Breaking News - Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

Remove all ads!

For the record, Clinton plea bargained (an amazing statement, a President having to plea bargain ) his perjury indictment down to charge of misleading testimony. Technically he was never found guilty of perjury, he admitted he lied to a grand jury in return for a lessor sentence (5 year suspension of his license to practice law in Arkansas and a $25k fine).

That said, no one is clean on this one, as ever was and is. The administration wanted a little quid pro quo for Joe Wilson's lies and slander, so they decided to give Plame a little fame (which they technically stayed within the letter of the law on). On the other side, the Prosecution already had their snitch (Armitage), but wanted a bigger fish to fry. Unfortunately Fitzgerald was unable to deliver the goods, so they had to have someone to hang, and the Administration was happy to give up Scooter as they knew they could protect him with little cost in political capital.

The liberal outrage at this is ginned up on their hatred of Bush (which he has done much to deserve), and the Republican defense of it is simply the closing of ranks.

In other words, nothing new here, time to move along to the next scandal.

 

What lies and slander, exactly?

How so, technically? And if they were within the law, then why did Libby have to lie to cover it up?

 

Have you read the applicable law, or heard the interviews with the woman (a Democrat by the way) who wrote it?

Have you read Joe Wilson's book where he admits that he lied on his little adventure to "investigate" the Iraqi/Africa yellow cake connection?

Sorry, don't have the time to go do your research for you anymore. Be informed or ignore, your choice.

 

Hmm. Well, yes I have read them. Yes, I'm actually very well-versed on the subject. I think Wilson was an ass who unnecessarily blew his own credibility. There are things Wilson did lie about, and things he didn't - and the claims against him vary greatly. There's so much noise surrounding the issue it's difficult to know what to think of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Wilson. I've drawn my own conclusions about this of course, but since you clearly don't care to hear it I won't bother disrupting your busy schedule. All I will say is the things Wilson lied about don't really matter, as his main claim - the one that started this whole mess - was indeed proven correct by George Tenet. Even an ass can be right, it seems.

I was honestly asking to see if your information on the subject was the same as mine, or if you were basing it on the rantings of some blowhard like Neal Boortz or some hack right-wing news service like you've done so often in the past. You've also pulled so many dubious claims out of nowhere in the past (often preceded with "the fact is..." when they were anything but) that I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt this time and ask for you to elaborate on your own statement, preferably with a helpful source. All of which makes this:

...from one of most poorly informed people I've ever encountered online, as sadly humorous as it was rude. [snip]

Be an adult or a [snip - rude person], your choice.

[ - self-censored, with apologies.]

[ July 09, 2007, 21:07: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

See, TGS, statements like this are what convince me you're not arguing in good faith.

It's really not difficult to understand why they went after Libby, and why he got hit with a harsh sentence; they wanted to flip him. Why is this a problem?

 

The problem is that he was unflippable. Everyone knew the fix was in. Now he does no jail time, and if/when he gets pardoned in January 2009 he doesn't have to pay the fine or anything consequence. Even if Bush doesn't pardon him, there is no way that Libby will have to pony up the 250K fine as I'm sure there are many guys lining up to pay it for him.

 

@Snook: It was more or less inevitable that Libby would end up getting away with it thanks to a Bush commutation/pardon. This fact, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute him. Aside from the fact that he really was guilty as charged (and where I come from, we arrest and try people when they commit crimes), there's also the fact that the guilty verdict serves to further tarnish the Bush administration (and, therefore, the entire Republican party), whether Libby gets off in the end or not....so, at least politically, charging him is a good idea.

At the very least, Libby's career options are now going to be a lot more limited. While he may be given a golden parachute in the form of a prestigious position in the private sector, even if he is pardoned, no elected politician is going to want to be connected to the man ever again. His pipeline to real power and influence has been permanently closed off.....so the guilty verdict still accomplished something.

 

You would think so, wouldn't you. Yet, Elliott Abrams, who plead guilty of lying to the Congress in his testimony regarding the Iran-contra affair (and was subsequently pardoned by Bush pere) is deputy national security adviser in Bush son administration.

Libby's stonewalling is probably seen as a badge of honor in some circles.

 

So let's see...right now we have the two latest presidents impeached and serving time in prison. Interesting conclusions, and doesn't say much for the state of American presidents. Also, figure into the political landscape we have just imagined, that Bill could get a full pardon once Hillary is elected the next prez (unless she is enjoying herself too much). If George is lucky, maybe Laura will consider running for office as well and he could get a pardon too. I'm taking odds now, she goes for it.

 

I am not surprised about the commuting of the sentence.

I agree with TGS and AtFI. Nothing new in this scenario. Guy takes the fall knowing that he will be taken care of.

Much as I love bashing Bush this time I can only say he wasn't the first and won't be the last to make this kind of deal.

 

TGS,

That is a good observation.

It means that the powers that be have established a system where they can break the law with impunity because they are covering each others backs and can resist the normal pressure tactics of law enforcement against high profile crime.

That means that the fox is guarding the henhouse, and that the criminals are controlling not only the pardoning regime but to a large extent the political apparatus as well. Speak about safe bets. I have my doubts that under Gonzales a special prosecutor like Fitzgerald would have been tasked. Kudos to kooky old Ashcroft and conservatives like James Comey. There was no more place for them under Bush and Cheney in the second term.

Second part is that on that level a solution can only come from the political level, Bush's and Cheney's peers. You won't get Cheney on charges of tax evasion, and you likely won't get him for all the other little crimes he did. But if you can get him out of office for violations of the constitution, say for claiming to be an own branch of government that has to be seen as good enough.

 

Prove me wrong or take your personal attack and shove it.

So you think my posts are poor, kettle pot black.

Sorry, I have a real job and don't have hours to sit around and post links that no one ever reads anyway.

 

i think its funny
i call dr an a$$ and i get censored
he calls you a dick and no problem
hmm liberal bias at work??

 

DW,

It doesn't take hours to elaborate on something you already know and find a source to back it up, such as Joe Wilson's alleged "slander." It takes about 2 minutes. Unless you can't back it up and are just bloviating, which was kind of what I was getting at.

I wanted to read the links you would have posted. I wanted to hear your take on the issue. I wanted to engage in a discussion with someone whose opinion is almost always different than mine yet whom I inexplicably still somehow like and respect. What I got was rather unsatisfying, though not totally unexpected.

I apologize for the personal attack. I should not have stooped to your level.

@ Maurtag,

I'm glad you brought that up. My "dick" comment was a direct response to DW's "be informed or ignore" dismissal. Instead of answering my questions, he responded like, for lack of a better term, a dick. His dismissal was uncalled for and he went on to suggest that I essentially wouldn't have my facts straight if not for his research, which was laughable. In your case, instead of correcting me about Eddie Guererro you felt compelled to call me an ass and a liar. In both cases I made a simple, non-offensive statement and got a childishly rude response in return, when an "actually DR, that's not true..." would have done the job.

Do you two shop at the same stores or what?

Sorry for the derail, everyone.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the singers change but the song remains the same. We'll always have scandals in high places, and I cannot honestly believe that anyone could argue that such dishonesty also does not occur in other countries besides the U.S. -- God knows, it happens here in Canada.

What I find amusing is that some people only get wound up when it's the OTHER team breaking / bending the rules. Not a peep came out of many liberals' mouths when Clinton pardoned inappropriately, but they're all over Bush when he does it? Conversely, the Republicans who are defending Bush's actions are the same ones who decried it when Clinton does it. I'd be a lot happier if people applied the same light of judgement to their own guys as well as their opponents.

 

Clinton pardoned all those of whom you are complaining of, as he was leaving office. It's really hard to make a point with a guy who "used to be" president, rather than one who still has another year or so left in office. So why would Bush feel compelled to do so, rather than wait another year like the others whom he has followed? I'll leave that to you and all the rest of the Clinton bashers to explain why.

Btw, one of the supposed reasons why Libby was Rich's lawyer is because many in the conservative establishment believed that Rich had gotten a raw deal. All this seems odd because Rich WAS a donor to the Democratic party. Could he have been playing both ends? I confess, I don't know the answer (nor do I really care).

Also, to all those who have a lot to say about "liberalism" on SP - I used to a mod here, and I can say with all honesty, that no such biased exists among the mods on this board. If anything, I felt under the gun, as one of the few liberals on SP, to be way more than unbiased. While many on this board have a slight "liberal" slant, there are scant few real liberals here, as most thoughtful posters on SP are moderates, and their opinons reflect that view, IMHO.

 

Peep. Dude, plenty of liberals were critical. I certainly was. On the other hand everyone seems to ignore a few facts about the Rich Pardon.

There were at least a few highly distinguished legal professionals who were convinced that Rich got the shaft and actually committed no crime. Libby, on the other hand, does not share that distinction.

 

Chandos, are you calling me a Clinton basher? I'll admit I've never liked the guy but I don't think I've ever bashed him too terribly on these boards -- heck, I haven't been around for a year or so!

In any event, I'm not so much anti-Clinton, anti-liberal, pro-conservative or even pro-government but I am anti - corruption. It would be nice if both parties in the States could clean up their act. What I'm reading in this thread and others tells me that some people at least are fed up with the feeling that those in power, regardless of their political stripe, can do what they want to without serious consequences, while the rest of us peons pay "the uttermost farthing" when we so much as jaywalk.

 

LKD - Well it is good to have you back again. And almost any talk of "bashers" and such, regardless of which side, is not to be taken seriously. Bill Clinton is not even a real topic of this thread. The defense for Bush's actions almost always comes down to "what Clinton did" some ten years ago. And it further proves, as I commented, most of this should not be taken too seriously.