Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - libby sentence commuted

dc_dux · 07-03-2007, 03:42 PM

I would suggest that`this case differs from most presidential pardons/commutations, particularly in recent history, in that it involves a person in the highest level of government convicted of four felonies.

Should those in the highest level of the federal government be held to a higher standard than say a bootlegger that Bush pardoned earlier. I believe so because they pledge or affirm to uphold the law and public trust when they accept the responsiblity of serving in government (and the highest level in the WH).

The most nearly comparable cases would be Halderman, Erlichman and Mitchell of Watergate fame, all of whom were convicted and served prison time. Neither Nixon nor Ford even considered a pardon or commutation.

The only other marginally similar recent case would be former Secy of Defense Cap Weinberger, who was indicted for perjury in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal. Bush Sr. pardoned Weinberger....others, like Bud McFarland, Reagan's National Security Advisor, were not so fortunate and served time for perjury.

I think its also reasonable to expect Bush to stand by his word. His spokespeople said repeatedly for the last year +, even after knowing of the sentence, that Bush would not interfere with the judicial process until it is fully played out.

To say that he respects the jury's decision, then to act with disdain for the judicial process by making a non-judicial value judgement on the "harshness" of the sentence (which was well within federal sentencing guidelines) is the ultimate hypocrisy...only further heightened by Bush circumventing the DoJ pardon/commutation process and guidelines.

07-03-2007, 03:42 PM	#37 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I would suggest that`this case differs from most presidential pardons/commutations, particularly in recent history, in that it involves a person in the highest level of government convicted of four felonies. Should those in the highest level of the federal government be held to a higher standard than say a bootlegger that Bush pardoned earlier. I believe so because they pledge or affirm to uphold the law and public trust when they accept the responsiblity of serving in government (and the highest level in the WH). The most nearly comparable cases would be Halderman, Erlichman and Mitchell of Watergate fame, all of whom were convicted and served prison time. Neither Nixon nor Ford even considered a pardon or commutation. The only other marginally similar recent case would be former Secy of Defense Cap Weinberger, who was indicted for perjury in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal. Bush Sr. pardoned Weinberger....others, like Bud McFarland, Reagan's National Security Advisor, were not so fortunate and served time for perjury. I think its also reasonable to expect Bush to stand by his word. His spokespeople said repeatedly for the last year +, even after knowing of the sentence, that Bush would not interfere with the judicial process until it is fully played out. To say that he respects the jury's decision, then to act with disdain for the judicial process by making a non-judicial value judgement on the "harshness" of the sentence (which was well within federal sentencing guidelines) is the ultimate hypocrisy...only further heightened by Bush circumventing the DoJ pardon/commutation process and guidelines. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-03-2007 at 03:52 PM..