 |
|
|
|
 |
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Jul-02-2007 23:19
|
|
|
 |
 |
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
|
|
|
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
|
Jul-02-2007 23:22
|
|
|
 |
 |
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
|
|
|
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. |
Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-03-2007 at 01:38
|
|
Jul-03-2007 00:41
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:29.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|