Scooter Libby's sentence commuted by Bush; Libby won't be spending a day in prison

Gothic Walrus

Gothic Walrus

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has commuted the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

Earlier Monday, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that Libby could not delay his sentence.

The charges relate to the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Libby was only weeks away from surrendering to a prison.

Bush was under great pressure by Libby allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a written statement issued hours after that ruling, Bush called the sentence "excessive." But he also rejected calls for a pardon for Libby.

"The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting," Bush said.

But he said Libby was given "a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."

Libby was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

The conviction remains on Libby's record and he still has to pay a $250,000 fine.

Commutations are rarely granted, says CNN's chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court, he said.

It means that Libby will still have the conviction on his record -- unless he is able to overturn it on appeal, which he will likely continue to pursue.

A pardon is a complete eradication of a conviction record, making it appear as if the person has never been convicted. It's possible that Bush could still grant Libby a full pardon.
Click to expand...
At this point, I think Bush is actively seeking ways to make his approval rating even lower than it already is.
 
Bull. fucking. Shit.

I mean, I knew this was coming, but seriously.

This is undoubtedly the worst fucking administration in the history of the United States of America.

Jesus fucking Christ, this makes me want to grab a gun and start indiscriminantly relieving the world of dumb-fuck republican voters.

Any fucking administration that's so fucking corrupt it needs to pardon its own employees is an administration that fucking needs to go.


fuck Bush and fuck fucking republican neo-con fuck voters. fuck you idiots, it's your fucking fault this incompetent fuckass is in the white house.

[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Source: CNN


At this point, I think Bush is actively seeking ways to make his approval rating even lower than it already is.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the two jackass fucks still supporting this fuckass president wanted Libby pardoned anyways, right?
 
Please. After the amnesty debacle, this is the LEAST he can do to make conservatives like him again.

A sham sentencing phase after a trial where the jury simply picked Russert's word over Libby's.
 
Dude, there were seven people's word they chose over Libby's. And the appeals court for his sentencing included one Reagan appointee and one Bush 41 appointee.

I can't say I'm shocked though. After everything this administration has done over the last six and a half years, I think I'm all out of outrage.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Please. After the amnesty debacle, this is the LEAST he can do to make conservatives like him again.[/QUOTE]

See, this is what I don't get. I can at least understand where conservatives are coming from in many cases, but this is confusing to me. Unless it's purely for petty political reasons, why would Bush commuting Libby's term make them happy? Fine, fine; you're for the war in Iraq. I get it. But shouldn't they support their intelligence agencies by sending this guy to jail? What am I missing?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Please. After the amnesty debacle, this is the LEAST he can do to make conservatives like him again.

A sham sentencing phase after a trial where the jury simply picked Russert's word over Libby's.[/QUOTE]

Libby was convicted of four counts of obstruction of justice and perjury (among other things).

It is not as if he made a few honest mistakes, his whole entire testimony was fiction.
 
[quote name='trq']See, this is what I don't get. I can at least understand where conservatives are coming from in many cases, but this is confusing to me. Unless it's purely for petty political reasons, why would Bush commuting Libby's term make them happy? Fine, fine; you're for the war in Iraq. I get it. But shouldn't they support their intelligence agencies by sending this guy to jail? What am I missing?[/QUOTE]

Perjury only meant something when Bill Clinton was accused of doing it when questioned in regard to his personal affairs; as it pertains to matters of national security and exposing active members of intelligence agencies, well...that's just foolhardiness.

And, of course, the matter that party loyalty matters more than national loyalty, or loyalty to those things we used to call "the law of the land."

So much for "country."
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Please. After the amnesty debacle, this is the LEAST he can do to make conservatives like him again.

A sham sentencing phase after a trial where the jury simply picked Russert's word over Libby's.[/quote]

That's fucking unbelievable. Do some research. Perjury is some serious shit. His punishment was not out of the realm. You'll respond with some bullshit about Clinton pardoning people. What's your fucking point? If I wanted illegal behavior justified by pointing out other illegal behavior, I'll go watch Hannity's America.
 
He pissed off his own base when he supported immigration reform, and eventually lost his fight...now he's trying to play back to that base within a week. Any coincidence here?
 
What a surprise. Are we as helpless to this administration as I feel that I am? Please tell me the past 6 1/2 years have just been a dream.
 
The reason Bush didn't give Libby a pardon is because he wanted to give Libby a second career as a right wing radio host. I think being a felon (or drug user) is a minimum requirement nowadays.
 
I'm looking at this like a glass half-full. The is the most brazen example that thus administration considers itself to be above the law and it will be used to beat up the GOP all through the '08 elections. It would have become less of an issue if Bush actually decided to respect the rule of law for a change.
 
Bah, the jury for this little show trial was more or less packed with people who wanted to "make someone pay for Bush's war in Iraq." Fitzgerald, unethically and not exactly legally, slid a statement that the CIA believed that Plame was "covert" in their own definition (Because she damn sure wasn't ACTUALLY covert, otherwise Armitage would be on the stand.) into Libby's sentencing hearing, dancing around rules that such evidence should have been presented at the actual trial.

All of this plainly ignores the fact that Libby did not out Plame. Armitage did. At best, Libby was a scalp for the blood-crazed hounds like yourselves clamoring for a piece of this evil illegal administration. Libby's recollection of events differed from Russert's, which caused him to be charged with perjury, which in turn caused him to be charged with obstruction. Whether or not Libby lied or misremembered is a matter of debate, but an utterly meaningless one.

And, frankly, I'm not going to point to Clinton. Presidents can pardon. Nothing wrong with that. I am going to point to Sandy Berger, at the very least, to show that the interest you folks are claiming to show in national security is, at best, a sham and, at worst, a code word for the blood you desire to seek from an administration you all hate with a nigh-religious fervor.

It is also worth remembering that this commutation came after Libby's request to stay his punishment until after his appeal was denied. Libby still ends up owing $250k, having a felony on record, and losing his law license.
 
See, this is what I don't get. I can at least understand where conservatives are coming from in many cases, but this is confusing to me. Unless it's purely for petty political reasons, why would Bush commuting Libby's term make them happy? Fine, fine; you're for the war in Iraq. I get it. But shouldn't they support their intelligence agencies by sending this guy to jail? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

See above regarding what precisely Scooter did. Also, conservatives remain convinced that Wilson (Not a particularly nonpartisan individual) lied about a factfinding mission that his wife recommended him for. Furthermore, they believe that Armitage, not a Bush yes-man, was the leaker, and Fitzgerald knew this pretty early on in his investigation (If I had the source handy, I'd give it, but I don't have it handy.), but neither released said info nor ended his investigation there. Combine that with the above and conservatives see the entire affair as a media-propagated witch-hunt designed to perpetuate the "Culture of Corruption" meme, with Libby as nothing more than a scalp taken as the result of an investigation into the dropping of a name that was not itself a crime, and is not convincingly a Bushco conspiracy anyway.
 
Oh, sorry. Let me retranslate that response for the... let's just say less emotionally mature members of this forum. The ones like cheese, msut, usickenme, who do not even offer those who disagree with them the courtesy of good faith, who come here not for debate but to gin up a small group of folks who say "Damn, Rethuglikkkcans sure do suck."

See, this is what I don't get. I can at least understand where conservatives are coming from in many cases, but this is confusing to me. Unless it's purely for petty political reasons, why would Bush commuting Libby's term make them happy? Fine, fine; you're for the war in Iraq. I get it. But shouldn't they support their intelligence agencies by sending this guy to jail? What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Paychecks from Rove/Cheney/Halliburton.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']See above regarding what precisely Scooter did. Also, conservatives remain convinced that Wilson (Not a particularly nonpartisan individual) lied about a factfinding mission that his wife recommended him for. Furthermore, they believe that Armitage, not a Bush yes-man, was the leaker, and Fitzgerald knew this pretty early on in his investigation (If I had the source handy, I'd give it, but I don't have it handy.), but neither released said info nor ended his investigation there. Combine that with the above and conservatives see the entire affair as a media-propagated witch-hunt designed to perpetuate the "Culture of Corruption" meme, with Libby as nothing more than a scalp taken as the result of an investigation into the dropping of a name that was not itself a crime, and is not convincingly a Bushco conspiracy anyway.[/QUOTE]

I think you've given a very accurate and concise overview of the Republican/Neo-Con take on the Plame matter. Very well done.

However, it points out two essential flaws in their outlook:

(1) Wilson didn't lie. He never lied. There was no Nigerian yellowcake. Events have completely supported the conclusions he reached during his fact finding mission. His wife was outed because he told the truth. Cheney and Bush were angry with him because he went public with the truth.

And it wasn't a matter of "dropping a name," but of outing an undercover CIA agent. Have a Democrat or a liberal do that, and wait for the howls of outrage.

(2) Regardless of who the leaker was, Libby lied before a grand jury. As a matter of fact, one could argue we don't know who the leaker was BECAUSE Libby lied before the grand jury. How do we know he lied? Because a jury of his peers convicted him.

So it boils down to how you feel about the rule of law. Does the rule of law trump politics? If so, then Libby's ass should be in jail already, and what Bush did is tantamount to obstruction of justice.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I think you've given a very accurate and concise overview of the Republican/Neo-Con take on the Plame matter. Very well done.

However, it points out two essential flaws in their outlook:

(1) Wilson didn't lie. He never lied. There was no Nigerian yellowcake. Events have completely supported the conclusions he reached during his fact finding mission. His wife was outed because he told the truth. Cheney and Bush were angry with him because he went public with the truth.

And it wasn't a matter of "dropping a name," but of outing an undercover CIA agent. Have a Democrat or a liberal do that, and wait for the howls of outrage.[/quote]
Wilson lied in the article. The official report on Wilson's findings showed that his findings were not conclusive. I believe even a few of the intelligence community members that reviewed his findings found the yellowcake case claims bolstered. Wilson also claimed Cheney sent him, which was a lie.

Cheney and Bush going after him does not follow that Armitage would do their bidding and leak Plame's name. Plame suggested her husband Wilson for this fact-finding mission, which he then lied about.

Iraq did contact Niger for the import of something, whether or not it was yellowcake, Wilson sure as hell didn't prove.


(2) Regardless of who the leaker was, Libby lied before a grand jury. As a matter of fact, one could argue we don't know who the leaker was BECAUSE Libby lied before the grand jury. How do we know he lied? Because a jury of his peers convicted him.

So it boils down to how you feel about the rule of law. Does the rule of law trump politics? If so, then Libby's ass should be in jail already, and what Bush did is tantamount to obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
The conviction still stands. Libby has lost his law license and a tidy sum of money. Bush commuted his sentence to parole, which was amidst the sentencing recommendations. "Obstruction of justice" is just a bit a hand-waving way of saying this.

ARMITAGE WAS THE LEAKER. How is this not getting through?
 
By the way, mark my words, if the verdict holds on appeal, I'll be perfectly happy with whatever happens. Fine, felony, jail time, pardon, whatever have you. The histrionic shrieks of folks like PyroGamer when they lost their precious scalp are all I needed to see.

But, honestly, I'd trade 10 Scooters... 50 Scooters with life sentences to know what was so important that it had to disappear down the nigh infinite depths of Sandy Berger's pants, whom I only bring up again to reaffirm that I don't find the claims of concern with national security from this group convincing and to show that I don't really give a crap about Libby. Politician types are a dime a dozen.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Bah, the jury for this little show trial was more or less packed with people who wanted to "make someone pay for Bush's war in Iraq." [/QUOTE]

last time I checked juries are chosen by both sides.

Libby lied and obstructed justice. How is that not getting through?

And he did it before Fitzgerald found about the leaker. Fitzgerald is duty bound to prosecute crimes that occur within an investigation.

Furthermore, Bush hasn't ruled out a pardon so the story isn't over.
 
D'oh! I may have overstated my anecdotes. This was a town filled with Democrats, but I could've sworn I remembered a story that at least one rabidly anti-war juror slipped by because the defense burned all their "no questions asked" juror dismissal thingies.

But there is this, transcript from the day of the vedict:

"12:54pm Denis Collins, one of the jurors, addresses the press. He identifies himself as a former reporter. “The primary thing that convinced us on most of the accounts was the alleged conversation with Russert…It was either false (didn’t happen) or did happen…Mr. Libby was either told by or told to about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times…we believed he had a bad memory…but contradicted by testimony that he had an incredible grasp of details…even if he forgot who told him, it seemed very unlikely that he would have not remembered about Mrs. Wilson…tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury…jury asked “Where’s Rove? Where’s the other guys?” It seemed like he was the fall guy.
 
Oh, sorry. Let me retranslate that response for the... let's just say less emotionally mature members of this forum. The ones like cheese, msut, usickenme, who do not even offer those who disagree with them the courtesy of good faith
Click to expand...

Let me know when you feel like making an argument in good faith.

Fitzgerald, unethically and not exactly legally, slid a statement that the CIA believed that Plame was "covert" in their own definition (Because she damn sure wasn't ACTUALLY covert, otherwise Armitage would be on the stand.) into Libby's sentencing hearing, dancing around rules that such evidence should have been presented at the actual trial.
Click to expand...


Plame was covert, to say otherwise is a lie.

Wilson was also completely honest and to say otherwise is a lie.

Armitage did not have to take the stand because he already cooperated and told the truth in his testimony.

Scooter was completely and thoroughly dishonest in his testimony and to say otherwise is a lie.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Plame was covert, to say otherwise is a lie. Armitage did not have to take the stand because he already cooperated and told the truth in his testimony/.[/quote]
So Armitage got off scot free for leaking the identity of a covert government agent because he cooperated? And people keep telling me Fitzgerald was nonpartisan. Let's assume what you say is true, Fitz found the leaker in Armitage, but did not charge him because he cooperated. He found the TARGET OF HIS INVESTIGATION, but decided he had bigger fish to fry.

Do you even READ your posts before you post them?

Also, you edited in that Wilson never lied, so now I gots to get all Google-Fu up in your face: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/04/joe_wilsons_forgetfulness.html
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']So Armitage got off scot free for leaking the identity of a covert government agent because he cooperated?[/QUOTE]

Apparently he did not know Plame was covert and he claimed not to have divulged the info on purpose and yes people usually do get light sentences for turning state evidence.

None of this has anything to do with Libby lying his ass off during the process of finding about out how anyone knew any names or why they would talk about such a thing to begin with.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Apparently he did not know Plame was covert and he claimed not to have divulged the info on purpose and yes people usually do get light sentences for turning state evidence.

None of this has anything to do with Libby lying his ass off during the process of finding about out how anyone knew any names or why they would talk about such a thing to begin with.[/quote]

So... you can commit a felony, compromising the national security of the country... but if you just "didn't know" and own up to it, you won't even get charged. I think it is FAR more likely that Plame was not covert in any way that is legally actionable, especially given that A) she drove to Langley each day. B) She was accidently outed once before to Cuban/Russian officials due to a severe bureaucratic botch-job. C) Novak had called the CIA to confirm her employment, and were she covert and the CIA felt that Novak should not divulge this, they would have put it in no unclear terms that he should not divulge this information. Wouldn't be the only time a journalist leaked classified info though.

Russert was the star witness. It was Libby's word vs. Russert's and if I wanted to, I could assert loudly that Russert changed his version of events to incriminate Libby and it would have as much weight as your assertions.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']I think it is FAR more likely that Plame was not covert in any way that is legally actionable[/QUOTE]


It does not matter what you think.

If it can be called thinking.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It does not matter what you think.

If it can be called thinking.[/quote]

I think I'm done talking to you. Your entire repertoire is unsourced assertions and ad hominem swipes. I'll consider responding to whatever you edit to say, but I think after that, that's that.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']I think I'm done talking to you. Your entire repertoire is unsourced assertions and ad hominem swipes. I'll consider responding to whatever you edit to say, but I think after that, that's that.[/QUOTE]

Matthew 7:3-5

If you ever feel like making a post without lying maybe just maybe then you can accuse me of something.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Yes, because it is so much easier to not read the backup data I provide and just accuse me of lying.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before let me know when you feel like making an argument in good faith before you whine about not getting that particular courtesy.

For example when I say Plame was covert my source is the CIA, you however have nothing but idiocy and lies and not even original lies at that.
 
Plame's covert status is a red herring - it doesn't matter. Scooter got caught lying but lucky for him, he has friends in high places who don't want him to talk.
 
For all the let wing Cry Babies looking for anything to cry about,Go and Look At all the People Saint Clinton gave Pardons to.Then come Back and Say What bush did with Libby is So bad.What a joke.Both sides Have short memories.
 
[quote name='browneyedgal68']For all the let wing Cry Babies looking for anything to cry about,Go and Look At all the People Saint Clinton gave Pardons to.Then come Back and Say What bush did with Libby is So bad.What a joke.Both sides Have short memories.[/QUOTE]

No one here is holding up Clinton as a paragon of virtue.

That is just one of the many things wrong with your post.
 
Why do people on both side have such short memories.Go back and take a look at who Cliton gave pardons to.Those people had jury's find them guilty to.
Both parties stink.The left cannot give enough money away and the right lost there way back when the had the religous right take over.
 
If you're gonna post in this forum, you could at least attempt to spell former Presidents' names correctly and make your posts readable. Seriously, this whole, "no space after the period" bullshit is really getting on my nerves.
 
[quote name='browneyedgal68']Why do people on both sides have such short memories? Go back and take a look at who Clinton gave pardons to. Those people had juries find them guilty also. Both parties stink. The left cannot give enough money away and the right lost their way back when they had the religious right take over.[/QUOTE]

If you want to start a new thread that is fine but please stop trying to take this one off topic.
 
Browneyed, I'd rather like to think the conservatives lost a lot of folks when they traded their paleocon isolationism and foreign policy pragmatism away for the old Left's idealism, but that's just me.

Either way, while this isn't exactly MENSA, you're kinda outta your league here. More time studying civics and working on your grammar would do you a world of good.
 
This sucks. GW is the only president who would ever pardon people who don't deserve it!















PresidentBillClintonMay282003Disk2074.jpg
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Let it never be said that Gorilla actually reads threads before posting in them.[/quote]When it comes to these political threads, I never do.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Advise you add "posting" to the list of things you do not do in this subforum.[/QUOTE]

*snap*

Very nice.
 
[quote name='browneyedgal68']Why do people on both side have such short memories.Go back and take a look at who Cliton gave pardons to.Those people had jury's find them guilty to..[/QUOTE]

Yes, Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, whose republican lawyer, what was his name? Oh, right, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, thought the was innocent.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Yes, Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, whose republican lawyer, what was his name? Oh, right, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, thought the was innocent.[/QUOTE]

Show me a lawyer that doesn't think his client is innocent.
 
I know, but Scooter being Mark Rich's lawyer is too much of a cowinkydink to not mention to the "CLINTON'S PARDONS!!!111!!1" posse.

And I'm willing to bet a lot of lawyers think their clients are guilty, but that doesn't deny them the right to a decent defense.
 
There are those who still believe in the foolish notion that Plame's status was not covert:

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert” when her name became public in July 2003. […]

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Is it really up for debate, or are those on the right trying, as always, to obfuscate the truth of the matter in order to make their political grandstanding and tromping of the rule of law, yet again, seem somehow honorable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top