TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush spares Libby from prison
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Bush spares Libby from prison

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday spared former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby from going to prison for 2 1/2 years for obstructing a CIA leak investigation. "I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive," Bush said in a statement. "Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison." Bush's move came after intense pressure from conservatives who demanded he pardon Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, and saw him as the victim of overly zealous special prosecutor. His decision to commute his sentence, instead of an outright pardon, was a nod to the fact that the court process for Libby had not yet run its course, but it was unlikely to quell criticism from the left. The announcement came at the start of the Fourth of July holiday week with Congress in recess and at the end of a day in which the news was dominated by Bush's high-level talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A federal judge ruled last month that Libby would have to report to prison in six to eight weeks. An appeals court on Monday rejected Libby's request to remain free while he appealed his conviction. Libby was sentenced to prison for lying and obstructing an investigation into who blew the cover of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the Iraq war. He also received at $250,000 fine and two years probation. "He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect," Bush said. "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

That was quick.

http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...T00783220070702

shocking

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT



The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby�s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.



I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby�s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.



From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame�s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.



After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.



This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame�s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.



Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.



Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.



Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.



I respect the jury�s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby�s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.



My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.



The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby�s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Kiss your poll numbers and 2008 chances goodbye, Repubs. You can't separate yourselves enough from these traitorous abusers in office.

Granted, it's infuriating, but expected. Plus it sheds light again on who wears the pants in the WH. Keep in mind it was merely a month ago on June 5th where Perino said Bush wasn't going to interfere:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0070605-13.html

Also keep in mind where Americans felt on this issue:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26893

Sadly, the only thing I know the Dems. will do is write really stern public public letters, telling everyone how mean Cheney really is (when the stupid f$cker really should be impeached). As much as I'd love to see Dems. grow a sack on this, rest assured that'll never happen.

My hatred for these assholes knows no bounds.

Very blatant, this means that no one will have even been held accountable.

Another criminal who should be going to jail will end up retired on a Caribbean island.

$250,000 and 2 years probation, what a fuking joke.

Impeach Bush and Cheney now.

It's funny how Bush and the Wingnutters complain about Libby's sentencing length when Judge Walton is completely within the guidelines of his sentencing - actually about mid-range to the sentencing given the 3 charges being convicted.

The other interesting thing is with this "commuting"/pardon is it ensures Libby won't flip versus doing jail time. It also retains Libby's right to invoke the 5th. That's a nice watered-down version of obstruction of justice, really.

What a wonderful crew that's ran our country into the fucking ground. January 2009 can't come soon enough to get these 11 year old twirps out of power.

this will turn out to be even messier than the Gonzales episode.

Kind of an odd place the US, get caught stealing music and you'll get 2-6 years in the hole and fined, supply and deal drugs, 10-30, kill someone 25-Life, maybe put to death... breach state security during when the current government considers themselves 'in a state of war' (they do seem to like reminding on a frequent basis that you're in the war against tear-roar) and you'll get a smack on the wrist and a "who's a bad little fella then" and set free.

Lesson learned from all this?

Don't steal music

you people are so stupid.

Libby still has to appeal the conviction and the rest of the sentence. and he will.

a sentence handed down based on allegations never presented to the jury.

no one violated the Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

this entire investigation was a sham from the start and turned into the prosecutor's wanting for more, but couldn't get it based on the FACTS!

Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger. where was this faux, misplaced outrage then? i could care less really but it sure puts all this righteous indignation in perpective for us more rational people.

and you call yourselves liberals

On March 7, Libby juror Ann Redington appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball," where she was asked about a pardon for Libby.

quote:

MATTHEWS: Well, here is a question that is more human than political. Scooter Libby is eligible, as is any American who has been convicted of a crime, for a pardon from the president. Do you think he should get one? REDINGTON: Whether or not he should get one, I don`t know that I have a valid opinion. But I would like him to get one�. MATTHEWS: And you want him pardoned? REDINGTON: I don`t want him to go to jail.

fitzgerald's statement:

quote:

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative. 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.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Kiss your poll numbers and 2008 chances goodbye, Repubs. You can't separate yourselves enough from these traitorous abusers in office.

i would expect that from your side of politics.

unlike the case itself, it is very clear now this decision is not a reflection of politics or political pressure. like Snow said, it's about justice.

polls be damned as they should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i would expect that from your side of politics. unlike the case itself, it is very clear now this decision is not a reflection of politics or political pressure. like Snow said, it's about justice.

Stop smoking the damn banana peels. What kind of "justice" is served with serving less time than fucking Paris Hilton, ESPECIALLY when he was convicted on three counts of purgery and obstruction of justice (i.e. LYING TO THE FBI and GRAND JURY)?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting:

IOIYAR
(It's Okay If You're A Republican).

quote:

polls be damned as they should be.

I can see why you feel that way:

quote:

� 60% say the prison sentence should have been left in place. � 21% agree with the commutation. � 17% say Libby should have been pardoned entirely. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...d0-160d8ddcd52e

That's Republicans being surveyed.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Stop smoking the damn banana peels. What kind of "justice" is served with serving less time than fucking Paris Hilton,

because Paris was already on probation stupid. god your dumb

and yes a suspended licence is a form of probation

It's unfortunate that Libby's sentence was commuted, but at least he wasn't pardoned. Typical politics...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i would expect that from your side of politics. unlike the case itself, it is very clear now this decision is not a reflection of politics or political pressure. like Snow said, it's about justice. polls be damned as they should be.

justice? so someone who is sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card? how is that in any way right??

As of June 29, 2007,[1] President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of four people.[2] In addition, Bush commuted an additional sentence on July 2, 2007. In this context, a pardon means an executive order vacating a conviction for which the sentence has already been served, thereby eliminating the collateral effects of the conviction, while a commutation means a mitigation of the sentence of someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._George_W._Bush

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you people are so stupid. Libby still has to appeal the conviction and the rest of the sentence. and he will.

Irrelevant. He failed to be rightfully punished for being convicted on 3 counts of obstruction of justice and purjury.

Or does your anger to lying in court only apply to Democrats?

quote:

a sentence handed down based on allegations never presented to the jury. no one violated the Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

No one was proven to do so as a result of Libby's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PURJURY.

Shall we continue with the same dance we always do, Q?

quote:

this entire investigation was a sham from the start and turned into the prosecutor's wanting for more, but couldn't get it based on the FACTS!

The facts were OBSTRUCTED by the person who just got a free pass out of jail. Again this was made evident by Fitz, remember?:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

quote:

Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger. where was this faux, misplaced outrage then? i could care less really but it sure puts all this righteous indignation in perpective for us more rational people. and you call yourselves liberals

You mean the guy who took COPIES of documents? How does that compare to the top aide to the vice president lying and obstructing justice to the FBI and Grand Jury about the Administration's willful leak of classified information pertaining to an undercover COVERT CIA officer who's job was to find WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran?

Gosh I can't wait to hear your straw man.

quote:

On March 7, Libby juror Ann Redington appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball," where she was asked about a pardon for Libby.

You're full of straw man arguments tonight, aren't you? Since when was it ever the choice or the judgement of the jury to consider or have a voice pertaining to the sentencing of Libby? Last I recall, it takes a unanimous consent of ALL jury members on a given count, and then their role is finito, is it not?

quote:

fitzgerald's statement:

Is that suppose to help your cause, especially this part?:

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.

No one is arguing that Bush is fully within his rights to do what he did,

but that certainly doesn't necessitate it being an ethical one, considering not more than a month ago Perino stated he wouldn't interfere, as well as considering this guy is pushing for MANDATORY minimum sentencing laws:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...tory_sentences/

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN justice? so someone who is sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card? how is that in any way right??

yes. in America, and i would suspect in your government as well (though i could be wrong) the Executive's power of pardon is as much a part of the Justice system as the jurists themselves.

Libby has not escaped conviction.

this is nothing new by any stretch. this is only Bush's 2nd pardon and probably his last. his first one wasn't really a pardon.

what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes. in America, and i would suspect in your government as well (though i could be wrong) the Executive's power of pardon is as much a part of the Justice system as the jurists themselves. Libby has not escaped conviction. this is nothing new by any stretch. this is only Bush's 2nd pardon and probably his last. his first one wasn't really a pardon. what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was.

im not debating the power of the president (or our prime minister) to do these things. i am however, questioning the ethical nature of pardoning someone that presumably did the administration's dirty work.

i dont know a great deal about the case (american politics does not excite me) but it appears to me that someone was told to do the wrong thing by senior government, did the wrong thing, then senior government let them off.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what Bush did was obviously not based on politics. his interpretation of the sentence, a reflection of the trial, obviously was.

Yes, I see. So since it was clear that a Republican prosecutor appointed by Bush believes his conviction is well within the guidelines, and considering the Republican judge fully agreed, and even if the parol board advised a lesser sentence of 15-22 months, Bush's actions completely ignored all of that,

for....uhh....what again? Because he simply had the power to do so, and we must never question our Commander Guy or something like that?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you people are so stupid.

I've been known to resemble that on occasion

quote:

and you call yourselves liberals

That I do object too.
You know it in your hearts that you can't do it properly any more electing B-grade actors and the mentally retarded as your lord and master el presidente

It's time to come back to the empire, let England run things again.
We'll make it all better.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 He failed to be rightfully punished for being convicted on 3 counts of obstruction of justice and purjury.

you want to talk about irrelavent?

SAYS WHO? who ultimately has the right to say who is "rightfully punished"? i'll give you a hint.

quote:

Or does your anger to lying in court only apply to Democrats?

i don't care about the Donks. no one does but you here.

quote:

No one was proven to do so as a result of Libby's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PURJURY. Shall we continue with the same dance we always do, Q? The facts were OBSTRUCTED by the person who just got a free pass out of jail. Again this was made evident by Fitz, remember?: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

you do not understand. any culpable obstruction would have resulted in further investigation in regards to the violation of the Espionage act, which happened, for years. after which no one was found in violation of any law prior to Libby's trial. not because Libby had prevented that from happening, but because no law was maliciously broken in the first place.

quote:

You mean the guy who took COPIES of documents?

thats just it. he didn't know there were hard-driven copies because he was caught stealing and destroying multiple hard copies of the same thing thinking that was the end of the copies. don't defend that bastard.

quote:

How does that compare to the top aide to the vice president lying and obstructing justice to the FBI and Grand Jury about the Administration's willful leak of classified information pertaining to an undercover COVERT CIA officer who's job was to find WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran? Gosh I can't wait to hear your straw man.

i don't know. i just find it telling and odd, some of the misplaced rage around here.

quote:

Since when was it ever the choice or the judgement of the jury to consider or have a voice pertaining to the sentencing of Libby?

i suppose after their job is done after the jurors reach a verdict. duh.

i was just letting people know how one of the Jurors felt about Waltons sentence.

it's called perspective. life should not be viewed completely from your fever swamp.

quote:

Last I recall, it takes a unanimous consent of ALL jury members on a given count, and then their role is finito, is it not?

sure, on the verdict.

quote:

No one is arguing that Bush is fully within his rights to do what he did

no, but some of the more mentally challenged here that are not familiar with the American Justice System may need a refresher.

quote:

but that certainly doesn't necessitate it being an ethical one, considering not more than a month ago Perino stated he wouldn't interfere

what you are claiming with what Perino said and has said since is out of context as usual.

quote:

as well as considering this guy is pushing for MANDATORY minimum sentencing laws: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...tory_sentences/

thats for Federal level violent crime and narcotics jackass.

i think brooks & shields should be replaced by opus & Q5

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not debating the power of the president (or our prime minister) to do these things.

when you say that "sent to jail by the court (the administrator of justice after all) is given a monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card?" that leaves little to be interpreted

quote:

i am however, questioning the ethical nature of pardoning someone that presumably did the administration's dirty work. i dont know a great deal about the case (american politics does not excite me) but it appears to me that someone was told to do the wrong thing by senior government, did the wrong thing, then senior government let them off.

well you're wrong. all of your presuptions are wrong based on the law and the outcome of this case prior to the Presidents decision.

HE WASN'T PARDONED.

i mean i really can't make it any more clear for you other than to say there are two well defined sides to this. one of the sides is ignorant of the law and facts of this case and is completely hysterical.

He wasn't pardoned, but he did escape his jail-time.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.