Bush commutes Scooter Libby

[kapkomet]

Could you tell me exactly where in a court of law Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury and had his sentence commuted?

If he could have been tried in a COURT OF LAW, he would have been convicted. But since it was a political process and turned into an impeachment trial, of course he wasn't "convicted", but he later admitted lying under oath, which is a felony. But of course, that depends on your definition of what "is" is. Whatever... let's not rehash this crap again.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Scooter's problem was he was too honest. All he had to do was say he didn't remember the details. What he went to testify about was eventually proven false (that he was the leaker). So, he got nailed on something else unrelated that was inconsistent in his testimony.

 

But again, whatever. You all smell blood, you want blood, so have at it.

[southsider2k5]

Its too bad Bush had to stoop to Clinton's level. Every chance he has had to stay above the game, he has failed. Libby should have served his time, just like Rich and most of the Clinton administration should have. A crime is a crime, is a crime.

[Balance]

Kap- I am extremely disappointed in you, and in the rest of the Fox News junkies who somehow find themselves capable of thinking the way you do.

 

That's the only polite thing I can say.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Balance

[FlaSoxxJim]

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton believes that President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison term may also wipe out his two-year probation. “Strictly interpreted, the statute authorizing probation indicates that supervised release ’should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment,’” Walton wrote.

[kapkomet]

Kap- I am extremely disappointed in you, and in the rest of the Fox News junkies who somehow find themselves capable of thinking the way you do.

 

That's the only polite thing I can say.

LMAO.

 

I have only watched Fox News about 30 minutes in my lifetime. I'm not kidding. I never watch it. Contrary to some people's opinion, it is possible to not believe every single talking point the New York Times (and therefore by extention, AP, Reuters, etc), ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR spot out. I personally think that O'Rielly is a tool. But I'm just fodder for the "neo-con right wingists".

 

But you know, everything BushCo is evil, and everything the Dems do is s*** rose smelled poop, so I guess it doesn't matter in the scheme of things, now does it?

[Mplssoxfan]

OK, Kap. What's your argument here? Libby was found guilty of five felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice by a jury of his peers in Federal Court, and sentenced within guidelines by a Judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Some of the President's reasons for his commutation are inane. Good, solid citizens get convicted of first offenses all the time, many for crimes much less serious than what Libby was charged with, yet they haven't had their jail time commuted.

 

Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. Why did the prosecutor agree to the deal? I suspect that he figured he didn't have the evidence to convict of Berger of anything else. The Judge could have sentenced Berger to a year in prison, but she didn't. She did increase his fine from $10K to $50K. Along with the probation, community service and loss of security clearance, Berger got stiffer punishment for a misdemeanor than Libby got for five felonies.

 

Why are you surprised that people in the Democratic party are upset by the commutation? Do you have a materially better argument than, "It's always different"?

[StrangeSox]

Its too bad Bush had to stoop to Clinton's level. Every chance he has had to stay above the game, he has failed. Libby should have served his time, just like Rich and most of the Clinton administration should have. A crime is a crime, is a crime.

 

Clinton's level? Bush Sr. pardoned all of the Iran-Contra guys. Ford pardoned Nixon.

[Soxy]

Why are you surprised that people in the Democratic party are upset by the commutation? Do you have a materially better argument than, "It's always different"?

Nope. Why make a reasoned argument when you can just scream hyberboles at people who disagree?

[The Ginger Kid]

*yawn*

Paris Hilton serves more time than Scooter Libby. What a country.

 

As governor of Texas, Bush oversaw 152 executions. Not once did he find the sentence "too harsh."

[FlaSoxxJim]

As governor of Texas, Bush oversaw 152 executions. Not once did he find the sentence "too harsh."

 

Even when the defendants were mentally handicapped, which, btw, was the sort of important fact that was often conveniently kept from Texas jurors during George's time as governor.

 

As was any mention of religious conversion on death row, e.g., Karla Faye Tucker. It was a lot easier for Bush to smirk and mock somebody's petition for a stay of execution (from the Tucker Carlson interview: "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me.") than to actually consider that anybody but he could experience religious awakening and redemption worthy of forgiveness or mercy.

 

A class act all around, that Mr. Bush.

Edited July 4, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

Clinton's level? Bush Sr. pardoned all of the Iran-Contra guys. Ford pardoned Nixon.

 

How about bribery for a pardon? I guess that would make Bush not quite at Clinton's level if you want to be technical about it then... Bush just commuted him to keep him quiet, and not a full pardon for cash, details....

 

OK, Kap. What's your argument here? Libby was found guilty of five felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice by a jury of his peers in Federal Court, and sentenced within guidelines by a Judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Some of the President's reasons for his commutation are inane. Good, solid citizens get convicted of first offenses all the time, many for crimes much less serious than what Libby was charged with, yet they haven't had their jail time commuted.

 

Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. Why did the prosecutor agree to the deal? I suspect that he figured he didn't have the evidence to convict of Berger of anything else. The Judge could have sentenced Berger to a year in prison, but she didn't. She did increase his fine from $10K to $50K. Along with the probation, community service and loss of security clearance, Berger got stiffer punishment for a misdemeanor than Libby got for five felonies.

 

Why are you surprised that people in the Democratic party are upset by the commutation? Do you have a materially better argument than, "It's always different"?

 

Well the thing that made the Berger prosecution a little harder was that most of the evidence was destroyed by Sandy, against Federal law.

[kapkomet]

Nope. Why make a reasoned argument when you can just scream hyberboles at people who disagree?

You know what? If you took the time to read beyond some of the "hyperbole", there actually is some substance behind what I'm saying in this case.

 

Since it's defending anyone with an ® behind their name, it's always "hyperbole". Yes, the first sentance most of the time is that, because most of the time, the hypocracy offered by the left screams the same hyperbole that I'm throwing out.

 

Mplssoxfan, yes... Berger did destroy the same evidence that would have convicted him. It's kind of hard to prosecute that, but then again, since he's a Democratic Angel protecting his former bosses, it's all ok. Since Berger destroyed the only thing that could convict him, he got a slap on the wrist based on circumstance.

 

As far as the "Paris Hilton" thing, hah. That's funny.

 

Then you all keep going back to the "as governor of Texas" stuff... please. It's a lot different. I would argue that Bush is now claiming executive priviledge on things that he shouldn't be, only because it's going to end up in the same s*** that "caught" Scooter Libby. They are LOOKING for a perjury trap on anyone they can get it on with this administration in any way, shape or form. Beyond that, it's funny how you all simply keep ignoring the fact that he wasn't even the leaker in the case, and he wasn't ever convicted of that. That's what you all wanted.

 

He got convicted on the same thing Bill Clinton should have, and would have, in a court. However, because it was Congress in an impeachment setting, of course he didn't get "convicted". Truthfully, that whole thing was crap - and this whole thing is crap. He perjured himself on something that wasn't even about what he was brought in for questioning about, much like Clinton. That's the only reason I bring it up.

 

Did Libby break the law? Absolutely. Should he get punished? Yep. The only reason that you all are upset is because as I said in another post is you want undeniable blood on the current administration, and you didn't get it. Now, you all think he's simply covering everything up - what is there to cover up? *Yawn* Bush lied, people died. *Yawn* Am I making light of people's sacrifice? Nope. But with what was on the table at the time, he went with it, and I don't think for a minute it was fabricated. But that's just too simple for everyone who hates this man's guts anyway.

[Soxy]

Kap, even if you make make valid points cloaked in the rhetoric you use, no one will take you seriously or try to have an intelligent thought out debate with you.

 

Do both sides do it? Yep. But if you take the tactics that you're always complaining about and calling horrible--why should anyone take you seriously? You're smarter than the rhetoric you use in here.

[kapkomet]

Kap, even if you make make valid points cloaked in the rhetoric you use, no one will take you seriously or try to have an intelligent thought out debate with you.

 

Do both sides do it? Yep. But if you take the tactics that you're always complaining about and calling horrible--why should anyone take you seriously? You're smarter than the rhetoric you use in here.

Well, most of the time, I'm providing the "anti-hyperbole" of the same things I see in the press from Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, et. al. You know my favorite Democrat? Dennis Kusenich (sp.) - you know why? Because this guy is a straight shooter, and he has NEVER waivered from those views. I can at least respect that.

 

To your main point above, yes I understand what you're getting at.

[GoSox05]

I think he should be in jail just cause the guys nickname is "Scooter". What the hell is that?

 

 

That and he's rich. I mean rich people don't go to jail. DUH!

[Rex Kickass]

Then you all keep going back to the "as governor of Texas" stuff... please. It's a lot different.

 

Of course it is. It's ALWAYS different.

 

But it's not. As Governor, Bush had the power to commute sentences, and had the power to pardon people. He chose not too. Not those with religious conversions, not even the mentally unfit.

 

 

I would argue that Bush is now claiming executive priviledge on things that he shouldn't be, only because it's going to end up in the same s*** that "caught" Scooter Libby. They are LOOKING for a perjury trap on anyone they can get it on with this administration in any way, shape or form. Beyond that, it's funny how you all simply keep ignoring the fact that he wasn't even the leaker in the case, and he wasn't ever convicted of that. That's what you all wanted.

 

He wasn't the first leaker. He did confirm the leak's accuracy though - so he was involved. He did so at the direction of the Vice President. He was involved. The President said anyone involved was to be fired. The investigation seems to have reasonably concluded that the other people involved in the leak were Richard Armitage (resigned), Karl Rove (still working) and Dick Cheney (still working). The only administration official to be held accountable was Scooter. And not by his own administration.

 

He got convicted on the same thing Bill Clinton should have, and would have, in a court. However, because it was Congress in an impeachment setting, of course he didn't get "convicted". Truthfully, that whole thing was crap - and this whole thing is crap. He perjured himself on something that wasn't even about what he was brought in for questioning about, much like Clinton. That's the only reason I bring it up.

 

You don't get five federal felony counts if the perjury wasn't directly related to the investigation. You might get one, and you certainly don't get an obstruction of justice charge.

 

But hey, why take my word for it, why don't we look at the statement Prosecutor Fitzgerald made on the day of indictment. Taken from the extremely left wing Department of Justice website (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf)

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story. What he told the FBI is the essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to a reporter, Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA. And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Mathew Cooper of Time Magazine and reporter Judith Miller of The New Times. And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on, on July 12th of 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true. And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to reporters, he made clear that he did not know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and in fact he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear of that.

 

Except, government records show that he spoke with other administration officials about the information on three separate occasions before he learned the information for the first time. But wait there's more.

 

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters. And the account he gave to the FBI and the Grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week on July 12th. Now, what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters, that other reporters were saying this and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true and that in fact Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife. And in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th 2003 -- on three occasions with Judith Miller of The New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine.

The first occasion on which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online on The New Republic, which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson. After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003. And during that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson and in the conversation that was in background as a senior administration official -- and Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer. During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA. And then finally, again, on July 12th.

 

So he "forgot" that he talked with several administration officials about Joe Wilson's wife and forgot that he had four conversations with reporters in June and July about Joe Wilson's wife. Before the leak was published. Which means he's only not the leaker because someone else spouted it off first. But I'm sure that wouldn't be germaine at all to the investigation.

[FlaSoxxJim]

facts are stoopid things.

[Balta1701]

You don't get five federal felony counts if the perjury wasn't directly related to the investigation. You might get one, and you certainly don't get an obstruction of justice charge.

IIRC, just a small note, I believe Mr. Libby was charged on 5 counts, and the Jury only convicted him on 4.

[Mplssoxfan]

IIRC, just a small note, I believe Mr. Libby was charged on 5 counts, and the Jury only convicted him on 4.

True, my bad.

[Mplssoxfan]

Mplssoxfan, yes... Berger did destroy the same evidence that would have convicted him. It's kind of hard to prosecute that, but then again, since he's a Democratic Angel protecting his former bosses, it's all ok. Since Berger destroyed the only thing that could convict him, he got a slap on the wrist based on circumstance.

 

Berger allegedly destroyed documents. I know, I know, call me naive, but I like to have proof that things happened, not just partisan reports published just before one party loses the ability to publish.

 

And, if Berger did indeed destroy documents, it is certainly not ok, at least not in my mind. Just as it's not ok that Libby's jail time got commuted. It's not ok, but it is expected.

[Rex Kickass]

Berger admitted to destroying copies of documents he made illegally. All original documents he viewed are accounted for IIRC.

[jackie hayes]

Like I said earlier... if a person is prosecuted for a crime commited while part of the executive branch of government, the executive power to pardon or commute should be nullified. That would seem to be ideal.

Remember, Cheney is not part of the executive branch. Scooter was a subordinate to Cheney. Therefore, Scooter was not part of the executive branch. Problem solved.

[StrangeSox]

Remember, Cheney is not part of the executive branch. Scooter was a subordinate to Cheney. Therefore, Scooter was not part of the executive branch. Problem solved.

 

Except for when he wants to claim executive privilege. Then he is.

 

This administration rivals Nixon's in contempt for the law.

[EvilMonkey]

Except for when he wants to claim executive privilege. Then he is.

 

This administration rivals Nixon's in contempt for the law.

And the liberals on this board rival my 8 year old for b****ing and whining about the eeevil Chimpy McBus***ler. He will be gone in less than 2 years, he can't get re-elected, get on with your lives. Both sides f*** up, both sides have nothing but contempt for the voters and both sides suck.

[NorthSideSox72]

And the liberals on this board rival my 8 year old for b****ing and whining about the eeevil Chimpy McBus***ler. He will be gone in less than 2 years, he can't get re-elected, get on with your lives. Both sides f*** up, both sides have nothing but contempt for the voters and both sides suck.

Well, I agree that politicians in general tend to suck. That said, this administration is particularly sucky, regardless of party. History may show it differently down the line, but as of now, this looks like the worst Presidency of my lifetime and then some.