Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

I guess al long as your the President's pal you have a get out of jail card. He should be rotting in jail for 2 years like every other criminal.

I must say that I am totally surprised, NOT.

Completely unsurprising.

Think about it from Bush's perspective: What's the downside of pardoning Libby? Bush's approval is about as low as it can go. Those still supporting him wouldn't care if he killed and ate a baby on television.

If he forgot to say grace some of his constituency might get a bit perturbed.

Poor Scooter. There goes half the advance on his book deal. That'll teach him a lesson!

Not surprised, but still dismayed.

The right wing noise machine has already made this guy into a martyr. He'll almost certainly get a book deal from Harper-Collins, which is owned by Rupert Murdock. He'll go on the public speaking circuit and become a rich man (if he isn't rich already).

This is the punishment he should have gotten from the beginning: A big fine and probation. Not 30 months in jail. It was totally excessive. Bush made the right choice.

People, by the thousand, get 30 months and more for possession of a single joint, for example. People get 30 months for a variety of infractions, of far far far less seriousness than what Scooter Libby was found guilty of... federal charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to investigators.

This isn't a partisan affair: this is the network of nepotism, power, privilege and corruption at its worst. If you think that real national security violations are of little importance and that GENUINE TRAITORS should get off with a slapped wrist, you must be one of those "anti-Americans" we keep hearing about.

And the fact that you voted for him wouldn't sway this opinion any?

Come on SDW, the sentence was the sentence and the president should have respected the will of the jury/judge. Instead, he has shown in classic ambivalence his belief that his administration is above all that.

And Bush went back on his word not to intervene until Libby's appeals were complete. He is afraid of something.

No one gets 30 months for joint. Get real.



The sentence was excessive and he has a Constitutional right to commute parts or all of it. I realize you and I disagree. I don't agree with Bush's actions on a lot lately...this is something I happen to be in full agreement with. And no...I don't see what voting for him really has to do with anything. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.

How many months did Sandy Berger get? You do know who that is what he did don't you?

Oh, wait...

once again we see a total lack of accountability by this administration and the people who serve in it. they like to continually preach taking responsibility for ones actions and yet they take none for themselves when it doesn't not suit their purposes.

I love this board.

Just... WOW:

"By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed."
- House Speaker Nancy"Earmarks and Transparency"Pelosi, D-Calif.

No shame. None.

Or we could set off ShawnJ's Ron Paul Alarm by stating that Ron Paul would take major steps toward freeing up prison space by letting those "one-jointers" go free. Naaaahhhhh. Too easy.

I'm surprised this got its own thread. Politicians helping out their friends must be unheard of.

Who's really surprised by this?


But since we've all stated the obvious and everyone's on script, this thread now needs a good derailing.

I propose we delve further into exploring exactly how many Americans have been sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for possessing a single marijuana joint.

I'm a little surprised. I would think Libby would be a third rail for Bush. Bush must feel like he split the difference. What forced his hand was that the judge said no freedom while appealing. Libby could have stayed out on appeal until Bush was cleaning out his desk and then gotten a full pardon. But now it looks like a full pardon will never happen. It may be a paradox that the judge forced Bush's hand and as a result fullest punishment possible.

Trivia question: How many combined years of federal sentencing were taken in, out, and up the nose at Studio 54 from 1977-1986.

Not on first offense, but they might get life in Cali if it's the thrid strike!

And In NY, people get 20-life for serving as couriers, carrying a few ounces of coke--see the story of Elaine Bartlett at the end of this article: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/981...an,8982,1.html. What's worse, selling drugs or betraying a CIA agent and being part of a conspiracy to take your nation to war (a war, by the way, that has resulted in an out-of-control opium market in one of the 2 countries you've invaded and occupied, something that's surely going to put more drugs on the market that poor people in the US can get arrested for selling, and then get incarcerated in your fellow Repubican's private prisons!)

Before the trial there were many calling on Bush to swear NOT to pardon Libby (presumably commutation was included), on the belief that Libby might be more likely to give up bigger fish if he knew a pardon was off the table.

I suspect that either an implied or direct threat was made that if Bush didn't commute the sentence Libby would talk. I... I get brain cramps just thinking that anyone still supports these criminals.

I think this is a very dangerous precedent to set.

It is sad to see Bush (and his cronies on the Internet and in the media) downplay this. A covert CIA agent working against WMD was outed for political reasons, and one of the men convicted in the cover-up was given a walk.

This is worse than Watergate, far worse than Watergate.

Our country is in a very bad way right now.

You are right groverat....

Fellows

Our government is out of control and the rank criminality displayed by both parties is sickening.

I Second.

I tried reading up on this case from Wikipedia and other articles and the veritable mass of stuff just pushes me back. I'm not even clear on the basic premises. Apparently a great deal of people in the administration knew exactly what Valerie Wilson's job was. Apparently one or more of them talked to one or more reporters about it. Reporters then published it.

The Libby case seems more like a side story. Even though the prosecutor says Libby's lying has prevented truth coming out in the main case, I don't understand how Libby's lies can permanently derail that investigation.

I don't understand for whom exactly it was proper to have this information in the first place. Reporters? Of course not. A lot of administration officials had it, was every one of them okay to get it? Who told who? How did the information flow? This would be a job for a nice, clear graph or several.

The prosecutor Fitzgerald says something to the effect that the case is closing down with no further charges. How's that possible? Bob Woodward's tape seems to make it an open and shut thing that at least Armitage leaked this thing, if not others. I'd be very surprised if a person in that position is not required to understand that active CIA operatives' names are classified, regardless of whether he was specifically told that Wilson's name is.

Then there's the civil case by the Wilsons that is still ongoing. Do that kind of civil cases have enough leverage to dig deep into documents and find some new facts, or at least to force Armitage/Rove/Cheney/Libby etc. to come out, lie and potentially expose themselves? Or will they be able to block everything by "matter of national security" or other such bullshit? What's the very worst a civil case can hit these guys with if they clam up and manage to not open themselves to additional criminal charges?

Tell that to someone languishing in an Alabama jail for having pot, whether its one joint, or an ounce or whatever. The average sentence for first-degree marijuana possession is 8.4 YEARS, according to the Alabama Department of Corrections.

Get real.

Consider "First Degree" though, from the story:


2.2 pounds? That's a Gregory Hines-sized joint. Not some Joey Ramone wannabe with a half-ounce stick of schwag.

Just for the sake of clarity... not necessarily passing judgment on the legality issue.

And there you have the typical American voter.

Oh stop. Go read the list of Clinton pardons and grants of clemency on Drudge. Then read his reasons. It happen all the time, and I happen to agree with the reasons Bush had on this one.


Ahh...now we're talking 3rd strike. That's a separate matter. And as for "betraying a CIA agent?" Get real. She wasn't "betrayed." Jesus.



No it's not. It's not even unprecedented...not by a long shote.
Please, stop. Her identity was no secret. The revealing of her name was not a crime. PF knew who leaked and pursued the investigation anyway. It's a joke of as case.

This is worse than Watergate, far worse than Watergate.

Our country is in a very bad way right now.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't even come close to Watergate. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.



Now that I agree with.


See below.


Ding Ding Ding!


I don't see what that's an insult. Elections are generally held between two candidates. We may not like it, but it's true. You vote for the person who most represents your views. I agreed with Bush on most of his platform both times I voted for him. Secondly, I thought both the other candidates were exceptionally weak, for lack of a better term at the moment. Kerry was an unmitigated joke and Gore didn't know who he was, to say the least.

Now, I have my serious disagreements with Bush at the moment. Immigration/border security. Spending. Lack of initiatives on SS and taxes. Medicare. The list goes on, but Libby is not on that list. That's all I'm saying.

The White House has just announced that it "won't rule out an eventual pardon for Libby". What kind of a message is that? Leaking the names of undercover agents is just fine? Lying to 'investigators'? Obstruction of justice? Putting the lives of an unknown number of intellignce contacts in danger? Treason? What would happen if a regular person pulled stunts like that, as opposed to a well connected member of the NeoCon clique?

It's amazing (but of little surprise) how the Bush White House reacted (foot stamping tizzy) when they got caught lying to "justify" starting one of the series of wars on the NeoCon agenda. National security? Whatever.. that's immaterial.. no matter..

Lets put the facts of the case aside, because we clearly cannot agree on those. What does this mean for Bush, politically? Is there enough republican support of Libby for Bush to regain some working relationship with congress? I can see this pushing the democrats to dig in their heels in opposing the white house. I could see liberals and progressives increasing their efforts in their oversight investigations.

But I wonder how the country, at large, feels about the Libby-Plame-Armitage case. I don't think it'll amount to a lick of a difference, because most people just aren't familiar with the case, at all.

Has the case been covered in People Magazine, the National Enquirer, and all the other supermarket tabloids? If there was no connection with Britney Spears, Paris Hilton-esque (etc etc) pabulum and trivia, then you're probably right... the public don't give a damn.

The mock outrage here is laughable. Pardons and clemencies are routinely given, hundreds of times a year in fact. And none of them send a message that the crimes themselves are "OK." There are many reasons they are given. In this case, we have:

1. No underlying crime
2. A prosecutor who acted in bad faith as he knew there was no underlying crime
3. A sentence out of touch with precedent and not in accordance with similar/recent offenses.

And what did Bush do? He didn't pardon him. He just removed the jail sentence. The fine remains. The probation remains. The damage Libby inflicted on himself and his reputation remains. This was the right decision.


I have wondered about this. It's hard to say....I don't know that it gains him ground in Congress, but it may give him some more capital amongst conservatives that have been displeased with him over the past two years.

I would call you a condescending elitist, but that would be a cliche at this point.

You've called me more names in the past than some people have had hot dinners. Bear in mind that name-calling is what people tend to do when they're don't have an argument.

A change is welcome! Thankyou!

What I find hilarious is this so-called reputation you believe in. Reputation? It was his reputation to swindle for the president and vice president. If that's the "reputation" you speak of then fine. I understand where you are coming from.

An aside, my grandfather's business partner swindled him in a mail fraud scam, framed him and left grandpa holding the bag. He was sentenced into Federal Prison at Leavenworth for 15 years. My family struggled hard to get a pardon for him contacting senators and congressmen. A long story, but as time went by, he became a model prisoner. Even working as clerk for the warden. After a few years my family's pleas were heard and he was pardoned by President Wilson. As far as we know. See then, many of the decision making was going through First Lady Edith Wilson (Wilson was stricken with a stroke later in his term). She (I believe) pardoned more people than any other president.

I don't know why I'm bringing this up. But back then there was a reason for pardoning people. People who have been wrongly charged and imprisoned. My grandfather deserved to be pardoned. Those people deserve to have their sentences commuted.

Libby deserves to be dipped in shit.

With Libby, Libby, Libby on the label, label, label, you will like him, like him, like him... dipped in shit.