Bush Commutes Libby Sentence
George Bush commuted Scooter Libby's 30 month prison sentence today. Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators.
For those people who don't know exactly what it is that Libby did, he leaked the identity of a CIA operative to the press.
Bush claims that the 30 month sentence was excessive, and that's why he commuted the sentence. He left the 2 years of probation and the $250,000 fine in place, and said that he left a harsh punishment in place. Apparently Republicans wanted Libby to get a full pardon.
Are these the same Republicans who wanted Clinton thrown out of office for lying about his "inappropriate relationship"?
Is the President now going to start reviewing all sentences in the country and deciding whether or not they're excessive?
My guess is no. They're probably just going to commute sentences of people in their administration who do their dirty work for them.
posted by Randy Ray @ 3:42 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Just for fun, find anyone who can defend this action without using a word that rhymes with "Schlinton."
Just to be fair Libby's charges are the same as Clinton's charges during the impeachment trial of the late 90's. Democrats say bad Libby now but not then. The prosecutor in the Libby case recommended less prison time and were surprised when the judge awarded more time. And Clinton did the same on his pardons when he left office; protecting those with terrible crimes against our country for large donations to the democratic party and the clinton's themselves.
To be fair, the Republicans screamed foul over and over again about Clinton's charges during the impeachment trial, but now that it's one of their own, it's suddenly okay to overrule the system of justice we have in place. Republicans don't get to have it both ways. At least they shouldn't.
Besides which, this post isn't about what Clinton did or didn't do. It's about what Bush just did. Go launch your own website and post there about Clinton's pardons if you want to discuss them.
Prosecutors are free to recommend anything they want, but their recommendations aren't requirement, and they don't provide sentencing, so that argument doesn't have anything to do with this situation.
Commuting Libby's sentence sends two clear messages:
1- Bush doesn't do what he says he's going to do. He said he was going to let justice run its course here, but he's not.
2- Public service doesn't mean that you're held to a higher standard, at least not if you're a high ranking Republican official. It means that you get to break the law with impunity apparently.
The situation here is simple and hideously and corruptly political.
Even most Republicans thought this was wrong. Only 33% of Republicans polled thought that it was appropriate to commute Libby's sentence in this case.
Squirrel, by pointing out that the Democrats have changed their stance according to the party of the individual involved, you have also highlighted how the Republicans have done the exact same thing. I don't remember the conservatives who are coming to Libby's defense ever coming to Clinton's defense. They wanted him swept from office, against the wishes of the electorate, by the way.
Let's look at the conduct of both parties in these two cases, though. Republican politicians are the ones who impeached Bill Clinton. The Democrats did not put Scooter Libby on trial.
The Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton because he lied about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was being investigated for a myriad of Whitewater related questions, but was never charged with any of those crime. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about a sexual relationship which was not a crime.
A jury of 12 citizens found Libby guilty of 5 counts having to do with perjury and obstruction of justice. Yet the Republicans say he should never have been charged, because there was "no crime" underlying the charges. This is the exact argument that Democrats used in the Clinton impeachment, which Republicans claimed were cynical and self-serving. When Bill Clinton used that argument, we were slouching towards Gomorrah. Now it's okay, though.
Patrick Fitzgerald brought the indictment on Scooter Libby. Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by the Department of Justice under John Ashcroft. Ashcroft recused himself from the case, so his assistant appointed Fitzgerald.
Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Scooter Libby. Walton was appointed for life in 2001 by George W. Bush. Here's a snippet on Walton.
"Despite his appointments by Republican officials, The Washington Post reported, 'fellow judges and lawyers who appear before him say Walton's decisions do not appear to be guided by politics but by a tough-on-crime mentality'. Walton is known by local defense attorneys as a 'long ball hitter' - a judge willing to impose long sentences in order to deter future crimes."
Once again, this is a Republican appointee who did the sentencing. Yet the Republicans, the "law and order" party, applaud President Bush for undermining the justice system by giving Libby clemency.
Just like in the Clinton case, Republican politicians are undermining the "will of the people", by using government power to try to overturn a decision of the people. In that case, they were trying to overturn the 1992 and 1996 national elections. In this case, they are overturning a decision of a trial by Libby's peers. Of course, you Republicans don't really see average citizens as Libby's peers, because of his "many years of service".
It's funny to see that conservative principles of law and order only pertain to non-Republicans. That makes a mockery of your ham-handedness in so many other cases. But I guess Scooter Libby is "one of you", so it's okay to look the other way.
Libby lied to obstruct an investigation of the Bush White House. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, showing that he will protect men who lie for him.
If we Democrats are guilty of flip-flopping on perjury and obstruction of justice, then you Republicans sure as Hell are. After years of hearing the Republicans claim to have moral superiority, it somehow seems all the more offensive to see them flip-flop. Don't act like you have the moral high ground if you aren't going to hold it. Your hypocrisy is astounding, Squirrel.
The lesson in both cases is you don't lie to federal prosecutors. That makes them mad. When they get mad, they will get you on anything they can find, including "perjury without an underlying crime". And you know what, Squirrel? I'm glad they do that, because the People need someone to protect them from the abuse of power in the highest office of the land.
So why did we defend Clinton in the Lewinsky case?
The Democrats' argued the Republicans were abusing their congressional power to pursue a personal vendetta. There's no way you can accuse the Democrats of abusing power or pursuing a personal vendetta in the Libby case, since the Democrats are nothing more than spectators and commentators on this mess.
Oh well - I hesitate to get into a scuffle with people who are lacking brain cells, but OK, here we go. First, Libby wasn't prosecuted for leaking the name of a CIA operative. Richard Armitage has the distinction of doing that (he was a career State Department employee, not a Bush administration appointee). In the case of Libby's testimony, he was unsure of certain people he spoke with and Tim Russert gave conflicting testimony, so the legal system believed Russert's testimony over Libby's recollection. And even with that, this testimony was of no value to the case since Armitage as the source of the leak had already come to the prosecutors knowledge.
And, in the case of Bush relaxing his desire to let the legal proceedings run its course. At the time that he said that, he was letting the legal process runs its course. When it became obvious that Libby would actually have to spend time in jail (for having an incomplete recollection about a non-issue since Armitage was the leaker) for him, it had run it's course to a degree. In fact, the case is in appeal and Libby is still pursuing justice. The President just believed that a public servant should not have to spend time in jail for having an incomplete memory while on appeal with his case.
Please keep your ad hominem arguments to yourself, Dan. No one here is lacking brain cells.
Time to turn on my ability to screen comments I guess, so I can reject nonsense from people who don't have a legitimate argument and can only show up and claim the other people aren't bright.
Trillions of dollars in "unsupported adjustments" means trillions of dollars unaccounted for. What's going on? Where is the money? How could this happen? Where are the checks and balances? How much more has gone missing? Is this happening in the other government agencies too? What would happen if a corporation failed to pass an audit like this? Or a taxpayer? Who is responsible for this? Who can we trust to fix it? ... see Frequently Asked Questions and Who's in Charge? for details
Post a Comment
<< Home