Wrong Again
Lord have mercy.
msnbc
How much hypocrisy and lack of respect for the law can we take?
Is the President simply trying to make sure that anyone who voted for the man is mocked and ridiculed at the July 4th barbecue?
ap
totaldrivel.com
I know. Scooter Libby would be better off being Clinton disciple Sandy Berger, nothing more than a felonious ghetto thief who should be in Federal Prison for stealing documents from the National Archives to cover you know who in the terror investigations.
I know. Scooter Libby was convicted because his story didn't match that of a few journalists.
I know. Scooter Libby was witch hunted over a crime that never occurred: the "leak" of the name of a socialite spy.
Vanity Fair
But I also know this.
Scooter Libby was found guilty by an American jury in an American court.
Scooter Libby had all of the rights of an American citizen in court and was convicted.
Scooter Libby was sentenced by an American judge.
Scooter Libby had not yet won-nor lost-an appeal.
President Bush was wrong to commute his sentence.
At least the President is consistent.
Illegal Immigrants who break the law are welcomed in Bush's America. Why not let a man duly convicted by the rule of law skate.
Hell, Mr. President, pardon Paris Hilton while you're at it.
CNN via AP
I'll be interested to see how the Left Nuts bend and cry and whine over Libby's commutation but still support illegals who break the law and still ignore Sandy Berger's crime.
But the Left Nuts are predictably hypocrites. There are no surprises nor standards to be expected there.
It's the Common Sense Americans I'm worried about.
Please don't be tricked by Republicans into supporting this decision.
Please don't be fooled by imposter conservatives who make excuses for Bush's actions.
And it doesn't matter who Clinton pardoned. That's not a defense.
There's nothing Republican, or Conservative, or Common Sense that can be applied to this hedonistic, audacious, and hubristic decision made by a President who once masqueraded as a man who leads on the basis of what is right.
You do not steal from the safe because it is unlocked.
You do not steal. Period.
Jamie,
I applaud your most common sense repsonse to the Libby commutation. You and I can sit on juries and send each other to jail, but when it comes to serving deserved justice on the ruling class of this country, no way---our voices are silenced.
Reply to this
Compean, Ramos, Lt Col Lisiecki, SSgt Wuterich, LCpl Sharratt...
Reply to this
You are right Jamie. It is unforgivable of Bush to pardon Scooter for perjury and he and EVERY politician who has lied to congress or a grand jury or a federal investigator should be in jail.
Reply to this
The thing that bothers me most is all the tax payer dollars spent with no concern, somebody owes the people. And as JD wrote, what of our Marines and Soldiers inprisoned by the word of an Iraqi. If the president has an concern for the troops, he would get those boys out of prison.
Reply to this
Forgot to mention the Border Guards! What a joke our system is. Those who protect and defend the country are in bigger danger of being put in prison than those who commit the crimes? What a world!
Reply to this
I can believe anything that comes from the White House. Our president thinks that 30 months is excessive for prejury for his buddy. What ever happened to Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong! I forgot the president doesnt have the same rules to live by as "We The People"
Reply to this
GOP presidential candidates falling over themselves in support of Bush's decision:
"While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." — Former Sen. & Washington insider lobbyist and current Hollywood elite Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who is preparing to run for president as a Washington outsider.
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."
-Former prosecutor & NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY, currently running for president as "Mr. Tough Guy" on crime and terrorism.
Elect people like this and you'll get another "Let them eat cake..." president. It simply takes your breath away...
Reply to this
You know, I have to disagree that this wasn't the right thing to do. I tend to grade the performance of public servants based (at least partially) on what I would have done in their place with at least the information I have available at the time. And based on my looking into the Libby case, it was a railroad job. While I have the same respect for the judicial system as anyone else, I won't endorse a trial, conviction and sentencing simply because it was administered by that system. By the same token, there are Border Agents and U.S. soldiers and Marines who were similarly given "fair trials" by American judges and juries with full rights as American citizens. But I couldn't, in good conscience, say that their convictions and sentencing were above a Presidential pardon (or commuting). Then, of course, you must recognize that just as the trial, conviction and sentencing were within the bounds of the law, the President wields Constitutionally granted power to do exactly what he did (and more). Is the outcome any less distinctively American?
So with all that said, I have to look at what's RIGHT. What is it about the cases that should lead one to decide this or that. For Libby, the case centered around a confusion of a sequence of events being recalled from two years ago (at the time). Based on what that sequence of events was, it doesn't make sense that Scooter would lie in such a manner so long as you hold that lying means intentionally altering the truth as opposed to mistakenly giving a false account of the facts. It also doesn't make sense that he would do so to obstruct justice. The comments by the jury afterwards, that Libby was "just the fall guy for the VP" and what not, also smacks of a trial that, though it was PROCEDURALLY due process, was not necessarily fair.
Commuting the prison portion of Libby's sentence while leaving the remainder of the conviction and sentence intact was the best course of action in my view. It allows for the current appeals to continue, but removes the most harsh aspect of, what I believe to be, a wrongheaded conviction. I absolutely support the President's actions there. I only wish he was equally as committed to seeing things done right by our border agents and troops.
Reply to this
Once again, I'll have to take the contrarian position on this. If I'm going to to lobby for pardons for soldiers and border guards, then I have to lobby for for pardons for people who were victims of prosecutorial misconduct as well.
The investigation should never have gone as far as it did since Armitage fessed up almost immediately to being the one who "outed" Plame. Why, then, did Fitzgerald continue to pursue Libby? Simple - it was PERSONAL, with a CLINTON CONNECTION to boot:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009555
My only problem with this is that in typical fashion Bush does a half-assed job and gives Libby clemency instead of a full pardon, sort of like the way he is fighting the war.
Reply to this
What , if any president of the last 25 years, has not been a "LET THEM EAT CAKE" president or for that matter what congress since the end of ww2 has not been hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Reply to this
Gabe wrote:
"Commuting the prison portion of Libby's sentence while leaving the remainder of the conviction and sentence intact was the best course of action in my view. It allows for the current appeals to c! ontinue, but removes the most harsh aspect of, what I believe to be, a wrongheaded conviction."
Gabe, you and the others who support this decision are overlooking one of the most important, if not the most important result of commuting Libby's sentence:
A pardon would have eliminated the need for Libby's appeal. So now with the commutation, Libby's appeal continues, meaning Libby, Cheney, & Bush can continue to avoid having to answer questions before Congress.
How nicely convenient for them all, don't you think?
Reply to this
I have to agree with Gabe and JD on this one. Scooter should not have been on trial. but your right, the soldiers and border guards that were just doing their jobs should never have been on trial either.
Reply to this
Man.... all of this legal mumbo-jumbo makes my head spin. Now I know why I have a tough time with lawyers. Jamie, you stated above that Libby was "witch hunted for a crime that did not occur." If there was no crime, a pardon or commutation is fine. I don't understand all of the ins-and-outs of this case, but the President is well within his legal right to do what he did. In my mind, he should have wiped the slate clean and granted a full pardon.
What grabs my gonads is that the Lefties have no problem crying and whining about the likes of Mumia Abu-Jamal (convicted cop killer) and Leonard Peltier (convicted FBI agent killer), and they want these kind of clowns' slates wiped clean. But a guy like Scooter Libby, they'd hang him from the gallows if they had the chance just because of his association with Cheney and Bush. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. These people make me sick.
One word for you liberal whiners out there......"Tookie", notice he isn't around anymore as your "Victim du juor".
I'm not saying that everyone is all clean and concise with the Libby case, but let's sort through the ruble here. These kinds of things are well within the powers of the President to do and he did it.
So there. My goodness, let's worry about important stuff.......like terrorism OR the 12 million illegal aliens in this country WHO HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME.
Reply to this
Steve, what makes you think that Bush and Cheney have to answer questions before congress? Why would any sitting official want to answer to even a committee of congress that might include Murtha , Jefferson and other unindicted coconspirators and bribe takers. Surely you wont deny that Jefferson took a bribe would you? You are missing the real item here and it is that D.C. is a septic tank right left and up the middle. There are some honorable people in congress but I defy you to name 100 out of 535.
Reply to this
Whether Congress is 100% full of angels or 100% scumbags, they are mandated by the Constitution with the responsibility of oversight.
Reply to this
Over sight of what? All 3 branches? Do they oversee the supreme court?
Reply to this
Read your Constitution. It's a wonderful document, full of all kinds of wonderful surprises...
Reply to this
And for the record, if Representative Jefferson is ever convicted by a jury, I'm all for him doing the time in jail. Given the GOP controls the Justice Department, where is Gonzalez and the indictments of Jefferson?
Reply to this
I’m not sure where you going with your post, not quiet sure of what you’re trying to say. But according to the Cornell University Law School…
The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the means by which each of the branches could resist the blandishments and incursions of the others. The Framers drew up our basic charter against a background rich in the theorizing of scholars and statesmen regarding the proper ordering in a system of government of conferring sufficient power to govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the governed.
Could you site a passage that explains in more detail what you’re trying to say?
As for Gonzalez, what law did he break? Doesn’t the President have the right to hire and fire as he sees fit? These were not Congressional appointees. If President Clinton didn’t need to give a reason for firing all of them? Why is it mandatory for President Bush?
Reply to this
I'll ask you again. DOES the congress over see the supreme court. I'm asking you because I dont know. Please spare me the platitudes and snobbery.
Reply to this
Didn't say Gonzalez broke any laws, just wondering where he is with the bribery indictments against Representative Jefferson?
Reply to this
I can't answer that question for you, given how most folks interpret the Constitution through their own personal prism. So I'm not being a snob nor am I a Constitutional scholar either when I say to read the Constitution and decide for yourself.
Reply to this
Steve, you seem like a man who values the rule of law. How do you feel about the estimated 12 million illegal aliens who HAVE broken the law by being in this country? How should those criminals be handled?
I'm just curious......
Reply to this
On principle I am against immigrants who are here illegally. Frankly though, I'm not really sure what should be done about the 12 million plus who are already here, there are no easy solutions, as there is just no way you're going to realistically round them all up and send them back. Nor will building a wall solve the problem either. So I'm still open to better ideas and waiting and hoping for some to come along. To me though the bigger problem/criminals are the businesses who entice and hire illegal immigrants. The damage they are doing to this country and the American workforce is unforgiveable. They should be prosecuted to the maximum punishments of existing laws, and I'd love to see even greater punishments enacted for this offense.
Reply to this
Wanna compare “pardons”? Somehow, I can’t help but think this stink about Scooter just might be political. Maybe? I don’t know.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
I know about the letter of the law and all that, but there is a difference between the law and justice. I'm not saying that because one person did something then others can too. Right is right and wrong is wrong, I'm just saying there is a difference between criminals and scape goats.
Reply to this
I think there is a fair way to handle the 12 million. First, enforce the boarder regulations we already have, second, heavily fine any employer that hires illegal’s, third, fine landlords who sell or rent housing to illegal’s, fourth, any illegal that commits a crime must be deported. ANY crime. We don’t have to “round’em up” just deport as we apprehend. There’s no need to waist money and time for a trial to find out if they are guilty of the crime they are charged with, they are ILLEGAL, just being in the country Illegally is a crime in its self. And before some get all tore up about no trials, think about it for a second. The Constitution protects American citizens. Any one who is NOT an United States citizen does not have the right to be protected by the Constitution of the United States. They have human rights, yes, but not Constitutional rights.
I am not saying all illegals commit crimes, I know better, I am just saying the priority should be on the ones that do.
In other words, enforce the laws we already have
Reply to this
You know what a shame that the citizens like the ones here, seem to have a better understanding of the importance of the law... than our own politicians... There is unfairness on both sides of this issue, Libby was railroaded, but Libby was indeed convicted...nuff said, anymore its no skin off my a**.... Our leaders are playing politics as usual, our administration severely disappointed those of us who had faith in them on so many fronts its shameful... this type of politics and corruption seems to be the norm anymore and the real issues (war, terrorism, immigration) are dragged out by chicken sh** politicians that are too damned worried about actually saying something of conviction that oh lord forbid they actually piss off some constituants or maybe lose some votes for what is right for us in the long run.... I would rather be a politician that served one term and honestly than serve for years riding the inner political bandwagon in disgrace...(how do they sleep at night? Pretty well I'm afraid) they shouldn't be in office long enough to leave their a** imprints in their big leather chairs in the first place!!
On a lighter note everyone here have a great Independence Day! and whatever one beleives in.. I know all patriots of BullMooseAmerica will be flying the red , white, and blue with so much patriot pride we'll be crapping liberty bells.... some call us "ultra-patriots" or "extreme patriots" To them I say with an ultra big smile... I am extremely grateful.. See some of you tonight on BMA! Thx LTL
Reply to this
Scott, very well put. Steve, I concur on all of these points that Scott has made. The hard part of this entire equation is how to handle the ones that are already in country. That is the problem that is far to difficult to solve. Can we just round them all up and send them back, no, that's not a reasonable or realistic solution. The logistics to accomplish that just do not exist. There has to be a way for these people to become bonafide citizens while also finding out who they are and why they are here. If they are here for economic reasons, let's start them on the process that everyone else has to take to become naturalized. If they are here for other reasons, let's send them back to where they came from. We can weed out the good from the bad. Once you've answered the question of the current 12 million, then....
There is NO reason to create new legislation when the correct legislation already exists and it's strictly a matter of enforcing the laws that we already have.
I'm a simple man, and this seems very simple to me.
Everything is political, whether it's Presidential pardons, attorney firings, hanging out with lobbyists, etc. There should be no one crying when it comes to the decision that the Pres' made regarding Libby. They are allowable under our Constitutional rules, so why are we stunned when this happens?
Reply to this
Amen brother.....oh, sorry, can we say that here?? That's right, this isn't the ACLU's blog. So go ahead, shoot off your fireworks and have a great 4th. Don't shoot them off in St. Louis County, though, you might get arrested. Then we'll have to ask Jamie for a pardon...
Reply to this
Scott, You are on the right track but in my humble opinion we do not need to make it complicated. Here is my solution; Fine the employers. No work no money to pay rent and buy food hence they go home. Attrition Scott.
Reply to this
I got a red neck, white t-shirt and blue ribbon beer, yawl have a happy and safe Independence day!
Reply to this
Wow..I miss logging in a few days and come back to a thread like this..fantastic! I agree with Lt. Listener's take on the BMA crowd being more knowledgeable about the Constitution and laws than many of our elected officials..I do have to say that I am more concerned about our management of the war and the seriousness of the threat we face than I am about the Libby sentence commutation..the way things are looking in Pakistan I think the bad guys are only one bullet away from getting control of some no-kiddin real nukes and I really hope someone in DC has an eye on the situation and a plan on how to deal with it should the radicals take over...Have a Happy 4th !
Reply to this
Scott,
LOL! I will be extremely disappointed in you if after tomorrow that t-shirt doesn't have big BBQ stain on it !
What does BMA prefer Ribs, Porksteaks, burgers, brats, chicken, dogs? Whats on the menu tomorrow??? Man I'm hungry already... Bottle Rocket fights anyone?? LTL
Reply to this
Jamie,
I have been in law enforcement for 14 years and I am here to tell you juries do some squirrely things. Attorneys call it "The Gonzo Factor". You can have a solid, 120% case and they will acquit. Then they can convict when a reasonable man would not have thought the case had a chance.
My own experience was thus: I submitted to be my niece's defendant for her "final exam" at the end of her second year of law school. It was a trial and I was charged with murder.
All the witnesses and such had a script of sorts to follow, like a play. That is, we had certain information we were to impart. If the future-lawyers did not ask, we didn't have to say but we could not add info that was not given. In the end, what should have been an acquital for self-defense became a conviction for First Degree Murder.
The jury was polled and asked why they voted this way. I was convicted on information that was NEVER given in the trial! Someone on the jury got it in their head that I had done something that was NEVER produced as evidence or testimony. They then managed to convince the others to follow along.
Under Illinois law, you have to be attempting to prevent the prosecution of someone for the crime of Obstructing Justice to stand. Libby should not have lied but there was no original crime and it would not stand in Illinois. In understand that federal statute may differ in this matter.
Of all I know of this matter, the one thing I do not know is whether Libby was under oath when he "lied". Frankly, I do not think the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
If he lied, then no, he should not have done that but in this instance, even if he did lie, it did not constitute a criminal offense.
Furthermore, when Obstructing Justice is charged, the severity of the origianl crime sets the tone for what sentence might be imposed for a conviction of Obstructing Justice. As there was no underlying crime in this matter, ANY sentence is harsh but prison would have been exceptionally harsh. I believe the judge had an agenda of his own in this matter, as did the prosecutor.
In summation, lying is not to be condoned unless it spares someone's feelings from needless hurt. In our public officials it should not be tolerated but in instances such as this, other sanctions might be warranted but not this.
Thank you,
Hugh Noble
Reply to this
According to Bush appointee Patrick Fitzgerald: FITZGERALD (5/25/07): "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."
Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage each leaked Ms. Wilson's identity to the press for reasons known only to them and subsequently Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced (within Federal guidelines) by another Bush appointee.
If President Bush genuinely believed Mr. Libby was unjustly prosecuted and convicted, that is, innocent, then why didn't he pardon him? A commuted sentence suggests the President either believes Mr. Libby is guilty and is bailing him out or he has another motive, yet unrevealed. In any event it certainly gives the appearance of an administration who feels above the law.
For a blistering critique of this mess see:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Reply to this
the Judge played politics the president LEGALLY CONSTITUTIONALLY struck that down only because the weasel judge tried to make him pay for the cime before the appeal. do you people live in the real world? what part of witch hunt dont you get? stop shooting the wounded!! will you all let rich democrat lawyers frame the debate leading conservatives around by the bull nose-ring: dubai port deal, conservatives wont vote for mormons, gay republicans for last october surprise, we went to Iraq because he had wmd... WE should characterize the debate and make the calender of issues. stop shooting our own people. GAWWWWD!
LOVE all of you, LN
Reply to this
Thank you for the Post Jeff..and thanks to all of you for fueling this kick butt discussion that really--in the end--brings a lot of divergent and interesting sides together--all of it under a beautiful and consistent color scheme of red, white and blue.
That said, I would like to add some last words to this debate.
As much as the Bush Administration and its defenders would like to color this as some romantic formulation of the "rule of law", by which George Bush is actually some kind of genius by acting by the "rule of law" is using his "rule of law" powers to piss away a jury and judge decision, I believe these same defenders would never survive a basic chess match.
The Bush Administration cannot default to the "rule of law" excuse because it doesn't consider the rule of law in the immigration issue. You cannot develop your administration--"with us or against us"--with a black and white philosophy and then decide on certain issues based of color and shade. Isn't that what we couldn't stand about Clinton?
The Bush Administration has revealed it's main weakness: It blusters about how the world and its alleged approach to the world is black and white but then it shades and colors when needed and espeicllay when it's in trouble.
Remember President Bush said Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil"?
Iran is killing Americans.
And what action do we see?
Let's face itL If the "rule of law" were paramount then the Bush Administration would never have supported and concocted an amnesty bill for 12 million law breakers. And if the "rule of Law" were paramount as Bush decided the veracity of sentence length, what about the 11 year sentences for the border agents?
And, by the way, I don't care about Clinton pardoning Marc Rich. It doesn't matter.
What matters is now and what matters is right.
This is what I alwasy tell my kids in troubled times:
Doing what is right is rarely the easy thing to do.
But doing what is right is always the right thing to do.
Reply to this
Thanks LN..The Bush commutation is Constitutional indeed. But so is abortion. So is the removal of prayer from schools. Do I need to go on?
Reply to this
I have to agree with this. I for one could care less what the Libs think. I think this "trial" was a farce. People get convicted all the time on no evidence at all and I think that's what happened in this case. Are there others out there that deserves the same treatment? Sure, and maybe when President Bush gets closer to leaving office he will commute some of them also. And I also think two thing that stand out here and need to be addressed, 1) Libby did not make a big contribution to the President's campaign and win a pardon, 2) Where is Sandy Berger now? I think what he did is 10 times worse than what they say Libby did.
Reply to this