Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[GrayMatterWife]

So in all seriousness, on Bush's last day, I'm going to scream WAHOOO!! Now THAT is cause for celebration.


kris

Me, too. I can't wait for a real conservative to get into office. Go Fred!!

Actually, in some states, getting a blow job is illegal. It's considered a form of sodomy. But, of course, that's a silly and unenforceable law and not relevant to the point of the Clinton obstruction of justice/perjury investigation. For which he was stripped of his law license and expelled from practice before the Supreme Court.

Buy why was prosecuting Clinton for obstruction of justice / perjury about a BLOW JOB okay, while prosecuting Libby for obstruction of justice / perjury about outing a CIA agent (let alone that they did it as retribution for someone telling the TRUTH about yellow cake in Niger) a bunch of hooey????

[GrayMatterWife]

GMW, your comments got me thinking and looking. Hey, even someone at Slate agrees with you! Whoa!
http://www.slate.com/id/2169718/

I think that whole executive/legislative business is cheesy. I imagine that if the tables were turned, Cheney would have a definitive opinion on which it was.

Yeah, I saw the Slate article. It synthesized what a lot of commentators (other than those lefties and righties who are so glaringly one-sided that they make illogical or purely emotional arguments) have been saying.

Yeah, I thought the executive/legislative branch distinction was kind of lame. Somebody in the VP's general counsel office needs to learn that the public does not like to be "lawyered" in the face of common sense. Didn't they learn anything from the "it depends on what you mean by 'is'" response of Clinton. Most lawyers, of whatever stripe, "got" Clinton's point (which is a valid request for specific definition in a deposition), but yikes--that's just not going to be a good sound bite for the nightly news...

[DCJenn]

Yeah but even conservatives haven't been all that enamoured of Fred's previous life as a Senator. He was pretty wimpy from what I've read.

Although you guys don't exactly have a fabulous pool of candidates, either.

I think we all need a giant do-over. No one who is a bazillionaire gets to run until two months before the primaries.

Jenn

I think he's just doing one more thing to seal his reputation as the absolute worst president, ever.

Ditto. I will only add another "EVER"!

I honestly can't talk about the man. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.

[GrayMatterWife]

Actually, in some states, getting a blow job is illegal. It's considered a form of sodomy. But, of course, that's a silly and unenforceable law and not relevant to the point of the Clinton obstruction of justice/perjury investigation. For which he was stripped of his law license and expelled from practice before the Supreme Court.

Buy why was prosecuting Clinton for obstruction of justice / perjury about a BLOW JOB okay, while prosecuting Libby for obstruction of justice / perjury about outing a CIA agent (let alone that they did it as retribution for someone telling the TRUTH about yellow cake in Niger) a bunch of hooey????

Both prosecutions were valid.

I wouldn't argue that the US Attorney acted beyond his scope of prosecutorial authority--if he believed he could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby lied about a material fact to a federal agent in the course of an investigation, then he can prosecute. My point is that the use of that discretion (to prosecute) was poorly made in this case. There simply was no underlying crime. No one illegally outed a covert CIA agent.

Is it illegal to lied to investigators in the course of their investigation of a crime that didn't happen? Yes. But the only reason that the US Attorney even made this case was to save face. He couldn't show that the real crime occurred, so he went after Libby, using the fact that he couldn't specifically recall when certain statements were made (statements that weren't illegal to make).

I would argue that this is an important distinction from the Star investigation of Clinton, which was a more valid use of prosecutorial discretion. Clinton was that a sitting President and licensed attorney who inarguably committed perjury and obstruction of justice in the course of a federal investigation. Star's investigation was not an investigation into blowjobs. It was an investigation into financial dealings--the Whitewater affair and the Clinton's dealings with extremely shady saving & loan deal. Unlike in the case of Libby, who was never suspected of the underlying (but nonexistent) crime of leaking the CIA agent's name--Clinton was always suspected wrongdoing in the underlying crime related to the S&L deal. So Clinton's lying in the course of that investigation--whether about blowjobs or whatever--was more worthy of prosecution.

[GrayMatterWife]

Yeah but even conservatives haven't been all that enamoured of Fred's previous life as a Senator. He was pretty wimpy from what I've read.

Although you guys don't exactly have a fabulous pool of candidates, either.

I think we all need a giant do-over. No one who is a bazillionaire gets to run until two months before the primaries.

Jenn

Honestly, I vote for a do-over, too. I think EVERYONE should go away, on both sides, and tell them that they can't come back for another six months. Go home and THINK about what you represent and why you want this job. They all--libs and cons alike--seem to be in this insane race for the finish line. Too much, too fast.

No one illegally outed a covert CIA agent.

Someone did! She didn't "out" her self! Libby was one of those being questioned about it, as was Rove (as were Bush and Cheney, but both refused to be questioned on the record). I totally think Libby was Cheney's fall guy, but if chooses to protect the scumbag, then too damn' bad!

Starr's initial investigation was about Whitewater, yes. But it turned down an ugly path and became a hunt about a stupid young girl and a stupid, irresponsible and immoral decision of a sitting President. But the lie was not about Whitewater, it was about what went on with Lewinsky. As you referenced before in the case of Fitzgerald - that was all Starr could actually "get" on Clinton. I think the bigger crime there was the insane amount of money wasted in that affair.

[GrayMatterWife]

No one illegally outed a covert CIA agent.

"Someone did! She didn't "out" her self!"

Actually, no one illegally outed Plame. Granted, some in the press keep acting like that's what happened, but that's not factually correct. While Plame indeed was outed, but no law was broken in the process. Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, outed her in a discussion with Robert Novak. That outing, however, wasn't an illegal "leak." Being outed isn't alone illegal: pursuant to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, federal law prohibits government officials from disclosing names of undercover operatives when the disclosing individual knew at the time of the disclosure that the person was undercover. It's pretty much undisputed that Armitage didn't know PLame was undercover (that's why he wasn't prosecuted for the outing). He got Plame's name from a memo and that memo didn't indicate that she was undercover. So while she didn't "out" herself, but no law was broken, either, in the way she was outed. That's why the US Attorney had no case regarding the purported underlying crime. If everybody in the Bush administration had just shut the heck up, and stopped worrying about what the press claimed it was (the press usually has zero understanding of anything legal, especially federal or constitutional law) and dealt with what actually had happened, they could have stopped the chaos. But at the time, they didn't know what was going on. Armitage had stepped down as Deputy Secretary about a year before and it didn't become known that he was the source of the leak until months later.

[Meenah]

:thud:



Where oh where is that vomit emoticon?

OK, throwing in the view from the other side:

WHAHOOOO!!!! I was at home watching the news when the story broke. I started jumping up and down, cheering. DH came out of the bedroom to leave for night shift and thought I'd gone nuts. I jumped on the phone and called the US Court of Appeals judge I clerked for last year and three or four other people. Completely made DH late for work (I was driving him). I was a little disappointed it wasn't a pardon...can't really figure out why Bush went half-way on that. I mean, is commuting the sentence going to make Bush any less of a target for the liberals than flat-out pardoning him? Here's to January 19, 2009: convert the commutation into a pardon!!

Needless to say, I was PUMPED. The whole thing was such a bunch of horse-hockey. They couldn't get anyone on the actual crime (because there wasn't one!), so they propped up a BS case of lying to a fed after the fact. US Attorneys NEVER go after these charges when there is no underlying crime. The US Attorney here must just be eating bitter pie.

It's nice to see Libby get a little justice...considering former National Security Advisory Sandy "Stick the Papers in My Pants" the Thief Berger pleaded guilty and is still walking around!

Ok...I am prepared to be boo-ed here. I know that this is a pretty liberal-dominated site.

In all seriousness, why do you care so much? Reminds me of when the blacks all cheered after OJ was cleared. "We won, we won". :huh:

[GrayMatterWife]

OK, throwing in the view from the other side:

WHAHOOOO!!!! I was at home watching the news when the story broke. I started jumping up and down, cheering. DH came out of the bedroom to leave for night shift and thought I'd gone nuts. I jumped on the phone and called the US Court of Appeals judge I clerked for last year and three or four other people. Completely made DH late for work (I was driving him). I was a little disappointed it wasn't a pardon...can't really figure out why Bush went half-way on that. I mean, is commuting the sentence going to make Bush any less of a target for the liberals than flat-out pardoning him? Here's to January 19, 2009: convert the commutation into a pardon!!

Needless to say, I was PUMPED. The whole thing was such a bunch of horse-hockey. They couldn't get anyone on the actual crime (because there wasn't one!), so they propped up a BS case of lying to a fed after the fact. US Attorneys NEVER go after these charges when there is no underlying crime. The US Attorney here must just be eating bitter pie.

It's nice to see Libby get a little justice...considering former National Security Advisory Sandy "Stick the Papers in My Pants" the Thief Berger pleaded guilty and is still walking around!

Ok...I am prepared to be boo-ed here. I know that this is a pretty liberal-dominated site.

In all seriousness, why do you care so much? Reminds me of when the blacks all cheered after OJ was cleared. "We won, we won". :huh:

It's nothing like the OJ situation. OJ involved people cheering when a man everyone knew was guilty received no punishment appropriate to his crime. Here, I cheer because a man who was prosecuted out of political nastiness was overly punished (by the standard for sentencing under federal law) for the crime of which he was convicted. And that injustice got corrected. (Bear in mind, to anyone who thinks Libby "got off"--he still owes a $250,000 fine--which he must pay--plus he's on probation and he's now a convicted felon.)

First, Libby was prosecuted under circumstances far outside the norm, because the prosecutor couldn't make a case against anyone for the desired crime. But somebody had to go down! So, he was prosecuted on an obstruction charge (really "small potatoes," but it was all they could come up with) related to the nonexistence crime. Then, he was sentenced far above the range advocated by the US Government. When a person is convicted of a federal crime, the United States Probation Services makes recommendations to the sentencing judge, as to what the sentence should be under federal law. While the judge may completely disregard that recommendation, doing so is extremely rare and, if the imposed sentence is far above or far below the recommended sentence, it lays the groundwork for an appeal as to the sentence. Probation here recommended probation or house arrest (a sentence within the US Sentencing Guidelines range), given the facts of the crime and the fact that Libby had no previous record. The sentencing judge completely disregarded the recommendation and sentenced Libby way, way above the recommended range, with very little explanation as to why the deviation. Everyone was completely shocked.

Part of my interest comes from a job. I've been a law clerk to three federal judges. I've spent the better part of my professional life being devoted to making the system work. I've sat in on hundreds of sentencings and read as many Presentencing Reports, and worked on dozens of criminal appeals to the federal circuit court. I would have been unimpressed with this prosecution and sentencing no matter who it happened to. It was an example of our justice system at its worst.

Reminds me of when the blacks all cheered after OJ was cleared.

Not ALL "the blacks" cheered. (Do people really still talk this way - or worse, think this way?) :huh:

Blanket statements...

Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, outed her in a discussion with Robert Novak. That outing, however, wasn't an illegal "leak." Being outed isn't alone illegal: pursuant to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, federal law prohibits government officials from disclosing names of undercover operatives when the disclosing individual knew at the time of the disclosure that the person was undercover. It's pretty much undisputed that Armitage didn't know PLame was undercover (that's why he wasn't prosecuted for the outing). He got Plame's name from a memo and that memo didn't indicate that she was undercover. So while she didn't "out" herself, but no law was broken, either, in the way she was outed. That's why the US Attorney had no case regarding the purported underlying crime. If everybody in the Bush administration had just shut the heck up, and stopped worrying about what the press claimed it was (the press usually has zero understanding of anything legal, especially federal or constitutional law) and dealt with what actually had happened, they could have stopped the chaos. But at the time, they didn't know what was going on. Armitage had stepped down as Deputy Secretary about a year before and it didn't become known that he was the source of the leak until months later.

So even though their intent was to get retribution against Plame's husband for speaking truth about WMD / yellow cake in Niger, they could have legally done what they did. It's just too bad that their circus of "brilliant" legal minds such as Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales were too busy to help quiet the situation down. He still lied about it to prosecutors, which is a crime. If he was too ill-informed to know he didn't have to lie, that's too bad.

It's still all disgusting and dirty. And I have trouble swallowing indignation at "politically driven" investigations, since that seems to be the modus operandi of the RNC.

[rainbabies]

i didnt read thru all of this thread...and i dont pay attention to politics much...but im just wondering..and correct me if im wrong...

didnt bush and or his peeps PICK the prosecution that convicted libby? his own people and he overturned the ruling? :huh: