www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Bush spares Libby from jail term

He had a conflicting testimony, the question at hand is whether or not he intentionally had a conflicting testimony.

You must remember that as chief of staff, he speaks to many people each day about as many issues. I find it very reasonable that a man in such a position would not have perfect memory of a conversation which hardly carried with it the weight by which it is now to be judged.

President Bush did not mitigate the verdict, there is still room for the appeals process to come to an end. The point to which President Bush responded was the decision by the presiding judge that Scooter Libby was to begin serving his jail term before the appeals process saw closure.

Let us not confuse the facts of the case here.

I think a perfectly reasonable question to raise is whether President Bush would have intervened in this way for someone who is not one of his croneys. I doubt it. I also find it interesting that the judge in this case was appointed by President Bush. It is my understanding that one of the things that President Bush and his Republican yes-men in the Senate found so appealing about this judge was his reputation for handing down harsh sentences. How ironic.

Ryan

There is no right to remain free while appeals of one's sentence and/or conviction are pending. It does happen, but at the discretion of the judge, so far as I'm aware.

Ryan

That's correct.

Is it your contention that no one who is guilty should receive a sentence commutation?

Whether one will remain free while a case is appealed depends on a number of factors: prior criminal history, flight risk, severity of the crime, likelihood of recidivism, and general criminal/anti-social character. Murderers remain free on appeal while Libby was going to go to the joint for three years. Something was off-kilter.

-------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Western Orthodox:

I was pointing out that there is no right to remain free during a pending appeal. I did not say that it does happen-I acknowledged as much. Furthermore, I'm very well aware of the factors you mentioned that are taken into consideration when a judge determines whether to allow a convict to remain free during an appeal. Also, I would point out that the sentence was 30 months-not 3 years.

No doubt, there have been other cases in which convicts no worse than Scooter Libby have been given a sentence no less harsh and remanded during an appending appeal. Where is President Bush's concern for them? While I do not deny that President Bush has the legal authority to commute the sentence, I don't think it was a good idea. For one, it gives the appearan of croneyism. Again, if it's really a matter of the President's concern for justice, and not merely rewarding a croney whose paid for protecting the administration by being convicted, then why is the President reviewing other cases in the federal courts for similar miscarriages of justice? Also, do we really want the President reviewing every sentence imposed upon a convict and applying his standard of what does or does not constitute a harsh sentence? That is not the job of the executive branch. That is a judicial function. We do have separation of powers in our system of government-a principle that is a fundamental tenet of our federal republic-though it seems to be a principle for which President Bush has nothing but contempt. Had Mr. Libby gone to prison and served some time-even if it were just a few months, and President Bush then issued a commutation, or perhaps even a pardon, no doubt there would still be those who would cry foul, but their arguments would be much weaker, while the counter-arguments of the Clinton-haters about President Clinton's twelfth hour pardons (some of which were very bad in my opinion) would actually carry some weight. As they stand, such arguments carry no weight, in my opinion, because they amount to comparing apples to oranges.

Ryan

On the contrary, the Founding Fathers -- concerned as they were with an oppressive executive branch -- gave the president full power to issue pardons or commutations. This is an executive function and part of our system of checks-and-balances.

The question, which you never answered, remains: Is it your contention that no one who is guilty should receive a sentence commutation?


To begin with, Libby will still serve two years probation, pay a $250,000 fine, and he'll never get his reputation back. Secondly, the Left -- which thinks this is a second Watergate -- would be as pitched in its opposition. Their argument would then be exactly the one you make at the beginning of this post: "it gives the appearance of croneyism." The passage of time would no more keep left-wingers from making crazed charges against Libby than it did from making identical charges about George H.W. Bush's pardon of Iran-Contra figures (even though Bush was not indicted in the Iran-Contra conspiracy).

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can separate Clinton's pardons of terrorists with a Bush sentence commutation of a white collar executive caught up in an investigation that should never have gone forward, then somehow conclude the latter is worse than the former. But to each his own.

-----
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Western Orthodox:

You responded to me, "The question, which you never answered, remains: Is it your contention that no one who is guilty should receive a sentence commutation?" When you asked that the first time, it was in response to a quote not from me, but from Lanceg. So please don't accuse me of refusing to answer a question that was not posed to me in te first place.

Ryan

Western Orthodox:

I never said that I think President Bush's commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence is worse than some of President Clinton's more dubious pardons. In fact, if you will read my post again, you will see that I wrote that I think some of President Clinton's pardons were very bad. I didn't like the pardon of Marc Rich when it happened, and I still don't like it.

I don't know what "white collar" has to do with whether someone should get a commutation or pardon, other than when it does happen, it helps to perpetuate the belief among people from blue collar families like mine that the wealthy can use their money and the influence it buys them to place themselves above the law.

I'm open to the possibility that the prosecutor overreached in the case. I'm not convinced, because most, if not all, of the people who are making this claim are supporters of President Bush. However, hypothetically, if I were asked to investigate the case to determine if there had been misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, I would be open to the possibility that the prosecutor had gone too far in this case. I'm never surprised when that occurs, and to be honest, I can't help but wonder if the prosecutor had really hoped to go after Vice-President Cheney and had hoped that he could squeeze Mr. Libby into providing information that would have enabled him to do so. However, even if this is the case, that does not excuse the crimes of which he was accused and convicted.

Ryan

Reputation?? Geneva Convention and United States-authorized UN-treaty violator ex-LTC "Ollie" North is still running around right-wing circles with his combat boots and cammies on, pretending to be the bastion of military values. This "reputation" thing is a joke when you reach a certain level of clout, power, or prestige. Does anyone really think Ollie learned his lesson, that Paris Hilton found God, or that Conrad Black won't be pardoned?

What shocks me is the total in-your-faceness of this commutation, you'd think the President would be embarrassed enough to do it under-the-table once his term is up, or during a Sunday evening when there's another top news diversion going on - no, this administration does it's dirty deed right in front of all our noses.. and no one raises anything more than an eyebrow.. repeatedly.

Western Orthodox & Ryan:

I have not been on-line for awhile. So I will now answer Western Orthodox's question.

I understand that sentences can be commuted, and may be appropriate at times. I think it was inappropriate for President Bush to do so. As always, the president is showing favor to his people. I feel that this administration does not take responsibility for anything.

It seems the Right brings up Clinton and his questionable pardon of Mark Richards (sp?), to which I respond, two wrongs do not make a right. It is an argument reminiscent of children arguing on the play ground and pointing the finger at each other.

We have to get beyond judging these things by our partisan politics, and judge the merits of the case. In my estimation, he lied under oath and perjured himself. He is a lawyer, he is smart, he should know better.

President Bush said he would restore honor to the White House when in ran in the 2000 campaign.

But his administration seems just as corrupt as any other that there has been.

The administration clamps down mercilessly on dissent.
They let polluters in the backrooms and write environmental regulations.

It is at least arguable that they mislead the country into war, and then they have mismanaged it so badly that we are stuck in an awful quagmire.

The administration has had incompetent people in key positions, such as Mike Brown at FEMA, which resulted in a poor response to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. They have shown no leadership in rebuilding the city.

They have feigned conservative values, but they have created record deficits and debt, much of it being held by China, a country which potentially could become a dangerous enemy one day.

I pray for President Bush every day in my prayers; I have prayed for Scooter Libby. I want the Iraqi people to have peace and justice, and to build a cohesive society.

But I feel that the administration of President George Bush has failed the country. I feel that the administration does not operate with integrity.

I am not trying to be mean, I am not trying to antagonize people her who support the administration, or bash President Bush. I am assessing the performance of the administration as I see it.

Ryan, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your thoughtful response. My only reference on "white collar" had to do with whether someone should get a commutation or pardon[/quote] The point is Libby is non-violent and is unlikely to ever be in a courtroom again; the violent terrorists pardoned in '01 are another matter.

Not all of those who question the investigation are pro-Bush, by any means. The Washington Post interviewed him and reported that was his motivation. The mainstream press reported on the judge limiting Libby's defense, his more than 100 pages of instructions to the jury, the jury's confusion during deliberations about what the charges were and what "reasonable doubt" meant, the fact that jurors said sending him to jail "sucks" and they thought he should have probation. Bush gave them the punishment they felt was appropriate.

-------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Michael and Lance,

Funny, he's also been accused of burying his commutation during the Fourth of July news cycle.

Anyone guilty of a crime "should know better"; the question is whether the sentence fits the crime. Reportedly, the jurors didn't think so and said sending him to jail "sucks."

"This administration" is not responsible for Scooter Libby lying under oath, and he is not a totemic icon of the administration. There was no underlying crime, so the only way Libby could have gotten in trouble was by lying to investigators. Libby's attorneys then promised to show evidence pinning the scandal on Rove or the White House but never followed through. If anything this was a magnanimous gesture to a man who needlessly cast doubt on the Bush administration.

That's why he's regularly called a Nazi at rallies attended by half-a-million people and there's currently a film about his assassination.... In the case of Valerie Plame's husband, his "dissent" consisted of lying in the New York Times about his own trip to Niger, then lying to Congress that he had seen forged documents he could never have seen. Responding to lies maligning the the commander-in-chief during wartime isn't merciless or stifling.

None of the investigations into prewar intelligence, here or in the UK, have found any evidence of that. The special prosecutor in this case, Patrick Fitzgerald, investigated Osama bin Laden for the Clinton administration. Fitzgerald testified that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had "efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons." You'll give him benefit of the doubt on that, right?

If anything, Bush undersold the intel he was given. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq said Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a year, and the CIA consistently underestimated him. Both parties and every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMDs and collaborated with terrorists.

We've always run deficits during wars. The biggest structural deficit is the massive amount of "entitlement" spending, which Bush expanded. But the other party's critique was that his plan was "stingy" and should be bigger.... China is a major threat, which Bush mishandled and Clinton rewarded, because it illegally financed his campaigns.

I just don't see the Libby commutation as something to get bent out of shape over. I think most Americans couldn't care less about this whole episode.

I'm glad you pray for Bush Ultimately, our country's directions is in His hands.

-------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

I'm sorry but commutation (which is not a pardon) is a well accepted constitutional practice from the very beginning of the american republic. The President does not have to justify them, though many do, and Bush did. In his opinion, the sentence was too harsh and out of line with similar cases. He reduced it to what he thought was reasonable, as is his right, and the Congress can impeach him for it, amend the Constitution, or let it go. That's the choice.

"Both parties and every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMDs and collaborated with terrorists."

Some would argue that since we gave Saddam Hussein a broad warning and timetable, he had time to arrange the transportation of some of his WMD.

We found some WMD in Iraq. We found chemical/biological capable warheads, we found saran gas and other agents, we found drones, and we found that Saddam had medium-range missiles which exceeded the UN Resolution requirements. But what we did not find were stockpiles of WMDs.