Slashdot Mirror
Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence
An anonymous reader notes that President Bush has decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after numerous appeals failed. Libby was convicted in March of obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. The President's action spares Libby from 30 months behind bars."
presidents generally pardon people that have already served their sentence, to clear their name, rather than people that haven't served a single day...
pardons and commutations since the Nixon pardon. And, perhaps, the Marc Rich pardon as well. My head is swimming. The President just commuted the sentence of a key insider to the executive branch, who committed felonies while on executive-branch time, and who hadn't even served a single day in jail. Further, he has a record of not commuting or pardoning offenders. From Carla Fey Tucker, the murderer he refused to pardon after she found Christ, to just about everyone else who has requested it during his presidency. But Scooter Libby, a man who alocuted his crimes before the court in order to receive a reduced sentence, has now just skated free.
This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.
Perhaps the worst part of this travesty of justice is that by doing this rather than pardoning him, this traitor still can continue to appeal, and Still will have the ability to plead the 5th in other cases related to the matter. in other words he can Cover of Bush and Cheney by pleading the 5th because he case is not pardoned. How convienant.
I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
I don't know what country you live in, but Presidents usually pardon, not on time already spent, but on political and personal obligations or gains. If a special interest group/political movement/personal agenda/political ally or potential ally is connected to a convicted person, then the President pardons them. Usually in the last days of office, but it is actually fairly common during term, you just don't hear about it in the news.
The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now, for whatever reason he sees fit, so that the political/personal loyalty or obligation is balanced with the stigma of bad press. You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can. Libby is not the worst criminal to be pardoned, and not the first to be pardoned before spending time in jail, nor will he be the last.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
'It's true the President has that kind of power'
Does he? I know the president can issue a pardon this is the first I have heard that he can selectively commute a sentence in defiance of the judicial branch.
Isn't this comparable to complete veto vs line veto?
Anarchists? If Bush and Co. were anarchists of the true definition of the word (i.e., people who want no government), we'd have balanced budgets, very little corruption, a massive reduction in the size of government, no war, etc. I don't think anarchist is the word that you are looking for. Quite the contrary, we're dealing with the near opposite of anarchism. (Disclaimer: I'm not an anarchist, but I am a strict constitutionalist who believe in limited government.)
Our nation for the past 75 years has been controlled by people who want to expand the power and influence of government at the expense of our liberties. Anything in the Constitution that limits the power of the federal government (e.g., the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) have been ignored consistently for the past 70 years. The federal government's growth has gone nearly unchecked since 1933. What we've been getting for decades is "government by the politicians, for the politicians."
I don't see any foreseeable change. All of the mainstream presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are still interested in maintaining the status quo of expanding government. More laws, more spending, more taxes, or some permutation of the three. The best that we could do is vote for the people who best maintain our Constitution, and brace ourselves.
There are a number of "who didn't see this coming" posts. Well, the political analysts didn't see it coming. The expectation was a full pardon after the election and before he left office. Instead, he let the conviction stand and gave him a "get out of jail free" card. Well, overall, I think it's worse for Scooter, seeing as how he'll still be a convicted felon, but at least this way he won't have to see the inside of a jail cell. But Bush claiming all sorts of moral superiority and treating his friends like the law doesn't apply to them is going to cost them in the election. Even the Republicans will be running on a "get the Republicans out of office" platform. We have surges that are not showing results from a war the administration knew was based off faulty inteligence. We have a leader who was on the "perjury is bad" bandwagon when it was the previous president, yet says it isn't a crime worth seeing the inside of a jail cell when it is a friend that does it to cover up what could have been treason.
It was always expected. It may even have been justified (Scooter took one for the team, so the team is helping him out), but it was expected that such decisions would wait until after the election. Maybe he's hoping that people will forget about it by then, or that his approval is so low that it doesn't matter anymore.
Learn to love Alaska
In my opinion a 2.5 year prison term is not excessive for a federal official lying to federal investigators in an effort to mislead the american people.
A guy can get more time than that for personal marijuana possession. Which is worse, possessing some plant leaves, or conspiring to mislead the 280 million american citizens you are sworn to serve?
For me the really depressing part is that I have zero confidence that we will ever bring these criminals to justice. They're raping our economy, our brave soldiers, our rights, and our dignity, and it really seems there is not a thing we can do about it but grit our teeth and bare it out. This news just drives home that point.
IMHO, second to getting out of Iraq, my top priority as a voter for the next administration is to prosecute these criminals until they are old and infirm if that is what it takes. We must not let them retire to the easy life of private sector profiteering they think they have to look forward to, the life that Bush Sr. enjoys.
It is the duty of this generation to send a message down through history: fool us once, shame on us, fool us agai... you can't fool us again, because this nation will pursue you to the grave; the american people not rest until you and all your cronies are made to account for the wrongs you have committed against us and against the world in our name. Never Again.
Yes of course, affluent people who were wronged by the justice system asking for justice is bad. Only poor people who go through injustice deserve justice and retribution. Oh wait, some of these Lax guys WERE from working class families, but it's ok to group them all together because they're all (except 1) white, is that it? Are you Victoria Peterson by any chance?
Actually, it's questionable whether they could impeach Cheney. The Consitution outlines the procedure for impeachment of the President (presided by the Chief Justice) and everyone else (presided by the Vice-President) so that means Cheney will preside over his own impeachment hearing. And as for impeaching Bush, an escape maneuver was already perfected by Nixon and Ford.
Personally, I'm hoping that a person will be elected in 2008 that will actually carry out a major house cleaning and reform policy. We've been screwed by the current administration and previous administrations because of a lack of accountability and transparency. Whether Democrat or Republican, this clean up needs to happen in a big way.
While I'd like to see a number of members of the current administration serve time, nothing will change without real reform rather than just idle talk.
Because shooting unarmed mexicans in the back is their job? In which case why cover it up (by collecting the shell casings and filing false reports not mentioning that nights "shoot at mexicans" festivities)?
You know things are really bad when obvious mocking parody (ie the grandfather post) is lost on some because the situation is beyond reasonable expectations. Just for the parent, Bush W is scrapping with Carter as the worst president of the modern era.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Honestly, this is why I agree with Bush's move here. Libby was neither tried for, nor convicted of "high crimes against the government," but rather of "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" (the same two crimes that Bill Clinton was impeached for, by the way.) However, every single moment of the Libby case seems to have been a trial by proxy of the Bush administration. I can't see how that is just.
Yup, Libby committed a crime. He was convicted of it. He's not going to serve any jail time, but will be on probation for a couple of years, will pay a quarter million dollar fine, and will have the status of a convicted felon. His civil service career is over. Any political aspirations he might have had are gone. He'll probably be disbarred.
All in all, that seems to be a pretty fair punishment for the crimes he was accused and convicted of to me.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Plus, covert agents often have covers that make them, well, suspected as covert agents. Diplomatic attaches, international correspondents, and so forth. That's how they get into their target assignments in the first place. But operate using a front company that can vouch for them up and down. The "mild mannered insurance salesman by day, secret agent when his government calls" front is a myth from bad spy novels. So no, the whole "anybody smart had to know she was a spy" bit was not at all true -- someone dug in, and someone deliberately spread it, in a coordinated fashion, and blew an entire front company and every agent working for it. That is being a mole, and that is treason. That is also SOP for the Bush Administration.
I'm sorry. Sometimes they are not as much stooges as folks think.
But the single biggest story of the day is Libby being commuted and all they are talking about is Benoit's roid rage.
CNN isn't mentioning the story either. This is wierd.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually, from all I can tell, the only reason that nobody has been convicted, is because the entire Executive branch of the American government suffers from Alzheimer's.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
> "Will American people march in the streets against him? very unlikely, they're too busy following the lives of spoiled celebrities."
I just want to get this out there, and your post is as good as any to reply to.
In the 60s, you had people running all over the place screaming about war and civil rights as loudly as they could. They were hippies, they were activists, they were protesters, they were idealists, and they were absolutely committed to their beliefs. So I want to state for the record the official reason why I, and perhaps other members of my generation, do not follow this example: It's not worth my fucking time. 3000+ civilians dead, 3000+ soldiers dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, a government more transparently incompetent than ever before, Newspeak permeating through life as we know it (well, more so a few years ago than now), perpetual war that by definition cannot end ("War on Terror"), unregulated and uncontrollable executive privileges, domesting spying, and election fraud. It seems like never before has it all been so obvious, that never before has a problem or trap been more evident, yet 2004 showed me how fucking powerless we are to do anything about it. So you know what, I don't care that Bush pardoned/commuted/excused/whatever his buddy, I don't care what his administration does anymore, and I don't care that the world's going to Hell in a handbasket; I'm done caring. I'm going to spend my effort worrying about matters with a much greater (importance) * (ability to make a difference) product. Enjoy the scenery in Hell, because I'm keeping my fucking eyes closed.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Interesting story... I was reading foxnews.com (oh the horrors!), and Mike Straka's "Grrr!" column (I've since stopped reading fox news... not because of political bias, but last time they changed their website design, I just said "forget it."). I admit I still look occasionally, but it's just too horrible, IMO.
He had a big "Grrr" about Libby, about how he should be thrown in jail and tried for treason and the whole nine yards (and people say Fox isn't fair and balanced!). So I responded to his column and told him I'd be the first one to volunteer to join the firing squad should anyone be convicted of treason... but Libby was only accused (at the time), and he wasn't even accused of treason or "outing" anyone.
Straka wrote back and said something like "You know, you're right, and I'm sorry and I probably shouldn't have jumped the gun on anything." Then never printed a retraction or any negative emails that he got on that subject.
Where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it? Languishing exactly where it should be, I guess...
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Plame herself lied under oath, maliciously, claiming that she had no part in Joe Wilson's assignment in Niger, just weeks after Libby was sentenced. So Libby gets convicted of perjury because he couldn't remember some vague conservation from 2 years ago precisely, is sentenced above and beyond what the law requires "because outing a CIA agent is serious business", even though he was not convicted of outing a CIA agent and it was Richard Armitage who originally leaked her name. All the while, Plame lies intentionally and knowingly, under oath, to save her own skin, and is given a pass.
Many people who defended Clinton during his impeachment didn't do so because they believed perjury to be a non-crime. They defended him on the basis that perjury committed in the context of a civil trial regarding sexual harassment isn't an impeachable offense. Which means impeachment opponents didn't think it was a "high crime and misdemeanor" against the state.
The context of Libby's perjury (and obstruction of justice and making false statements) is different. It was done during a federal criminal trial (not civil in the case of Clinton) with regards to the outing of a CIA agent. A crime that can pretty easily be construed as against the state. Had Clinton done the same thing, it would've been easier to argue that the crime qualified for the constitutional requirements for impeachment.
Regardless, both of them should have been punished (if that meant jail for Clinton, so be it) but Clinton didn't deserve impeachment for his crime.
On a side note, I don't get your epithet of cargo cult. The major parties have an uncountable number of flaws (the world would be better off without them) but I can't imagine how they're anything like cargo cults.
Interesting statement. I would say, meanwhile, that we're a more patient generation. We know that these things can be transitory, and can be fixed.
However, I do think that we are aware when things start to cross a line. I have a feeling that when social unrest arrives, it will be completely uncontainable and the national lines will be reshaped when it happens.
In the sixties, everyone was the activist. Now it feels like we're waiting for the right trigger before we have a downright revolt.
.