By commuting Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence rather than pardoning him, President Bush has opened up a can of worms about federal sentencing, criminal law professors and attorneys told the New York Times. They said that the “Libby motion” will be cited by others claiming that they, too, received excessive sentences. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk,” one defense attorney said.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
152 Comments
Bush comes from a state with one of the highest execution rates in the country and a 30 month prison sentence is considered too harsh? With the laws the way they are Libby’s probation can’t be applied until after he serves his prison term so he doesn’t even get probation. He just has to pay a fine which is no big deal for a rich guy.
The guy sells out his country and all he gets is a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile Bush had no problem with a retarded person being executed.
Remember kids, lying is okay if it means you’ll be protecting a criminal who betrayed his country. Such is the morality of a party that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House.
Positive proof of Cronyism has corrupted every facet of government.
That’s kind of like my bogus headline the other day.
Pffft. Easy fix for fearless leader: All defense attorneys are terrorists unless AGAG says otherwise.
THAT oughtta keep their leftist commie asses in line. (I mean really, any attorney who’d defend an evildoer gotta be a terrorist sympathizin’, leftist, soft, wobbly, bleedin’ heart, “civil rights”-lovin’, nogood, egghead — am I right?)
Augustus Stupidus strikes again!
Next?
Each day brings politics under bushco to a new low. He and his deserve to spend the balance of their days behind bars but of course have filled their pockets sufficient to buy “justice” for everyone involved.
A small part of what Dan Froomkin had to say:
“It’s certainly hard to argue that President Clinton didn’t abuse the pardon process. But Bush’s pledge back in 2000 was to restore ethics to the White House — not engage in he-did-it-too defense of his own misconduct.
And furthermore, there is an ethical chasm between Clinton’s pardons — unseemly as they were — and Bush’s decision to grant clemency to someone involved in an investigation of his own White House.
As it happens, the previous granting of clemency that is most analogous to what Bush did dates back neither to the Clinton or even the Nixon era, but to Bush’s father’s presidency.
In 1992, on the eve of his last Christmas in the White House, George H.W. Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair, in which he himself was also loosely implicated.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Bush did the correct thing as the sentence was excessive. I’ve already cited a case where the convicted perjury felon received the same sentence as Libby. But this felon was for a gun violation where a crime was committed.
There was no underlying crime in Libby’s case.
Perhaps the NY Lawyers need to go back to Law school.
borrowed from HuffingtonPost.com -
Sen. Sam Brownback was aghast. He was indignant as hell about how having a high public official involved in something like perjury and obstruction of justice can damage the very foundation on which our nation was built — and he had the harsh words to show for it.
“By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation. By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.”
And here’s the Brownback kicker: “We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House’s public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards.”
That’s Brownback in his closed-door impeachment statement on President Bill Clinton, that was read into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999.
You didn’t get all excited thinking he was commenting on that Scooter Libby thing, did you?
The damage to America which this fool Bush has done is becoming immeasurable. The man does not have a drop of common sense and it’s easy to see that those around him are directing his answers to very serious problems.
I’ll say it again: “Bush was never cutout to be a President of The United States of America and proves that point daily.”
‘Libby’s Sentence Not Excessive, Former Prosecutors Say’http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3343358&page=1
The Libby Legal Defense Trust (Fred Thompson) will pay off his $250,000 fine.
‘The High Cost of Libby’s Silence’http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070703_the_high_cost_of_libbys_silence “So the commutation ensures that Libby will not cooperate with Fitzgerald, and will not cooperate with Congress. Why does this matter? Because this case is not about obstruction of justice, it is not about perjury. Ultimately, this case is about war.”
Bush had the legal right to do what he did in the Libby case.
There was no underlying crime.
This whole trial was a witch hunt, and a full pardon would have been even better. It is time for law enforcement to concentrate on real crimes and not set up so many “perjury trap” cases.
I do NOT like the indepedant counsel laws. I did not really like the process when it was directed at Clinton, either. I am not sure how to “fix” the system, but we have never had an independant counsel system that worked very well.
The incentives are all wrong. The investigations go on forever.
The Libby case is EXACTLY why our founders gave the President the power to do what he did.
Plame was NOT covered by any law that prevented her “outing.”
Plame was already “outed” by several people, including her husband, Joe Wilson, and Armitage.
There was no crime to justify this investigation in the first place.
I wish W had simply said that, as a matter of precedent, he thought all Presidents should issue “perjury trap” pardons where no underlying crime was ever proven.
(That is pretty much what the US Senate did, in not convicting Clinton during the Clinton impeachment.)
A good analysis, that uses a quote from John Wayne
The video is missing the last few seconds — see transcript.
‘Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of the United States’http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-you-ceased-to-be-the-president-of-the-united-states
There was no underlying crime in Libby’s case.
Perhaps the NY Lawyers need to go back to Law school.
Posted by: Republican
If there was no crime committed, then why did the jury find Scooter guilty?
Bush commuted Scooter’s prison sentence because he knew at Scooter’s first night in prison, he would have had his dance card punched so many times that Scooter would start wetting his pants and naming names.
I also read that Scooter’s wife threatened Bush and Cheney that she would tell all she knew if Scooter had to go to prison.
The case had profound political overtones. And certainly there are no end of people in the country who became deeply invested in this case who normally wouldn’t get overly bent out of shape about a run-of-the-mill perjury and obstruction case — which, at least narrowly speaking, this is.
But Libby never found his fate in one of those people’s hands. Not once. There’s just no getting around that point: He was repeatedly found guilty and handled by REPUBLICAN appointees and sympathisers:
Go down the list.
1. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Decided a special prosecutor was needed and then recused himself from the decision because of his proximity to the probable targets of the investigation.
2. James Comey. Yes, he’s the darling of the Dems now because he spilled the beans about the hospital stand-off. But Comey is, dare we say it, a REPUBLICAN. And not just any Republican but a pretty tough law-and-order type who only months earlier had been appointed Deputy Attorney General by President Bush. He had it in for Scooter? He let his partisanship get in the way?
3. Patrick Fitzgerald. Again, a darling of the Dems now for obvious reasons. But anyone who knows the guy’s history knows that while this registered independent may not lean ideologically right (in the way movement whacks might recognize) he certainly doesn’t lean to the left. It’s no accident that his appointments have come under Republicans.
4. Judge Reggie Walton. Let’s start with this: He was appointed by George W. Bush. And if that doesn’t do it for you, he was appointed to previous judicial appointments by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
A mere calling of the roll like this puts into a razor-sharp relief just how silly these claims are. At every step in the process Libby’s fate was in the hands of someone who was either himself a staunch Republican or had been repeatedly appointed by staunch Republicans. The only thing is that no one ever passed him off into the hands a Bush loyalist. And that’s the key. Alberto Gonzales never got the hand-off. Whatever else you can claim about this case, it’s about as clear as it can be that partisan politics played no role in Libby’s fate.
YOUR OWN PEOPLE investigated, tried, convicted, and sentenced him. Bush went against other Republicans, favoring cronyism over law (as usual).
Martha Stewart served 9 months for the same crime–except hers didn’t pertain to protecting state secrets!!!
Good points delsol. And didn’t Bush just announce that ‘mandatory minimums’ were to be enforced against the peons of the country?
Bush’s legacy will be having the distinction of being
WORSTPRESIDENTEVER
Thanks Ben–Now I need to acknowledge that I lifted the whole of it from Joshua Micah Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com.
If you’ve never been there, it’s an outstanding political blog.
If you claim that was Libby’s sentence was “excessive”, then you’re saying that sentences within federal guidelines are excessive.
‘Libby’s Sentence Not Excessive, Former Prosecutors Say’http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3343358&page=1(page 2)”The Supreme Court decision, which held that federal appellate courts can presume that any sentence within sentencing guidelines is reasonable, made it less likely that Libby’s sentence would be overturned on appeal, and may have played a role in Bush’s decision to commute his sentence, which was within federal guidelines.”
Nearly all of these neocon “Pro-Scooter” defenses come nearly word for word, from the Talk Radio shows… or their talking points…Who pays Matt Drudge for giving talking points to all of the right wing radio people, anyway???
Scooters entire defense seemed to be an attempt to gain sympathy from anti-Bush jury members.
If Scooter had, instead, taken the stand and claimed:1. I honestly don’t remember everything that happened in great detail.2. The reporters who’s testimony stands against me contradicted themselves and each other on several occasions, yet none of them are being prosecuted.3. There was NO underlying crime in this case. The Special Counsel knew that from the start, but he is getting a guaranteed salary, a government provided staff, and great publicity out of keeping this case going.4. Valerie Plame was NOT covered by the law that formed the basis of the investigation against me.5. Joe Wilson was wreckless, in making a political lightening rod out of himself, if his wife truly was in any way at risk. Our enemies read Wilson’s lies, as well. Our enemies surely knew the relationship between Wilson and Plame. Our enemies surely knew that MOST U.S. officials who work out of US Ebassies are connected to the CIA, if they are not US Marines or Diplomats. Our enemies surely knew that Valerie Plame had an assigned parking spot, at CIA headquarters, with her name printed on the curb.
Instead, Libby was looking for anti-bush help on the Jury and set himself up to look like a “fall guy”.
Problem was, the entire case was dumb to begin with. Libby was prosecuted for bad memory. Memory that was no worse than the memory of the witnesses against him.
Libby was no “fall guy” because nothing happened.
However, the Bush haters wanted a conviction so that Libby would sing.
There are no lyrics to that song.
There is nothing to say.
Nothing happened!
Good thing we have Econ the insurance saleman to provide legal expertise, even without having seen evidence or heard arguments.
What would we do without such insight to explain the nuances of this case?
By the way, Chas., you were right the other day about Bush not waiting until all appeals were exhausted. Libby can stiil yet appeal, even with the commutation, because he has not been absolved of guilt.
–delsol
delsolI am betting that I have read as many legal opinions as you.I am betting that I have spent as much time, inside of court rooms, as you.I am betting that I understand the law at least as well as you do.Again, you are an insufferable snob.Do you have ANY idea how much my career dovetails with legal work?
People stupid enough to believe the excuses given for the latest misconduct of bush aren’t capable of seeing beyond their obsession of defending and excusing to the exclusion of facts and truth.
It’s all they have.
You may be able to change the mind of a person convinced of an idea but it is impossible to change the mind of one who is obsessed with an idea.
paul – you are an insurance salesman. Nothing more, nothing less.
Econ, I’m sure you’re right about your career and reading legal briefs.
But I was not the one pretending to have insight into the court proceedings. I have a hard time believing anyone on this blog can make a legitimate claim to accurate anlaysis of the evidence.
I think you probably can tell the difference between debating the implications and subsequent handling of a case versus debating what happened in the case itself.
shoveit
When you underestimate your opponents you do an injustice to yourself.
Especially in the event that you are NOT victorious!
How did this insurance salesman ever defeat you?
How is it that this simple insurance salesman defeats you so often?
This is not the proper forum, on this thread, to defend my profession.
I will say this, my malpractice insurance covers investment advice and insurance advice, to the tune of $2 million per claim, I believe. That is not true of attorneys. That is not true of accountants. Their malpractice or “errors and omissions” coverage denies coverage for the things I do, everyday. This is why SMART attorneys and accontants contact people like me. Some of my business comes from accountants and attorneys that know that they are in over their heads with these matters.
I am not bragging.
What I have said, here, is true of any good insurance agent.
delsolPoint taken.I was making my own critique of the Libby defense.He lost, in court.My point?Could he have presented his case differently?I think he could have done a better job presenting the facts of the case.
I am not here to defend President Clinton. When it came to the administration of fairness and justice Clinton was every bit the slimebag Bush is. His selling of pardons to people like Mark Rich while advocating long prison terms for simple marijuana violations boggles the mind. Especially after he “didn’t inhale” himself (try that argument in court if you get busted). My only point is that th argument “I am less of a scum than XXX is” ain’t gonna wash with me. Not at all. There are no degrees of scum. You either are or not. When my son was little, he got his ass whupped hard. One of the few times I brought out the belt in his life. And his defense was “I only stole a little bit while his friend stole alot” from a store. Prior to whuppin his ass, I made it clear that there are no distinctions. You are either a thief or not. After that, we did not have that trouble anymore.
good point Kev
Nice analogy for “ass whuppings” Kev.
However, it has no comparative value to the Libby case.
There was no underlying crime in the Libby case. It was conjured and skewed justice dealt out in a manner not relational to the charges.
I guess you all figure if you keep telling yourselves that there was no underlying crime, that it will just go away…. Even the CIA says Valerie Plame was a COVERT AGENT at the time she was outed… Libby obstructed justice as to who it was that Outed her as a COVERT agent… THAT is why Fitzgerald went after him… If he would have simply told the investigation WHO it was that Outed her status… BEFORE it was outed to the press(Novak) then he would not have been prosecuted…. Please, lets try to keep the timeline in focus here…. The underlying CRIME is what happened BEFORE Plame was outed to Novak… and by WHOM….
perjury and obstruction of justice IS a crime
but you repubuklican will continue to support this fool even if he raped a dog on the whitehouse lawn
Okay Chas and leave, name the underlying crime that brought Libby before the Grand Jury?
Was it the outing of Plame?Was Libby carrying a concealed firearm set on automatic?
Just what was Libby’s crime before he got called into the Grand Jury?
Was it that a Reporter named Tim Russert gave a different version of the story than Libby did and they believed the Reporter?
Yeah, some crime. (rolls eyes)
I still do not quite understand why “no underlying crime” is a defense here–the crimes were obstruction of justice and perjury. Those are themselves crimes and do not “go away” if the prosecution does not find a crime elsewhere–lying under oath or to the FBI is a CRIME. Period.
Not only that, Fitzgerald has said he coundn’t get the evidence to a crime in part because of all the “sand” Libby threw in his eyes:
“And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
“Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.”
–New York Times, couldn’t find the date.
Excuses and defensive statements are all repubublank has; that is his obsession and he’s proven he won’t let facts get in the way.
It isn’t a great deal of comfort knowing bush is the greatest ambassador the Democratic Party has ever had.
The disconnect here between those who defend Bush’s commutation of Libby and those who denounce it seems to be in the assumptions Fitzgerald made prior to his investigation.
Those who would defend Bush’s commutation assume Fitz’s top target (the kingpin behind any wrondoing in the Plame affair) was Libby. Because Plame’s name was apparently first leaked by Armitage, to these people it seems Fitz had the wrong target and thus there was no underlying crime.
If you make a different set of assumptions, though, it’s easy to see Libby’s commutation for the craven political cover it so obviously extends to the administration.
Libby wasn’t the guy Fitz had in his sights. That was Cheney. Libby committed perjury in order to obstruct the justice Fitzgerald sought with Cheney as the “kingpin.” (perhaps Bush as well)
It’s the old pattern, the one we saw with Abu Ghraib. The hard core defenders of Augustus Stupidus, the real cult members, predictably insist the investigation end at the job furthest from Bush. So Abu Ghraib was just the actions of a few rogue Americans — had nothing to do with Bush. In the same way, Armitage was the top guy here. State Department, likely commie, soft on terrorism, etc. Here, though, the preznint’s enemiies got THE WRONG GUY, Libby.
As has become stultifyingly boring by now, these bozos are completely incapable of arriving at an objective truth. The scariest part, though, is what’s revealed so clearly in Econ101’s post: he is blithely unaware that his “truth” is subjective.
The solution to Libby’s problems is obvious.
Rosell and Republican will handle Libby’s appeal — they’ll get all charges dropped, and the $250,400 fine refunded. /sarcasm off
‘Just another obstruction of justice’http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/marcy_wheeler/2007/07/libby_sentence_again.html “There are lots of unanswered questions surrounding the Valerie Plame saga, but Scooter Libby’s commutation ensures they won’t be answered.”
“Covert” and “covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveilence Act” are two different things.
I do not believe that Plame WAS covert.
Even if Plame WAS covert, that finding, alone, does not guarantee, in and of itself, that Plame was protected by the law in question.
Valerie Toensing, the woman who WROTE that law, says Plame was definately NOT covered by that law.
No court has ever found that Toensing was wrong in her interpretation of the law that Toensing wrote.
These are facts.
The left has done nothing to lessen the importance of these facts.
Econ–
Evidence released from the trial prove that Plame was covert.
You and the right-wingers who kept repeating what you couldn’t know were all wrong.
Kinda like Cheney when he said “we have NO DOUBT that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is actively and aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons” and “Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda,” both of which were PROVEN absolutely wrong.
But you’re side is consistent, I’ll give you that.
Paul F. Rosell,
“I do not believe that Plame WAS covert.”
Is a jury going to believe Rosell, or the CIA?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf“EXHIBIT A…At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a COVERT CIA employee …”
paul – aren’t you going overboard with your defense of your career? I only stated the obvious – you are an insurance salesman – not an attorney or a legal expert. Lighten up – no wonder you have a meltdown daily on this blog.
shoveitI am having fun.If that looks like a “meltdown” to you, so be it.Why did you bring it up, if it was not meant as an insult?I am proud of what I do.
“Kinda like Cheney when he said “we have NO DOUBT that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is actively and aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons” and “Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda,” both of which were PROVEN absolutely wrong.”
Capn said the above^
Capn, nearly EVERY Democrat in Congress, at the time, said EXACTLY what Cheney said, if not worse.It has NOT been “proven” that Saddam did NOT try to buy uranium.In fact, Joe Wilson, in Wilson’s own oral report to the CIA, said that Iraq was trying to “expand trade with Niger.” Niger’s ONLY export is URANIUM!
Saddam DID have ties to Al Qaida, as well.We can debate the strength or weakness of those ties, but the ties and contacts were there.
Assume that Plame was not covert.
Was it wise for Cheney to sacrifice so an entire set of intelligence assets? (Plame and her contacts, both domestic and international) What, exactly, did Cheney gain by that?!?
At the time, wasn’t the US starved for good intelligence? Destroying a number of assets for no good reason: was this a wise use of US national security resources?
Many on the left weren’t convinced that Saddam was hoarding yellowcake, and neither was a significant number of Independents. (Saddam was not in fact found to possess “yellowcake” uranium, neither before nor after the invasion — and obviously Saddam didn’t use nuclear weapons against Coalition forces)
What did taking steps to publish Valerie Plame accomplish?
Its effect was limited to the short term. It just bought Bush enough time to push through an invasion before any real doubt about WMD programs set in here and abroad. In the long run, exposing Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent was EXTRAORDINARILY harmful to the US. It cost us integrity, it cost Bush politically (dearly), and it cost us international allies.
We could use every bit of what it cost us in the long run, now that we’re hopelessly bogged down in Iraq.
Assume she was covert. In that case, let the impeachment begin, imo.
Should read: assume she was not covert (disputed by the CIA).
Hillary said this:”In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.- Sen. Hillary Clinton 2002
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are political hacks.Neither of them can be trusted.It was good to get them out of government.
To borrow from Peggy Noonan, the president lacks simple wisdom. It’s just so clear.
Everybody who defends the president is forced to discount the value of simple wisdom. You guys all are forced to argue that a little less simple wisdom is in our national interest.
How can you really expect to win that way?
Pedant
WHY did Wilson write his lying Op-ed piece?Clearly it was writen for political purposes.Wilson LIED in his editorial.Wilson KNEW Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake, but lied in the editorial on that issue.Wilson had NEVER seen the “forged documents” and did not know about those documents, prior to his oral report to the CIA.Wilson ADMITTED in Senate testimony that the Administration had not rellied on any forged documents and that he, Wilson, had “mispoken” on that issue.
Wilson is a FRAUD.
If Plame WAS covert, it is Wilon the liar and political lightening rod who “outed” Plame.
People like Paul F. Rosell are living in a world described by this (modified) U2 lyric.
‘When fact is fiction, and delusions reality…’
Assume Wilson is a fraud. Let’s assume you’re correct (of course you’re not, but let’s play).
Why shouldn’t Libby go to prison for lying under oath and the consequent obstruction of justice?
What does Wilson’s being a fraud have to do with Libby lying under oath?
LIbby’s future was in his own hands, after all.
Tell the truth: no problem.
Lie, and go to jail.
He’s a lawyer, he knew this.
And he lied anyway.
You’re arguing that federal law is applied under two standards. It’s really just that simple.
Like I said: the only way you can defend the president’s actions is to argue for LESS common wisdom (in this case, you’re arguing that justice can be served when federal law is applied under more than one standard).
You guys cannot win this argument.
So, all you brilliant ones.
What did Fitgerald use as the underlying crime for the purposes of bringing Libby before a Grand Jury?
I’ll wait.
I think Libby screwed up, ok?
I think he should have admitted, during the investigation, that his memory wasnt that great on these issues.
I think Libby should have said, in court, that his memory was no worse on these issues than the memory of the witnesses against him, who also made similar mistakes.
I think that the “no underlying crime” point is important, and mitigating, for obvious reasons. Entrapment and the creation of crimes is not good government.
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.[9]–30-Dec-03. James Comey, Acting AG USDOJ
So Pedant, what was the underlying crime that caused Libby to be called before a Grand Jury?
What you gave is the appointment to perform a duty, not any indication of Libby’s so-called underlying crime.
Or don’t the Democrats believe in justice? Let’s go on a witch hunt eh?
Fitzgerald was appointed by a Republican.
Your question *as phrased* is irrelevant. It might be relevant if it were phrased like this instead.
Was there an underlying crime that caused Libby to be called before a Grand Jury?
According to Fitzgerald, the discovery of any underlying crime, if one was committed, was obstructed by Lewis Libby’s perjured testimony.
Hence the obstruction of justice conviction.
The underlying Crime, as has been typed in this thread repeatedly, was the OUTING of Valerie Plame, as COVERT CIA agent… When questioned on that matter, Libby LIED… and obstructed Justice, by not telling WHO outed Plame to Armitage in the first place… We KNOW Armitage outed Plame to the press… The REAL Crime is who outed Plame, to Armitage…
WHY is this so difficult to understand???
That’s not necessarily correct, Chas.
It was Fitzgerald’s charge (he was charged by the President of the United States, George W Bush) to determine IF a crime was committed.
In order to fulfill this mission, he was given a lot of power (see Comey’s order, above).
It’s not accurate to state that “The underlying Crime, as has been typed in this thread repeatedly, was the OUTING of Valerie Plame, as COVERT CIA agent.”
Technical, but that’s life.
Besides, convicting the lawyer who successfully landed the pardon of Marc Rich and who was convicted of felony crimes related to the outing of Valerie Plame (two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators) is enough.
Believe me. That’s really, really bad for the administration. That Bush pardoned Libby is akin to cutting off one’s snakebit arm to save one’s life.
It’s that bad.
Woops, committed my own little technical error: Bush did not pardon Libby.
He commuted his sentence in order to render toothless any future Congressional subpoena, with the possiblility of a full pardon as future reward for Libby’s cooperation.
Ummm I thought the Obstruction of Justice charge was because Libby LIED about his knowledge of WHO Outed Valerie Plame, namely to Armitage… who then outed to Novak, who then outed to…..
And then he lied about his statements to other reporters, and to the FBI…
Ah, I see what you mean. Of course!
If anybody ever recommends that you switch careers and become a lawyer, please don’t make the mistake of underestimating the prep work involved in the LSAT.
I generally enjoy and profit by your posts, Chas. Thanks mucho.
ChasArmitage had a RIGHT to know, I believe.So, telling Armitage was no crime, even under the twisted idea that Plame was covered by any law at all as to her job status, which was widely known at the time.
Econ, WHY do you insist on not accepting the CIA’s own statement that Plame was COVERT when she was outed?? And no, I dont believe that even Armitage had the right to know who was COVERT… He had nothing to do with the CIA…
like I said, you have been given the crime many times during the thread, you refuse to read them, or you ignore them.
this administration has committed so many crimes, it is now hard to list them all, but all you bush backers would defend him if he shot someone in the face…opps cheney did that…
you all would back bush if he held hands with a terrorist in public…opps…did that too
you all will back bush even if he raped your daughters/mothers/sisters..
Paul F. Rosell,
There’s no evidence of Armitage knowing that Plame was covert.
And post your PROOF that this court document is wrong about Plame being covert on 14 July 2003. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
Rosell = ‘When fact is fiction, and delusions reality…’
Where was the Democratic outrage when Sandy Burgar (who committed some real, very serious crimes) got off with a slap on the hand?Just wondering.
>There’s no evidence of Armitage >knowing that Plame was covert.
>And post your PROOF that this >court document is wrong about >Plame being covert on 14 July >2003.
Ignorance is no excuse. And post your PROOF that Plame was a covert OPERATIVE that had protection UNDER THE LAW.
>Remember kids, lying is okay
Sure is. Bill Clinton taught us kids that.
>I’ll say it again: “Bush was >never cutout to be a President>of The United States of>America and proves that>point daily.”
The American voter proved otherwise not once but twice.
And post your PROOF that Plame was a covert OPERATIVE that had protection UNDER THE LAW.Posted by: Bill Gamelson | July 07, 2007 at 06:26 PM
The CIA says she was covert and deserved protection under the law.
In fact, it was the CIA that demanded the DOJ investigate.
Yawn.
>perjury and obstruction of >justice IS a crime
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”
Is that what you mean by perjury and obstruction of justice?
I thought this blogger and book writer had a very interesting and detailed account of the Libby case.
“Here is an extract”http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzNkNWNmNGJmNThkMTNlYjhlODM2NWQ2ZWNkMTJiMDU=
“And that is the case against Libby. The counts overlap each other and rely heavily on the memories of three people — Libby, Cooper, and Russert — about two conversations. Who will the jury believe? Certainly Fitzgerald’s evidence for the two Cooper Counts is quite weak. Libby says one thing, while Cooper says another. It’s entirely possible the jury simply will not accept Fitzgerald’s allegation in the absence of more definitive evidence.”
As I said many times before, it was about taking the word and recollection (memory) of a TV News Opinion Persona and a Magazine Writer against Libby.
It’s a sad day indeed, when memory of something that occurred years previously is tested in court without the benefit of doubt that memory presented by the accuser is no better than the one accused.
I bet if you asked Russert or Cooper what they said in Court that day, they could not remember what they said, because they were testifying to save their own butts.
As pointed out before the charges presented by the blog and book writer show no underlying crime.
>”Kinda like Cheney when he >said “we have NO DOUBT that >Saddam has weapons of mass >destruction and is actively and >aggressively pursuing nuclear >weapons” and “Saddam has ties to >Al Qaeda,” both of which were >PROVEN absolutely wrong.”
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
>Hillary said this:
And her beloved husband said this:
When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.” -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
>Saddam DID have ties>to Al Qaida, as well.
Yes, and Bill Clinton first made this link.
>”EXHIBIT A>…>At the time of the initial >unauthorized disclosure in>the media of Ms. Wilson’s >employment relationship with>the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. >Wilson was a COVERT CIA >employee …”
Ah, but not a covert CIA OPERATIVE. Thankyou for proving my point.
LOL
Bill, what’s that lather your’e wearing have to do with I. Lewis Libby’s conviction, by a jury of his peers. of the FELONIES of (1) Perjury, and (2) Obstruction of Justice.
???
LOL, my that is indeed a very impressive and pretty red herring you have there, Mr. Gamelson.
LOL
>The CIA says she was covert>and deserved protection under>the law.
Deserved, not required. Thankyou.
jebus
clinton clinton that is all you repukes have isn’t it
Clinton was found NOT guilty of the crimes and Scooter was found GUILTY that is the difference
Prediction: Mr. Gamelson will argue indirectly that we Americans accept LESS common wisdom in our federal governance, in order to preserve the presidency of Augustus Stupidus.
Deserved, not required. Thankyou.Posted by: Bill Gamelson | July 07, 2007 at 06:57 PM
BINGO!
Yes I do have a problem with Scooter Libby being sentenced to prison when Sandy Berger was given a slap on the wrist.
Especially when Scooter Libby was not convicted of leaking the name of Velerie Plame. He was never convicted of that and that’s what the trial was all about.
Perjury and obstruction of justice? Then why isn’t your hero Mr. Clinton in prison?
LOL
I too love the smell of red herring in the morning.
Mr. Libby is a lawyer, sir. As such he full well knew the consequences of lying under oath.
Jaysus, these guys.
>Clinton was found NOT guilty>of the crimes and Scooter>was found GUILTY that is the >difference
You’re ghoing to sit there in front of your computer and tell me Clinton did not commit perjury and obstuction of justice? BWAAAHAHAHAHAA!!
>Mr. Libby is a lawyer, sir.>As such he full well knew>the consequences of lying>under oath.
Nobody ever proved that he liedabout anything, sir.
LOL
The Clenis defense. I guess they never figure it gets old.
LOL
>Deserved, not required.>Thankyou.>Posted by: Bill Gamelson>| July 07, 2007 at 06:57 PM
>BINGO!
I think I deserve a million dollars. Is anyone required to give it to me?
Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury, sir.
It’s a felony.
actually, I don’t give a flying flip what Clinton did, it is not relevent and it did not endanger thousands of lives
burger is just a smoke screen to what your boys are doing to this nation on a daily basis.
fact: scooter or his wifey was gonna sing and that is the ONLY reason bushy boy did what he did and created MORE CRIMES for this administration. History will judge Bush as being the most horrific president this nation has ever had…if there is anything left when he leaves
BillAsk your Republican friends why! Republicans are responsible for the Libby conviction and in part the Clinton acquittalkinda hurts. huh
Looks like Paul F. Rosell switched to ‘Bill Gamelson’.
Bill Gamelson = ‘When fact is fiction, and delusions reality…’
>Mr. Libby was convicted of >perjury, sir.
>It’s a felony.
All because he said something off the top of his head that wasn’t true. Nobody ever proved that he intended to make a false statement.
However, Sandy Berger intended to smuggle classified documents. That is a serious felony. He was given a slap on the wrist. Is that what you call justice?
you know, I didn’t used to be so partisan…up until 2000. NOW I am so pizzed at them if at all possible, I will not do business if they are a bush apologetic…
and…I voted for the azzholes daddy…
dimson has offically killed the repuke party
actually, I don’t give aflying flip what Clintondid
I rest my case.
All because he said something off the top of his head that wasn’t true.Posted by: Bill Gamelson | July 07, 2007 at 07:11 PM
LOL
when they can not defend their ignorant president with true facts they bring up Clinton.
that is when you know they got nothing but insist still that bushy boy is good. bwhahaha
oh bill, you cut and paste like a baby…if you are going to use my words, use them all…you left out the part where Clinton did not ENDANGER 1000 OF LIVES
but we are all on to your repuke games and we see past the smoke
Mr. Gamelson, the dealer in fine herrings, all of which so far have been red. You can find him down at the (all) wet market.
LOL
one more thing, Clinton has not been president for 6 years and you still continue to vilify him, guess those years of peace and prosperity left you upset no?
especially since the nation is now in the shit hole it is in
More coverup from this the most corrupt administration in the history of the USA
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/07/breaking-white-hous...
BREAKING: White House To Block Testimony Of Former Rove AideEarly last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former Karl Rove aide and former Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs, Sara Taylor, for her involvement in the “unprecedented firings of several prosecutors and politicization within the Department of Justice.” Taylor — despite White House refusals to surrender documents related to her subpoena — agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee as required on July 11, 2007.
Today, however, Taylor’s attorney W. Neil Eggleston, delivered a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) explaining that Taylor expects that the White House will attempt to block her testimony, citing executive privilege:
this administration and the repukes are so screwed, they are now wishing attacks on american soil so they can keep leadership. Some party
You know, I’ve talked to all three of the major candidates, that I think will be the major candidates, and that’s Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. I think those will be the three major candidates when we head into the final analysis. And I think all of them understand the issue very, very well, they understand particularly the importance of Iran, and confronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute lynchpin for our success in that region, and I think they are committed to that. And while it may not be a popular thing to talk about right now, and I know public sentiment is against it, they understand the importance of the national security of this country, and they also understand that between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view, and part of it will be the education that these three men will be imparting on the American public during the course of this campaign.”http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?Con...
“In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country. ‘At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on (Sept. 11, 2001),’ Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, ‘and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country’.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need...
yea, didn’t think you could defend that
you repukes all make me sick
Chas
The CIA has no more auhtority to declare that a law has been broken than the FDA.
The opinion of ANY CIA staff member doesnt mean a darn thing.
When the CIA says that it can hold prisoners off shore, do waterboarding to get information, not be subject to due process, etc. you liberals go NUTS.
The CIA has NO legal authority to interpret the law or bring charges, period.
Their opinion doesnt count. No Jury, No Judge, No prosecutor has claimed that Plame was “outed” at any time.
Two broken links and one person’s statement.
leave calls that proof of something?
oy Econ101 that was so weak I started laughing
keep trying buddy, you will never get it
why don’t you go hunting with Cheney…or better yet…enlist and go fight them in Iraq
oh repuke
they are not broken
one was from man on dog ricky santorum
the other was from Milligan in Arkansas
But yet the Republicans convicted him anyways. Republicans suck
The requested URL /news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need… was not found on this server.
e page you requested cannot be found. The page you requested cannot be found.We are sorry for the inconvenience.
Please visit Townhall.com’s homepage for a full listing of what’s online
Appears to be broken to me.
was that your piont econ
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=bd02aa0e-7953-414b-89ff-64db473685bc
funny I get it…
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html
The CIA does not have the legal authority to interpret the law in this country.In fact, the CIA is not even supposed to “investigate” or “spy” in this country.The opinion of the CIA on the legal status of Plame means nothing.No court in the entire country agrees with the idea that Valerie Plame deserved any special protection.Joe Wilson, Plames husband, sure didnt do much to protect Plame. Wilson lied in public about Iraq, knowing it would make him, and his family, lightening rods.Valerie Toensing, the woman who WROTE the law in question, says that Plame was NOT covered by the law Toensing wrote.Not a court in the land disagrees with Toensing.
“The CIA has no more auhtority to declare that a law has been broken than the FDA.
The opinion of ANY CIA staff member doesnt mean a darn thing.
When the CIA says that it can hold prisoners off shore, do waterboarding to get information, not be subject to due process, etc. you liberals go NUTS.
The CIA has NO legal authority to interpret the law or bring charges, period.
Their opinion doesnt count. No Jury, No Judge, No prosecutor has claimed that Plame was “outed” at any time.”Posted by: Econ101 | July 07, 2007 at 07:49 PM********************************************
Again, note the pattern.
Econ101 advises Americans to accept LESS common wisdom in order to support the administration (the CIA’s opinion doesn’t count when it comes to national security).
No wonder most Americans think these guys are taking our counrty down the drain!
I suspect this Bill is a poster from the old kansas.com board who posted under bgamelson. Trust me, s/he will argue for the sake of arguing, never make any sense but will offer excuses and defense of bushco until thinking humans wish they could tie her/his mouth closed just to stop the endless nonsense.
I would recommend the “walk on by” strategy from the very beginning.
S/he doesn’t even bring a “B” game to the discussion.
Three Solid Sources: Valerie Wilson Was a Covert Agent When Team Cheney Outed HerPosted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 7, 2007, 12:00 pm
snip//
Here are three solid sources that make it clear that Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent in July 2003:
1. In a court filing in May, special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated Wilson was covert:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert” when her name became public in July 2003.
If Fitzgerald submitted false documents to the court, we can assume the jackals on the right would have found this out by now and his head would be on a pike.
2. Valerie Wilson’s sworn testimony before the Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives:VIDEO at link~
* ThinkProgress also has video of Wilson’s testimony.
I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.
Same as above. Wilson would be facing prison right now for lying under oath, if Republicans had evidence that this statement was false.
3. The CIA has said Wilson was covert — twice:
At the Oversight hearing in March, Chairman Henry Waxman, D-West Hollywood, read a statement that had been approved by the head of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, a Bush appointee:
“During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.”
Two months after she was outed, the CIA described Wilson as being an “undercover operative” in a letter to the Dept. of Justice:
On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, asserting that Plame’s status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requesting a federal investigation. Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violation.
Leaving IIPA aside, the Bush officials who publicized Wilson’s name clearly violated the terms of their high level security clearances, the penalties for which include losing the clearance. But both Armitage and Libby kept their clearances until they resigned. Rove still has his.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07/07/three-solid-sources-valerie-wilson-was-covert
I see that lindainks has promoted herself to Blog Monitor and door keeper.
===============================
A whatever post leave. It addresses nothing about who did the outing and under what circumstances.
Perhaps this is the reason the CIA director resigned, he knew he did an end run around his boss, the President of the U.S. and figured it was time to hightail it out of town.
awesome editorial…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/galloway/story/17599.html
What happened to the George Bush who insisted on honest government?By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers
Why is it that the Bush administration, in its dying throes, looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government? A poorly organized and run crime ring, truly, but a crime ring nonetheless.
Why do I keep remembering the George Bush that I actually once voted for when he first ran for president — the one who talked of bringing in an administration that would look more like the face of America and of giving us a government whose appointees would be honest, upright, fair and moral.
Yes, that’s the one. What happened to him? Where did that George Bush go? When did he go over to The Dark Side? What enticements did Vice President Darth Cheney offer him? Was it the vision of unlimited, unchecked power over the world?
How can it be that this man from Texas presides over a White House that shelters and provides cover for men like Karl Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who clearly believe that the laws of our country are only meant to be imposed on lesser beings, the man in the street?
Remember the George Bush who declared that anyone who violated the law and participated in the leaking of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame would be fired on the spot?
What about Karl Rove who works beside President Bush and is his Mr. Fixit and Mr. Fix Them? Was it just my imagination or did I not hear sworn testimony and see documents indicating that he was up to his pudgy little neck in the whole deal?
like I said… All repukes are ignorant of the facts even when they bite them on the ass
all they can do is deflate, blame others and change the subject
repukesareworthlessreally
Leave–
Thanks for that article.
I can’t figure out why The Eagle used to run Galloway when they were owned by Knight-Ridder, but now that they are owned by McClatsky WHOM Galloway writes for, they won’t print him.
Too liberal, no doubt.
If anyone really committed the “crime” of “outing” Plame, don’t you think someone would have been charged?
However, there are several elements to that legal case that had to be met.
None of those elements could be met.
Plame was careless about her identity.
Wilson was careless about Plame’s identity.
The CIA was careless about Plame’s identity.
Plame drove a car, registered in her name, to the CIA building every day, and parked in a space with Plame’s name on it.
The protective law that Plame claims applied to her, did not apply to her, based on testimony from Valerie Toensing, the woman who wrote that law.
And a piece of logic:
The Eagle has printed that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
Why can’t the Eagle be charged with a crime?
Very simple:
You can only be “outed” ONCE, and Plame was OUT long before Novak wrote his column!
Econ–
Let’s assume you’re right.
So . . . why did Libby lie and obstruct justice if there were no reason to?
Capn
That is the million dollar question that I cant answer.
I do not understand Libby at all
It IS true however that Bush and Company LIE just to keep in practice.
For instance, Bush said that when he saw the first 9-11 jet hit the WTC tower, he said “that’s one bad pilot.”
EXCEPT he couldn’t have seen the plane hit the tower. He was on-route to talk to a bunch of kids. Later, he was told about the second jetliner hitting the second tower.
He couldn’t have SEEN either one.
No reason to lie but Bush can’t help himself . . .
Econ
give it up
your side lost that arguement and I have proven it many times this evening
She was COVERT
the bush admin are just one f@%up criminal act after another
leaveYou have “proven” nothing other than your own stubborness.
Plame was NOT covered by the law that triggered this investigation in the first place.
yea, even tho we have showed you over and over you still have your head up bush’s azz…more power to ya
go enlist
I am going to bed
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”
That was a public statement, not one made to a grand jury, fool.If the no underlying crime argument was to be equally applied, then what was Clinton’s underlying crime?Of course the above would lean on the principle of “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”, and we know that doesn’t apply when talking to Republicans.
Bush’s former AG aide needn’t worry, even if charged by congress for contemp, she can rest assured there’s a commutation and/or a pardon for protecting the monarchy, hence, is bush’s legal legacy.
jeatkinson wrote:artvandelay:
I respect your right to have an opinion, and I spent 20+ years of my life serving my country so that people could have the right to their own opinion even if I disagree with it.
Be pro-Bush if you like, but never forget that the man is a deserter from the Texas National Guard who only received an honorable discharge because of his father.
What is more, I personally saw the man do lines of drugs laid out on a bar on Richmond Drive in 1973 while I was home on leave.
In addition, to being a deserter, drunk, and a druggie, his number two man is a gutless, five deferrment individual who had too much important drinking to do to server his country during Vietnam.
And, last, but not least, the entire Bush team is a gutless group of wannabe tough guys who keep everything they have done hidden behind presidential secrecy, because they know they will all go to jail if anyone every finds out what has really been said and done behind their closed doors.
Cowards, liars, and con artists hide behind closed doors.
James E. Atkinson, US Navy (ret)
I guess leave thought it was important enough to post someone else’s word from another blog under two different topics.
Perhaps leave can’t come up with a thought of his own?
no repuke, I just thought it was important for people to SEE
and I would post it over and over and over anywhere I could for maximum exposure..
but repuke, what have you to say about it??? you can’t disupute it so that is why you are attacking me.
Suck it up repuke…your man is putrid
oh and repuke, it wasn’t from another blog, it was from the crawford newspaper by a soldier who saw bushy do this
Dispute what? That someone wrote something in a paper?
Let me think on that for a while.
Okay done.
Sorry, nothing here to see.
Move on folks.
Only a couple of thoughts here, and this will NOT be in response to the endless silliness usually posted.
One. It’s the president’s power to commute or pardon as he likes. Get over it. You can disagree with it if you like, but there’s nothing illegal about doing so. He’s not the first president to pardon or commute members of his administration, and he won’t be the last.
Two. The premise of this post is pure BS. Any judge who gets such a motion should respond simply:
“Libby’s commutation was based on the President’s pardon powers. It has no bearing or implication on the sentencing guidelines whatsoever. Motion denied.”
Next case. It’ll take all of 30 seconds to dispose of that crap.
The man makes sense.
When we give somebody the right to commute or pardon, we can’t exactly complain when they do it.
Clearly, what needs to happen is for Congress to revoke the pardon for the Executive.
What was no doubt intended as a check against an egregiously bad judical judgement has become a political plum for rewarding cronies.
Whatever good the pardon was supposed to allow has been far outweighed by the great deal of bad when used by modern presidents.
Perhaps, Capn, but Congress can’t revoke this power. It’s a constitutional power; only constitutional amendment can change this presidential prerogative.
Most governors have similar powers in their states; it’s historically been an executive power. I doubt very much it will be changed. Occasionally, it gets abused; that is no reason to eliminate it altogether. The vast majority of pardons fit very much the intent you outlined, this one, or President Clinton’s last minute pardons, or previous presidents ad infinitum notwithstanding.
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
Huh, and Scooter lied… Huh….
GMC has it right. The pardon and commutation power of the executive, be it federal or state, will continue unchanged. I see no overwhelming push to harness the same, notwithstanding the lack of popularity of recent executives’ use thereof.
He’s also quite correct on how a trial judge should/will handle a “Libby motion”. Denied. Next case.
Yeah, that was bad, Sollie.
And H. W. Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch, a convicted terrorist who took down a Cuban airliner full of people.
OK, so for 2 Bushes, two pardons. Clinton? this was just 16 of his many. So the scoreboard isn’t looking so hot.
Libby lied. What harm did that REALLY do as opposed to the other pardons.
The big message, get the F over it. No one died because of this.
Bringing up the despicable acts of past presidents DOES NOT make those of this president less despicable. Isn’t he the guy who was bringing all things moral and just and legal and ethical to OUR country’s White House?
So all he and his loyal subjects have are the “he-did-it-too” defense of his own misconduct.
Look at the facts Linda. All the Bush bashers want to jump in at every chance, but they don’t want any of THEIR candidates to be in the same spotlight.
Apples to apples Linda.
Sol says, “No one died because of this.”
Since this case goes to the reasons for starting an unnecessary war of choice maybe you would tell us again how many lives have been lost in bush’s war.
Because of Libby’s lies — the ones he was found guilty of and sentenced for — we will never know the truth. He obstructed justice! How thick are the skulls of those who don’t/won’t/can’t understand this?
Sol,
I personally feel President Clinton abused the pardon process. I do not defend his pardons! And his despicable acts do not make bush’s less despicable.
Actually, Sol, no one knows how many people died when BushCo. outed Plame.
She worked for a front company “Brewster-Jennings” overseas. It tried to turn terrorists into double agents to unearth connections to WMD’s.
Anyone with ties to that company now has been outed as well.
I wouldn’t not be at all surprised to learn years from now of agents who were cultivated by the CIA at much cost and time who are now exposed.
It isn’t at all unlikely that these agents have been liquidated by the terror organizations that they belonged to when it was discovered that Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front.
Good points, Linda.
What the Bush-backers need to get the F over is Clinton, who has been out of office for six years.
You guys are going WAAAY overboard. Libby lied about what, when and who he learned something from. How exactly does that relate to invading Iraq???
If y’all will jump off the ‘talking head bandwagon’ long enough to take a breath you will begin to see that the crime was the outing of Plame (?). Why hasn’t that crime been prosecuted? THAT was the crime that counted.
When the investigators came up dry, they had to have SOMEONE to trot thru the courts. Do y’all seriously think the outing of Plame (?) was vindicated by convicting Libby? Do you really believe that?
Good points, Linda.
What the Bush-backers need to get the F over is Clinton, who has been out of office for six years.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 09, 2007 at 09:34 AM
That still doesn’t relieve Clinton of what he did. When you get all in a froth over Libby, it stands EVERY reason to examine what this president did over what the last president did.
And Cap’n, exactly how long has DADDY Bush been out of office, but no complaints about that reference right? Nope, just about Clinton.
It is pathetic to see so many liberals and republicans led by their noses by their parties.
I know you are intelligent and well-informed enough to have read all that is behind this case. Since that is the case, I must conclude your opinions are yours and nothing I could share would change those. I’m fine with my understandings, and sure you feel fine with yours. Knocking my head against brick walls isn’t in today’s schedule.