posted
I don't mind the special circumstances surrounding Libby's sentence. I do wish that this would open up a public discussion about partial justice, with an eye towards treating every inmate in the Prison system and held in Guantanamo with the same amount of care and concern as a friend of the President.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it was despicable, but I am against it in a fairly big way, at least as the pardon/commuting power is used now.
If we want to turn the executive pardon power into a real method of applying discretion with an eye toward smoothing some of the harsh decisions of our criminal justice system, I might (OK, would) quibble with this particular exercise of the pardoning power but would not condemn the concept too harshly.
However, we don't have that. We have a pardon system that is aggressively NOT used in such a manner. There are probably a couple hundred cases more deserving of special executive review (maybe not a pardon or commutation, but consideration for one or both). So I think this sucks.
I, too, wish this would open up a public discussion about our justice system - one that underlies the necessity for executive review of certain cases.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah... "good" probably wasn't the right word in the moral sense of it all.
I've been reading more, and I guess since Bush was under such intense pressure to actually pardon the slimeball, it isn't as bad as it could have been. We've known for quite a while now that Bush has loyalists and syncophants surrounding him rather than actual advisors and I guess this is just another demonstration of the fact.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what Bush's real reasons for commuting the sentence were. If they were "good" reasons I wouldn't consider the act immoral, even if I think the factual findings underlying those reasons are in error. If they're based on who Libby is, then I think it immoral. If it's both, I don't know what I think.
I'm skeptical they were good reasons, but I don't know for sure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this on CNN too, and figured there'd be a thread about it pretty quick. Could someone (read as: Dagonee?) explain the practical difference between pardoning him and commuting his sentence? Does commuting mean he is still considered guilty (with possibility of appeal) but just not serving the punishment?
posted
From memory, so minor errors possible, in approximate order of the "power" of the act:
Amnesty removes all legal remembrance of an offense - it's as if it never happened.
Pardon forgives a crime - it removes all legal burdens associated with it, but does not make it as if it never happened. The Supreme Court has held that accepting a pardon includes admitting guilt (something Libby has never done, by the way).
Commuting reduces the term of imprisonment (even eliminating it) without removing other legal burdens of the conviction. It's more often used to end a sentence already being served early.
Respite means delaying a sentence without reducing it.
Remissions of fines means forgiving some or all of a fine.
Essentially, the President is empowered to remove all or some of the effects of any federal conviction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how this helps the President at all. Consider this: for a little while now, there's been a movement to secure pardons for two border patrol agents. I really don't know enough about that case to take a position on it, but their supporters can't be too happy today. I'm not sure that'll matter, though, because he's been losing friends on that issue all year and he's not up for election anyway.
quote:The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
...
If he really wanted to let the appeals process run he could have granted respite.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, I must be cynical. I just assumed that no one seriously expected Libby to serve time.
Here I thought I was cynical by thinking he would serve a few months and then be pardoned.
I think granting a respite would have been proper for the reasons President Bush explained. But he didn't so it isn't.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It responds to the demands of many of his supporters, and aggravates (for the most part) only the people who were already against him.
And add me to the cynical list. I never expected him to spend an hour behind bars. Now it's only a guessing game to see which award Libby will be given.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think the commution was held until after 6 so that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report couldn't talk about it tonight?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It read: "We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative. "We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as 'excessive.' The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
"Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.”
posted
Oh, I can guarantee you they'll cover it tomorrow. If they had wanted to blunt coverage of it (of any sort, real news or fake news), the Bush Administration would have announced the commution on Friday.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He still has a $250,000 fine to pay, 4 years on parole, and a black mark on his permanent record, so its still not amnesty, but.......
Most of those pushing for the President to do this are the same ones arguing about the wrongness of "Amnesty" for illegal aliens, even though the "amnesty" that was in the last immigration bill still consisted of hefty fees/fines to pay and a lot longer parole time.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm extremely displeased by this. It makes me about as angry as the original get-out-jail-free that Paris Hilton received (later revoked).
This county has among the highest (if not the highest) incarceration rates per capita in the world. Not just the Western World...the entire world.
We send people to jail for all sorts of things, all the time. And, if we believe the prosecutor in this case, Libby got a sentence that was pretty much on par with what others in that situation have received.
George W. Bush continues to act in ways that convince me he will be judged as among the worst Presidents in our history. I consider him the worst in my lifetime.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm convinced. I haven't been prepared to rate him as 'scumbag' at all, but this was done out there right in the open, so he's gone from 'incompetent and questionable' to 'scumbag' in my book.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
I have to say, that's some slick spin language, there. Bush states that the prison sentence is "excessive" (rather than "unnecessary" or "unjustified"). He then says that he's commuting "the portion of" the sentence that required 30 months of prison time, suggesting the false implication that Libby's sentence includes additional prison time beyond the 30 months, which he would still have to serve. It's an underhanded attack on the jury for overzealousness, and allows Bush retain a modicum of impartiality in the public eye, while underscoring the Administration's "Sure, Libby was convicted, but the punishment is just excessive!" talking point. Pretty sneaky, all in all.
Not that I really think it'll help in this case... I suspect that no amount of spin will assauge the folks who find this commutation repugnant, and those who didn't care about the issue in the first place will continue not to care.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
I totally reject the "respect the jury's verdict" spin. What a crock. "I respect the jury's verdict, finding him guilty of perjury...I just think the penalty for such a crime should be a near-meaningless fine."
The likely-disbarrment doesn't count, and nor does the probation, in my opinion. Total slaps on the wrist on the probation side, and the disbarrment isn't a matter for this sentence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a lovely post all set up for this, but the battery on my laptop is dead, and the power cord is loose, so one shimmy in the wrong direction and it shuts down. If only batteries weren’t so ridiculously expensive for this thing…
Anyway, the point I made before was, what doe Bush really have to lose? Well first of all, did anyone really expect Bush to let this go based on a matter of the ‘right thing to do?’ He could have let the appeals process go through, but frankly, unless things ended his way, I don’t think anyone really expected him to let the decision stand, he was just hoping the courts would remove him from the decision entirely by doing it for him. But that didn’t work so duh, Bush likes to get his way, so he does it.
The only thing that generally stops politicians from doing stuff like that these days is what it will cost them in political currency, and Bush doesn’t have any left in the bank. Unless he nukes Oklahoma or something equally disastrous, I don’t think he’ll really let dissatisfaction stop him from doing much of anything for the next year. And really what does he have to lose? His job approval rating is less than 30%, and regardless of what he does now, Republicans in Congress and gubernatorial races in 2008 are going to get smoked en masse. I’m willing to wager Republicans lose two or three governorships, four or five Senate seats, and 10-15 House seats. Low opinion of the party combined with bad luck on the timing of which seats are up for reelection strongly favors a Democratic net gain.
The country is fed up with the government, both Bush and Congress have horrible approval ratings, but as much as the people think that the Democrats are screwing up, opinion polls show overwhelmingly that they think things would be even worse if the Republicans were in control again, and that’s a slap in the face. Politically he has nothing to lose because he’s already a lame duck. His legislation can’t get any traction, even when the majority part in Congress agrees with him! His administration is in its death throes. As far as he is concerned, he might as well do what he wants now, when there really isn’t a risk for political fallout. The numbers for him can’t really get any worse, and it’s not like he has a ton of pull to get any major legislation through before the election heats up in February. The only thing he could really risk is dragging down his party with him, and I think he’s already shown he’s a bad national leader and horrible party leader, what more damage can this do to them?
I guess I’m really just not surprised, and I think the outrage will fall on deaf ears.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
Well, a death sentence can be commuted to life in prison. So I'd guess (just an uneducated guess) that it could...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
Yes - commutation can be total or partial. It can also be conditional, but I'm not sure exactly how that works.
quote:I totally reject the "respect the jury's verdict" spin. What a crock. "I respect the jury's verdict, finding him guilty of perjury...I just think the penalty for such a crime should be a near-meaningless fine."
The likely-disbarrment doesn't count, and nor does the probation, in my opinion. Total slaps on the wrist on the probation side, and the disbarrment isn't a matter for this sentence.
I don't think the jury was disrespected so much as the judge. The current sentence of probation and fine is well within what might be expected for this offense within the guidelines. Had the current sentence been given by the judge, there'd be no real case for calling it a weak sentence given existing law.
The sentencing guidelines propose ranges, and when the ranges are low enough, house arrest and probation are considered acceptable for all or part of the range. So the verdict could (and likely would have with a different judge - this guy is known as a tough on crime kind of guy) resulted in a sentence closer to this one than the 30 month prison sentence.
However, we have judges for a reason - they hear all the evidence and take it into account at trial. Bush wasn't at the trial and has an obvious conflict of interest over the most important factor that distinguishes the judge's sentence from the new one: the seriousness of the lie and the affect it had on the investigation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious (though I have no way of knwoing either way) if this action was as much about fear aout what Mr. Libby would say should he actually go to prison as it was about loyalty.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't make much sense on the fear angle. If Libby was going to talk, wouldn't they have offered him a plea deal attached to testimony on the Administration BEFORE he was to be sent to jail? Once he's in jail, I can't imagine what he would have to say. Either that or they offered him a plea deal and he turned it down, knowing that Bush would commute the sentence, which I would far more underhanded, as it strikes me as a bribe in exchange for silence.
Besides, he has years now to write the inevitable book that will come out of this whole experience, so we'll find out what really happened eventually. Either that or more whitewashing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why Libby should face a tougher sentence than Sandy Berger did. Also, why is nothing being done to Armitage?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one, Berger got a plea deal. For another, I'm amused at that particular talking point. Are conservatives really going to start saying that convicted felons should all measure their sentences against Sandy Berger?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, we could use Clinton too. He lied to a grand jury but that doesn't matter. No comments about Armitage?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* The sad thing about this conversation you want to have, DK, is that a) I can tell that you're not actually invested in it, and are just parroting talking points; b) you don't know enough about the cases to actually defend your assertions; and c) going with a "but the other guy did it!" defense is kind of weak, anyway.
If you really want me to explain why I think Armitage and Clinton (and Berger) got -- and deserved -- different treatment, fine. But what I suspect is that you're just grabbing at the first defense that fits your worldview, so I'd be wasting my breath.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am relieved. I don't want our government to be in the business of having political prisoners.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Qaz, Do you have any reason to believe that the workings of the justice system went awry here, or is that just a partisan talking point? If the former, I'd appreciate it if you could share your information. I'd be at least as upset about someone being wrongly convicted of perjury and obstructing justice due to gross injustice as I would someone in Mr. Libby's position knowingly lying to prosecutors in order to severely damage their ability to find out the truth, which is what seems to have happened with the information I have.
---
I'm one of the people who thinks it's likely that Scooter Libby's memory and integrity got a lot better at the prospect of going to jail and that he informed people in the White House of that fact (something along the lines of "Remember our deal. If I didn't beat the charges, you make sure I don't do time.").
I am not at all suprised by this. I'm a little suprised that some people are.
posted
Oh, Tom, you are so wonderfully condescending and patronizing to the point of being obnoxious. A) you can't tell that because I'm not although it is a great defense for you to use. I can't be making a valid point because this is just a 'talking point' and is therefore not valid because the almighty and all-knowing TomDavidson said so. B) The case was about who leaked the name to Novak and that was Armitage. He admitted it but was never even questioned. How can any serious investigation into who leaked her name not include Armitage? Are you seriously saying that Armitage did not need to be questioned? On second thought, nevermind. I think I have had enough of your smug and arrogant posting for one day. So please save your breath.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that your point is inherently invalid because it's a talking point. It's that I don't for a minute believe that you or any of the thousands of Freepers having the same conversation across the entire Internet actually care about this point.
It's worth noting that your reference to Clinton undermines your mention of Armitage. While "the case" was indeed about whether the government conspired to cover up the Plame leak (although NOT about finding out WHO leaked her name), Libby's own conviction was for perjury related to the cover-up; the leak itself may not have ever been prosecutable. In the same way, Clinton's own perjury judgement was obtained in a case that was "about" whether or not he sexually harassed Paula Jones.
You can legitimately complain that this, like Clinton's dealie, was a fishing expedition. But is that the point you want to be making?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The justice system went awry in that the prosecutor was investigating something when he already knew who did it; he knew it was not a crime; and he successfully prosecuted someone for misremembering the precise order in which he made some statements which were irrelevant to any actual criminal investigation. Libby's words did not damage the investigator's ability to get at the truth because the investigator knew the truth when he started the investigation and has admitted it.
Freepers are people who hang out at Free Republic. They do not bite but they are hard to keep on a leash.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Qaz, That seems like a very inaccurate summation of what occurred to me. It was established that Richard Armitage was one of the people who leaked Plame's identity and possibly the first person to do so. However, other White House officials, Karl Rove, for example, also leaked the name, seemingly independent of Richard Armitage.
The investigation found things that suggested that the Vice-President's office may have been handling the information improperly/coordinating the potentially intentional release of this information. However, their ability to investigate this fully was severely hampered by the fact that Scotter Libby made blatantly false statements.
Now, I don't know the ins and outs of the investigation or trial, but a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Scoot Libby knowingly made false statements under oath and with the intent to interfere with a federal investigation.
I've got to tell you, even if the original matter was settled (which, according to the investigators, it was not), this is still something I believe that high government officials should have the full weight of the law brought against them for.
I think perjury and intentional obstruction of justice, especially in the case of potential government abuse which damaged America's intelligence assets, are serious matters. Perhaps you disagree.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
