libby sentence commuted - why the fuss? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 07-02-2007, 06:57 PM

undoubtedly the recent partial commuting of scooter libby's sentence will provoke a lot of passion on this board and elsewhere. can someone explain to me what all the mania is about?

scooter libby was investigated thoroughly for years and years. the prosecution found NOTHING related to national security leaks for which mr. libby could be held legally accountable.

he was eventually indicted on 5 offenses, all of which supposedly occurred DURING the investigation of a incident for which the prosecution couldn't build a case against him. in the end, he was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts and sentenced to 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250K fine. keep in mind that these punishments were given in response to obstructions during the investigative process... not for being guilty of the crime for which he was being investigated.

so, very recently, the president has decided to partially commute mr. libby's sentence. the prison time was commuted though he will still endure the 2 years probation and the $250K fine. mr. libby has endured years of public scorn and has undoubtedly racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees. all these miseries rooted in being suspected of a crime for which a federal prosecutor can't prove he committed.

in the course of all the moaning and groaning to follow, many people will fool themselves into thinking that their indignation is rooted in a commitment to rule of law. in fact, given the historical usage of presidential pardons, this is in fact a very mild application. president clinton pardoned 140 in his two terms. president bush, by comparison, has exercised the privilege less than 115 times.

the list of pardonees is particularly striking. mr. libby is the current president's first notable pardon. president clinton's roster includes 2 democratic congressman, several close business associates (some of whom were dealing with iran during the hostage crisis), and his own brother. pretty big stuff compared to mr. libby pardon of obstruction of justice.

it's plain that given the history of pardons, the current outrage at libby's pardon is entirely a cynical political maneuver. that, or a manifestation of a personal dislike for the sitting president. in any case, it does not take into account a sober judgment of the circumstances of the situation.

the only way to justify outrage is to view this as just another abuse in a long string of abuses. given the absolute silence at some recent examples of pardons being used more liberally, it will be difficult to make that case without employing strictly partisan motivations.

host · 07-02-2007, 07:15 PM

irateplatypus, where do you get the opinion that is so contrary to what special counsel Fitzgerald, the judge, the grand jury, and the convicting jury determined happened? I find nothing similar to it, except in opinion pieces....

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

.....scooter libby was investigated thoroughly for years and years. the prosecution found NOTHING related to national security leaks for which mr. libby could be held legally accountable.

he was eventually indicted on 5 offenses, all of which supposedly occurred DURING the investigation of a incident for which the prosecution couldn't build a case against him. in the end, he was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts and sentenced to 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250K fine. keep in mind that these punishments were given in response to obstructions during the investigative process... not for being guilty of the crime for which he was being investigated.....

Libby was obviously convicted of blocking the investigation from determining asnswers to the questions detailed in Fitzgerald's senyencing memorandum.....why is that so hard for you to accept....and do you think that the investigation should have simply stopped when Libby blocked the path to obtaining answers?

Are you not aware that others have been convicted and sentenced. in other cases, for soing exactly what Libby was convicted for doing?

<h2>If you were Fitzgerald, how would you have reacted when it became obvious that Libby was lying and obstructing?</h2>

....but, Libby, Fitzgerald said, after the jury had already convicted him, chose not to do what everyone else who was questioned, seemed to be doing..... on page 4 of the sentencing memorandum, what Fitzgerald told the court, Libby decided to do, instead.....at every opportunity......</b>

Judge Sentelle...the guy who committed the ethics breech by pushing out republican watergate prosecutor Fiske, and replacing him with the compromised incompetent, Ken Starr...the partisan witch hunter who spent seven years and $60 million to find....????...a man openly bribed by Richard M. Scaife while he was still serving as white water special counsel...... he almost accepted the job as Dean of Pepperdine Law School in Malibu...... but he's there now, isn't he?

....and Sentelle was one of the three judges who today found that Libby did not have a strong enough appeal argument to receive a stay of his sentence....

.....but..... you think that he does deserve a stay or a commutation by our president, because... Armitage ..........

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...28/ai_18116298

The senator, the judge, his wife and the coverage: Hillary and Bill aren't the only ones with some explaining to do in the Whitewater saga - Sen. Lauch Faircloth, Judge David Sentelle, Pres. Bill Clinton, Hilary Rodham Clinton and the Whitewater case
Washington Monthly, March, 1996 by George III Clifford

In July 1994, Senator Lauch Faircloth and Judge David Sentelle lunched together in the quietly elegant Senate dining room. Just days later, a three-judge panel headed by Sentelle removed Robert B. Fiske Jr., a moderate Republican, from his position as independent counsel in the Whitewater affair - and replaced him with an active Republican partisan, Kenneth Starr.

Sentelle was supposed to be making his decisions free from political influence. Faircloth was a leader of the Republican charge against the Clintons on Whitewater; just weeks before, he had written Attorney General Janet Reno to complain about Fiske. So the lunch raised considerable controversy: Had Faircloth used the occasion to lobby or pressure Sentelle? Fiske's axing - after nine months and $2.5 million worth of work that had yet to produce material damaging to the Clintons - was precisely what Faircloth was after.

A year later came the news that approximately five months after the lunch and Fiske's replacement, Faircloth had hired Jane Oldham Sentelle, the judge's wife, as a receptionist for his Senate office. She had started in January 1995 at a salary of $20,000, which was later raised to $22,500......

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3007498.shtml

......It apparently wasn't too close a question for the appeals court panel -- it was a unanimous decision dismissing the appeal with a one-paragraph order........

Quote:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...memo052507.pdf
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,

.....It was apparent from early in the investigation that classified information relating to
a covert intelligence agent had been disclosed without authorization. Also early in the
investigation, investigators learned the identities of three officials – Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage, Senior Adviser to the President Karl Rove, and Mr. Libby, the Vice-
President’s Chief of Staff – who had disclosed information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment to reporters. What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of
questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate. These questions
included the following:
• Were Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby the only government officials
to disclose information about Ms. Plame’s CIA employment to reporters?

------------------------------------- 2

• Was each particular disclosure by the government officials to journalists
deliberate, reckless or inadvertent?
• How did those government officials learn about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment?
• What did those government officials know about the classified nature of Ms.
Wilson’s employment?
• Precisely what information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment did
government officials disclose to reporters, and to how many reporters?
<h2>• Were the disclosures made as part of a concerted effort to disclose this
information? and
• Did other government officials direct or approve these disclosures?</h2>
Consistent with the seriousness of the allegations, the criminal investigation that
followed sought both documentary and testimonial evidence from a wide range of sources.
The unusual nature and context of this investigation required witnesses to divulge
extraordinarily sensitive information to investigators. The President, Vice President, and
many of their closest advisers met with investigators and disclosed communications and
deliberations that occurred at the highest level of our government. Multiple government
agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, disclosed classified information to
investigators. Journalists disclosed sources. Witnesses disclosed sensitive personal
information relevant to the investigation. The need to balance the important and varied
interests affected by this investigation at times led to difficult negotiations resulting in

________________________________________ 3

compromises by both witnesses and investigators, and in the case of certain journalist
witnesses, to litigation over the journalists’ claims of privilege to protect their sources.
In many respects, the manner in which witnesses from the President to ordinary
citizens participated in this criminal investigation, disclosing to investigators information that
few of them were eager to share, with the guidance of the courts when disputes arose, is a
testament to the strength of a fundamental principle of our nation’s justice system: that the
law is entitled to every man’s evidence. Inherent in this principle is the obligation of a
witness to tell the truth, particularly under oath. As the Supreme Court said in United States
v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975):
In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no
place whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic
concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious
offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power
of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -- and even the solemnity of the
oath -- cannot insure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false
answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal
conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.
See also Nix v. Whiteside, 457 U.S. 157, 185 (1986) (“[t]his Court long ago noted: ‘All
perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting
on truth. . . .’”) (quoting In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227 (1945)). Despite the many
competing public and private interests implicated by this investigation, and the high stakes
for many of those asked to provide information, witnesses from all stations in life were
required to accept and comply with their legal obligations.

__________________________________________ 4

It is against this background that Mr. Libby’s conduct must be judged. As an
experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the
range of options available to him as the investigation progressed. He, of course, could have
told the truth, even if, as was the case for many other witnesses, doing so risked the
possibility of criminal prosecution, or personal or political embarrassment. He also could
have declined to speak to the FBI agents, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before the
grand jury, or challenged any lines of inquiry he believed improper. And the evidence at
trial showed that Mr. Libby had access to counsel and had adequate time to review relevant
documents and contemplate his conduct before he testified.
Regrettably, Mr. Libby chose the one option that the law prohibited: he lied. He lied
repeatedly to FBI agents and in sworn grand jury testimony, and he lied about multiple facts
central to an assessment of his role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. He
lied about when he learned of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, about how he learned of her
CIA employment, about who he told of her CIA employment, and about what he said when
he disclosed it. In short, Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered.
These lies had two direct results. First, they made impossible an accurate evaluation
of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of
information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment and about the motivations for their
actions. Second, the lies required the government to expend substantial time and resources.....

__________________________________________ 5

....and it wasn't Bush "haters" who investigated, tried, convicted, and were sending Libby to jail, was it? Not a one......

powerclown · 07-02-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

given the absolute silence at some recent examples of pardons being used more liberally, it will be difficult to make that case without employing strictly partisan motivations.

Hi irateplatypus.
I agree with you about the partisan bit.
On a strictly political level, I can't argue too much against Bush's decision.
It appears quite sound, managing to both assuage the republicans and deny the democrats.

host · 07-02-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Hi irateplatypus.
I agree with you about the partisan bit.
On a strictly political level, I can't argue too much against Bush's decision.
It appears quite sound, managing to both assuage the republicans and deny the democrats.

....and the reaction to Bush's commutation from Libby prosecuotr, Patrick Fitzgerald:

Quote:

....We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.....

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 07:50 PM

Those that would continue a willing ignorance are beyond my comprehension.

host · 07-02-2007, 08:26 PM

Elitist hypocrisy is the enemy of equal justice. I can understand why Bush and Cheney and Libby would embrace it....at least they get something out of it.....but you guys???? How can I ever respect your enabling approval of these criminals using their power to corrupt our system of justice

Quote:

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/art...ArticleID=1286
A Bad Combination: Machine Guns and Lying to a Grand Jury

By Ralph Smith

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a 33-month prison term by finding that the prison sentence was within sentencing guidelines. A former federal employee and a decorated Vietnam veteran had argued that a sentence of 33 months was unreasonable because of his special circumstances. (Rita v. United States, No. 06–5754 (June 21, 2007)

<h3>While some might argue that a former military member and federal employee should be held to a higher standard because of the public trust given to such a person, Victor Rita took a different approach.</h3> While his 33-month sentence was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines, he argued that as a former federal employee, he would be vulnerable in prison because he has been involved in government criminal justice work which led to convictions. Presumably, some of those convicted criminals are now in prison and would seek revenge against him.

He also argued that he was in poor health and that he had performance valuable military service and received numerous awards and recommendations during his military service. These three circumstances, he contended, should have led to a more lenient sentence.

But the court did not buy that argument. In an 8-1 decision, it found that a sentence with guidenlines is "presumptively reasonable." The decision by the Supreme Court will make it harder to get similar sentences overturned if they are within sentencing guidelines. The Court had previously ruled that sentencing guidelines were advisory and not mandatory. This decision will eliminate some of the confusion on the issue and is likely to reduce the success of similar appeals in the future.

And what did he do in order to receive a prison sentence?

He made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a "PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,' " could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns.

Rita had purchased one of the kits and when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But, before, meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.

....you know what, you guys make me sick...... my "hobby" is displaying the details, alongside your posts....the "devil" is in the details..... and, I think that it is effective, because we don't see much of your unsubstantiated opinion posted around here, anymore.....but your substantiated opinion always holds the potential of teaching the rest of us something....as I hope you would know....

Quote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-5754.ZO.html
RITA v. UNITED STATES (No. 06-5754)
177 Fed. Appx. 357, affirmed.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

VICTOR A. RITA, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
[June 21, 2007]

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court......

..... In the present case the sentencing judge’s statement of reasons was brief but legally sufficient. Rita argued for a downward departure from the 33-to-41 month Guidelines sentence on the basis of three sets of special circumstances: health, fear of retaliation in prison, and military record. See App. 40–47. He added that, in any event, these same circumstances warrant leniency beyond that contemplated by the Guidelines.

The record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument. The judge considered the supporting evidence. The judge was fully aware of defendant’s various physical ailments and imposed a sentence that takes them into account. The judge understood that Rita had previously worked in the immigration service where he had been involved in detecting criminal offenses. And he considered Rita’s lengthy military service, including over 25 years of service, both on active duty and in the Reserve, and Rita’s receipt of 35 medals, awards, and nominations.

The judge then simply found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the Guidelines range of 33 to 45 months. Id., at 87. He said that this range was not “inappropriate.” (This, of course, is not the legal standard for imposition of sentence, but taken in context it is plain that the judge so understood.) He immediately added that he found that the 33-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was “appropriate.” Ibid. He must have believed that there was not much more to say.

We acknowledge that the judge might have said more. He might have added explicitly that he had heard and considered the evidence and argument; that (as no one before him denied) he thought the Commission in the Guidelines had determined a sentence that was proper in the minerun of roughly similar perjury cases; and that he found that Rita’s personal circumstances here were simply not different enough to warrant a different sentence. But context and the record make clear that this, or similar, reasoning, underlies the judge’s conclusion. Where a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.

_______________________ IV......

<h3>What was this guy's "underlying crime" ? What does Bush's commutaion of Libby's sentence, on identical, but more numerous conviction than Mr. Rita's convictions....convey to the SCOTUS, to Mr. Rita, and to the rest of us, watching this play out, but less admiring of Mr. Bush, than you guys are?</h3>

....and really, guys....for you, isn't this really what this is all about:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT June 27, 2007

Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff

CARLSON:.....On his last full day as prime minister, it is reported that Blair will be become a special envoy to the Middle East. Will he make the difference in the world's most perilous region?

Plus, the most perilous region in Washington, D.C. this week is the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Today's "Washington Post" featured the third in a series of four articles bent on exposing Mr. Cheney's sinister and alleged skirting of the Constitution, and reputedly dangerous influence on the rest of the Bush administration.

In today's episode, the vice president dictates economic policy and tax cuts, among many other things. The "Post's" scathing series has spawned editorials across the country, suggesting that Dick Cheney ought to be impeached, or otherwise forced out of office for the good of the nation.

Well, joining me now, one of Dick Cheney's very few remaining defenders and only a part-time defender at that, is nationally-syndicated columnist and editor-at-large at "The National Review Online," Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah, welcome.

<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. Why are you defending Cheney?

GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney. I think that he's, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there's a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don't want politicians to go by the polls, who don't put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.

And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn't bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and <h3>I think it's a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn't care.</h3> There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn't. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.

But he's a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I'm not sure that's the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there's something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....

........CARLSON: That's right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn't look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don't know what they're talking about or they're lying. <h3>People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic,</h3> I agree completely.

GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?

CARLSON: I am bothered though—that's right, that's exactly right.

GOLDBERG: I mean, he's sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.

CARLSON: But I'm bothered by Cheney 's—but does—Cheney's secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it's rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven't seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don't we?

GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.

CARLSON: Right.

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, <h3>is that the person who holds the secrets has power.</h3> And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

I think it's got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can't really get everything that he wants that way.

CARLSON: I think you're absolutely right.

Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney's name comes up, you're apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?

GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn't care. You know, there's nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn't care what they think about him.

CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn't, he doesn't—he tells a joke that's written into his speech, he doesn't wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.

GOLDBERG: <h3>I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it, you know. I mean, it's just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink.</h3> Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.

CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I'm glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you're almost alone in this nation of 300 million.

Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.

GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There's lots of empty chairs.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.

GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......

.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.

....and this....?????

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19226375/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for June 13
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Updated: 10:31 a.m. CT June 14, 2007

Guests Sen. Trent Lott, Joe diGenova, Richard Ben-Veniste, Eugene Robinson, Matt Continetti, Ana Marie Cox

(<b>Scroll down to the last quarter of the transcript.....</b>)

.....MATTHEWS: Gentleman, I agree with Joe diGenova. The president is going to pardon his friend. Anyway—maybe he should.

Well, thank you very much, Richard Ben—because I think it was...

(CROSSTALK)

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I think he was operating under the instructions of his government throughout this thing.

Anyway—I'm not sure you will agree with me on that, Joe, but I think he was doing the president's business.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, Richard Ben-Veniste, Joe diGenova.

Up next: Why is Hillary passing Rudy in the latest poll that just came out tonight? And why is Thompson, who hasn't even entered the race, headed to the top already?...........

........MATTHEWS: You are too young to act like Jack Germond. You're acting like one of these old guys; I don't believe these early numbers. You people are all crazy. Let me ask you about Fred Thompson. If the Republicans party is so solid in who it likes as a leader, why does Fred Thompson go on Jay Leno last night and apparently continue his run, which has taken him right up to second place? Ana Marie?

COX: Well, right now he doesn't really have to run in any other way besides on television and through his blogging. I think the Republicans are not happy with their field. I mean, obviously all of the polling shows that. All of the polling shows that they are deeply dissatisfied and that Fred Thompson has a shiny new persona for them. He is shiny—

MATTHEWS: Shiny? He's Rip Van Winkle. I mean, come on. Where has he been?

COX: I think that he is the shiny new thing to them, to registered voters. They don't know much about him. And I think it is really interesting, if you look at the polling, you will see that where his support seems to be coming from—

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a gender question, Ana Marie?

COX: You may.

MATTHEWS: Does he have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice?....

.......MATTHEWS: <h3>Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself.</h3> What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it.

Something is going on here when this is the new Robert Redford here.

I mean I just want to know—or whatever—what's his name? Matt Damon.....

Go ahead

ROBINSON: Well, he has presence. I'll give you that, Chris. The rest of it, you and Ana Marie can decide, as to the sex appeal. You know, the numbers say he is more of a guy's candidate. He is doing well. Maybe he is a man's man. But, you know, it is interesting, what he said on Leno last night, which was essentially that he never really wanted to go after the presidency, but he kind of would like to have it.

MATTHEWS: Who wouldn't if it is offered to you? How many people get it offered to them.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: <h3>Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's</h3> shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of—a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.....

...Is that what it is, guys...in the face of facts, of justice, of fairness. you gravitate towards tje guy with the cowboy hat....the manly smelling, manwich, eating. beer drinking son of a gun who can say fuck you to the supreme court, to Victor Rita, and to the rest of us.....because he can????

<b>Not for fucking much longer</b>.....the pheremone sniffing don't want to hear this. but you can take that to the bank !

reconmike · 07-02-2007, 09:47 PM

Host, were you this irate when Slick Willie pardoned one of the top 1% wealth holders (as you call them) Marc Rich and his 48 million dollar tax bill?
Thats alot cash that could have be redistributed.

Libby was convicted of obstruction and perjury, thats all, did it warrant 30 months? Maybe, maybe not.

GW's explaination for the commutation seemed reasonable.

Rekna · 07-02-2007, 09:52 PM

Irate he committed and was found guilty of four felonies. That isn't something to just brush off. When Libby first lied he wasn't being investigated but instead an investigation was being done to see if an illegal leak occurred. Libby obstructed this investigation. That is against the law. People are guilty of perjury all the time who are not guilty of a crimes. Should we commute all their sentences also?

filtherton · 07-02-2007, 10:12 PM

Wait, so you guys (irate and powerclown) actually believe that this isn't a simple act of favor repayment? You think that the president, with all his judicial experience, simply weighed the facts of the matter and correctly concluded that the sentence handed down by a judge for crimes involving the obstruction of a federal investigation was too harsh? And you think you have any sort of business taking some sort of intellectual high ground here?

I personally don't care much about whatever bullshit the president is spreading about why he commuted his friend. I also think that taking the president's word at face value is a sign of naivete. Presidents hook-up people to whom they owe favors; it's what they do. If you want to pretend that they don't so you can convince yourself that liberals are whiny then by all means. It's not like you didn't already think liberals were whiny in the first place.

It is nice to see a few "conservatives" back in the mix now that there's something that could conceivably be spun as good news for a "conservative". You folks all seemed to have disappeared following the most recent election. Can you guys admit that iraq was completely mishandled -perhaps even a horrible mistake- yet?

Willravel · 07-02-2007, 10:38 PM

Jeez, where to start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irate

undoubtedly the recent partial commuting of scooter libby's sentence will provoke a lot of passion on this board and elsewhere. can someone explain to me what all the mania is about?

The mania is about two counts of perjury, one count obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements when interviewed by federal investigators. Not only that, but the misinformation he provided, of which he was found guilty, are about his relationship to the Plame case specifically distancing himself from his wrongdoing. He lied about his involvement. The mania is that this particular situation is suspected of having strong ties to the office of the Vice President, and how quick the president was to excuse a man who lied to probably protect those in higher office who should have been brought to justice. The mania is about how justice doesn't apply to those who ally themselves with the current administration.

Maybe you'd like to explain how 'years of scorn' can compare to 0 months in federal prison. Did we widdle liberals make Scooter cwy? Boo-fucking-hoo. The man should be in prison, as he was legally sentenced.

BTW, I really enjoyed how quickly the name 'Clinton' came up when Bush was suddenly the issue, Recon. It's a massive red herring, and everyone knows it. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible —I say indefensible because you clearly wouldn't need a massive red herring if you could defend Bush or Scooter—you run away and pull out your slick willie t-shirt.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 03:34 AM

There is a much larger picture here, that deserves scrutiny. The Congress is charged with attempting to keep our system of checks and balances in place,which sometimes requires investigating possible wrongdoing from the executive branch of government. If this ability is compromised, there is literally no second tier of accountability to fall back on, and a free pass is in effect for the white house to do as they please. Under many circumstances this might not be such an issue as it has become today, but we are dealing with the most secretive administration in recent history and questions have been raised concerning the integrity of a large portion of the officials in power.
When a similar situation arose during the Clinton Era a full investigation was implemented resulting in a good portion of the truth coming to light, and an impeachment trial of the highest ranking official in this country. Testimony was ordered and given which implicated the President and proved he was not truthful, and in fact he was justifiably charged and had to deal with the results of his actions. He Lied to the investigators in a failed attempt to cover his ass,and paid a small price for his indescretions.
At that point in history the DOJ was extremely active in its pursuit of justice, and actually did its job. The Congress was capable of compelling testimony which was used to incriminate the POTUS, and accomplished what it is charged to do by our system of government regardless of attempts to prevent it by the executive branch. This was primarily accomplished by well documented Republican influence pushing for investigation, to the point of documenting and forcing the president to discuss his sexual life in under oath....and he lied.
Congress is now attempting to accomplish a similar feat without the DOJ helping. In fact they are somewhat hamstrung at this point by a breakdown in the very foundation of the criminal justice system we rely on to maintain order, and punish the guilty. In essence there is no longer a system available to Congress which compels truthful testimony, and thus the major tool used as a check and balance is compromised. Most people understand there are major problems with what is happening to the executive branch in this country, and now also fear that nothing can be done to find out the details of its problems, and fix it.

If you do not see this as a problem, you have limited understanding of our constitution, and to use the term so easily spewed by those who support this rape of our Republic.

Are acting Un-American.

host · 07-03-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

There is a much larger picture here, that deserves scrutiny. The Congress is charged with attempting to keep our system of checks and balances in place,which sometimes requires investigating possible wrongdoing from the executive branch of government. If this ability is compromised, there is literally no second tier of accountability to fall back on, and a free pass is in effect for the white house to do as they please. Under many circumstances this might not be such an issue as it has become today, but we are dealing with the most secretive administration in recent history and questions have been raised concerning the integrity of a large portion of the officials in power.
When a similar situation arose during the Clinton Era a full investigation was implemented resulting in a good portion of the truth coming to light, and an impeachment trial of the highest ranking official in this country. Testimony was ordered and given which implicated the President and proved he was not truthful, and in fact he was justifiably charged and had to deal with the results of his actions. He Lied to the investigators in a failed attempt to cover his ass,and paid a small price for his indescretions.
At that point in history the DOJ was extremely active in its pursuit of justice, and actually did its job. The Congress was capable of compelling testimony which was used to incriminate the POTUS, and accomplished what it is charged to do by our system of government regardless of attempts to prevent it by the executive branch. This was primarily accomplished by well documented Republican influence pushing for investigation, to the point of documenting and forcing the president to discuss his sexual life in under oath....and he lied.
Congress is now attempting to accomplish a similar feat without the DOJ helping. In fact they are somewhat hamstrung at this point by a breakdown in the very foundation of the criminal justice system we rely on to maintain order, and punish the guilty. In essence there is no longer a system available to Congress which compels truthful testimony, and thus the major tool used as a check and balance is compromised. Most people understand there are major problems with what is happening to the executive branch in this country, and now also fear that nothing can be done to find out the details of its problems, and fix it.

If you do not see this as a problem, you have limited understanding of our constitution, and to use the term so easily spewed by those who support this rape of our Republic.

Are acting Un-American.

What will the house judiciary committee do about this?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rgatedoc_3.htm
Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment:
II. The Historical Origins of Impeachment
B. The Intentions of the Framers

The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

3. Grounds for Impeachment...

....... In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

63. 3 Elliot 497-98. Madison went on to any contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected. Id. 498.

ratbastid · 07-03-2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

GW's explaination for the commutation seemed reasonable.

Only if you're predisposed to consider GW's pronouncements reasonable.

This has nothing to do with Scooter being a Presidential Buddy, hunh? Then I wonder if there's anybody else out there who George feels was given too harsh a sentence. Shouldn't he be commuting all those sentences too? Is George suddenly soft on crime?

The WILLFUL naivete of those would would defend Bush at this time is just shocking to me. And it's shocking to the nearly 80 percent of Americans who are seeing through the bullshit.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

What will the house judiciary committee do about this?

Likely they will do nothing as of yet, the integrity of the system has been compromised to the point that those in power can prevent investigation. In fact that is exactly what we have just witnessed. Unless someone with knowledge falls prey to honesty and volunteers testimony there seems little chance of finding out what is truly happening. By eliminating the punishment handed down by the courts, Bush has proven he can protect those who will remain silent from prosecution.
With he recent overturning of precedent by the SCOTUS, we also see a major change in the dynamics of the highest court that may very well limit any higher level prosecution and at the very least force those thinking impeachment to seriously consider the chances of success, hampering further the inclination to delve deeper into investigation.
This seems a very well thought out and patient approach to changing the foundations of power in our country, and though I personally am disturbed by these changes I must give credit to those who have worked to create the atmosphere required to pull this off. We are likely watching a reworking of the United States Republic from the sidelines, and are mostly powerless to stop it. The Executive branch has pulled off a sort of Coup, and it would seem they have been mostly successful. By controlling the Executive, Judiciary, and Justice Dept. they pretty much control the country and can minimize the House for all intent and purpose.

Regardless of how much information the opposition may find in investigation, they are castrated when it comes to doing anything with the Data.

Telluride · 07-03-2007, 05:35 AM

It's Marc Rich deja vu all over again. Hooray for the corrupt Republocrat Party!

reconmike · 07-03-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

BTW, I really enjoyed how quickly the name 'Clinton' came up when Bush was suddenly the issue, Recon. It's a massive red herring, and everyone knows it. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible —I say indefensible because you clearly wouldn't need a massive red herring if you could defend Bush or Scooter—you run away and pull out your slick willie t-shirt.

You see Will I was asking a legitimate question of Host and not invoking a red herring. He has a hard on for people with money in this country, enough to the point of wanting to rise up and slice throats. So I was just asking him if in fact he was this upset when Marc Rich was pardoned for not sharing the wealth he owed the US people.
I got rid of my slick willie t-shirt, I was afraid to have it, we all know what happens to slick willie detractors, they wind up dead.

In this country with its laws there is something called precedence, and the act of pardon or commutation are legal acts, so to see what legally can be done one can look to the past to see if it has been done. And if your going to rate how atrocious the Libby sentence commutation was, it is only fitting to judge it according to what other presidents have done.

And RB, sure this is all about Libby being his buddy, and a very good buddy at that, he took the fall, kind of clamed up like the old mafia days when no one rolled over on anyone. And now he has be rewarded for his loyalty.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

-snip-

And RB, sure this is all about Libby being his buddy, and a very good buddy at that, he took the fall, kind of clamed up like the old mafia days when no one rolled over on anyone. And now he has be rewarded for his loyalty.

The Issue becomes one of acceptability. Alot of people simply do not think its a good Idea to look the other way when this type of thing takes place in the Highest Levels of Government.

Do You?

roachboy · 07-03-2007, 06:28 AM

so wait.

first off, i doubt seriously that anyone is actually surprised by this action.

second: what is with the conservative-set resurfacing at this particular moment in order to outline the limbaugh-esque relativism thing? you know, whatever bush has done can be balanced against action x done by clinton such that everything is ok----as if in the last remaining theater in conservativeland there is a film running that outlines a series of imaginary injustices---the film only plays for conservative crowds, whcih get smaller and smaller every day--and this film is the basis for all conservative judgments about libby, the trial, its meaning and that of cowboy george's commutation of the prison term.

in threads here about the fiction of "illegal immigration" you see conservative shrieking about how undocumented workers "break the law" and so are necessarily Alien Other Bad...so when it comes to the poor, conservatives are sticklers for the trappings of legality...but when it comes to the actions of the bush administration, the terrain suddenly transforms and anything goes...anything at all...and why is that? because the film says that clinton did x and so cowboy george gets to do -x and there we are.

in responses to the bushpartialcommuntation in various papers, you get the same division of positions: the conservativeset uses the same fucking arguments in every last place. marc rich's name comes up in post after post.

what is amazing is the emptiness of this momentary surge amongst the inhabitants of conservativeland, emboldened to stray from beneath the rock they have been hiding under since november. the rationale? "o boy those lefties are pissed. it is a good time to be a conservative."---this speaks to a truly adolescent sensibility, doesnt it?
what's the argument behind it?
the argument is: "nyah nyah."

there is one interesting additional element, though: the virus that is far right ideology has been institutionalized in the legal system and so the bushwork is in a sense done...and now as lameduck or dronebee after mating with the queen, cowboy george slips, spent of precious bodily fluids, into a kind of dotage and the gratitude the felt by the far right for institutionalizing their backwater politics is expressing itself in a displaced form via cheerleading for liddy/libby.
this is one of the sources of real and lasting damage that the backwater politics of the american far right can do and continue to do.
well this and the debacle of a war in iraq...between the two, the right has left the credibility of the american system in shambles all the while hallucinating that they defend that system. and so it is that folk find themselves in iraq defending "democracy" american style by imposing it incoherently on a society they do not understand because their leader did not think it necessary to understand it just as it was seen as unnecessary to have a fucking plan.
and there is nothing to be done: the american system does not allow for anything to be done.
paralysis is what we have.
paralysis is all there is.
yay america.

then we have the rationale floated by cowboy george for his action: the sentence was "excessive" and george all merciful (when it comes to wealthy, politically allied white men, who are of course the only people who matter).
the claims behind this amount to a wholesale whitewashing of the entire plame affair in a manner consistent with rightwing talkingpoints of the past 3 years. nothing major was involved. why? well clinton did x, y, z....

a pathetic state of affairs.

von trier was right in dogville. the us is a gangster state. the only thing to be done is to burn it down. the error he made was in imagining that it would require someone outside the system to light the fire. it turns out that the far right attempts to defend/remake the system have already done that.

a fucking pathetic state of affairs.

Rekna · 07-03-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

In this country with its laws there is something called precedence, and the act of pardon or commutation are legal acts, so to see what legally can be done one can look to the past to see if it has been done. And if your going to rate how atrocious the Libby sentence commutation was, it is only fitting to judge it according to what other presidents have done.

You are wrong. Precedence does not always make things right. There is precedence for owning slaves in this country. There is precedence for being able to shoot people down in the streets. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't make it right. Clinton's pardon was wrong and so is Bush's. The reason people are so much more upset is the appearance and likely existence of an overwhelming conspiracy to circumvent the constitution by this administration. There are no longer checks and balances. The DOJ has been turned into an attack dog for the white house. The last 2 supreme court justices were appointed as yes men for the neo-con movement. The executive branch is refusing to acknowledge any of the power of congress and is preventing any investigations into its actions. This country is teetering on the edge of destruction. And all you and many others can say is "well Clinton". Stop it!

I love America, I think the constitution was very well designed but in our quest for power we have begun destroying the very thing that gives us our freedoms every day. At some point in time our brethren from across the isle became our worst enemy and now we spend more time battling with each other than any of our real enemies. Bush said he was a uniter and not a divider but he has fractured this country more than I have ever known.

Do you want this trend to continue? Do you really want the dems to polarize the DOJ when they are in power? To stack the system so that they will stay in power? If we continue setting "precedence" for skirting the constitution and the checks and balances it creates then that is what we will be left with and America will no longer be the land of the free.

Dilbert1234567 · 07-03-2007, 06:38 AM

i'm confused, you say it's not a big deal that he was not found guilty of the initial crime, but was found guilty of obstruction of justice investigating that crime. so if i commit a crime and cover my ass, but get caught covering my ass, i'm cool?

huh?

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 06:46 AM

filtherton, the basis of this series of events that led up to the commute is the Iraq War. I think it helpful to see it in that light. This is about political retribution for someone who went against this administration's cause for war. Understand that some conservatives and others in favor of the war see Joe Wilson as a disingenuous cretin who deliberately, with the help of his CIA agent wife, went to great (and shady, to some) lengths to discredit that war effort. This shaped the atmosphere of a prosecution already seen by some as a politically biased, anti-war fueled witchunt from the start.

As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now.

seretogis · 07-03-2007, 06:53 AM

I can't see how anyone is defending this. Bush and the Republican party are crooks. Clinton and the Democratic party are crooks. Why is anyone arguing "who did it first" or which law-breaking is "worse" than the other?

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 07:06 AM

Perhaps they are all crooks, but they're our crooks. This is our country, and our political system. The issues these people differ on ideologically are universal to all of us, so while I understand the frustration and I understand a congressional approval rating in the teens, I see these things as cyclical events within what is basically a sound political structure.

Rekna · 07-03-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Perhaps they are all crooks, but they're our crooks. This is our country, and our political system. The issues these people differ on ideologically are universal to all of us, so while I understand the frustration and I understand a congressional approval rating in the teens, I see these things as cyclical events within what is basically a sound political structure.

And why should we settle for a government like this? It is within the power of the people to change change this government and I think it is time we do just that through our voting. Stop voting party and start voting for the candidates!

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

filtherton, the basis of this series of events that led up to the commute is the Iraq War. I think it helpful to see it in that light. This is about political retribution for someone who went against this administration's cause for war. Understand that some conservatives and others in favor of the war see Joe Wilson as a disingenuous cretin who deliberately, with the help of his CIA agent wife, went to great (and shady, to some) lengths to discredit that war effort. This shaped the atmosphere of a prosecution already seen by some as a politically biased, anti-war fueled witchunt from the start.

Quote:

It is generally agreed that this is indeed the underlying cause of this whole mess, and that Wilson did in fact try to submit evidence that may have undermined the Data used to compel us into war. Unfortunately, the information he tried to bring to light was ignored (though proven correct in hindsight), and his failure led to invasion and much death, as well as major damage to our standing in the world stage. One can only imagine where we would be right now had his attempt to question the Administrations' assertions been successful, but things would definately be different. Regardless, it is now clear to anyone willing to look with an open mind that he (and his wife) were targeted by the Administration, and the trail leads to the highest levels. If the Right is willing to look the other way when these things take place.....I would highly recommend they re-evaluate what is happening to this country, or simply admit they support the removal of constitutional law, in favor of something a bit more Fascist in practice.

As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now.

In other words you have no way of countering the enormous amount of information pointing to behavior that is Irresponsible and incompetent at best, and Illegal or subversive at worst?

ratbastid · 07-03-2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

And RB, sure this is all about Libby being his buddy, and a very good buddy at that, he took the fall, kind of clamed up like the old mafia days when no one rolled over on anyone. And now he has be rewarded for his loyalty.

I'm glad you understand the situation. We've honest to god got gangsters in the White House.

I shudder to think what would have happened to poor Scooter if he'd turned. Cement overshoes?

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

In other words you have no way of countering the enormous amount of information pointing to behavior that is Irresponsible and incompetent at best, and Illegal or subversive at worst?

Wrongly framed question imo. While it might seem petty or irresponsible to deliberately attack an opponent of an administration, it certainly isn't a unique occurence here or in any other political system in the world. I can't speak to the morality of it - lets just say I'm not as idealistic as I was as a youth. Critics of administrations will always be targetted by those in power, either literally as in the case of the outspoken Russian journalist and Putin critic who had a few bullets pumped into her head by the State, or somewhat more benignly, as in what happened here.

Bill O'Rights · 07-03-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

And RB, sure this is all about Libby being his buddy, and a very good buddy at that, he took the fall, kind of clamed up like the old mafia days when no one rolled over on anyone. And now he has be rewarded for his loyalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm glad you understand the situation. We've honest to god got gangsters in the White House.

I shudder to think what would have happened to poor Scooter if he'd turned. Cement overshoes?

"Libby sleeps wid da fishes."

filtherton · 07-03-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now.

Sorry, i didn't mean to put in the same box with the folks who vanished. Mea motherfucking culpa.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Wrongly framed question imo. While it might seem petty or irresponsible to deliberately attack an opponent of an administration, it certainly isn't a unique occurence here or in any other political system in the world. I can't speak to the morality of it - lets just say I'm not as idealistic as I was as a youth. Critics of administrations will always be targetted by those in power, either literally as in the case of the outspoken Russian journalist and Putin critic who had a few bullets pumped into her head by the State, or somewhat more benignly, as in what happened here.

OK...allow me to rephrase:

Regardless of political considerations, but taking a robust history of Government actions into consideration, do you feel there is no reason to be concerned with the current consolidation of power we have in this country?

Secondly, does the lack of consideration for transparency continuously expressed by the administration make you in any way ....uncomfortable?

ratbastid · 07-03-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now.

That sort of discussion is actually mostly the norm in America in general right now. Unless you've kept yourself in a right-wing echo-chamber bubble, you know that.

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 10:09 AM

I think its a good thing that people are allowed to express themselves like they do in America. People are talking, articles are being written, ideas are freely expressed, opinions are flowing unimpeded...in a way an indicator of the health of the republic, imo.

I would start to worry if things were otherwise: if opinion was stifled, if presidential/congressional approval was in the 90s (or artificially published to be so), if people in my neighborhood started "disappearing" for their political views, if tv and radio was only broadcasting state propaganda, if there weren't to be a presidential election in a years time, etc.

As to being in an echo-chamber, the same could be said in reverse. For example, some conservatives are livid that Libby wasn't pardoned outright, and that such a fuss and expense was made over what they consider partisan politics. And what is "normal"? It's not only the left that is pissed off with Bush anymore.

joshbaumgartner · 07-03-2007, 11:02 AM

Oh it is so harsh that a man convicted of four felonies in Federal court should have to spend a couple years in jail!

And this from a man who killed 150 Texans while being so darn proud of the fact he never once spent more than 15 minutes reviewing one of their cases. Not once did he even consider mercy or justice when it came to handing out the death penalty, but oh, one of his buddies might have to spend a year or two in jail, oh heavens, best show mercy there!

*shakes head* Is it just me that sees this as the least bit disingenuous on W's part?

Frosstbyte · 07-03-2007, 12:12 PM

The sad part, josh, is that it's worse than being disingenuous. For it to be disingenuous, W would have to have some concept of the fact that there is serious cognitive dissonance between the two decisions. He'd have to be lying to himself about one or the other for that to happen.

The problem I think most of us have with all this is that he lacks whatever wiring is necessary to make that fact apparent in his shriveled little brain. The man lives in some la la land alternate universe where the idea of being wrong ever can't happen. Bush lives in the instant and at this instant he is doing (in his very selective book) the right thing, as he did the right thing at the instant he "reviewed' those death penalty cases and as he did when he reviewed Iraq. The magic of being George W. Bush is that there is no future and no past, there's just now and he goes with his gut (or his advisers) every time.

The next two years in this country could be a very dangerous time and we're going to have some serious internal issues that need to be taken care of once Bush finally leaves office. Again and again I look at his possible successors and I simply don't know what to do.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

The next two years in this country could be a very dangerous time and we're going to have some serious internal issues that need to be taken care of once Bush finally leaves office. Again and again I look at his possible successors and I simply don't know what to do.

Total agreement.....

irateplatypus · 07-03-2007, 03:12 PM

the debate will go where it will... but we've strayed from the intent of my OP.

as i demonstrated, the facts of the libby case as well as president bush's use of the privilege place his conduct well within the historical precedents set for presidential pardons by any objective measure. if a person claims to view this example of its usage as a threat to the rule of law (as many here say they do), then sober judgment would have to conclude that this is only the latest in a long string of similar abuses stretching back to the origin of the constitution.

so, given that this event has many antecedents, those who disapprove of the pardon on the grounds that it flouts the law must fall into one of two categories:
1) those who object to the general usage (or existence) of presidential pardons
2) those who object to this particular instance

given the general dismissal of past pardons as major issues, i conclude that those who object must object to this particular one for a reason not rooted in a love for the rule of law. the most likely motivation left is simply a political ax to grind. hardly worth getting worked up over.

as i see it, the only way to counter this line of reasoning is to prove that the libby case is objectively more serious than past cases or that the president acted in an unprecedented way. a quick wikipedia search of the history of presidential pardons will show the difficulty in those making arguments.

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.

roachboy · 07-03-2007, 03:45 PM

irate: i am not sure that i see the point of you simply restating your argument as if host's no. 2 (and in a more incidental way no. 6) did not happen. it seems to me that he responded to most of your pseudo-objective claims (using a stentorian tone will give this impression every time, as you obviously know).
so why not start with that, rather than with no. 36.

personally, i posted as i did to this thread because i thought host responded to you so that there wasnt really much left to talk about.
i assume that you disagree?

highthief · 07-03-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Oh it is so harsh that a man convicted of four felonies in Federal court should have to spend a couple years in jail!

And this from a man who killed 150 Texans while being so darn proud of the fact he never once spent more than 15 minutes reviewing one of their cases. Not once did he even consider mercy or justice when it came to handing out the death penalty, but oh, one of his buddies might have to spend a year or two in jail, oh heavens, best show mercy there!

Well this is what gets me - he even said that as Governer he never felt it was right for him to overrule a judge and jury to commute a sentence, even in cases where there was doubt.

To me, based upon his past history, his actions concerning Libby are simply scandalous. Whether you are right wing or left wing, Republican or Democrat (or as so many of you tend to claim "Libertarian") don't you think that letting your buddy out of a small jail term, given your past history of not commuting more serious sentences on the basis of it being "inappropriate" to override the judicial system, is incorrect?

I'm amazed that so many Americans are so comfortable with this whole "commuting" business. There is a judicial system; no one since King John should be overriding it.

ratbastid · 07-03-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i assume that you disagree?

Oh, I think he's just not up for being, you know, told anything.

Look, I know nothing of the history of Presidential pardons (or commutations as the case may be), but I can say this: ANY presidential pardon that serves to exculpate one of the chief actors in a scandal dogging that administration is worthy of very high suspicion and scrutiny.

Yes, even if Clinton did it. As far as I know he didn't, but as I said a few lines up, I don't know all that far. If he did, shame on him.

Here's the bottom line: there's a miscarriage of justice happening right now. I don't really care about the historical perspective: wrong is wrong and something should be done about it.

07-02-2007, 06:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	libby sentence commuted - why the fuss? undoubtedly the recent partial commuting of scooter libby's sentence will provoke a lot of passion on this board and elsewhere. can someone explain to me what all the mania is about? scooter libby was investigated thoroughly for years and years. the prosecution found NOTHING related to national security leaks for which mr. libby could be held legally accountable. he was eventually indicted on 5 offenses, all of which supposedly occurred DURING the investigation of a incident for which the prosecution couldn't build a case against him. in the end, he was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts and sentenced to 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250K fine. keep in mind that these punishments were given in response to obstructions during the investigative process... not for being guilty of the crime for which he was being investigated. so, very recently, the president has decided to partially commute mr. libby's sentence. the prison time was commuted though he will still endure the 2 years probation and the $250K fine. mr. libby has endured years of public scorn and has undoubtedly racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees. all these miseries rooted in being suspected of a crime for which a federal prosecutor can't prove he committed. in the course of all the moaning and groaning to follow, many people will fool themselves into thinking that their indignation is rooted in a commitment to rule of law. in fact, given the historical usage of presidential pardons, this is in fact a very mild application. president clinton pardoned 140 in his two terms. president bush, by comparison, has exercised the privilege less than 115 times. the list of pardonees is particularly striking. mr. libby is the current president's first notable pardon. president clinton's roster includes 2 democratic congressman, several close business associates (some of whom were dealing with iran during the hostage crisis), and his own brother. pretty big stuff compared to mr. libby pardon of obstruction of justice. it's plain that given the history of pardons, the current outrage at libby's pardon is entirely a cynical political maneuver. that, or a manifestation of a personal dislike for the sitting president. in any case, it does not take into account a sober judgment of the circumstances of the situation. the only way to justify outrage is to view this as just another abuse in a long string of abuses. given the absolute silence at some recent examples of pardons being used more liberally, it will be difficult to make that case without employing strictly partisan motivations. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 07-02-2007 at 07:03 PM..

07-02-2007, 07:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Those that would continue a willing ignorance are beyond my comprehension. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

07-02-2007, 09:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Host, were you this irate when Slick Willie pardoned one of the top 1% wealth holders (as you call them) Marc Rich and his 48 million dollar tax bill? Thats alot cash that could have be redistributed. Libby was convicted of obstruction and perjury, thats all, did it warrant 30 months? Maybe, maybe not. GW's explaination for the commutation seemed reasonable. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

07-03-2007, 05:35 AM	#15 (permalink)
Telluride Browncoat Location: California	It's Marc Rich deja vu all over again. Hooray for the corrupt Republocrat Party! __________________ "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

07-03-2007, 06:28 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait. first off, i doubt seriously that anyone is actually surprised by this action. second: what is with the conservative-set resurfacing at this particular moment in order to outline the limbaugh-esque relativism thing? you know, whatever bush has done can be balanced against action x done by clinton such that everything is ok----as if in the last remaining theater in conservativeland there is a film running that outlines a series of imaginary injustices---the film only plays for conservative crowds, whcih get smaller and smaller every day--and this film is the basis for all conservative judgments about libby, the trial, its meaning and that of cowboy george's commutation of the prison term. in threads here about the fiction of "illegal immigration" you see conservative shrieking about how undocumented workers "break the law" and so are necessarily Alien Other Bad...so when it comes to the poor, conservatives are sticklers for the trappings of legality...but when it comes to the actions of the bush administration, the terrain suddenly transforms and anything goes...anything at all...and why is that? because the film says that clinton did x and so cowboy george gets to do -x and there we are. in responses to the bushpartialcommuntation in various papers, you get the same division of positions: the conservativeset uses the same fucking arguments in every last place. marc rich's name comes up in post after post. what is amazing is the emptiness of this momentary surge amongst the inhabitants of conservativeland, emboldened to stray from beneath the rock they have been hiding under since november. the rationale? "o boy those lefties are pissed. it is a good time to be a conservative."---this speaks to a truly adolescent sensibility, doesnt it? what's the argument behind it? the argument is: "nyah nyah." there is one interesting additional element, though: the virus that is far right ideology has been institutionalized in the legal system and so the bushwork is in a sense done...and now as lameduck or dronebee after mating with the queen, cowboy george slips, spent of precious bodily fluids, into a kind of dotage and the gratitude the felt by the far right for institutionalizing their backwater politics is expressing itself in a displaced form via cheerleading for liddy/libby. this is one of the sources of real and lasting damage that the backwater politics of the american far right can do and continue to do. well this and the debacle of a war in iraq...between the two, the right has left the credibility of the american system in shambles all the while hallucinating that they defend that system. and so it is that folk find themselves in iraq defending "democracy" american style by imposing it incoherently on a society they do not understand because their leader did not think it necessary to understand it just as it was seen as unnecessary to have a fucking plan. and there is nothing to be done: the american system does not allow for anything to be done. paralysis is what we have. paralysis is all there is. yay america. then we have the rationale floated by cowboy george for his action: the sentence was "excessive" and george all merciful (when it comes to wealthy, politically allied white men, who are of course the only people who matter). the claims behind this amount to a wholesale whitewashing of the entire plame affair in a manner consistent with rightwing talkingpoints of the past 3 years. nothing major was involved. why? well clinton did x, y, z.... a pathetic state of affairs. von trier was right in dogville. the us is a gangster state. the only thing to be done is to burn it down. the error he made was in imagining that it would require someone outside the system to light the fire. it turns out that the far right attempts to defend/remake the system have already done that. a fucking pathetic state of affairs. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2007, 09:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Irate he committed and was found guilty of four felonies. That isn't something to just brush off. When Libby first lied he wasn't being investigated but instead an investigation was being done to see if an illegal leak occurred. Libby obstructed this investigation. That is against the law. People are guilty of perjury all the time who are not guilty of a crimes. Should we commute all their sentences also?

07-02-2007, 10:12 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Wait, so you guys (irate and powerclown) actually believe that this isn't a simple act of favor repayment? You think that the president, with all his judicial experience, simply weighed the facts of the matter and correctly concluded that the sentence handed down by a judge for crimes involving the obstruction of a federal investigation was too harsh? And you think you have any sort of business taking some sort of intellectual high ground here? I personally don't care much about whatever bullshit the president is spreading about why he commuted his friend. I also think that taking the president's word at face value is a sign of naivete. Presidents hook-up people to whom they owe favors; it's what they do. If you want to pretend that they don't so you can convince yourself that liberals are whiny then by all means. It's not like you didn't already think liberals were whiny in the first place. It is nice to see a few "conservatives" back in the mix now that there's something that could conceivably be spun as good news for a "conservative". You folks all seemed to have disappeared following the most recent election. Can you guys admit that iraq was completely mishandled -perhaps even a horrible mistake- yet?

07-03-2007, 03:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	There is a much larger picture here, that deserves scrutiny. The Congress is charged with attempting to keep our system of checks and balances in place,which sometimes requires investigating possible wrongdoing from the executive branch of government. If this ability is compromised, there is literally no second tier of accountability to fall back on, and a free pass is in effect for the white house to do as they please. Under many circumstances this might not be such an issue as it has become today, but we are dealing with the most secretive administration in recent history and questions have been raised concerning the integrity of a large portion of the officials in power. When a similar situation arose during the Clinton Era a full investigation was implemented resulting in a good portion of the truth coming to light, and an impeachment trial of the highest ranking official in this country. Testimony was ordered and given which implicated the President and proved he was not truthful, and in fact he was justifiably charged and had to deal with the results of his actions. He Lied to the investigators in a failed attempt to cover his ass,and paid a small price for his indescretions. At that point in history the DOJ was extremely active in its pursuit of justice, and actually did its job. The Congress was capable of compelling testimony which was used to incriminate the POTUS, and accomplished what it is charged to do by our system of government regardless of attempts to prevent it by the executive branch. This was primarily accomplished by well documented Republican influence pushing for investigation, to the point of documenting and forcing the president to discuss his sexual life in under oath....and he lied. Congress is now attempting to accomplish a similar feat without the DOJ helping. In fact they are somewhat hamstrung at this point by a breakdown in the very foundation of the criminal justice system we rely on to maintain order, and punish the guilty. In essence there is no longer a system available to Congress which compels truthful testimony, and thus the major tool used as a check and balance is compromised. Most people understand there are major problems with what is happening to the executive branch in this country, and now also fear that nothing can be done to find out the details of its problems, and fix it. If you do not see this as a problem, you have limited understanding of our constitution, and to use the term so easily spewed by those who support this rape of our Republic. Are acting Un-American.

07-03-2007, 06:38 AM	#20 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	i'm confused, you say it's not a big deal that he was not found guilty of the initial crime, but was found guilty of obstruction of justice investigating that crime. so if i commit a crime and cover my ass, but get caught covering my ass, i'm cool? huh? __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

07-03-2007, 06:46 AM	#21 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	filtherton, the basis of this series of events that led up to the commute is the Iraq War. I think it helpful to see it in that light. This is about political retribution for someone who went against this administration's cause for war. Understand that some conservatives and others in favor of the war see Joe Wilson as a disingenuous cretin who deliberately, with the help of his CIA agent wife, went to great (and shady, to some) lengths to discredit that war effort. This shaped the atmosphere of a prosecution already seen by some as a politically biased, anti-war fueled witchunt from the start. As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now. Last edited by powerclown; 07-03-2007 at 06:55 AM..

07-03-2007, 06:53 AM	#22 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I can't see how anyone is defending this. Bush and the Republican party are crooks. Clinton and the Democratic party are crooks. Why is anyone arguing "who did it first" or which law-breaking is "worse" than the other? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-03-2007, 07:06 AM	#23 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Perhaps they are all crooks, but they're our crooks. This is our country, and our political system. The issues these people differ on ideologically are universal to all of us, so while I understand the frustration and I understand a congressional approval rating in the teens, I see these things as cyclical events within what is basically a sound political structure.

07-03-2007, 10:09 AM	#32 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I think its a good thing that people are allowed to express themselves like they do in America. People are talking, articles are being written, ideas are freely expressed, opinions are flowing unimpeded...in a way an indicator of the health of the republic, imo. I would start to worry if things were otherwise: if opinion was stifled, if presidential/congressional approval was in the 90s (or artificially published to be so), if people in my neighborhood started "disappearing" for their political views, if tv and radio was only broadcasting state propaganda, if there weren't to be a presidential election in a years time, etc. As to being in an echo-chamber, the same could be said in reverse. For example, some conservatives are livid that Libby wasn't pardoned outright, and that such a fuss and expense was made over what they consider partisan politics. And what is "normal"? It's not only the left that is pissed off with Bush anymore.

07-03-2007, 11:02 AM	#33 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Oh it is so harsh that a man convicted of four felonies in Federal court should have to spend a couple years in jail! And this from a man who killed 150 Texans while being so darn proud of the fact he never once spent more than 15 minutes reviewing one of their cases. Not once did he even consider mercy or justice when it came to handing out the death penalty, but oh, one of his buddies might have to spend a year or two in jail, oh heavens, best show mercy there! shakes head Is it just me that sees this as the least bit disingenuous on W's part?

07-03-2007, 12:12 PM	#34 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	The sad part, josh, is that it's worse than being disingenuous. For it to be disingenuous, W would have to have some concept of the fact that there is serious cognitive dissonance between the two decisions. He'd have to be lying to himself about one or the other for that to happen. The problem I think most of us have with all this is that he lacks whatever wiring is necessary to make that fact apparent in his shriveled little brain. The man lives in some la la land alternate universe where the idea of being wrong ever can't happen. Bush lives in the instant and at this instant he is doing (in his very selective book) the right thing, as he did the right thing at the instant he "reviewed' those death penalty cases and as he did when he reviewed Iraq. The magic of being George W. Bush is that there is no future and no past, there's just now and he goes with his gut (or his advisers) every time. The next two years in this country could be a very dangerous time and we're going to have some serious internal issues that need to be taken care of once Bush finally leaves office. Again and again I look at his possible successors and I simply don't know what to do. Last edited by Frosstbyte; 07-03-2007 at 12:43 PM..

07-03-2007, 03:12 PM	#36 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the debate will go where it will... but we've strayed from the intent of my OP. as i demonstrated, the facts of the libby case as well as president bush's use of the privilege place his conduct well within the historical precedents set for presidential pardons by any objective measure. if a person claims to view this example of its usage as a threat to the rule of law (as many here say they do), then sober judgment would have to conclude that this is only the latest in a long string of similar abuses stretching back to the origin of the constitution. so, given that this event has many antecedents, those who disapprove of the pardon on the grounds that it flouts the law must fall into one of two categories: 1) those who object to the general usage (or existence) of presidential pardons 2) those who object to this particular instance given the general dismissal of past pardons as major issues, i conclude that those who object must object to this particular one for a reason not rooted in a love for the rule of law. the most likely motivation left is simply a political ax to grind. hardly worth getting worked up over. as i see it, the only way to counter this line of reasoning is to prove that the libby case is objectively more serious than past cases or that the president acted in an unprecedented way. a quick wikipedia search of the history of presidential pardons will show the difficulty in those making arguments. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

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..

07-03-2007, 03:45 PM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	irate: i am not sure that i see the point of you simply restating your argument as if host's no. 2 (and in a more incidental way no. 6) did not happen. it seems to me that he responded to most of your pseudo-objective claims (using a stentorian tone will give this impression every time, as you obviously know). so why not start with that, rather than with no. 36. personally, i posted as i did to this thread because i thought host responded to you so that there wasnt really much left to talk about. i assume that you disagree? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite