Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[hawkman]

Originally posted by Lemon Grrrrrl


I wish coming up with the "Clinton did it, but worse" strategy that seems to be the mainstay of conservatives trying to defend the current administration was something that only happened in FYM. I think most other people in here already took care of the, "What does this have to do with the topic at hand?" question so no need to address it any further IMO. I guess basically my point is, before those who want to defend Bush's actions speak up, maybe they should try to exclude the name 'Clinton' from their arguments. I believe that kind of arguing is called a red herring, if I remember my high school English class correctly.

It's no different when someone posts something about Muslim terrorists/jihadists/Islam and a few select people immediately jump in with a comment about christianity

I thought it was FYM SOP

[anitram]

[unico]

Originally posted by Lemon Grrrrrl
I guess basically my point is, before those who want to defend Bush's actions speak up, maybe they should try to exclude the name 'Clinton' from their arguments. I believe that kind of arguing is called a red herring, if I remember my high school English class correctly.

Actually I think it is called "beating around the (G.W.) Bush"

[BVS]

Originally posted by hawkman


It's no different when someone posts something about Muslim terrorists/jihadists/Islam and a few select people immediately jump in with a comment about christianity

I thought it was FYM SOP

Wow, 8 whole post and you have FYM figured out...

Alter, anyone?

[swizzlestick]

Originally posted by DaveC


come back when you've got a reasonably sane point to make.

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

flashback:

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

seriously, this guy deserved to be set free, what harm does distributing defense information really do?

Samuel Loring Morison D. Md. 1985 Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 793(d), and 793(e)

[BVS]

Figure out the difference between a pardon and a commutation first...

[unico]

is it REALLY that uncommon to read the first page of threads?

did you not read the other posts? libby was not pardoned and he WON'T be pardoned. if you're going to participate in a discussion with us, the least you could do is to read the posts here.

as far as what harm does distributing information, i just wanted to point out that Bush Sr. is the one who said that leaking info about CIA agents is a crime.

[hardyharhar]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


It's also weak because even if this was a pardon, the discussion is about this incident in particular. Diamond even gave a thumbs up for it, but has yet to explain himself in any other way then pointing a finger at Clinton and calling us hypocrites.

The whole point was to hear your thoughts on Bush commuting Libby. Given your thumbs up, Diamond, may I ask why you give approval to this move by Bush?

He's still googling Ann Coulter for his response.

[BVS]

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19583008/

[unico]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19583008/

Well, he may not have ruled it out, but I'm pretty sure he won't pardon him. He and Cheney have too much dirt on their hands. If Libby is pardoned then he will HAVE to spill the beans about their involvement in this.

Perhaps Bush just doesn't want to make it so obvious. But I think we can agree this is pretty damn transparent.

[diamond]

Originally posted by Lemon Grrrrrl


I wish coming up with the "Clinton did it, but worse" strategy that seems to be the mainstay of conservatives trying to defend the current administration was something that only happened in FYM. I think most other people in here already took care of the, "What does this have to do with the topic at hand?" question so no need to address it any further IMO. I guess basically my point is, before those who want to defend Bush's actions speak up, maybe they should try to exclude the name 'Clinton' from their arguments. I believe that kind of arguing is called a red herring, if I remember my high school English class correctly.

Well fine, 2 of the most notable liberal writers and thinkers both thought Scooter shouldn't serve his sentence, Richard Cohen and Christopher Hitchens.

And I post Clintons pardons 400 vs Bush's of 80 because of the hypocrites that never fussed over Clinton's corruptness but sure squeal for what Bush did. Hypocrites

June 19, 2007
The Runaway Train That Hit Scooter Libby
By Richard Cohen

The attorney general called a meeting. He assembled all the U.S. attorneys in the Great Hall of the Justice Department and told them, in essence, that their chief responsibility was to decide whom not to prosecute. They should limit themselves to cases "in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest" and play no role in political vendettas. The speaker, of course, was not the lamentable Alberto Gonzales but the estimable Robert H. Jackson, who went on to the Supreme Court. This was 1940, but Jackson could have been talking to Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Whatever the case, the special counsel was not listening.

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

The upshot was a train wreck -- mile after mile of shame, infamy, embarrassment and occasional farce, all of it described in the forthcoming "Off the Record," a vigorously written account of what went wrong, by Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s former editor in chief. The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail. The press held itself up to mockery, wantonly promising confidentiality, anonymity -- what's the diff, anyway? -- and virtual life after death to anyone with a piece of gossip to peddle. Much heroic braying turned into cries for mercy as the government bore down. As any prosecutor knows -- and Martha Stewart can attest -- white-collar types tend to have a morbid fear of jail.

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

This is precisely the sort of investigation that Jackson was warning about. It would not have been conducted if, say, the Iraq war had ended with 300 deaths and the mission had really been accomplished. An unpopular war produced the popular cry for scalps and, in Libby's case, the additional demand that he express contrition -- a vestigial Stalinist-era yearning for abasement. No one has yet explained, though, how Libby can express contrition and still appeal his conviction. No matter. Antiwar sanctimony excuses the inexplicable.

Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.

I don't expect George Bush to appreciate this. He is the privileged son of a privileged son, and he fears nothing except, probably, doubt. But the rest of us ought to consider what Fitzgerald has wrought and whether we are better off for his efforts. I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.
--------------

Free Scooter Libby
The case gets weirder by the day.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 18, 2007, at 11:38 AM ET
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.

Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.
The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).
In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count.
The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed. This is for three further reasons, which I call to your attention.

1) There is an important constitutional question regarding Fitzgerald's original jurisdiction. It is a rather nice legal question, having to do with whether, as U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, Fitzgerald is a "principal" or "inferior" officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A dozen senior legal scholars have filed an amicus brief, arguing that the authority under which the original prosecutorial investigation was conducted was itself dubious. I have no expertise in this very important matter, but in granting them leave to file, Judge Walton made the following hair-raising comment, which I reproduce in full because it is longer than his order and needs to be read in full:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

2) This low sarcasm displays not so much bias against the defendant, but actual animus. What does the number of days have to do with it? In how many cases involving poor defendants is an issue of constitutional law involved? Does the judge not know that Libby has already been almost ruined financially and faces incarceration? Would he have adopted the same tone if 12 experts ranging politically from Robert Bork to Alan Dershowitz had filed a brief arguing the opposite position? It's difficult to see how an appeals court can avoid these questions.

3) The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right.

The rush to prejudge the case and pack Libby off to prison seems near universal. (Patrick Fitzgerald has denounced him for failing to show remorse; a strange charge to make against a man who has announced that he intends to appeal.) Given the unsoundness of the verdict, the extraordinary number of other witnesses who admitted to confusion over dates and times, and the essential triviality of the original matter (an apparently purposeless coverup of a nonleak, in private and legal conversations, involving common knowledge of information that was not known to be classified), it is unlikely that the verdict at present can stand scrutiny, let alone the sentence. But why go through all this irrelevant and secondhand hearsay again? Those who want to "get" someone for "lying us into war" have picked the wrong man and failed to identify a crime. Let them try to impeach the president, who should in the meantime step in to avoid any more waste of public money and time and pardon Libby without further ado.

back to top
PRINT DISCUSS E-MAIL RECOMMEND

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


Well fine, 2 of the most notable liberal writers and thinkers both thought Scooter shouldn't serve his sentence, Richard Cohen and Christopher Hitchens.

But a jury did.

Originally posted by diamond

And I post Clintons pardons 400 vs Bush's of 80 because of the hypocrites that never fussed over Clinton's corruptness but sure squeal for what Bush did. Hypocrites

First of all Pardon doesn't = corruption, you would have to look at each and everyone on an individual basis in order to determine corruption. Secondly the majority of pardons come at the end of a president's stay in the whitehouse, so time will tell with dubya.

But you giving lecutures on hypocricy is classic.

[mobvok]

And I post Clintons pardons 400 vs Bush's of 80 because of the hypocrites that never fussed over Clinton's corruptness but sure squeal for what Bush did. Hypocrites

1) BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY. BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY. BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY.

2) You weren't even a member of Interference when Clinton was president. So who are the hypocrites in this thread?

3) Pardoning someone isn't a bad thing. Pardoning someone for the wrong reasons is. Maybe the man convicted of drug dealing that Clinton pardoned had been sentenced to jail by an unreliable witness or was later exonerated by new evidence but the appeals court wouldn't hear the case. Or maybe he was just a friend of the President. Listing all the pardons/commutions the President has given is useless without context- and the context is clear here that Bush is just using his power to protect a friend.

Pardon lists, in other words, are a waste of space. Go copy and paste Portuguese cooking recipies into this thread, they're equally relevant to this thread.

[diamond]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But a jury did.




First of all Pardon doesn't = corruption, you would have to look at each and everyone on an individual basis in order to determine corruption. Secondly the majority of pardons come at the end of a president's stay in the whitehouse, so time will tell with dubya.

But you giving lecutures on hypocricy is classic.

At least Bush has the nuts to do it now like a man and not as weakling leaving office.

And why don't you learn how to spell the word hypocrisy first before commenting on the word.

Your continual vapid boring predictable posts force me to put you back on Ignore.

dbs

[anitram]

Christopher Hitchens is a "prominent liberal writer."

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


At least Bush has the nuts to do it now like a man and not as weakling leaving office.

Once again, look up the differnece between the two... Do everyone in here a favor.

Originally posted by diamond

And why don't you learn how to spell the word hypocrisy first before commenting on the word.

That's all you have? Wow.

Originally posted by diamond

Your continual vapid boring predictable posts force me to put you back on Ignore.

dbs

So basically you took me off long enough to comment on my spelling and now you are putting me back on? Wow, you're cool...

[unico]

Originally posted by diamond


Well fine, 2 of the most notable liberal writers and thinkers both thought Scooter shouldn't serve his sentence, Richard Cohen and Christopher Hitchens.

And I post Clintons pardons 400 vs Bush's of 80 because of the hypocrites that never fussed over Clinton's corruptness but sure squeal for what Bush did. Hypocrites

why are you making this a partisan issue? it has nothing to do with political party affiliation here. corruption is corruption, regardless of what side it is happening on.

and why are you so quick to judge us as hypocrites? it is an irrelevant topic. i think discussion about pardon history is irrelevant and meant for another thread.

sidenote: LIBBY WAS NOT PARDONED.

[unico]

Originally posted by mobvok


1) BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY. BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY. BUSH DID NOT PARDON LIBBY.

2) You weren't even a member of Interference when Clinton was president. So who are the hypocrites in this thread?

3) Pardoning someone isn't a bad thing. Pardoning someone for the wrong reasons is. Maybe the man convicted of drug dealing that Clinton pardoned had been sentenced to jail by an unreliable witness or was later exonerated by new evidence but the appeals court wouldn't hear the case. Or maybe he was just a friend of the President. Listing all the pardons/commutions the President has given is useless without context- and the context is clear here that Bush is just using his power to protect a friend.

Pardon lists, in other words, are a waste of space. Go copy and paste Portuguese cooking recipies into this thread, they're equally relevant to this thread.

quoted for truth™

[Bluer White]

Originally posted by unico
didn't bush sr. himself say that outing cia agents is a crime or something like that?

It was Armitage that leaked Plame's name. The prosecutor knew that very early on. And why wasn't Armitage indicted? Because Plame didn't have a protected status.

[MadelynIris]

Yes, three years is too tough for perjury by a top government official in a case over life-and-death matters

Why are you saying this was a life-and-death case?

[img]
http://www.losblogueros.net/fotos/valerie_plame.jpg[/img]