Pres.Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

[chance1]

Remember when Chance had his panties all twisted up about the NIE leak?



Full quote is at the click.

The right was all nipple raw about the secret prison leak and the wire taps.

You can't make this shit up.

dude - ur scary

pulling out a 9 month old post?

did u have media matters help u?



and I think this case and that case are different

back to Libby

Bush used his authority - just as Presidents before him have

u really don't wanna get into Pres. pardons - I don't think

cause the guy u love was a pro at it

 

[Andreus]

dude - ur scary

pulling out a 9 month old post?

did u have media matters help u?



and I think this case and that case are different

back to Libby

Bush used his authority - just as Presidents before him have

u really don't wanna get into Pres. pardons - I don't think

cause the guy u love was a pro at it

why are they different?

expand please

seems to me the leak is the leak

am i missing something?

 

[Andreus]

Nope, still got that sword, sadly...

just for you....

i will put my sword down

Now its gone....

 

[texpatriot]

just for you....

i will put my sword down

Now its gone....

Damn son! What do you do when you're walking around the house naked? Toss it over your shoulder?

 

[Andreus]

Damn son! What do you do when you're walking around the house naked? Toss it over your shoulder?

naaa

i just tuck it in my sock so it doesnt drag on the ground

 

[CO Bob]

seems to me the leak is the leak

am i missing something?

You seem to be missing a grasp of reality.

Libby was guilty only of mis-stating events on two different occasions. As Fitzgerald saw it, perjury. Libby was never the leak, was never even tried for it. That was Richard Armitage, democrat cronie of the Clinton's. In the end, they could not stick their rediculous charge on anyone in the administration.

It was always the left getting back at the right over the Clinton impeachment. Pure, unadulterated party politics, and high drama.

 

[Andreus]

You seem to be missing a grasp of reality.

Libby was guilty only of mis-stating events on two different occasions. As Fitzgerald saw it, perjury. Libby was never the leak, was never even tried for it. That was Richard Armitage, democrat cronie of the Clinton's. In the end, they could not stick their rediculous charge on anyone in the administration.

It was always the left getting back at the right over the Clinton impeachment. Pure, unadulterated party politics, and high drama.

you must be on drugs, girl

want to share?

 

[Spensed]

You seem to be missing a grasp of reality....Libby was guilty only of mis-stating events on two different occasions. As Fitzgerald saw it, perjury...

Talking of missing a grasp on reality, Libby was convicted by a jury of four felony counts of making false statements to the FBI, lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice and was sentenced by a Republican appointee judge.

Even Bush's commutation doesn't dispute the reality that serious felonies were committed.

 

[Soilwork]

Just for context may I add ---- Clinton and Monica?

Context of what? trying to divert attention?

What does that have to do with ANYTHING here?

bush is corrupt, conservatives are liars.

Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

 

[smelter]

He'll probably make that much money in just a month, on the right-wing taking head tour.

I'm sure the speaker's fee's will more than cover the fine.

And maybe OJ Simpson can give him some pointers for his book deal; maybe he could call it "If I Did It: Part Two."

His second book should be titled "Dubya and me ... our lives as Dick Cheney's bitches."

 

[NickCole]

You seem to be missing a grasp of reality.

Libby was guilty only of mis-stating events on two different occasions.

Wrong.

Libby was found guilty of five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.

Not "mis-stating events."

As Fitzgerald saw it, perjury.

As the jury saw it.

 

[NickCole]

Squeal on whom?

Libby knows A LOT about Bush & Co and their dirty tricks.

Bush has commuted his sentence and eventually he will pardon him so he doesn't sing.

This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States, and BushRepublicans supporting and defending this commutation only proves how disgusting and corrupt they all are. I hope the American people are paying attention to who's supporting Bush's protection of this corruption.

We know who let the cat out of the bag on Plame.

We know one person. There are others.

We don't know more, and the investigation couldn't be completed, because Libby obstructed the investigation. For that he was convicted by a jury of his peers of five counts of perjurty and obstruction of justice.

 

[HenryReardon]

You seem to be missing a grasp of reality.

Libby was guilty only of mis-stating events on two different occasions. As Fitzgerald saw it, perjury. Libby was never the leak, was never even tried for it. That was Richard Armitage, democrat cronie of the Clinton's. In the end, they could not stick their rediculous charge on anyone in the administration.

It was always the left getting back at the right over the Clinton impeachment. Pure, unadulterated party politics, and high drama.

Not just mis-stating events. He mis-remembered conversations from a year or two before, as to exactly who told him what.

How many people do you know who can remember every conversation they had a year or more prior?

This whole thing is the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

 

[snapcat]

Interesting analysis from Law & Policy ... (March 6th)


.

..
Comparing Lewis Libby and Victor Rita

Among the fascinating aspects of Lewis Libby's now upcoming sentencing is that his high-profile case resembles in various ways the case of Victor Rita, the defendant whose 33-month (within-guideline) sentence is currently under review by the US Supreme Court. I detailed some Libby-Rita parallels in this post last month, and here are the major highlights.


1. The parallel nature of the crimes. Like Lewis Libby, Victor Rita got caught up in a criminal investigation and ultimately was indicted on five felony counts based on allegations that he lied under oath as part of the investigation. And, like Libby, Victor Rita asserted his innocence and exercised his right to a jury trial. (Victor was convicted of all five counts at trial; Libby's was acquitted on one of five counts, but that may not matter much for sentencing purposes.)


2. The parallel personal history. Like Lewis Libby, Victor Rita is an atypical federal defendant because of his career in government service. Rita served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, received over 35 military metals and awards. Libby's pre-conviction resume is (equally?) impressive. The federal guidelines do not provide any formal breaks for government service or prior good works. But, with Booker making the guidelines advisory, federal judges have more discretion to consider these matters at sentencing (though Rita's sentencing judge decided just to follow the guidelines).


Since Victor Rita's crimes seems, in context, to be less serious than Lewis Libby's crimes, I view Rita's 33-month sentence as a possible benchmark for Libby's sentence. Moreover, I have heard that Judge Walton has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge, and so Victor Rita's 33 month sentence might even be viewed as just a floor for considering Libby's fate.

And you may be asking "how did the Supreme Court rule in the Rita case ...

From ABC News ...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for convicted criminals to argue on appeal that they should have received a lighter prison sentence than recommended by federal guidelines.


By an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected arguments by a North Carolina man who sought less time in prison, and ruled that a sentence within the range set out by the guidelines may be presumed by a federal appeals court to be reasonable.


The guidelines set rules for judges to calculate punishment and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime.


But critics of the guidelines say they often impose overly harsh sentences and take away a judge's discretion to look at the facts of the case and fit an appropriate punishment for each individual.


The ruling involved Victor Rita, who received 33 months in prison for making false statements during an investigation of illegal trafficking in machine gun kits.


His sentence was at the bottom of the guideline range of 33 to 41 months.




Rita had sought a sentence lower than 33 months, based on his physical condition -- he has diabetes and other illnesses -- his likely vulnerability in prison and his military service in Vietnam and in Operation Desert Storm.


The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. appeals court's ruling that found Rita's sentence to be reasonable.


Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion that the judge in the case properly analyzed the relevant factors and gave legally sufficient reasons for the sentence.


The ruling followed up on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in 2005 that federal judges no longer were bound by the sentencing guidelines that had been in effect for nearly 20 years, but must consult them and take them into account.


Justice David Souter dissented in Thursday's decision and said he would reject the presumption of reasonableness adopted in the case. He also urged Congress to revisit the issue of guidelines.

So, Bush disagrees with his own Supreme Court.

Ahhhh, the irony .....

 

[Spensed]

Not just mis-stating events. He mis-remembered conversations from a year or two before, as to exactly who told him what.

How many people do you know who can remember every conversation they had a year or more prior?

This whole thing is the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

Why bother posting if you can't be bothered to read at least some of the earlier posts in the thread?

Libby was convicted by a jury of four felony counts of making false statements to the FBI, lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.

He was sentenced to a prison term, a fine and probation by a Republican appointee judge within standard sentencing guidelines.

Even George Bush's commutation doesn't deny the jury's findings of fact or that serious crimes were committed.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

There are obvious distinctions between the two cases, as the Senator noted:

Thanks Lancelva. I could not have put it better as to why Mrs. Clinton is quite unfit ever to be President than her own satement. Her statement that you quote below just shows that she still does not get it. After almost seven years to reflect on it, she still does not see why Americans were outraged and just how amoral their – the Clinton pardons were. I say their since we are now supposed to believe by her spinners that she was key to everything in the Clinton White House, even though the only thing she was put in charge of was reform of healthcare which she botched totally because of her inability to work with others and accept that she was not always right.

She seems to think that the presidential pardon mechanism is there to be abused and reward very dubious family and friends.

As the Washington Post noted in a story today

Clinton did not repeat her criticism of President Bush for commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying to investigators. In an interview with the Associated Press, Clinton drew a distinction between Bush's leniency toward Libby and the pardons her husband granted in the last 24 hours of his presidency. Among the recipients of the 176 pardons and commutations her husband granted were his half brother, Roger Clinton, who received a pardon for two 1985 charges related to the distribution of cocaine, and financier Marc Rich, who had fled investigators after being accused of tax evasion and trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, and whose wife gave large donations to Democrats.

Clinton's early career in the Senate was marked by controversy over successful lobbying by her brother Tony Rodham for clemency for a couple convicted of bank fraud and by her other brother, Hugh, who lobbied for clemency for a businessman convicted of mail fraud and perjury, as well as a cocaine trafficker.

Well the Presidential pardon was not put there for that reason and the US is fed up with this sort of Tamany Hall old politics lack of morality in high places – which even today she has the gall to defend. It is quite disgusting and a harbinger of how she thinks a President Hillary should operate. If it wasn’t for Bush and his example of the disaster of dynastic presidency she might have been the next family dynasty there. Perhaps that will be the only thing history will ever have to thank him for – the avoidance of the concept of a divine right of 24 or 28 years of trading that office between two families – and the abuses it leads to. She has fortunately told us in your post below that the shocking Clinton pardons were she believes "simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power". Well, lady, they were not. They were a disgusting abuse that you would presumably continue if you ever had the chance to – but Americans are not going to stand for any more of this.

Originally Posted by SixPackInBoxers
But I would stay very quiet if I were you. Better refrain from bringing Mrs. Clinton’s statement to people’s attention lest it remind voters once again of the tawdry pardons her husband gave on the last day of his presidency to their family and felon and refugee from justice friend's families who were big financial supporters of theirs. That was an equally disgraceful and shocking chapter and one that has been brought back to life, only too vividly, by the Libby commutation with all the bad taste and lack of scruples that was also shown by the Clinton White House then when she was apparently so powerful a player. Both actions were appalling, amoral and degrading to American justice and its standing in the world. No one, except the crooks want more of either.

There are obvious distinctions between the two cases, as the Senator noted:

Clinton Draws Distinctions on Pardons

KEOKUK, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a distinction between President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby - which she has harshly criticized - and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office.

``I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it,'' Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ``This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.''

Libby, a former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, had been sentenced to 30 months in prison as well as two years' probation and a $250,000 fine for perjury in connection with the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plane's name to reporters.

Just hours after a federal appeals court rejected Libby's appeal, Bush announced his decision to commute the prison term portion of the sentence, which he labeled excessive.

As she campaigns with her husband for Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses, Clinton has joined other Democrats in ripping Bush's decision. In the interview, she said it was ``one more example'' of the Bush administration thinking ``it is above the rule of law.''

Her husband's pardons, issued in the closing hours of his presidency, were simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none were aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy, she said.

``This particular action by the president is one more piece of evidence in their ongoing disregard for the rule of law that they think they don't have to answer to,'' she said.

 

[NickCole]

Keith Olbermann's "I didn't vote for him but he's my president" commentary from July 3, 2007.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

This whole thing is a travesty of justice.
Moreover, what message does this send to the hundreds of thousands federal employees?
If they're directed to do or say something unethical and they fully comply but are nailed for it, the Executive Branch will bail them out for their complicity.
Had Libby exposed any accomplises, does anyone really beleive a commutation or pardon would have been forthcoming?

 

[snapcat]

What a powerfu plea, and fully convincing. I agree -- it's time to begin impeachment against both Bush and Cheney.

Would that make Nancy Pelosi the President?

Actually, the longer Bush & Cheney stay in office, the bigger the landslide by which the Dems win, next year.

 

[Soilwork]

Would that make Nancy Pelosi the President?

Actually, the longer Bush & Cheney stay in office, the bigger the landslide by which the Dems win, next year.

I wish.

This administration are SO corrupt and care SO little about the democratic process that they'll just find another way to cheat and win. I dont' think for a second that they'll allow a democratic win if it's at all in their power.

And it is.

(Conservatives have shown over and over again the distain they have to democracy. They don't WANT the people to have any power or rights.. They WANT the government to control every aspect of their lives and they WANT to have fewer rights and choices. I have a feeling that most of the conservative people won't be happy until Big Brother appears on a screen in their bedroom and tells them it's time to get up and do their morning exercises.)