Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

Of course, the constitution would have to be formally amended (which could lead to all types of mischief) to strip away the president's pardon power. Moreover, such action would apply only prospectively.

For a good analysis of the legal ramifications of the commutation/pardon, see: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=5dad4c57-3a65-4eb7-aba3-f019e45d031a&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=

It kind of bugs me that Paris Hilton served more time than did Libby.

0 Replies

We keep hearing from the Libby defenders that he was not a leaker. He did in fact leak Plame's ID to reporter Miller BEFORE Novak's column.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707030008?f=h_latest

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

I think there's way too much "Well, Clinton did this." And, "Well this person did that."

If you removed the "bu... bu... but Clinton!" response, then you could hardly get some of these people to talk....

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

I think there's way too much "Well, Clinton did this." And, "Well this person did that."

Let's stick to the facts.

What the president did was within his powers as written in the Constitution. I don't like it. I don't like him. But he has the right, as much as I think his use of it demonstrates he is totally devoid of morals. (And how being a born-again Christian does not give one superior ethical insight.)

But what makes you think that Bush is not going to abuse power that he has legally, when he's clearly gone beyond the line in other regards? (i.e. sanctioning torture)

I'm no expert on Constitutional law, so my question to someone who is familiar with Constitutional law is this. Can you legally ammend the constitution to strip the president of the powers of pardon under certain conditions (i.e. when the crimes themselves have direct ties to the executive branch)?

He doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of him at this point, so the only solution is to make it so future presidents can't do this anymore. In the meantime, in true Dubya fashion, he thinks it's good to be King.

A President does not have the right to pardon someone for the purposes of obstructing justice.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

A President does not have the right to pardon someone for the purposes of obstructing justice.

Sure he does Roxxxanne. He can pardon someone for any reason. Whether we like it or not. That's the way it is. Griping about what he can or cannot do won't do us a bit of good.

I think Libby should have done some jail time. (Although I do believe the time given was excessive, based on the circumstances.) Of course, I also think Clinton should have been convicted and seen some jail time also. But that's just me and may have to do more with my conservative republican leanings than anything else. So I can't much blame any of my liberal, Bush-hating friends from thinking it wrong that Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

Oh well, that's enough for me.

Oh, and glad to see you back posting some again Roxxxanne, even if you and I do strongly disagree on just about everything. Cool

0 Replies

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence "reasonable." ... The prosecutor in the case "went after somebody even when he knew no crime had been committed," Romney said. "Given that fact, isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?" ... In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury. During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

0 Replies

When it comes to pardons the President certainly does have the legal right to
pardon anyone and everyone he wants to. There is no legal way to prevent
him from doing it. There is only a political consequence. If he wanted to a
President could pardon every person in the Federal prisons. Whether that
would be a sane thing to do is another question. We can only hope our
Presidents retain some semblance of sanity.

While it could be argued that the President is pardoning people to obstruct
justice there is no remedy other than impeachment. Impeachment is not
likely for pardons. Impeachment for a blatant disregard for justice is
something else entirely but not likely in this situation. Bush has already
shown his willingness to subvert our justice system for ideological purposes.
Many of those breaches have been minor but taken as a whole they show a
pattern that we as Americans shouldn't allow to happen no matter which way
the ideological bent of the President is.

(Carriage returns inserted to make this easier to read on the expanded page.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Sure he does Roxxxanne. He can pardon someone for any reason. Whether we like it or not. That's the way it is. Griping about what he can or cannot do won't do us a bit of good.

The founding fathers envisioned impeachment as the solution to this problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The founding fathers envisioned impeachment as the solution to this problem.

Cycloptichorn

The problem is that Bush broke no law in commuting Libby's sentence. Since no law was broken, I don't see that this could be something that would even be possible to use for impeachment. Now if Bush were to admit that he did this in this manner in order to obstruct justice, then I would agree this could be an impeachable offense. But since that is unlikely, I would have to disagree with you on your above statement.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The founding fathers envisioned impeachment as the solution to this problem.

Cycloptichorn

The problem is that Bush broke no law in commuting Libby's sentence. Since no law was broken, I don't see that this could be something that would even be possible to use for impeachment. Now if Bush were to admit that he did this in this manner in order to obstruct justice, then I would agree this could be an impeachable offense. But since that is unlikely, I would have to disagree with you on your above statement.

'High Crimes' can refer to ethical and moral problems as well as legal ones. The House and Senate can impeach for pretty much any reason they wish.

Part of Bush's problem is there is no real defense for what they have done, and they don't have any good explanation for why libby was pardoned when so many others (who are arguably far more deserving) were not. They aren't willing to say 'he's the president's political servant and friend, and we are protecting him'; so instead they dance with lies and half truths which just sound completely ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'll happily go along with you that ethical problems can be an impeachable offense. The problem with applying that to the current context is that there is no possible way to prove what Bush did was ethically wrong. He has stated his reasons for the commutation and it is in my opinion quite plausible (since my own opinion is also that the sentence was too long.)

Granted, my opinion of the sentence is just that and others do and will have a different opinion. But unless someone comes forward who has proof that Bush did this simply to obstruct justice, then I don't see anything to any impeachment talk for this.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I'll happily go along with you that ethical problems can be an impeachable offense. The problem with applying that to the current context is that there is no possible way to prove what Bush did was ethically wrong. He has stated his reasons for the commutation and it is in my opinion quite plausible (since my own opinion is also that the sentence was too long.)

But, it's not plausible.

It wasn't excessive - Libby got the sentence exactly according to the guidelines, and it was no more strict than any other sentence handed out for such a crime in the last several years.

Saying 'the sentence was too long' and then removing the sentence entirely, makes no sense at all. If it was too long, shorten it. Otherwise, what you are really arguing is 'I don't think he should go to jail at all.'

It's ethically wrong for Bush to use his pardon power to set his guilty subordinates free. Period. No other explanation is necessary. Bush doesn't even argue that he isn't guilty - he just doesn't think that his people should do jail time like regular folks when they commit crimes. There is no ethical defense of his position.

Quote:

Granted, my opinion of the sentence is just that and others do and will have a different opinion. But unless someone comes forward who has proof that Bush did this simply to obstruct justice, then I don't see anything to any impeachment talk for this.

Without an investigation, how can one prove anything about anything?

When someone is found guilty of obstructing an investigation into the Executive branch, and then the Prez pardons them, there is sufficient grounds for reasonable people to conclude that Bush may have done so to keep the investigation from going forward. This is the simplest and most obvious solution to the question of why Bush commuted the sentence. Any other explanation - which has not been provided by the WH, by the way - involves much more complication.

Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, in this case. Either he is -

A, showing immense cronyism and favoritism towards his friends, in blatant violation of ethical and moral standards; or

B, he is attempting to stonewall any further investigation into the VP's office and the WH itself by ensuring Libby has no reason to spill the beans.

There is no option C. Bush is either engaging in criminal obstruction of justice, or severe moral or ethical violations. Either one is impeachable.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep him form turning on Cheney and himself. It is clear to me that an investigation would uncover that Cheney suborned perjury and that Bush, Rove, Cheney and others are obstructing justice.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep him form turning on Cheney and himself. It is clear to me that an investigation would uncover that Cheney suborned perjury and that Bush, Rove, Cheney and others are obstructing justice.

"I feel it's necessary to point out that there is no evidence of this, and it's a ridiculously partisan thing to say.

Cycloptichorn"

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep him form turning on Cheney and himself. It is clear to me that an investigation would uncover that Cheney suborned perjury and that Bush, Rove, Cheney and others are obstructing justice.

"I feel it's necessary to point out that there is no evidence of this, and it's a ridiculously partisan thing to say.

Cycloptichorn"

You could hardly do better then quoting me, Troll. It improves the average quality of your posts significantly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

if in fact there is no evidence of wrong doing, it begs the question; why did libby feel compelled to lie?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

if in fact there is no evidence of wrong doing, it begs the question; why did libby feel compelled to lie?

First of all you are misusing the phrase "begs the question."

I appreciate that that the mistaken definition of this phrase is quite appealing, but it doesn't make it any less misused.

"Beg the question" is a phrase almost exclusively used in debating circles and is, frankly, difficult to explain in a short and pithy comment. Suffice it to say that it does not mean "Hey! This makes us ask this question."

Admittedly, the incorrect usage makes more (current) sense than the classic, but this is because our understanding of what "begs" means has changed as well.

Ours, though, is a living language and so it is inevitable that the current usage of the phrase will supplant the former. That is the way of language, but I'm not sure I want to be part of the process of corruption.

The way things are going, "literally" will soon lose it's meaning and become nothing more than a modifier meaning "REALLY!"

Sad to say this is the way of modern English usage: rolling it all into a compact ball, the elimination of nuance.

Perhaps it has something to do with Instant and Text messages.

Secondly, your argument is specious. Libby does not believe he lied. He never plead guilty and he has appealed his conviction. True enough he was found guilty of lying, but we all should know that a guilty verdict is not the equivalent of a pronouncement of fact. If it were, despite DNA testing, a number of innocent men would have been out to death in the past several years.

It is a tremendous and venal leap between Libby's conviction and assured malfeasance on the part of the Administration. Thank God our legal system doesn't follow your train of thought.

0 Replies

very well. have it your way....

if there was no crime to cover up, why did libby not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ?

at any point, he could have amended his testimony, ala karl rove, yet he has not.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn has it exactly right, moreover, the cummutting thing was illogical with the way he only removed the prison time.

Quote:

The White House also seemed caught off guard by comments from the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court. Judge Walton questioned whether it is legally possible to execute Mr. Bush's call for a commutation of the sentence but continue the two-year probation that was to follow.

The law, Judge Walton wrote, "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."

He directed the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Libby's lawyers to file arguments on the point by Monday.

The relevant federal statute, Judge Walton pointed out, refers to "a term of supervised release after imprisonment." For help in resolving the matter, the judge actually referred lawyers to the White House.

source
Since people want a pardon rather than to go through the judicial process, they must think Libby has little chance of overturning the verdict.

The administration is involved in this situation. They should stay out of it out of ethical reasons. But they have no ethics.

(btw-I never approved of Clintons pardons, they were done recklessly.)

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

very well. have it your way....

if there was no crime to cover up, why did libby not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ?

at any point, he could have amended his testimony, ala karl rove, yet he has not.

Because there was a crime to cover up.

Simple.

0 Replies

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail term

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know