Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

ebrown_p wrote:

Factually, I don't have any problem with Libby being pardoned. As you all know I have no problem with amnesty.

What bothers me about this pardon is that it provides a clear benefit to the administration in its attempt to evade the investigation into its practices.

Commuting Libby's sentence... instead of pardoning Libby is a cynical move to keep Libby's ability to stonewall behind the 5th Amendment. This is a sleazy move.

I would prefer a full pardon.

First of all,Libby was NOT pardoned.
He still has to pay a large fine,surrender his law license,and will be a convicted felon.
I dont call that a pardon.

Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra.
That honor goes to Henry Cisneros.
He was Bill Clintons Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
That is a cabinet post,and higher up the food chain the the VP's Chief of Staff.

Cisneros pled guilty in 1999 of lying to the FBI,and was pardoned by President Clinton in Jan of 2001.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882783.html

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Factually, I don't have any problem with Libby being pardoned. As you all know I have no problem with amnesty.

What bothers me about this pardon is that it provides a clear benefit to the administration in its attempt to evade the investigation into its practices.

Commuting Libby's sentence... instead of pardoning Libby is a cynical move to keep Libby's ability to stonewall behind the 5th Amendment. This is a sleazy move.

I would prefer a full pardon.

First of all,Libby was NOT pardoned.
He still has to pay a large fine,surrender his law license,and will be a convicted felon.
I dont call that a pardon.

Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra.
That honor goes to Henry Cisneros.
He was Bill Clintons Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
That is a cabinet post,and higher up the food chain the the VP's Chief of Staff.

Cisneros pled guilty in 1999 of lying to the FBI,and was pardoned by President Clinton in Jan of 2001.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882783.html

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

Libby effectively was pardoned. He doesn't have to serve parole - Judge Walton noted that without prison time, there's no 'supervised release' under the statutes. His rich friends will pay his bills and give him a cush new job.

This whole thing is an outrage, and what's even worse is that the Bush crew are using probably the worst possible arguments to try and justify it. They aren't willing to come out and say 'we pardoned him b/c we don't want to see our political servant go to jail.' So they've made up all sorts of lies and mistruths in order to attempt to explain it. Ridiculousness and insulting to boot.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm not so sure Bush would have commuted Libby's sentence had the judge allowed him to remain free while appealing the case.

He (Bush) probably weighed the fact that Libby is really not a 'threat' to the American public, including the fact (I think) that the jury never heard certain evidence (Armitage).

If Libby's appeal is successful, no need for a pardon.

0 Replies

Pardon me, but Libby could be granted immunity when testifying before congress, which would compel him to be forthcoming. Further, he could not claim the Fifth in a civil suit, and would be in contempt should he remain silent.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I gotta ask this...
Those of you complaining about the Bush commutation of LIbby's jail sentence,did you have the same problem when the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since the Iran- Contra fiasco was pardoned? [..]

FYI, [that was] Henry Cisneros.
He was Bill Clintons Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
That is a cabinet post,and higher up the food chain the the VP's Chief of Staff.

Cisneros pled guilty in 1999 of lying to the FBI,and was pardoned by President Clinton in Jan of 2001.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882783.html

Umm, yeah, if I had known about that case (wasnt following US politics much at the time), I would have had the same problem with that one.

Now what about you? Do you have the same problem with the Libby commution as with the Cisneros thing?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Now,FYI, Libby is NOT the highest ranking WH official to be convicted of a crime since Iran-Contra. [..]

So,the claim that Libby was the highest ranking WH official since Iran-Contra,a claim put forth by many on the left,is false.

Btw, was there anybody here who actually made that claim? Or is it more one of those things where you bring up some claim nobody here made, just so you can then shoot it down again?

0 Replies

I like the bit McG posted on the first page on this thread. Seems to be quite representative for some righties' reactions seen here, too.

Here, the author starts out by saying:

the author of the article McGentrix quoted wrote:

Bush stated that he respected the jury's verdict. He felt, however, that the 30-month sentence was too harsh, so that portion of Libby's sentence was commuted by Bush.

and, five sentences later:

the author of the article McGentrix quoted wrote:

Bush has righted a wrong. What's more, he has figuratively flipped off his leftist critics. Gotta love it.

So, in summary:

- Bush respects the verdict of the jury. The jury's verdict was right.
- Bush thinks the jury's verdict is too harsh. The jury's verdict was disputable.
- Bush has righted a wrong. The jury's verdict was wrong.

The author of that piece is all over the place. Completely. The jury was right, but it was wrong. Complete and utter wishy-washy-ness.

0 Replies

You're confused again. Verdict and sentence are two different things.

0 Replies

The judge, not the jury, did the sentencing. BTW, the judge is a Republican.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

You're confused again. Verdict and sentence are two different things.

Right.

That leaves two points. The verdict was right. And Bush righted a wrong.

I see.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You see, Nimh, Republicans don't differentiate between the question of whether you can do something, and whether you should do something. He doesn't even understand the question.

Yeah..

But in the case of McGentrix it's even simpler, I think. McG - and hardly just he alone - has basically just one single ethical, political and moral yardstick left for anything anyone does in politics.

If it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing. And as long as it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing.

Nothing else matters anymore. 'S all they need to know.

Seriously. If you use this lense, you can pretty much predict how the McGconservative will react to any given event, action, or whatever.

0 Replies

I've already stated my thinking on why Bush commuted the sentence. I see no reason the judge wouldn't allow Libby to remain free while he sought to appeal.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You see, Nimh, Republicans don't differentiate between the question of whether you can do something, and whether you should do something. He doesn't even understand the question.

Yeah..

But in the case of McGentrix it's even simpler, I think. McG - and hardly just he alone - has basically just one single ethical, political and moral yardstick left for anything anyone does in politics.

If it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing. And as long as it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing.

Nothing else matters anymore. 'S all they need to know.

Seriously. If you use this lense, you can pretty much predict how the McGconservative will react to any given event, action, or whatever.

I don't think so. Liberals are pretty easy to piss off. Fun, too.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

I've already stated my thinking on why Bush commuted the sentence. I see no reason the judge wouldn't allow Libby to remain free while he sought to appeal.

But the judge saw a reason.

<shrugs>

There must be countless cases were you or the President don't agree with the judge. But either the judicial system is working, or it isn't (and has to be micromanaged by the President).

Otherwise - why intervene in this case?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
You're confused again. Verdict and sentence are two different things.

Right.

That leaves two points. The verdict was right. And Bush righted a wrong.

I see.

obviously you don't see.

right verdict, wrong sentence.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
I've already stated my thinking on why Bush commuted the sentence. I see no reason the judge wouldn't allow Libby to remain free while he sought to appeal.

But the judge saw a reason.

<shrugs>

There must be countless cases were you or the President don't agree with the judge. But either the judicial system is working, or it isn't (and has to be micromanaged by the President).

Otherwise - why intervene in this case?

Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

I guess they had their reasons for intervening, as well. Do you think they were micromanaging the judicial system?

0 Replies

In a decision announced on June 21, 2007, the US Supreme Court in Rita v. United States upheld as reasonable under federal sentencing law a prison sentence of 33 months for the offense of perjury committed in testimony to a grand jury, which is virtually the same sentence imposed on Scooter Libby for the same offense.
The defendant Victor Rita was a 25-year military veteran with 35 commendations, awards and medals for his military service, and in poor medical condition. He contended that the length of his prison term was unreasonable in light of his exemplary service to the country and his health circumstances. The Supreme Court granted review in order to examine and clarify the issue of how to determine the reasonableness of a prison sentence.

Twelve days after the Supreme Court held as a matter of law that a sentence of 33 months of prison for perjury was reasonable for a decorated veteran in poor health, the president, whose sworn duty is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, commuted Scooter Libby's similar sentence for the same offense as "excessive". The federal Sentencing Guidelines say that 33 months is the recommended minimum sentence for the crime of perjury, with the recommended range being 33-41 months. According to the nation's president, however, the Sentencing Guideline for this is too harsh.

I did not write this. - edgarblythe

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You see, Nimh, Republicans don't differentiate between the question of whether you can do something, and whether you should do something. He doesn't even understand the question.

Yeah..

But in the case of McGentrix it's even simpler, I think. McG - and hardly just he alone - has basically just one single ethical, political and moral yardstick left for anything anyone does in politics.

If it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing. And as long as it pisses off liberals, it's a good thing.

Nothing else matters anymore. 'S all they need to know.

Seriously. If you use this lense, you can pretty much predict how the McGconservative will react to any given event, action, or whatever.

Is that different from about 90% of the liberals here Nimh? Please explain to me why I, as a conservative, should attempt to be moderate on any issue when surrounded by so many fanatical liberals here?

There are far too many examples here of rabid liberalism to even try to point them out to you. You absolutely right though. If it pisses a liberal off, I am for it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

I guess they had their reasons for intervening, as well. Do you think they were micromanaging the judicial system.

I don't know. How many of those pardoned or had their sentences commuted as in this case, were still employed by the White House and had in their possession possible knowledge of a crime being committed by the Vice President?

Joe(Was Libby ever fired over this matter? No?)Nation

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

old europe wrote:
HokieBird wrote:
I've already stated my thinking on why Bush commuted the sentence. I see no reason the judge wouldn't allow Libby to remain free while he sought to appeal.

But the judge saw a reason.

<shrugs>

There must be countless cases were you or the President don't agree with the judge. But either the judicial system is working, or it isn't (and has to be micromanaged by the President).

Otherwise - why intervene in this case?

Reagan pardoned 51 people. Clinton pardoned 456.

I guess they had their reasons for intervening, as well. Do you think they were micromanaging the judicial system?

Yes, I think they were. The United States currently have a prison population of roughly 2.3 million people. If you're saying that the judge was wrong in this case, or in Reagan's 51 cases or Clinton's 456 cases, wouldn't that suggest that there are considerable doubts about whether the rest of the convictions are right?

On the other hand, if it turns out that all the pardons (or commuted sentences) benefited some close friends or political allies of the respective president, wouldn't that suggest that the institution of presidential pardons is prone to misuse and abuse?

Just wondering...

0 Replies

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know