Bush commutes Libby

[Zer0 Cool]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_...QxV.2BA5Ws0NUE

What a douche.

[JohnMos]

"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

I wish democrats would just go all out: continually and diligently call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It may never happen, but it might also help reduce the amount of abuse they continually get away with.

[PETA]

mweh - the sentence was absurd for the conviction - GW didn't exonerate him or commute the $250k fine or probation. Seems a pretty strong message - $250k.

and... commutation and pardon are well within the Exec's authority... this offers zero basis for impeachment...

just some examples of who Clinton pardoned ... not commuted pardoned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cl..._day_in_office

and he was well within his authority to do so...

here's GW's list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

[JohnMos]

Originally Posted by xian

mweh - the sentence was absurd for the conviction - GW didn't exonerate him or commute the $250k fine or probation. Seems a pretty strong message - $250k.

and... commutation and pardon are well within the Exec's authority... this offers zero basis for impeachment...

Well my impeachment comment wasn't directly related to this. While I don't know all the details of this case, I do think Libby was unfairly thrown to the wolves to protect the higher-ups.
The Republican party and the Bush administration play up the extremes all the time, I just think it's time the Dems did the same, there's more than a few impeachable offenses on Bush/Cheney's record in office.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

mweh - the sentence was absurd for the conviction - GW didn't exonerate him or commute the $250k fine or probation. Seems a pretty strong message - $250k.

and... commutation and pardon are well within the Exec's authority... this offers zero basis for impeachment...

just some examples of who Clinton pardoned ... not commuted pardoned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cl..._day_in_office

and he was well within his authority to do so...

here's GW's list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

"They did it too" doesn't make it OK. It was horseshit when Clinton did it, and it's horseshit now. Does this make Dubya an 'activist' president?

(That was fucking rhetorical, Christian)

[umalak_]

can someone explain to me what the purpose of pardoning or commuting people is? i mean, just take the first one on Clinton's list...

- Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.

first off, how does Clinton know Vignali and why commute his sentence?

i don't understand

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

"They did it too" doesn't make it OK. It was horseshit when Clinton did it, and it's horseshit now. Does this make Dubya an 'activist' president?


(That was fucking rhetorical, Christian)

granting pardons is part of what the executive does - I have no problem with him commuting the jail time portion of the conviction. A quarter million dollar fine seems plenty steep.

And... I wasn't saying Clinton did it too therefore GW can do it. I was simply pointing out that such activity IS part of the President's job. It isn't nefarious or slimey etc etc. The authority is there to correct over zealous judges who sentence people for crimes never charged etc etc

Originally Posted by umalak_

can someone explain to me what the purpose of pardoning or commuting people is? i mean, just take the first one on Clinton's list...

- Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.

first off, how does Clinton know Vignali and why commute his sentence?

i don't understand

who knows - GW pardoned some people after long sentences served (some I think posthumously) for a wide variety of charges including dope - my guess? The pardoned party knew some one who could get close enough to get the President's ear.

[umalak_]

so there's no rules as to who the president can pardon... and there's no way to stop them from doing it either?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by umalak_

so there's no rules as to who the president can pardon... and there's no way to stop them from doing it either?

nope - it is authority delegated by the constitution that Congress cannot limit in any way

I seem to recall that it is ripe for abuse... in a bar prep course I seem to recall hearing the lecturer tell us that a President can exchange pardons for campaign contributions if he wishes and have no worries of it being a high crime or misdemeanor... but I could be wrong... don't think so, but its possible... pardons are solely within his discretion to give or withhold

must be a federal offense though.. no authority to pardon a state charge

[umalak_]

not sure if you know this or not, but what was their intention when they put that into the Constitution? because i thought they didn't want anyone having absolute power and yet that gives the president absolute power over pardons.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by umalak_

not sure if you know this or not, but what was their intention when they put that into the Constitution? because i thought they didn't want anyone having absolute power and yet that gives the president absolute power over pardons.

Iirc, it was intended to be a check on judicial authority. The exec can pardon crimes (this doesn't eliminate admission of guilt though) in order to craft more appropriate sentences for convictions. Which is exactly what GW argues he did with Libby. (the presentencing report, again iirc called for no jail time - will to to find it*). I agree with him in this case but of course it is very politically loaded so there will be fierce opinion on it.


* edit - haven't found the actual report yet but found article that said federal sentencing guidelines noted 15-21 months jail time. In another article the indication is home confinement and probation. So - not finding a good solid answer to this question.

[Uhm]

I am sure it started off with the best of intentions, but now it's just an easy out to have. It seems as though it boils down to helping out friends and family separate themselves from legal ruling. The Clinton list is a good read. We all knew this was going to happen, so I am not surprised.

His last day in office should be REALLY interesting.

oh, and I am sure that a $250K fine for Libby isn't going to be that bad to swallow. He had people raising millions of dollars for his defense fund, so I am sure coming up with that fine $$ won't take but a few days to pay in cash no less. Come on Christian you are slipping

[PETA]

Originally Posted by DJ Uhm

I am sure it started off with the best of intentions, but now it's just an easy out to have. It seems as though it boils down to helping out friends and family separate themselves from legal ruling. The Clinton list is a good read. We all knew this was going to happen, so I am not surprised.

His last day in office should be REALLY interesting.

oh, and I am sure that a $250K fine for Libby isn't going to be that bad to swallow. He had people raising millions of dollars for his defense fund, so I am sure coming up with that fine $$ won't take but a few days to pay in cash no less. Come on Christian you are slipping

ok - how about a lawyer now being a convicted felon.... which means he'll probably (should be) disbarred from the jurisdiction that issued his Bar Card and no other will admit him? Depriving a guy of his livelihood is certainly significant. This guy isn't going to command Bill Clinton's speaking and book deals. $250k is still a lot of money whether or not sympathetic people help him pay it... and you presume his defense fund will cover his defense costs + $250k. Maybe, maybe not. Would you want that maybe hanging over your head or might it make you a bit worried?

[jaesun]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

"They did it too" doesn't make it OK. It was horseshit when Clinton did it, and it's horseshit now. Does this make Dubya an 'activist' president?

(That was fucking rhetorical, Christian)

How is it hourseshit now? He didn't even breach any kind of national security by some CIA leak as they tried say he did. AND the person who DID isn't getting shit now. It was a political move, not a trial to find out who leaked who's name. They wanted to discredit the Bush administration and their decision to go to war with Iraq so they went after Libby, who was partially responsible for the decision.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

regardless, it proves one of or all of 3 things...

1. total disregard for propriety and public opinion - at least the other presidents wait till their last day in office to make politically inexpedient decisions in these realms. Dubya doesnt give a crap what anyone thinks. He proves that virtually everyday.

yeah - that's pretty clear

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

2. they are continuing to cover things up - I wouldnt be surprised if this was a deal to get his continued silence.

huh? His crime was having a different memory of a conversation than Tim Russert had. His was wrong and he was shown to have lied to the FBI - that's a no-no and he deserves to be disbarred for it. But cover up? What's being covered up?

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

3. Bush is dumb.

This is just #1 restated

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

And no, I do not think that $250k is sufficent punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice in a case regarding national security with implications of the complicity of both the president and the vice president in the violations.

huh? what security implications? If Fitzgerald was willing to charge Libby you have to believe he would have been more than willing to charge Armitage had his leak been a crime. Politically speaking this is loaded but there was no security breach here.