--just in time--Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided this was a leak case after all. Last week he filed a brief with the court arguing that Mr. Libby should receive a prison sentence in line with crimes that neither he nor anyone else was ever accused of committing. If the court accepts Mr. Fitzgerald's logic, the sentence meted out in this fantastic case would at least double, to a minimum of 30 months. So it goes in a case brought by an unaccountable prosecutor now requesting an unreasonable penalty based on evidence he never introduced at trial. This is America?
Throughout Mr. Libby's prosecution, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted it made no difference to the case whether CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover. At one pre-trial hearing, he went so far as to argue it would make no difference to the case "if [Ms. Wilson] turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee." He also objected to defense requests for documents concerning her status, insisting this was a perjury trial, not a trial about leaking classified information.
His stonewalling on this point before the trial led the defense to seek an instruction from the judge barring the prosecution from discussing the nature of Ms. Wilson's job at the CIA. But now that the time for sentencing has come, Mr. Fitzgerald has decided that Ms. Wilson's role is relevant after all..
Plus the FACT that he knew on the second day who the leaker was. Come on. There is no debate to be had here.
This from the man who maintains that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honest, patriotic, misunderstood kids. I think I'll take your "there's no argument" with a small mountain of salt, thanks very much.
KukriKhan
07-05-2007, 04:02
Um, since I'm in the middle of this conversation, this is awkward:
please always provide linkage and attribution to quoted sources.
Marshal Murat
07-05-2007, 04:12
Gawain's post was from the Wall Street Journal Op.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2007, 05:47
And if you still doubt me
Armitage leak admission creates new questions
Why did Fitzgerald continue probe if he knew where CIA leak came from? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723718/)
Updated: 8:56 p.m. ET Sept 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - For three years, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the answer to one of the biggest questions in Washington: Who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame?
Now that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged this week that he was the leaker, the new question is what Fitzgerald has been looking for during a quest that rattled the White House and sent a reporter to jail.
“What was the rationale for seeking an answer to a question he already knew the answer to?” asked Wayne Berman, a former assistant secretary of commerce and a supporter of the only person indicted in the leak case, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Fitzgerald’s office had no response to that question Friday.
Armitage said he inadvertently revealed Plame’s job to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July 2003. That revelation came as Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration’s prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Novak’s column touched off claims that the White House was behind a smear campaign, which led to a federal investigation into the leak and whether it was part of a partisan effort to undermine Wilson’s credibility.
Probe went on despite admission
Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak’s source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides. Among them was top Bush adviser Karl Rove, who appeared five times before a grand jury before being cleared of wrongdoing this summer.
When Libby was indicted in October 2005 on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators, Fitzgerald said Libby was the first official to discuss Plame in a conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
That’s where this week’s admission by Armitage muddles the case.
After Fitzgerald’s comment about Libby at a news conference, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reminded Armitage that he had made a passing comment to him days before Libby’s conversation with Miller. That meant that Armitage, not Libby, had been the first to mention it to a reporter, and he quickly informed the prosecutor of that recollection.
I also love how the die-hard Repubs have made this a referendum on the character of Joe Wilson, or, in a pinch, Bill Clinton. There really should be a statute of limitations for justifying the Great Leader's actions with "Clinton did it!"
Nobody wants to comment on the mess the commutation has made for thousands of other cases across our great nation? Nobody wants to talk about being tough on crime?
Oh well, let's get back to whether the right-wing blogosphere is correct in frothing about a political witch-hunt and innocents being burned at the stake. Noted left-wing hotbed of Trotskyite rabble-rousing, the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0705/p03s03-uspo.html?page=2), has this to say:
In supporting Bush, these three men are aligning themselves with an action that critics say flies in the face of the president's pledge to "restore honor and dignity to the White House." Libby's felony conviction stemmed from statements he made to a federal grand jury in the course of an investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. That leak, which neither Libby nor anyone else was charged with, stemmed from a dispute over intelligence reports that suggested Iraq was attempting to obtain materials to build weapons of mass destruction. That dispute fed into the larger debate over Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
So let's not forget that if we want to talk about what this whole ugly circus is "really" about, it's the I-word. But believe in the victimization of your cause if you must. I can't really imagine modern Republicans without a constant haze of victim rhetoric. And perma-outrage. Fortunately, the nation seems to be tiring of the dog and pony show.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2007, 05:50
I also love how the die-hard Repubs have made this a referendum on the character of Joe Wilson, or, in a pinch, Bill Clinton. There really should be a statute of limitations for justifying the Great Leader's actions with "Clinton did it!"
If anyone belongs in jail here its Wilson and Fitzgerald. Did you read my post above yours?
Didn't see it before I posted, sorry, Gawain. My take on the situation is that Fitzgerald was digging, Libby knew exactly what was going on (i.e., Rove and Cheney ordering the spread of info), Libby stonewalled and lied, Fitzgerald knew darn well that Libby was doing so, and so he used the oldest prosecutor's trick in the book: Talk or I'm sending you to jail.
Libby probably made a deal with the Administration that if he saw the inside of a jail cell, he would talk, but otherwise he would stay silent. Fitzgerald pressed ahead with perjury/obstruction of justice. Seems likely the evidence was good, 'cause twelve people who looked at everything the defense and prosecution put forward agreed unanimously, and a Republican judge gave Libby a no-kidding sentence.
Libby supporters mentioned that he could have called Dick Cheney to testify in his defense, and that he should have done so. A White House staffer said that Bush didn't want to take action "until he had to."
That's my take, and it doesn't require that every player be an idiot, a saint or an evildoer. Your version of events sounds rather more extreme.
-edit-
And if I may drive a final nail in the coffin of the claim that Libby's sentence was "excessive," somebody finally did the math and research (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-03-cia-leak_N.htm):
Federal court records indicate that 382 people were convicted for obstruction of justice over the past two years. Three of four were sent to prison. The average prison term was 64 months, more than five years. The largest group of defendants drew prison terms ranging from 13 months to 31 months.
"This is sort of a standard sentence in that situation," said defense attorney Mark H. Tuohey. "Call it what you want, but that's what it is. This was not some out-of-the-blue-sentence."
Tribesman
07-05-2007, 07:32
Not according to me according to the facts .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Pure unadulterated bollox .
read what you wrote following this line.....
What cover up? Just for the sake of accuracy, please remember the following.
.....then pick out the bits that are true and seperate them from those that are not true .
When you remove all the tripe that is not true then you have something that might be able to be called factual , until then it is pure rubbish which are you calling "facts" .
Wow, the White House is now claiming that Libby's connections and friends had nothing, nothing to do with the commutation. President Bush acted out of principle (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070705/oppose05.art.htm), don't'cha know.
Instead, he did what he does normally, and what makes those of us who work for him proud. He proceeded on the basis of principle, and arrived at a sound and just decision — knowing he would take hits in the court of public opinion, but also knowing he was doing the right thing.
Unbelievable. The Atlantic has a devastating article about the President's history of executive clemency and mercy. (Hint: there is none (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200307/berlow).)
On the morning of May 6, 1997, Governor George W. Bush signed his name to a confidential three-page memorandum from his legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY. It was the twenty-ninth time a death-row inmate's plea for clemency had been denied in the twenty-eight months since Bush had been sworn in. In this case Bush's signature led, shortly after 6:00 P.M. on the very same day, to the execution of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old.
Gonzales's summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.
A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.
For those on the right who are howling about injustice, let me say for the record that I would much rather have Fitzgerald coming after me for perjury than have Gonzales writing a memo to Bush about whether I should die.
-edit-
Brilliant quote from today's press conference (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003607.php) sums it all up:
Q: Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?
MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law."
HoreTore
07-05-2007, 21:11
I think Pape raises an excellent question. If the power to pardon (and commute, of course, Dave) is universally acknowledged to be abused by second-term Presidents, how could we check or balance that power without unduly weakening the Executive? How do we create a structural impediment to abuse?
And Dave, just out of curiosity, how would a "frenzy" derail "ignorant ravings"? I'm having a hard time picturing this ...
One word: Monarchy!
In my opinion, the power to pardon people should be there, but it should be completely separate from any political power. This is where our monarchies get useful, they can fill that role very nicely. In your case, the best you can hope for would be some super-supreme court/judge I guess...
Watchman
07-05-2007, 21:46
Not a few systems have that post filled with a politically powerless President...
Marshal Murat
07-05-2007, 21:50
Two wrongs don't make it right.
Is that the correct logical fallacy for the Bush vs. Clinton arguments?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2007, 23:42
My take on the situation is that Fitzgerald was digging, Libby knew exactly what was going on (i.e., Rove and Cheney ordering the spread of info), Libby stonewalled and lied, Fitzgerald knew darn well that Libby was doing so, and so he used the oldest prosecutor's trick in the book: Talk or I'm sending you to jail.
Your take is obviously so wrong. Armitage was the leaker case closed. No crime nothing to investigate. Wilson lied about everything. How can you deny it? He doesnt. You got one thing right. He was digging alright.
.then pick out the bits that are true and seperate them from those that are not true .
What was true? That there never should have been an investigation?
Samurai Waki
07-06-2007, 00:05
Join the New Republic. We have a multi party system, Relatively Good Wages, Tax Deductions, and Lowered Health Care!... and Cookies!
Tribesman
07-06-2007, 01:05
What was true?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey Gawain , a little bit of advice for ya , if you write things that are clearly not true and insist that they are factual it makes you look very silly .
Your take is obviously so wrong. Armitage was the leaker case closed. No crime nothing to investigate. Wilson lied about everything.
In your version of events, Gawain, we are required to believe that the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Republican judge, three-judge Republican appeals court and the jury were all either conniving or idiots. And they all must have had some sort of anti-Bush axe to grind. Does this seem likely?
As for your assertions about "case closed," I don't really agree, but I don't stand a chance of changing your mind once you've dug in your heels. You can go on about how Joe Wilson is the worst man in the world, but I don't see that it's salient to the case.
Aren't you one of the guys who believes that the CIA is full of lefty traitors, anyway?
-edit-
Another thought -- if you believe the entire case is a load of Gah!, then why aren't you angry that Bush only commuted the sentence, rather than issuing a pardon? Here's the logical train of thought (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZlNjQzYmRhMjg3YzQ5YzQ2MDBiOWQ0MzMyOTFiZjA=):
There's an incoherence at the heart of the administration's case. It says that Libby's sentence was excessive. But technically, it's not. It's only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration's middle ground can't hold. A pardon would have been better, and more defensible.
Tribesman
07-06-2007, 01:29
Aren't you one of the guys who believes that the CIA is full of lefty traitors, anyway?
Well they must be , their facts contradict Gawains "FACTS" , maybe the CIA is Clintons fault , but then again Bush set up a commitee , and their facts contradict Gawains "FACTS" too . Hey maybe Bush is Clintons fault too .
But you gotta admit this bit is just so damn funny......
Your take is obviously so wrong. Armitage was the leaker case closed. No crime nothing to investigate. Wilson lied about everything....then again I think he is actually being serious :dizzy2:
Here's a nice, broad summation (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/08/neocons/) of how the NeoCons and the law fall out.
Lewis Libby -- though represented by the most expensive and highly-regarded criminal defense lawyers in the country -- was convicted by a conscientious jury of four felony counts. Conrad Black -- the Canadian neoconservative heir and right-wing financier and close associate of Richard Perle -- has been indicted (by Pat Fitzgerald) and currently stands trial on charges of defrauding his investors of $85 million, obstruction of justice and similar alleged crimes.
A World Bank committee just "concluded that [Paul Wolfowitz] was guilty of breaking rules barring conflicts of interest." And one DoD official -- former Doug Feith underling Larry Franklin -- has already pled guilty to passing classified information to AIPAC officials and the Israeli government, and the two AIPAC officials are to stand trial for multiple espionage-related felonies.
Yet in each of these cases -- where wrongdoing has been established (in the cases of Libby, Franklin and Wolfowitz) or where federal prosecutors with the Bush DOJ have concluded there is overwhelming evidence of guilt (in the case of the AIPAC officials and Black) -- neoconservatives jointly proclaim their fellow neocons to be entirely innocent and to be the real victims.
Apparently Libby is in funds, 'cause he wrote a check today for his quarter-million dollar fine. It's nice to have friends, isn't it?
KukriKhan
07-06-2007, 04:12
In your version of events, Gawain, we are required to believe that the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Republican judge, three-judge Republican appeals court and the jury were all either conniving or idiots. And they all must have had some sort of anti-Bush axe to grind. Does this seem likely?
As for your assertions about "case closed," I don't really agree, but I don't stand a chance of changing your mind once you've dug in your heels. You can go on about how Joe Wilson is the worst man in the world, but I don't see that it's salient to the case.
Aren't you one of the guys who believes that the CIA is full of lefty traitors, anyway?
-edit-
Another thought -- if you believe the entire case is a load of Gah!, then why aren't you angry that Bush only commuted the sentence, rather than issuing a pardon? Here's the logical train of thought (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZlNjQzYmRhMjg3YzQ5YzQ2MDBiOWQ0MzMyOTFiZjA=):
There's an incoherence at the heart of the administration's case. It says that Libby's sentence was excessive. But technically, it's not. It's only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration's middle ground can't hold. A pardon would have been better, and more defensible.
He won't answer that question - at least he declined to do so yesterday when I asked him:
So Gawain, since,...
...what is your take on POTUS only taking away the jail-time by commutation, rather than the full exoneration that a pardon would give?
I don't look to embarrass Gawain; heck he and I go way back, and I consider him an honored friend, even when we disagree.
And I'm not out to hang Bush, either. I'm just trying to see the consistency here. Is there any? If Scooter partially gets off, shouldn't that General get the same consideration? If not, why not? Otherwise, it looks like: if you're part of Bush Inc., you're golden, the boss will take care of you, personally. If you're not, too bad, so sad, you're mad, I'm glad.
That's Cosa Nostra stuff, isn't it? Not the kind of thing we elect a CinC for.
Put simply: if Libby did nothing wrong, then pardon him. And re-look at all federal convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice given in the past 6 and a half years.
And if Wilson and Fitzgerald lied under oath or obstructed or perverted justice, order their prosecution.
And just so you know, here's what happens to ordinary people when they petition for commutation (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/statutory/2007/07/president-bush-.html). Three standards are laid out. Libby didn't meet any of them. It's good to have friends.
In March 2003, for the first and only time in my life, I went to the West Wing of the White House. At that time, I was representing a man who was scheduled to be executed by the federal government in less than three weeks. I had filed a request for commutation, asking the President to commute the death sentence to a sentence of life without the possibility of release. Department of Justice rules require that such a request be filed with the Office of the Pardon Attorney in DOJ. Although I had filed the request in December, we had not yet received any response.
While the commutation request was pending, I asked then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales if he would meet with me to discuss the case. (I knew that the White House Counsel was ultimately responsible for making a recommendation to the President on my request.) To my great surprise, he agreed and invited me to a meeting in his office. We met for over an hour. I was allowed to present my argument in some detail, and I answered many questions from Judge Gonzales. I was quite impressed that Judge Gonzales had obviously read my written submissions and had already given the case some thought.
Judge Gonzales told me three things about President Bush's policy in considering requests for commutation. First, that President Bush would not consider commutation if he believed that the case had already received full and fair consideration by the jury and the courts who heard the case. Second, that the President would not consider the request until he had a recommendation from the Department of Justice. Finally, he said that the President would not act on any request for commutation until all judicial avenues in the case had been exhausted.
Just thought you might be interested in what this White House claimed about the commutation process.
It's all quite obvious, isn't it?:inquisitive:
Pat Buchannon lays out three possible scenarios (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=how_scooter_skated&ns=PatrickJBuchanan&dt=07/06/2007&page=full&comments=true). Note that number 3 is almost exactly what I sketched in post 54. Also note that Gawain's everyone-is-evil-or-an-idiot schema is nowhere to be found. G-man, I know you won't listen to me, but I also know you respect Buchannon. We can't all be delusional idiots.
But why did Bush rush to spare him even one day behind bars?
Three explanations come to mind.
The first is that Bush capitulated to intense pressure from the neoconservative commentariat led by The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.
To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep's office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam's WMD, Saddam's nukes, Saddam's ties to 9/11 and al Qaeda to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East.
So what if Scooter lied to cover up the White House campaign to carve up Joe Wilson? If Scooter did it, good Straussian that he is, he did it for the highest of motives in the noblest of causes.
To the neocons, Scooter is, in Ahmed Chalabi's phrase, "a hero in error," one of the boys. And as they saved him from the slammer, they will not stop until they secure him a pardon -- to which Bush has now opened the door.
The second explanation is that Vice President Cheney went to Bush, closed the door, and asked, as a personal favor, that he spare Cheney's faithful friend and loyal aide the disgrace and pain of prison. And Bush did this distasteful and shameful act at the behest of a vice president to whom he feels an immense debt.
The third explanation is that Cheney, and perhaps the president, fears that if Scooter goes to prison, and is staring at disgrace and 30 months away from friends and family, he may think he has been abandoned by people whose secrets he kept at the cost of reputation and freedom. An idle mind being the devil's workshop, Scooter might sit down and write a book, or phone "Bulldog" Fitzgerald and tell him he just remembered something.
Whatever the motives of President Bush, this was a radical not a conservative act. Whoever pressured Bush to wipe out Scooter's sentence was more a friend of Scooter than a friend of Bush. For the president has damaged his reputation as a just ruler, so Scooter could elude what other men have to face.
Will the student deferments for these fellows never end?
The act reeks of cronyism. The perception is that Scooter Libby got preferential treatment, a get-out-of-jail-free card because he was chief of staff to Cheney and assistant to Bush.
That perception is correct.
Because of whom he knew, Scooter got preferential treatment, big-time. The Godfather took care of the consigliere.
KafirChobee
07-06-2007, 16:22
Scooter was involved (as one of the attorneys for) in gaining a pardon for Marc Rich from Clinton? Geesh, that pretty much pops that arguements bubble about it being a purely liberal conspiracy (or payoff).
:dizzy2:
Good stuff, Lemur.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-06-2007, 21:29
In your version of events, Gawain, we are required to believe that the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Republican judge, three-judge Republican appeals court and the jury were all either conniving or idiots. And they all must have had some sort of anti-Bush axe to grind. Does this seem likely?
Very. I remember a juror saying they found him guilty because someone had to pay.
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned. The whole thing was a set up by Wilson. He did nothing but lie from day one.
Tribesman
07-06-2007, 22:41
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah Gawain , if you use your "FACTS" instead of facts:dizzy2:
He did nothing but lie from day one.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So tempting to repeat a question I have asked you many times on this forum
Tribesy, if you're going to respond to Gawain, why not bring your own facts to the table, rather than simply saying that he's wrong? Just asserting that someone is in error isn't a convincing argument.
Gawain, I bow to your bull-like defense of the indefensible. I can't think of anything I could post that would change your mind, up to and including an audio sample of Dick Cheney declaring that he did it. We will just have to agree to disagree.
For those who believe that this is a tempest in a teacup, the latest polls (http://americanresearchgroup.com/) don't agree.
Tribesman
07-06-2007, 23:33
Well Lemur , Gawain labours under several false assumptions that have long been proven false and tries to build on that , the first has been shown as false for the past 4 years
Valerie Plame-Wilson was NOT a covert CIA operative at the time she was "outed". The CIA said in 2003 that she was and was covered under the legislation , but of course thats just the CIA , so perhaps that is dodgy eh .
But that fact was confirmed this year by the government commitee set up to examine the issue .
That shows that this...
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned. ....is also false . Revealing classified details to a person who doesn't have clearance is a crime . Libby did that didn't he:yes:
Now Gawain of course attempts to claim that because others also did it then it isn't a crime .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I suppose he would try and claim that he shouldn't get a parking ticket for parking illegally because other people have illegally parked before , so he cannot have been illegally parked .:dizzy2:
Scooter broke the law , then he lied about it , he was only convicted about the lie , he should have been convicted of both , as should all the others who broke the law
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned. The whole thing was a set up by Wilson. He did nothing but lie from day one.
If you're going to ride that train of thought, why shouldn't Bush have pardoned Libby? The sentence is perfectly in line with Federal guidelines and other cases, so you can only call the sentence excessive if you believe, as you do, that the whole prosecution is false.
In which case, a pardon is the only reasonable response. The commutation makes no sense. Even politically it's absurd -- it's riled up the independents and the dems without satisfying the 29% nation of loyalists. I'm really at a loss to understand it, even if I accept your argument.
-edit-
Here's a little more info (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20070705.html) about commutations, what they should be, and their implications:
The DOJ guidelines, however, also contain a substantive component: They describe the factors ordinarily to be considered when assessing whether to commute a sentence - that is, they describe the very unusual circumstances under which the President can justifiably single out one person for special treatment, in a way that does not undermine public confidence in the bedrock concept that all persons should stand equal before the law.
To begin with, the guidelines admonish that commutations ordinarily should not be given until the individual under consideration has served some period of time in jail, and has either exhausted or given up his or her appeals. Furthermore, the guidelines emphasize that commutations should be reserved for individuals who have accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for their criminal conduct.
The reason for these limitations is clear and inarguable. Because a commutation does not call into question the underlying conviction, it is expected that commutations will be reserved for people who are genuinely remorseful - as opposed to those who continue to deny guilt, through the legal process or otherwise. In addition, because the individual has committed a felony, there is an expectation that he or she will serve at least some jail time before being given a break.
Scooter, of course, does not come within a country mile of qualifying for these preconditions set forth under the guidelines. Let's suppose, following some Republicans' arguments, that we were to exempt him from the jail-time requirement on the theory that any incarceration would be too much given that the offense is purportedly so minor. It is still clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Libby has shown no acceptance of responsibility at all, much less any remorse, for his criminal conduct. Under the DOJ guidelines, this omission would be the end of the story.
But let's pretend, too, that these threshold problems could somehow be overcome. The DOJ guidelines go on to describe the kinds of situations in which commutation makes sense. These include defendants' critical illness or old age, or extraordinary conduct post-conviction, or extraordinary service to the government, such as active cooperation with government prosecutors.
Obviously, Scooter does not meet the first or second criteria and, as for the third, far from cooperating with the government, he has stonewalled prosecutors. It is no secret that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald believes Vice President Cheney was culpable here; Libby in no way cooperated in the effort to go after Cheney, and indeed, may have used his perjury to make going after Cheney impossible. Whether or not one agrees with Fitzgerald that Cheney likely bore responsibility here, it cannot be argued that Libby failed to cooperate with the Special Prosecutor's effort to determine whether this was, in fact, the case.
The whole article is good. Give it a read, if you're of a mind.
Referencing DOJ guidelines is kind of stupid isn't it? Who makes these guidelines? The AG who reports directly the the chief executive?
I'm still bemused by how people are trying to make so much hay with this. I guess the argument now is that since Bush didn't regularly pardon/commute political cronies, it's somehow worse. Sure, other presidents did- but they did it all the time, so it's not big deal. However, Bush never did- so now that he finally does like most of those before him, it's an outrage.
As to my earlier question- why commute instead of pardon? I think I just found the answer (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/07/libby-appeal-de.html).
As has been discussed previously, Bush has other options than a full pardon available to him. For example, Bush could commute Libby's sentence to a fine and probation; that would allow Libby to continue his legal appeals without going to jail (and keep open the possibility of an end-of-term full pardon).He can still appeal, but now doesn't have to sit in jail while doing so.
Crazed Rabbit
07-07-2007, 06:24
Lemur, all Bush's incompetence or cronyistic reasons for this, do you think Libby should have spent 2 1/2 years in prison for saying the wrong thing in his 5th grand jury appearance?
Libby was convicted by a jury. Think you know better than them?
I'm not saying I do, but watch The Thin Blue Line before dragging out the 'But a jury of his peers found him guilty!' argument.
Crazed Rabbit
Referencing DOJ guidelines is kind of stupid isn't it? Who makes these guidelines? The AG who reports directly the the chief executive?
In other words, if the king says it's okay, then it must be so? How is it stupid to look at the guidelines and standards when King George himself has been claiming loud and clear that this is a "principled" decision?
Lemur, all Bush's incompetence or cronyistic reasons for this, do you think Libby should have spent 2 1/2 years in prison for saying the wrong thing in his 5th grand jury appearance?
"Saying the wrong thing" is an exceptionally polite way of describing stonewalling a prosecutor who's looking at your boss. How much time should an accountant spend in jail if he obstructs an investigation into a drug dealer?
I'm not saying that juries are infallible, but for Pete's sake, there were multiple levels of the justice system that touched on this case. If the jury was insane, the judge could have moderated their madness with a different sentence. If the judge and jury were bonkers, the three-judge appeals court could have let Libby stay free on appeal; they had that in their power. Two of the three appeals judges are Republicans, so please spare all Liberal Conspiracy rhetoric.
The bottom line is that Libby was guilty of thwarting an investigation, and he (theoretically) paid the price. See Martha Stewart and Li'l Kim for reference on how one goes to jail for attempting to head off an investigation.
The argument from the 29% nation seems to be that Libby could not have committed a crime because the original charges were never brought. Well, guys, how exactly did it happen that no charges were brought? Oh, right, because the relevant witnesses lied their butts off under oath.
The CIA says Valerie Plame was undercover. Spin that as you like. The relevant statute says that one must be aware of the covert status to be charged. Armitage claims he was not aware oh her status, but there are witnesses who say that Cheney was fully appraised. All trails led back to Cheney. Since the prosecutor was not a complete gibbering idiot, he went after the man who knowingly leaked her status, and he got body-blocked by a number of loyal liars. One of them lied so blatantly that he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
I really don't see how any of this is disputable. Oh, right, Joe Wilson isn't a nice man, so the whole thing must be a fabrication of overheated liberal maniacs.
As to my earlier question- why commute instead of pardon? I think I just found the answer (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/07/libby-appeal-de.html). He can still appeal, but now doesn't have to sit in jail while doing so.
Xiahou, this borders on the nonsensical. The purpose of the commutation is to allow him to appeal without being in jail? But commutations are supposed to be for people who have admitted their guilt. Pardons are for people wrongly convicted. And why is allowing him to appeal at all important when the same person who popped the commutation could have just as easily bestowed a pardon? Help me out, I'm not following your logic here ...
The CIA says Valerie Plame was undercover. Spin that as you like. The relevant statute says that one must be aware of the covert status to be charged. Armitage claims he was not aware oh her status, but there are witnesses who say that Cheney was fully appraised. All trails led back to Cheney. Since the prosecutor was not a complete gibbering idiot, he went after the man who knowingly leaked her status, and he got body-blocked by a number of loyal liars. One of them lied so blatantly that he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.It's really irrelevant whether Armitage knew her status or not. He was the source of the leak to the media. Once her identity hit the newspapers, anyone who repeated the story isn't revealing much anything. And once Fitzgerald found the initial leaker, going any further was tantamount a fishing expedition- one which hooked Libby.
Xiahou, this borders on the nonsensical. The purpose of the commutation is to allow him to appeal without being in jail? But commutations are supposed to be for people who have admitted their guilt. Pardons are for people wrongly convicted. And why is allowing him to appeal at all important when the same person who popped the commutation could have just as easily bestowed a pardon? Help me out, I'm not following your logic here ...It should be obvious. He didn't pardon him because Libby and his defense team still think they're likely to win on an appeal. If he's found not guilty on an appeal, the whole issue becomes mute and a pardon is unnecessary. If he were pardoned, Libby would no longer be able to appeal. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than that.
But commutations are supposed to be for people who have admitted their guilt.Where's it say that? Oh right... the "guidelines".
It's really irrelevant whether Armitage knew her status or not. He was the source of the leak to the media. Once her identity hit the newspapers, anyone who repeated the story isn't revealing much anything.
It's certainly relevant whether he knew her status. If you go by the law, that is.
Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk. Declaring that Armitage was the first, so everything else is irrelevant is a little disingenuous. When you have multiple White House officials pimping the intel to multiple reporters (the vast majority of whom didn't take the bait, much to their credit), and when those same White House mouthpieces are fully aware of Plame's status, how are they not in violation of the law?
I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!
He didn't pardon him because Libby and his defense team still think they're likely to win on an appeal. If he's found not guilty on an appeal, the whole issue becomes mute and a pardon is unnecessary. If he were pardoned, Libby would no longer be able to appeal. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than that.
So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)
Where's it say that? Oh right... the "guidelines".
Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."
-edit-
A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek). Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
Crazed Rabbit
07-07-2007, 07:40
All you guys ranting on about this are aware Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine, right?
"Saying the wrong thing" is an exceptionally polite way of describing stonewalling a prosecutor who's looking at your boss.
Armitage was the source of the leak; he wasn't Libby's boss. And if Fitz was able to prove Libby lied, then he should have been able to prove whatever it was that Libby was hiding, right? And yet he hasn't gone after anyone else.
I'm not saying that juries are infallible, but for Pete's sake, there were multiple levels of the justice system that touched on this case.
As in The Thin Blue Line case. Keno v New London went all the way to the Supremes who made the wrong choice.
CR
All you guys ranting on about this are aware Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine, right?
Not anymore he doesn't. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0705071libby1.html) It's good to have friends.
Armitage was the source of the leak; he wasn't Libby's boss.
Armitage was not the only source of the leak. Early on, Novak countered criticism by stating that he had multiple sources for the Plame info. Multiple sources. Cheney's office pimped the intel to every reporter with a cell phone. Nobody has seriously disputed that.
And if Fitz was able to prove Libby lied, then he should have been able to prove whatever it was that Libby was hiding, right? And yet he hasn't gone after anyone else.
You're saying that if a prosecutor cannot prove the primary crime, then no related convictions should take place? By this logic, the accountant who successfully blocks a prosecution of a drug dealer should walk free, even if there's clear evidence that he stonewalled or lied. Interesting perspective.
Noted bastion of left-wing extremism, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9441323), has a rather good summation of the mess:
Mr Bush's action serves to remind people of three of his weaknesses. One of them is his tendency towards cronyism, which led him to appoint a wholly unqualified friend to run the government's disaster-relief agency. The consequences were disastrously manifest during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Other examples include his failed attempt to appoint his own lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. A second flaw is the hold that Mr Cheney appears to have over the man who is nominally his boss. The past few days have seen a series of articles in the Washington Post detailing the extent to which Mr Cheney has talked Mr Bush into bypassing all normal channels of debate to take questionable decisions.
A third effect of the decision, and perhaps the most serious, is that it reinforces the perception that Mr Bush sees himself and his cronies as above the law. Sometimes he has made this explicit, attaching “signing statements” to hundreds of bills sent to him by Congress asserting his right to interpret those bills as he deems fit. Sometimes he has done so covertly, wire-tapping Americans with no authorisation or permitting the use of torture with consequences felt at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in black holes like Uzbekistan.
Perhaps, in the end, Mr Bush's decision came down to a simple calculation that he has little left to lose. He is not seeking re-election, his approval ratings can barely go any lower, and any hopes for legacy-polishing bipartisan co-operation with Congress seem to have evaporated. So why should Mr Bush not please his few remaining friends and placate his vice-president by springing the loyal Mr Libby? It makes a kind of sense, but a deeply troubling one. What else, one wonders, might so isolated a president do before he goes?
It's certainly relevant whether he knew her status. If you go by the law, that is.Novak testified that Armitage did know. But he, apparently, wasn't the fish the Fitzgerald wanted to fry.
Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk.Again, Novak claims that Armitage was indeed is primary source. Primary- as in, without him, there would have been no story- without said story, there would've been no investigation. Armitage spilled the beans- that's well established.
Read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html) what Novak has to say about Armitage.
I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!I really didn't think I was being roundabout (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1598938&postcount=7).
So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)That's exactly what I'm saying. I'd fully expect a pardon to be forthcoming if the appeals don't pan out.
Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."This is really cute. Non-binding guidelines that are created for the executive by the executive are equated to law, and then you somehow drag equal treatment into the comparison. There is a massive lack of perspective for some on this commutation. All presidents in my lifetime- and beyond have pardoned friends, acquaintances, political donors ect. But look out when Bush does it- then it becomes unprecedented and people start predicting armed uprisings and riots in the streets. :dizzy2:
Of course, if you got this bent out of shape for Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, ect., then I applaud your consitency. :bow:
Here's one for the hypocrisy file:two (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010319/20010306) stories (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/56001/), same author. In one, pardons are normal and we're stupid for suspecting otherwise. In the other, it's an outrage that a convicted criminal is rewarded. :laugh4:
A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek). Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.What's the margin of error? :wink:
Tribesman
07-07-2007, 12:34
Read what Novak has to say about Armitage.
Thats quite a funny read , just what you would expect from Novak .
So leaving aside that he is now putting the focus ontoone source rther than the two he originaly said he had , you gotta laugh at him depicting Armitage as being against intervention in Iraq .
It may have escaped your notice but there was a letter calling for US military intervention in Iraq , along with all the usual neo con muppets you would expect to find as signatories to the letter you find a certain fella named Armitage .
That Armitage person in favour of intervention wouldn't be the same fella as this Armitage who according to Novak was against intervention would it ?~:doh:
Why does the President have this particular power anyway? And can he cure diseases merely by touching you?
KukriKhan
07-07-2007, 14:37
Why does the President have this particular power anyway? And can he cure diseases merely by touching you?
It's a throw-back to our colonial days, and royal prerogatives.
Only the diseases of due process and equal treatment, apparently.
Why, for my sins, have I been given the two most immovable rocks in the Backroom to joust with?
Xiahou, I'm sure you believe in the correctness of your position, but let's be honest -- you're way out in left field on this one. You're off on the fringes. You can make a cogent argument, but that neither makes you correct nor persuasive.
Your reasoning about allowing an appeal with a special backup of pardon magic is just freaky. I'm sure it makes sense inside your head, but from the outer perspective, it's just kind of nonsensical.
Frankly, I think I've said plenty about the issue, and I'm vanishingly uninterested in going toe-to-toe again over the same gah-ing points. What's more, I've experienced how contentious you can be when you feel like being quarrelsome and lawyerly. I don't see much point in reducing my enjoyment of the Backroom by being drawn into a multi-page re-hashing of every single angle of this complicated case with a Backroomer who can be as obtuse and unyielding as party loyalty demands.
There's a small fringe of right wingers who believe that the commutation is fine and dandy. Polling shows that it plays like a stinky fish with half of republicans, and a wide majority independents and democrats.
It doesn't pass the smell test, and no amount of tortured logic will change that. Now run along, and declare victory. "Mission Accomplished!"
KafirChobee
07-07-2007, 21:03
Lemur, one must remember that those whom support this clemency decision still remain entreched with the idea that Nixon was railroaded. Facts about the wrongdoings of their icons mean less to them than their maintaining the purist vision they fabricate to continue their neocon support for them.
It just is the way it is. Someone once said something to the effect that argueing with a fool only makes themselves look foolish. A fool cares less about the reality of a thing, than whether there is a way to deny it if it challanges their preconceived notions. It just is the way it is.
All this hooplah about Fitzgerald not going after the real villians; while ignoring how he was stonewalled - or that he has moved along to a higher position. Then we have the arguement that Valery wasn't a covert operative - as though there is an imaginary light switch that turns off and on for a covert, rather than once a spy always a spy - because by outting them they also out all their previous contacts and continuing operations (fronts) they were involved with.
Still, what the hey. Some can admire this type of entrenchment to believe only what is fed to them along political party lines. As long as it agrees with what they want to believe - damned the facts. It is a "that's my story (belief) ... and I'm sticking to it" world for them. It doesn't matter that their icons break the laws they purport to believe in (when they apply to those of the opposition), or that their iconic lords no longer adhere to the very political principles (balanced budget, limited government, etc) that originally drew them to support their lords.
End Rant
http://patrickfitzgerald.blogspot.com
Somewhere in his blog, Mr. Fitzpatrick gives his opinion on this mess - enjoy.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-08-2007, 17:04
Well Lemur , Gawain labours under several false assumptions that have long been proven false and tries to build on that , the first has been shown as false for the past 4 years
No you do. What has been proven false? Be specific.
Again no one was found guilty of the original charges as Fitzgerald knew by the second day who was the leaker. Now please again tell me why the investigation continued?
The sad truth is if Libby had told what you call the true story no one would be in jail.
Tribesman
07-09-2007, 00:59
No you do. What has been proven false? Be specific.
Specific ????
Do you mean something like the CIA saying in 2003 she was covered under the legislation as a covert operative ?
Or would you like the government comittee saying in 2007 she was covered under the legislation ?
Would you like the specific legislation that she was covered under ?
What sort of specific do you require Gawain ?
Would you like it to be fact or "FACT" ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-09-2007, 01:58
Do you mean something like the CIA saying in 2003 she was covered under the legislation as a covert operative ?
Or would you like the government comittee saying in 2007 she was covered under the legislation ?
Would you like the specific legislation that she was covered under ?
What sort of specific do you require Gawain ?
Sure be my guest. And how about showing the specific legislation that this case is based on . Not only that if this is so why isnt Armitage in jail?
Patrick Fitzgerald never found enough evidence to charge Libby or anyone else with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act in the CIA-leak affair. From the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew who revealed CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak, and it wasn’t Libby. (That honor goes to former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage.) The fact that there was a special prosecutor at all was more the result of bureaucratic infighting and political cowardice in the Bush administration than of any wrongdoing by Libby or the others who were investigated. And finally, the discrepancies between Libby’s grand-jury testimony and that of the journalists who contradicted him can be explained by differences in memory, and should not have resulted in perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges against Libby. Anyone who watched Libby’s trial knows it was a parade of conflicting memories, and reasonable people could disagree with the jury’s verdict.
What more need be said. Beside the fact that Wilson lied about the yelow cake and the forged documents and that his wife had nothing to do with sending him. All this tax payer money to hang Libby on some BS charge.
LINK (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAzZWQ4Y2U1MTY0YzIyMjQ3NTUxYmZlY2IyMWY4ODc=)
The only thing you have to hang onto is that she was undercover because the CIA says so. The same CIA who said there were nukes in Iraq. Of course they have no dog in this fight.
KafirChobee
07-09-2007, 20:01
Let's review how this began and how the investigation is continuing (though it has moved to congress.
First: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040130.html
Now, one may not appreciate the source of summary, but it is accurate.
Second, from Wilson's perspective - and the reason for his wife being outted:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Third, the Whitehouse withdraws it claims of WMDs:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml
Finally, the fat lady hasn't finished singing over the issue of Plame's covert status being outted by the Bushys. As a matter of fact , the beginning of it may have ended - but, the congressional investigations are just beginning. As well as their investigation into the reasons for going to war.:
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Disclosure+of+CIA+Agent+Identity
Be careful what you wish for Gawain, because I suspect you are going to get it. Full investigations into Rove, Cheney, Bush, etc's involvement in Plame and lying to Congress.
:book:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-09-2007, 20:33
Second, from Wilson's perspective - and the reason for his wife being outted:
Which is an outright lie. According to congress and just a slip by Wilson himself.
What was the Whitehouse trying to cover up? That Wilson lied about it all?
As reported in the July 10, 2004, Washington Post:
- - - - - - -
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
Why Wilson is a Liar and Wrong - The Dummies Guide
Posted by Dorkafork
A brief overview:
Sent at the behest of the Vice President: This was language used by Nicholas Kristof (among others). This is disingenuous. He was not specifically asked by the office of the Vice President to go to Niger, nor was anyone specifically asked by the VP's office to go to Niger. The CIA at a lower level decided on its own to send someone to get more information to help answer a question that a senior administration official had asked. But this is a little thing. I am willing to give Wilson a pass on this and assume it was just a case of reporters lying, and not Wilson himself. I am magnanimous on this, because he has been caught red-handed in other lies. Even though it is possible that Wilson lied about this to reporters, the same way he lied about...
The forged Niger documents: Wilson told his story to several reporters, saying that he had seen documents that were impossible for him to have seen. A deliberate effort to ensure "that this story has legs", one that got him "cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian." Specifically cited by Kristof, who said "this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus." Also cited by Pincus, who reported "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." According to the SSCI report(pdf), Wilson admitted he was the source for the WaPo article, but claimed he "misspoke." As Tom Maguire put it recently, "Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?"
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."*: Flat out lie. The SSCI report(pdf) is a must-read, from pg. 36 onwards. Plame recommended him for the trip and convened the meeting where his trip was initially discussed.
(The Art of Weaselly Semi-Corrections by Kaus today on Kristof is a must read.)
Even if he had not lied, he would simply be wrong. He asked former officials (none of whom were currently serving in the Nigerien government) about a deal that they would be unlikely to admit to. He then comes back with a piece of information that the analysts thought bolstered the case that Iraq was seeking a uranium deal with Niger. And yet, somehow he believes he disproved that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He's either lying or he is a fool who, like many on the left, do not understand the difference between "sought" and "obtained". (Not the first words they've had trouble understanding.)
Its obvious they would want to discredit Wilson how would outing his wife accomplish this? Besides it was proven early on that the administration had nothing to do with it. It was a gotcha game and Bush lost. He should have pursued the lying SOB wilson on the truth of the matter. Again no one was ever even charged with anything close to the original charges. Fitzgerald knew the truth. So what justice did Libby obstruct?
Jesus H Christ people, do you REALLY think that VP Cheney himself ordered the random husband of a CIA administrative employee to go to Niger and try and validate the yellowcake claims????? This IS the crux of the matter. And the answer is of course, NO.
So imagine Cheney's surprise when there is suddenly some bumble**** making op-eds in the NYT and giving speeches about how he was ordered there personally by the VP, and that the VP and P are misrepresenting his findings.
This is such a joke. The ONLY way to properly explain Wilson's opportunism and self-serving lies was to explain that he was NOT in fact sent there by the office of the VP, but was sent by his wife...who continually committed perjury herself in claiming that it wasn't her hand that sent him, despite evidence to the contrary. And you can't explain Joe Wilson's role there without explaining who his wife was/is, i.e. a CIA (non-undercover, so no "cover" to blow") employee. Its that simple.
More importantly, what is lost in all this is that Wilson himself lied about what he "discovered" or didn't discover, as evidenced by the findings of both the British Intelligence services and later a Senate Intelligence Report in our own country, whereby it was determined that there WAS credible evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger. But hey, don't pay attention to any of that, or the fact that these partisan hacks have made millions in book deals, speaking gigs, and have suffered absolutely not at all. Let them lie, and despite the fact that it was public knowledge who she was, and that such public knowledge was necessary to understanding the false nature of Joe Wilson's representation of himself and his mission, lets send Libby to jail because he didn't remember where he first heard Plame's name (i.e. Novak).
How interesting that Novak knew Plames name before he ever contacted Libby. Yea, she was "undercover" all right. This is a full blown national emergency.
KafirChobee
07-09-2007, 21:18
What justice did Scooter lie about? Well, there is that little thing about lying to and attempting to deceive Congress. Isn't that what he was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of his peers?
Read the House Oversights cases under investigation, this ain't dead by a long shot. Remember, Rove has yet to comply with turning over his email (illegally hidden and purportedly deleted by the RNC) - and Bush has until August to turn over his administrations papers concerning this and the documents they based the reasons for invading Iraq. Of course in August, Bush will proclaim executive privilege and we'll have more delay - but, legally his options are becoming fewer. So, it is purely a delaying action to see if they can stonewall long enough for him to get out of DC before anything becomes evident that will force congress to impeach him, Cheney, etc.
Hanging on to the idea that Libby did nothing wrong simply demonstrates ones stubborness in not accepting the truths of the matter, and buying into some farfetched excuse that because Scooter is Scooter it ought to be realized he is above the strict letter of the law. He's special because of who he knows and where his loyalties lie.
BTW, even the CIA knew there was no uranium yellow cake - or is your selective memory in full gear to reject anything that disagrees with the warrantless conclusions you hold on so dearly to?
Timeline of the case - and more if you search it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2007/03/06/CU2007030600916.html
Now, things I've found that claim Wilson was wrong (and the CIA, FBI, etc.) submit that 500Tons of yellowcake uraniun was found. Of course if this were true why did Bush confess that no WMDs existed?
Thing is there are many think alikes out there willing to accept any excuse not to accept the facts. It doesn't make them right or wrong - only delusional.
:wall:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-09-2007, 22:51
What justice did Scooter lie about? Well, there is that little thing about lying to and attempting to deceive Congress. Isn't that what he was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of his peers
Deceive them about what?
BTW, even the CIA knew there was no uranium yellow cake - or is your selective memory in full gear to reject anything that disagrees with the warrantless conclusions you hold on so dearly to?
Im showing you that Wilson lied. There was nothing to cover up. He in fact strengthened the administrations case:smash: Did you read the Senate report on him? Even he admitted he made it up. Do you understand the difference between trying to get and getting?
This whole thing is a farce. The New York Times is guilty of much worse.
Tribesman
07-10-2007, 00:42
Which is an outright lie.
This comimg from Gawain of Porkies:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I felt I was done with this thread, but I want to clarify one last thing. When I say that people who are supporting the President and demanding a pardon are on the fringe, that statement can't really stand without some substantiation. Some recent polling (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_usa_todaygallup_bushlibby.php) gives perspective:
When asked to choose, 66% think Bush "should not have intervened at all" on Lewis "Scooter" Libby's behalf; 13% think he "was right to commute Libby's sentence;" 6% think Bush should have granted Libby a full pardon.
Six percent. That's the size of the true-blue "conservative" faithful, which is to say Republicans who value their party above their nation.
Another interesting bit of polling -- the pardon plays far worse with Independents than it does with Democrats.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/arglibbypardonlarge.png
There, all done now.
KafirChobee
07-10-2007, 18:10
The first thing one must remember in all this is that the documents used to "prove" that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium were proven to be forgeries. Remember, also, that Tony Blaire was involved in showing these docs to the Bushys - and he ended up with egg on his face for it.
Thing is, Wilson didn't lie - his objective in the investigation was limited and assigned by a CIA committee, not his wife as some would wish you to believe (she did drop his name to her superiors - but, then he did have access to the men in Niger the CIA wanted answers about). Thing is, the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee was concluded in 2004 - does it surprise you that those attempting to punch holes in it took 3 years to read the report? And, all in an effort to support Scooter. Sad really, when one considers how they twist reality to fit what they want to resemble as being a replacement for the truth.
I suppose, to support your supposition that Wilson lied is from that report from NewsMax? I read it, btw, but it uses the opinions of GOP Senators as being more substantial in the matter than the actual report. Sad isn't it?
Or, is the "dummyguide" your preferable source? Interesting selection that.
Here is Joe Wilson's take on the matter (back in 2005 when this all meant something more than Libby lying to and deceiving Congress):
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05233.html
You might also take into consideration Valeries testimony to the Senate Committee investigating her outting - you know the one that Scooter lied in. It obviously won't change your mind, but it did for many GOP congressmen.
Still, don't let the truth get in the way of your entrenchment.
:wall:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-10-2007, 19:12
I was going to let this lie. But not after seeing these lies
Thing is, Wilson didn't lie
:laugh4:
- his objective in the investigation was limited and assigned by a CIA committee, not his wife as some would wish you to believe (she did drop his name to her superiors - but, then he did have access to the men in Niger the CIA wanted answers about).
No one said his wife sent him but that she recommended him. He lied and said she had NOTHING at all to do with it.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."*: Flat out lie.
The first thing one must remember in all this is that the documents used to "prove" that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium were proven to be forgeries. Remember, also, that Tony Blaire was involved in showing these docs to the Bushys - and he ended up with egg on his face for it.
Not by Wilson he never saw them and had lied again.
The forged Niger documents: Wilson told his story to several reporters, saying that he had seen documents that were impossible for him to have seen. A deliberate effort to ensure "that this story has legs", one that got him "cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian." Specifically cited by Kristof, who said "this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus." Also cited by Pincus, who reported "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." According to the SSCI report(pdf), Wilson admitted he was the source for the WaPo article, but claimed he "misspoke." As Tom Maguire put it recently, "Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?"
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Here is Joe Wilson's take on the matter (back in 2005 when this all meant something more than Libby lying to and deceiving Congress):
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con05233.html
Pretty funny stuff :laugh4:
Tribesman
07-10-2007, 21:31
And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Errrrr...perhaps they didn't tell them about the doubts of the reliability for his January '03 speech because they had already told them for the October '02 speech:dizzy2:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-10-2007, 22:35
Tell me if this whole thing was about who leaked Plames name and they knew it was Armitage why hasnt he been charged with anything?
Seamus Fermanagh
07-10-2007, 22:41
Just re-read the 1947 IIPA.
By the definition of that statute, Ms. Plame -- having served as a classified and clandestine officer for the CIA -- can only be viewed as having "covert" status and that status is retained for life. I was unable to find any later ammendment noting any limitations thereto.
As to whether or not anyone could be tried under this act for Ms. Plame's outing...
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. {emphasis added by Seamus}
Richard Armitage, the actual leaker, may well have concluded from Washington "common knowledge" that the USA was not taking any such affirmative measures to conceal the relationship. I suspect that some of the examples to which Gawain alludes would have been used in any defense, so prosecutor Fitzgerald weighed the potential for a successful prosecution and declined.
It may well be that he should have concluded his efforts at this point, written a nasty report about Armitage and company's sloppy security efforts, and moved on.
However, given what we pay them, there is organizational pressure on any such special prosecution to produce measurable results -- convictions being the currency of that exchange. Fitzgerald was entitled by his charter to query more people to see if anyone aside from Armitage had been directly involved, and he did so.
During this phase of the investigation, Mr. Libby provided sworn testimony that -- according to witnesses found credible by a jury in a court of law -- was a lie. The jury further concluded that there was no reasonable doubt of Mr. Libby's intent. That Libby was raked over the coals repeatedly during the investigation by a prosecutor who was apparently desperate to pin something on someone somewhere in the administration is irrelevant under the law -- Mr. Libby chose not to answer fully and truthfully.
I have my suspicions as to the motivation of Fitzgerald and company -- and personally think they should have ended the probe after the first week or so once the leak had been identified -- but their crappy motivations have little to do with the proper and legal response to a legally sanctioned inquiry. One does not have to enjoy a legal "proctoscope" exam, but according to our laws one must submit to it and not attempt to deceive. Though someone in the Justice department, reviewing ongoing results, should have brought pressure on Fitz to conclude -- he already had the answer.
Did Wilsonand company bait a trap that Fitz used to hammer the Bush Admin -- I think so -- but the trap worked as designed. "They're stinkers for doing this silly stuff" is not a good defense.
Logically, ANY future administration official should answer future investigations with:
Name, Date of Birth, and and endless repetition of availing themselves of their rights under the 5th ammendment to our Constitution.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-10-2007, 22:56
Im glad at least one person here with a brain here agrees with me.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 00:26
Im glad at least one person here with a brain here agrees with me
Agrees with what ? half of what you have written here is completely untrue , if you cannot make your point without resorting to falsehoods then you have no case to make .
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2007, 04:39
Agrees with what ?
He said the same thing I did but more cohernetly so you cant pick on him like you do on me. Im not the greatest communicator when it comes to the written word. But I agree with every thing he said and its pretty much what I said.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 07:47
But I agree with every thing he said and its pretty much what I said.
So you said Plame was covered under the legislation , the law was broken , Libby did lie under oath, people shouldn't lie and there was no defense for lying .
Wow I must have missed that post you made:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2007, 15:13
So you said Plame was covered under the legislation
I said she wasnt and he said she most likely wasnt either and that why Fitzgerald didnt pursue the matter
the law was broken
Yes i did
Libby did lie under oath
I said that and that he should have been convicted for it.
Wow I must have missed that post you made
Maybe if you werent so busy laughing at yourself and patting yourself on the back you would notice.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 17:39
I said she wasnt and he said she most likely wasnt either and that why Fitzgerald didnt pursue the matter
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
try again , perhaps read the bit he bolded:yes: thats the key ,not to her status but on the actions of the leakers .
Seamus Fermanagh
07-11-2007, 19:00
I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby. Both sides have played this kind of legal inquisition game to malf with the other party since 1973. For the most part, it ticks me off as it is, most of the time, a waste of tax dollars since the real goal is political advantage and not ferreting out and ending malfeasance.
Setting that aside, the administration fell into the political trap laid out in front of them. Libby mis-managed his own story and ended up catching the heat for it, whereas others in the administration avoided lying, but thoughtfully included information about the affair that would have made it difficult to prosecute them successfully. Libby was, effectively, low-hanging fruit for Fitz, so he caught the chop.
Commuting his sentence is an insipid half-effort. Either letting the sentence stand (we are not above the law points) our outright pardon (I'll protect my own points) would have made better sense.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 19:08
I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby.
No problem at all with that , the problem begins when people go beyond that and claim that certain things are true when they are clearly not .
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2007, 19:10
try again , perhaps read the bit he bolded thats the key ,not to her status but on the actions of the leakers .
Maybe you should read his last reply then.
I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby. Both sides have played this kind of legal inquisition game
That is exactly what I said.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 19:17
Maybe you should read his last reply then.
Too slow old boy :whip:
That is exactly what I said.
Ah but it isn't is it , maybe you should read my last reply :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and then read all that you said in this thread ...and all the other threads about this topic .:thumbsdown:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2007, 19:22
Ah but it isn't is it , maybe you should read my last reply and then read all that you said in this thread ...and all the other threads about this topic .
Maybe if you werent such a picayune :daisy: you would realise Im correct.
He even agrees with me on the highlited part.
Banquo's Ghost
07-11-2007, 19:53
Banquo's Law (after Godwin):
When all a thread has left is a Gawain and Tribesman love-in, the subject is exhausted.
I have a vision of a late night pub, with just two patrons left, arguing because they don't fancy the walk home.
Time, gentlemen, please.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.