July 2, 2007

Bush Commutes the Sentence

The President's Statement (by way of TPMCafe):

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. 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 thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence 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. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation.The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Simple Story. No Jail = Scooter keeps his mouth shut.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

The ONLY positive out of this is that it is gives the Dems one more talking point. And, if they can just take that and run with it, we'll be fine. If not, I'm moving to Norway...

Pilt

Anonymous said...

This is as unexpected and startling as yesterday's sunrise.

We expect total corruption from a totally corrupt administration. Something else to expect: Bush will pardon Libby on his way out of office, negating the fines as well.

Jonathan Potts said...

Wow, am I naive. I was convinced that even this administration didn't have the gall to do this. I'll give the president this--he's got balls as big as church bells.

Anonymous said...

Yay! "Amnesty" for Scooter! Tell me again why the right wing base was really pushing for leniency on Scooter in this case? What's it to them? This dude was convicted of a felony by a jury and an entire 20% (or so) of the country was actually lobbying to keep him out of jail? Can anyone defend that? Now Scooty can stay out of jail, and get a full pardon just as the top of the mast of this sinking ship of an administration is going under in January 2009. Thanks for returning honor and decency to the white house, GWB.

Anonymous said...

Speaking as an evangelical Christian, I thought our president was to respect the laws of the nation, and to pay accordingly when said laws have been violated. Yet again, as with not serving the least among us, this president fails to live by his faith. Very sad indeed. Even if he realizes Scooter is not at fault, all the more reason for the follower of Christ to step up and seize the opportunity to walk the faith. Very sad indeed how this president fails his faith, and therefore his country time and time again!

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHAHA! GOOD!

Libby did NOTHING wrong. The same way you people insist that Rove is guilty of something (yet you people have yet to find something). I know, Rove set up Dan Rather in regard to the typed documents fiasco! Maurice Hinchey of New York even said so openly, on the radio. Ask him.

I betchya Halliburton is behind this!

Anonymous said...

Teror bombings in England. And Olbermann wasted 50 minutes talking about Libby. And to think that now Bush is the biggest threat to the United States. Man, you lefties are worth the price of admission, just for the laughs.

Sherry Pasquarello said...

anon, this isn't a football game to root at.

and by bush doing away with the jail time and leaving everything else in place he has decided that he is judge and jury now.

i'm pleased,in one way. it does give any democrat more fund raising ammo.

Anonymous said...

Good point about fund raising, Sherry. I hadn't thought of that.

Anonymous said...

Does the "rule of law" mean knowing to you howling, reactionary conservative nitwits? The man was CONVICTED in a court, by a jury of his peers. Period. End of sentence. That's how it works here. If you want to see how it DOESN'T work, go spend a month or two in your choice of a third-world country.

Dianna -

I respect your thoughts, but why cast this in religious terms? Bush's "faith" is nothing more or less than a smokescreen for lies and deceit, as religion so often is with politicians.

Finally, let me say this; I had a friend who spent 18 months in a Federal prison for the horrible crime of (gasp!) selling some pirated software on eBay. I don't dismiss his crime for a moment. It was stupid and he paid his debt. Too bad that he wasn't a lying, cheating Washington insider...

Piltdown Man

Anonymous said...

My original challenge to defend why republicans, Rudy, Fred Thompson and others have called for this one dude to be above the law? "He did nothing wrong!" and "Damn Liberals" is not doing it for me. We are all Americans. It is highly probable that a Democrat will be in the White House during the next term. Would you want them to be above the law too? As a Democrat, I've got the guts to say hell no to that. Do you, Republicans?

Anonymous said...

You all have forgotten how Bill Clinton pardoned terrorists with the goal in mind to make sure his wife gets the Hispanic vote in New York.

Short memories you all have.

Anonymous said...

You all have forgotten how Bill Clinton pardoned terrorists with the goal in mind to make sure his wife gets the Hispanic vote in New York.

Surely this constitutes a new record for the number of inaccuracies, absurdities, and irrelevancies contained in a single sentence uttered outside of Washington, D.C.; and don't call me Shirley.

EdHeath said...

Well, I think that Davd Brooks had it mostly right in his piece in the NYTimes. He dismisses Joe Wilson as pompous and unimportant, which I don’t think is exactly right, and defends Scooter as a decent, upright guy (he has met Scooter, in his job), which doesn’t seem quite right either. But Brooks describes the whole thing as way overblown, with much partisan finger pointing, and I think that is on the mark. I guess the partisans on both sides have gotten what they wanted, a point to add to their fund raising pleas.

I will say this; Bush stated he thought the sentence was too harsh, but I don’t believe he addressed the judge’s thought that the sentence needed to be harsh because of Scooter’s lack of remorse. The jury did believe a crime was committed, Bush acknowledged that, so Scooter might have apologized for at least the appearance of impropriety, even if lying wasn’t his intention. It seemed like Bush was trying to make nice with his public statement, but Scooter’s lack of remorse is a hole in effort.

Capital Steps, on the radio and presumably the web, tomorrow. Politics takes a holiday, as it does four times a year with them.

Anonymous said...

Ed, confirm that I am hearing correctly what you are saying:

You think that using the power of the very highest reaches of the Executive Branch to expose to our enemies the identity of a covert CIA agent is not worth getting all lathered up. Is that right?

You think that doing so for crass partisan political reasons is not important. Is that right?

You think that lying to a Federal grand jury to protect higher ups in the government doesn't deserve much in the way of commentary. Is that right?

Well, if you think any of those things, let me tell you what I think. I think that when ordinary people like you and me adopt the attitude that "it's no big deal...they all cheat and lie," we are fostering exactly the kind thinking that will turn America into a permanent corrupt dictatorship (as opposed to the temporary corrupt disctatorship of the present).

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'll pose it as I would to a child: Even if Bill Clinton pardoned the ring bearer to Osama and Saddam's marriage (or whatever the charges that were stated here), does that make it ok to commute (and eventually pardon) a convicted criminal Libby? Why is it our team vs. their team on this? Why do you or the right even care if this clown goes to jail? If Bill Clinton's vice deputy chief of staff or assistant email checker or whatever got convicted, would there be a concerted national effort to get that person off the hook? You must realize this all looks ridiculous. I am not even mentioning the seriousness of this case, or the connections to the same white house that is issuing the amnesty, I am just wondering if anyone can look themselves in the mirror and claim to stand for personal responsibility, the rule of law, and strict constructionism and argue that I. Lewis Libby should not go to jail.

Anonymous said...

It is the same liberal mentality as David DeAngelo's that conveniently forgets the Marc Rich pardon, a man who along with Pincus Green were charged with tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Of course, Clinton's pardoning of Rich hours before leaving office have absolutely nothing to do with Denise Rich (the ex wife) making large donations to the Democratic Party and donations to the Clinton Library, either. And you guys have the audacity to speak about scandals? Oh Please.

And let's not forget (from wikipedia):

"On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[citation needed] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[5] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group."

Excuse me, but Executive Privilege? Where were the liberal Democrats then? Not a sound was heard.

And finally, let's take a long look at this list which comes directly from the website of the Office Of The Pardon Attorney:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

David DeAngelo, care to put your spin on that one? I am sure you'll be as creative as ever in terms of making excuses for your beloved Bill Clinton.

David DeAngelo once again, proves his ultimate liberal Democrat political bias by ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath and got NO sentence at all, all the while David expresses outrage over Libby receiving a Presidential Commutation of sentence.

Go figure.

Hey David, I have three words for you:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh yeah, one more thing: I'm back. And it feels damn good to be back.

Maria said...

SS,

Spot on!

Maria said...

So many words, yet TrollBraden left out one thing...

QUESTION:

Who was Marc Rich's lawyer?

Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?

ANSWER:

Scooter Libby

Bwa-hahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

And ...? What's your point? How does what you say excuse Bill Clinton's actions?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?


Answer:

It doesn't! Your response it totally irrelevant. You totally ignored the facts presented to you because those very facts are facts about Bill Clinton; which only make you turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.

TILT! Try again.

Maria said...

It is YOU who are off topic by doing as Wingnuts always do when backed into a corner: bring up Clinton.

No one is saying Bush does not have the legal right to commute or pardon anyone.

What Bush did is commute the sentence of someone who was covering up for Bush, himself, as well as Cheney.

It's the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that's important because Scooter is obstructing the investigation that leads back to Cheney and Bush and that means that the commutation is part of the CONTINUING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Only the obstruction now is not by Scooter, it's by Bush himself.

Anonymous said...

How does what you say excuse Bill Clinton's actions?

Oh yeah? Well, Jerry Ford pardoned Tokyo Rose and Dick Nixon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does what you said excuse HIS actions, huh? Huh? Bueller? Bueller? Lie? It doesn't, that's how!

And besides, your mother wears army boots! So there!

Anonymous said...

People! You are all forgetting the most obvious reason we should overlook the commutation of Scooter's sentence. Of course I am talking about the pardoning of David King Udall by Democrat Grover Cleveland! My, how short your memories are. Udall committed perjury, and good ol' Grover got him off the hook. We should heretofore accept all crimes, present and future by all presidents and their staff, anything less would constitute hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

"It is YOU who are off topic by doing as Wingnuts always do when backed into a corner: bring up Clinton.

No one is saying Bush does not have the legal right to commute or pardon anyone.

What Bush did is commute the sentence of someone who was covering up for Bush, himself, as well as Cheney.

It's the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that's important because Scooter is obstructing the investigation that leads back to Cheney and Bush and that means that the commutation is part of the CONTINUING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Only the obstruction now is not by Scooter, it's by Bush himself."

Maria, Plame was NOT covert. Read:

http://www.nysun.com/article/31062

You may also want to note:

The document which was mentioned in the aforementioned link was obtained using the freedom of information act. They didn't hide Plame's name at all.

http://www.nysun.com/pics/31062_2.php

So, how in the heck could the woman of been covert if her name's right in the open?

Maria said...

Jesus Christ, already! That is the document that Cheney declassified himself for the precise purposes of OUTING her.

Why the hell would it NEED to say she was "covert" when it said she was working for the CIA on WMD's and the whole document was CLASSIFIED before Cheney declassified all on his own which he's not supposed to even have the power to do???

Yes, the document is out now and, still, the Sun only got a special version of it which you can see parts have been whited out.

She worked for the fucking CIA and THEY said she was covert.

They are the ones who get to classify their own damn agents, not you or any other Cheney Lover.

Anonymous said...

Maria, why do you let the Troll exasperate you? He is willfully uninformed and intends to remain that way. Be amused, not frustrated.

Try this: The next time you are tempted to reason with him, try your argument on your cat first. If your cat changes its mind, THEN try the Troll. If you don't have a cat, a stale Twinky makes an even better stand-in/test subject.

Maria said...

it's not the Troll so much as it is every other Wingnut spouting the same BS already disproved talking points.

They know if they repeat a lie often enough, some of it will stick.

Anonymous said...

Ick. I hate twinkies. Not only are they bad for you, the seem to of gotten smaller as the years went by.

And look at twinkies...fried cake with this nasty filling.

Same goes for those nasty fruit pies. those things can sit on the shelf forever before mold decides it can grow and survive on them.

And finally:

"it's not the Troll so much as it is every other Wingnut spouting the same BS already disproved talking points.

They know if they repeat a lie often enough, some of it will stick."

Maria should be quite familiar with the tactic of a group repeating a lie often enough, some of it will stick...look at how the war in Iraq is being reported by the media. Enough said.

Take David DeAngelo for instance, he'll blog about the number of our military casulties in Iraq and nearly take delight in it, but he refuses to talk about the good things going on over there. Why? He wants a loss, as does all of the other liberal Democrats. And why do they want a loss in Iraq? Easy. Political gain this come election time 2008. That's all it is.

Sorta reminds me of the sick maneuver the Democrats did regarding the recent tornado stricken town in Kansas where the Governor was in contact with Howard Dean and Dean told her not to do anything because the situation was one they couldn't pass by. Nothing like politicizing a disaster while families are suffering are in need of help. This was released by your friend, Jim Quinn via Sean Hannity's show. Quinn was then sent a "cease and desist" order via the Democrat National Committee and he told them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. He hasn't heard from the yet. I guess they couldn't fight the truth considering the fact they've kept their mouths shut ever since. See, if Quinn were lying, wouldn't the Democrats of sued already? They didn't. They have been silent. Why? Perhaps they realize that Quinn's got undeniable proof and they know it?

Democrats. Real honest people.

Anonymous said...

I should clarify that the "situation they shouldn't pass by" was one where the Gov. was told to say that all of the resources required for a rescue were in Iraq. Bottom line = they used the Iraq War as a political stunt after a tornado hits a town and wipes it out.

Anonymous said...

Maria, the Big Lie is a tactic that works for right-wing regimes all over the world. Nothing we can do about it.

But with Master Lie, it's all null-content bluster -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Relax. Laugh. Scoff. His tactic -- although you know he never actually thought it through -- is just to distract us from any actual argument some sentient being might make.

Here's an example. As you probably remember, he is the author of my first name -- Schmuck. It was, if memory serves, his appellation for me in his very first communication with me. Now he does nothing but complain that I attack him ad hominem (although he doesn't know the expression).

He seldom introduces a fact. When he does, the fact is likely to be one that argues against his position. The man(?) is laughable. Why would you let him get under your skin. Enjoy the show.

Save your upset for people who are smart enough to be dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Yes! We would've declared victory in Iraq long ago if it weren't for those pesky kids.... I agree with SS, I guess all we can do is laugh, and push for a better education system in the country so that never again will we have 19% of the populace so divorced from reality. I couldn't decide on a closer so you choose:

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

" [paraphrase/translation] If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, so the people would think you wouldn't dare make up something so ridiculous"

Anonymous said...

I think Maria and Shitrock should ask Richard Armitage about who is lying and who is not in regards to Valerie Plame being covert.

Ahem. Funny how the liberals all "forget" the name Richard Armitage.

Anonymous said...

Why would we ask a traitor about whether or not she was covert when the CIA has already said she was? I don't understand the question.