What a joke....

[Freak Out]

July 2, 2007
Bush Commutes Libby’s Prison Sentence
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, July 2 — President Bush said today that he had used his power of clemency to commute the 30-month sentence for I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted of perjury in March and was due to begin serving his time within weeks.

The action, announced just hours after a federal appeals court denied Mr. Libby’s request to allow him to remain free while his case is on appeal, spares Mr. Libby his prison term, but it does not excuse him from stiff fines or probation.

In a statement issued early this evening announcing his decision, Mr. Bush said he had listened to both critics and defenders of Mr. Libby, who was convicted of four felony counts for lying during a C.I.A. leak investigation.

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said. “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 30 months in prison.”

Like a pardon, a commutation is a form of clemency, granted to the president by the Constitution. But a pardon is an official act of forgiveness, whereas a commutation simply reduces the penalty, without making an official judgment of forgiveness.

Mr. Bush has been urged by some conservatives to grant Mr. Libby an outright pardon.

The president noted in his statement that that the decision to commute “leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby.”

“The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged,” Mr. Bush said. “His wife and young children have suffered immensely. He will remain on probation.”

The unanimous decision earlier today by a three-judge panel, which had been widely expected, upheld a ruling of Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the trial of Mr. Libby.

Judge Walton had ruled that the issues being raised on appeal by Mr. Libby’s lawyers were not substantial enough to have a strong chance of succeeding, which meant that under the law the sentence should not be delayed.

In June, Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine after he was convicted in March of obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents who were investigating the disclosure of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson.

[oregonpackfan]

"The unanimous decision earlier today by a three-judge panel, which had been widely expected, upheld a ruling of Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the trial of Mr. Libby."

It should be noted that 2 of those 3 three-judge panel members were Republican judges appointed by George W. Bush. Apparently, they felt the evidence was so strong against Scoter Libby that they wanted him to serve the sentence immediately.

This "commutation" really translates to an outright pardon. Conservatives were already collecting funds for his appeal process. That $250,000 fine is mere peanuts that probably already been collected.

That leaves just 2 years of probation for Libby.

W. has again proved that the primary virtue he expects of his aides is loyalty. Competance and ahearance to the law are irrelevat factors.

[Joemailman]

This will assure that Libby will never go public about how he covered up for the Vice-President (and maybe the President's office) in the Valerie Plame affair.

[Freak Out]

This will assure that Libby will never go public about how he covered up for the Vice-President (and maybe the President's office) in the Valerie Plame affair.

We all knew a pardon was coming but when the stay was refused Dubya had to protect his man. The fine was the laughable part of the "punishment" in the first place. God bless executive privilege.

[Joemailman]

Statement by Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Libby case:

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.

[Kiwon]

Agreed. It is a joke.

How does somebody get convicted of lying to investigators in a case where no crime was committed?

[falco]

Agreed. It is a joke.

How does somebody get convicted of lying to investigators in a case where no crime was committed?

Kiwon, I never knew you felt so passionate about Bill Clinton.

[Kiwon]

:D :D :D

In my opinion, Clinton never should have been impeached on the Lewinsky matter. But Clinton and "innocent" hardly go together.

Innocent men don't settle a case (Paula Jones sexual harassment suit) by agreeing to pay the plantiff the whole amount she was seeking ($850,000) after fighting it for so long.

[LL2]

Clinton pardoned some guilty people too as he was leaving office, including some wealthy people that padded his bank account. I remember reading about one individual he pardon and can't recall the name, but he was a crook but had megamillions. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton did it on his way out, Bush has another 18 months in office. Call it a joke but other presidents bailed pals out too. Doesn't make it right, but it's politics as usual.

[Kiwon]

Marc Rich is an international commodities trader. He fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

He received a presidential pardon from United States President Bill Clinton in 2001, which required him to pay a $100 million fine before the charges would be dropped.

Surprise! Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer for 15 years (1985-2000).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Agreed. It is a joke.

How does somebody get convicted of lying to investigators in a case where no crime was committed?

Perjury is perjury.

[LL2]

Surprise! Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer for 15 years (1985-2000).

Wow! This makes it all the more interesting.

[Freak Out]

Clinton pardoned some guilty people too as he was leaving office, including some wealthy people that padded his bank account. I remember reading about one individual he pardon and can't recall the name, but he was a crook but had megamillions. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton did it on his way out, Bush has another 18 months in office. Call it a joke but other presidents bailed pals out too. Doesn't make it right, but it's politics as usual.

I could care less who pardoned who in the past. No citizen should have this authority. The people made a decision and it should stand unless reversed in a court of law. I have no problem with stays in execution being granted but not pardons and such. And a big difference is that Libby worked for the VP.

[MJZiggy]

Damn. I was hoping it was a joke thread.

[Freak Out]

Damn. I was hoping it was a joke thread.

Sorry about that Zig.

[oregonpackfan]

Agreed. It is a joke.

How does somebody get convicted of lying to investigators in a case where no crime was committed?

Perjury is perjury.

Not only was Libby convicted of 2 counts of perjury, he was convicted of 1 count of lying to FBI agents, and another count of obstructing justice.

The judge who presided over Libby's case was U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton--a Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush.

[Kiwon]

Bush screwed up by not giving Libby a full pardon.

Libby's heinous crime was to try to actually answer the investigators questions instead of saying "I don't remember." How many people here can remember clearly the content you posted one year ago without checking? No one.

Libby talked to people all day by phone and email. His mistake was to even attempt answers. Tim Russert and the other journalists also displayed faulty memories on the witness stand. You hear the football commentators say all the time “that holding could be called on every play.” The same goes for inaccurate recollections under oath. Was it just inaccurate or was there intent to deceive?

This case was a political witch hunt from day one. Libby and Fitzgerald have a history stemming back to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. He should have recused himself but did not and then proceeded for two years in the case when he knew no crime was committed. Very Mike Nifong-esque of him. Judge Reggie Walton has already clearly demonstrated his partisan loyalties. His personal comments and actions have been ridiculous and his sentence was excessive by any reasonable measure.

If you’re interested in lies, put super sleuth Valerie Plame under oath and get her to reconcile her testimony of how her idiot husband actually was sent to Niger. She has four versions of that story going.

[oregonpackfan]

The whole outing of Valerie Plame came about because American Ambassador to Niger, Joe Wilson, reported to the Bush administration that he had found no evidence of the Bush team's claim that Niger was selling weapons grade uranium to Iraq.

Members of the Bush administration ordered Wilson to issue a report that Niger indeed had exported uranium to Iraq.

When Wilson refused to give the falsified report, his CIA operative wife's identity, Valerie Plame, was leaked to the press by the Cheney staff.

Again, Libby just didn't answer questions. He was convicted of twice lying under oath, intentionally lying to FBI agents, and obstructing justice.

The alleged Niger uranium imports to Iraq was one of the three false justifications for invading Iraq. The other two justifications, weapons of mass destruction, and Hussain's alleged ties to al-Qaida, have also proven to be false.

America has sacrificed the lives of over 3,500 military personnel and approximately $550 billion for these false justifications for invading and occupying Iraq.

[digitaldean]

Bush screwed up by not giving Libby a full pardon.

Libby's heinous crime was to try to actually answer the investigators questions instead of saying "I don't remember." How many people here can remember clearly the content you posted one year ago without checking? No one.

Libby talked to people all day by phone and email. His mistake was to even attempt answers. Tim Russert and the other journalists also displayed faulty memories on the witness stand. You hear the football commentators say all the time “that holding could be called on every play.” The same goes for inaccurate recollections under oath. Was it just inaccurate or was there intent to deceive?

This case was a political witch hunt from day one. Libby and Fitzgerald have a history stemming back to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. He should have recused himself but did not and then proceeded for two years in the case when he knew no crime was committed. Very Mike Nifong-esque of him. Judge Reggie Walton has already clearly demonstrated his partisan loyalties. His personal comments and actions have been ridiculous and his sentence was excessive by any reasonable measure.

If you’re interested in lies, put super sleuth Valerie Plame under oath and get her to reconcile her testimony of how her idiot husband actually was sent to Niger. She has four versions of that story going.

It has already come out it was Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, who was the source of the Robert Novak article that helped out Valerie Plame, not Libby.

[Kiwon]

The whole outing of Valerie Plame came about because American Ambassador to Niger, Joe Wilson, reported to the Bush administration that he had found no evidence of the Bush team's claim that Niger was selling weapons grade uranium to Iraq.

Members of the Bush administration ordered Wilson to issue a report that Niger indeed had exported uranium to Iraq.

When Wilson refused to give the falsified report, his CIA operative wife's identity, Valerie Plame, was leaked to the press by the Cheney staff.

OPF, you've stated the MoveOn.org version very well. Problem is, it just doesn't fit the facts. The claim was by the CIA and Plame talked the matter over with her husband before suggesting that he could be sent to Niger.

He did a bang-up job interviewing a few officials by the hotel pool. He returns and gives an oral report. Then the Kerry supporter saw a chance to ingratiate himself and puts out an opinion piece in the NYTimes (of course) prior to the election after Bush included "the 16 words" in the State of the Union address.

Joe Wilson's web of lies starts there and still continues. This fraud has never been put under oath and is shielded by the media and Dem friends. Wife #3 (Valerie Plame) is cut out of the same cloth. She is suing because her book (yes, she's already written a book) is being slowly vetted by the CIA thereby delaying its publication. Boo-hoo.

Democrats say that support the troops but they have done nothing but undermine the war effort from day one. Their political future is tied solely to America's ultimate failure in Iraq. Success means Bush was right. Failure means they were right. Their goal is America's defeat and failure. Just an incredibly cynical position.
........................................

5/25/07 Fact-Checking Valerie Plame Wilson, Pt. 1

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just released a new report as part of its continuing investigation into prewar intelligence. In the report, the committee's vice chairman, Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, has included a set of "additional views" in which he provides new evidence contradicting some of the public testimony Valerie Plame Wilson gave before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March.

In that testimony, Mrs. Wilson flatly denied playing a role in choosing her husband, Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she testified. She said that an earlier Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, what she called a "quick e-mail" describing her husband's qualifications for the trip was "taken out of context" by the committee to "make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him."

Now, Senator Bond has released the entire text of Mrs. Wilson's February 12, 2002 memo. In the memo, which was headlined "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash," she referenced a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium that had been circulating in the previous week:

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

[b]So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

The memo seems to show that Mrs. Wilson did indeed suggest her husband for the Niger mission. And it sheds new light on why Mrs. Wilson was involved in the Niger uranium matter to begin with. The conventional wisdom has always been that she suggested her husband's name in response to an inquiry from Vice President Dick Cheney about the Iraq Niger uranium story. But her memo, written on February 12, seems to show that she suggested her husband's name before the vice president asked his question on February 13. In addition, committee investigators found a cable in which Mrs. Wilson wrote that "both State and DOD have requested additional clarification" on the Niger matter. She added that "indeed, the vice president's office just asked for background information on the Niger report." The cable was dated February 13 at 3:42 p.m. — the day after she suggested her husband for the Niger mission.

[Kiwon]

Sadaam and WMD's - "Bush lied, people died."

He had plenty of company. See any other familiar names below?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"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, 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."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

John Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

John Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

[falco]

blah blah blah :roll:

[LL2]

Great set of quotes Kiwon. Liberal democrats flip flop and move with the opinion polls. They never stick with a conviction and remain consistent.

[Kiwon]

Great set of quotes Kiwon. Liberal democrats flip flop and move with the opinion polls. They never stick with a conviction and remain consistent.

Now just imagine if Republicans and Democrats really came together to protect the country and fight the war on terror. The President and the Congress are at all-time lows right now thereby providing an unprecendented opportunity for new candidates in both parties to come in and set a new course.

The status quo is unbearable. We need a massive infusion of new blood. That's my hope at least.

[MJZiggy]

Mine too, Kiwon. Let's just hope they can pull it off...

[oregonpackfan]

Let's get back to the main topic of this thread--the commutation of Scooter Libby's 2 counts of perjury under oath, lying to FBI agents, and his deliberate obstruction of justice.

According to an Associated Press relaease, three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to fereal juciciary date.

The average term was more than five years. The larger group of defendants was sentenced in between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.

Our county now has a scenario where heiress Paris Hilton served more time in jail(23 days) for parole violation than does Scooter Libby for violating America's federal legal system. Should this be the "American Way?"

[Freak Out]

July 4, 2007
Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate
By ADAM LIPTAK

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.

Critics of the system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

On Monday, Mr. Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence — handing an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of the president’s arguments in their own cases.

Given the administration’s tough stand on sentencing, the president’s arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.

“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who writes the blog Sentencing Law and Policy.

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it.

No one disputes that Mr. Bush has the authority under the Constitution to issue pardons and commutations for federal crimes. But experts in the area, pointing to political scandals in the Reagan, Truman and Grant administrations, said Mr. Bush had acted with unusual speed.

“What distinguishes Scooter Libby from the acts of clemency in the other three episodes,” said P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor who studies pardons at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., referring to Mr. Libby by his nickname, “is that in those episodes they generally served their time and some other president pardoned them.”

Mr. Bush repeated yesterday that he had found Mr. Libby’s punishment to be too severe. But experts in federal sentencing law said a sentence of 30 months for lying and obstruction was consistent with the tough sentences routinely meted out by the federal system.

“On what legal basis could he have reached that result?” asked Frank O. Bowman III, an authority on federal sentencing who teaches law at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said of the commutation. “There is no legal basis.”

Nor is there a reason to think that the Justice Department has changed its position about the sentencing system generally. Indeed, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said last month that the department would push for legislation making federal sentences tougher and less flexible.

Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law”; Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, posted a copy of the government’s brief in the Rita case on his blog yesterday and asked, “Why is the president flip-flopping on these criminal justice decisions?”

The Justice Department also took a hard line last year in the case of Jamie Olis, a midlevel executive at the energy company Dynegy convicted of accounting fraud. The department argued that Mr. Olis deserved 292 months, or more than 24 years. He was sentenced to six years.

Sentencing experts said Mr. Libby’s sentence was both tough and in line with general trends.

“It was a pretty harsh sentence,” Professor Berman said, “because I tend to view any term of imprisonment for nonviolent first offenses as harsh. But it certainly wasn’t out of the normal array of cases I see every day.”

[Joemailman]

Agreed. It is a joke.

How does somebody get convicted of lying to investigators in a case where no crime was committed?

You don't seem to understand the concept of obstruction of justice. What Fitzgerald has said is that Libby's lies prevented investigators from determining if a crime was committed or not.

[Freak Out]

This is one of those Bush Family traits that makes him such a great President. His father pardoned Caspar the friendly Defense Secretary to protect himself just like Dubya has done with Scooter. Nothing like accountability from the top down.

[Freak Out]

Federalist No. 74

Author: Alexander Hamilton

Date: March 25, 1788

Subject: The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive
To the People of the State of New York:

THE President of the United States is to be ``commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States.'' The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

``The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective officers.'' This I consider as a mere redundancy in the plan, as the right for which it provides would result of itself from the office.

He is also to be authorized to grant ``reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.'' Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.

The expediency of vesting the power of pardoning in the President has, if I mistake not, been only contested in relation to the crime of treason. This, it has been urged, ought to have depended upon the assent of one, or both, of the branches of the legislative body. I shall not deny that there are strong reasons to be assigned for requiring in this particular the concurrence of that body, or of a part of it. As treason is a crime levelled at the immediate being of the society, when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender, there seems a fitness in referring the expediency of an act of mercy towards him to the judgment of the legislature. And this ought the rather to be the case, as the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely excluded. But there are also strong objections to such a plan. It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever. It deserves particular attention, that treason will often be connected with seditions which embrace a large proportion of the community; as lately happened in Massachusetts. In every such case, we might expect to see the representation of the people tainted with the same spirit which had given birth to the offense. And when parties were pretty equally matched, the secret sympathy of the friends and favorers of the condemned person, availing itself of the good-nature and weakness of others, might frequently bestow impunity where the terror of an example was necessary. On the other hand, when the sedition had proceeded from causes which had inflamed the resentments of the major party, they might often be found obstinate and inexorable, when policy demanded a conduct of forbearance and clemency. But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall. The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal. If it should be observed, that a discretionary power, with a view to such contingencies, might be occasionally conferred upon the President, it may be answered in the first place, that it is questionable, whether, in a limited Constitution, that power could be delegated by law; and in the second place, that it would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt.

PUBLIUS

[Freak Out]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192