 |
 |
 July 2, 2007
SCOOTER'S PARDON....I'd just like to briefly break radio silence to say that I'm not surprised that George Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. See here for reasons. The only thing I didn't foresee was that Mr. Principle would carefully read the polling tea leaves and commute only part of Libby's sentence so that he could pretend this was some kind of deeply profound Solomonic judgment, not just a craven favor for a friend. His statement along these lines is enough to make one ill. Ugh. —Kevin Drum 7:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (91)Comments
Ugh, for sure. It is orwellian. Bush lied. Thousands died. And Cheney is the Decider. Historians will not be kind to this corrupt administration. Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINKWell-put Kevin, I am disgusted by the statement I heard Bush make, he could have done something at any point and waited until literally the last minute to intervene before the felon known as Libby had to report to jail. Bet you $100 Libby gets pardon after 2008 elections. This is just a trial ballon. Dems need to keep this in the news in their campaigne against repugs. Keep painting repugs as hiding the truth to a crime. Bush is now irrelevant its time to bring it to the repugs. Posted by: fls on July 2, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINKAnd how is Bush's pardon any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon of tax evader Marc Rich, Whitewater co-conspirator Susan McDougal, and corrupt Congressman Dan Rostenkowski? It's hypocritical for liberals to condemn Bush's pardon of Libby while ignoring Clinton's history of corrupt pardons. Posted by: Al on July 2, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINKFrom tpm's interview with Joe Wilson, "By commuting [Libby's] sentence, [President Bush] has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice." Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINKBush 2000 Flashback: "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." For the history, see: Oh no--the Clinton-did-it-too crowd has been lurking... Bush pardoned someone from his own administration who was complicit!!! Not the same, Al..... Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINKBushie's parsing reminds me of his Solomonic resolution of the stem-cell controversy. Which would make Scooter as innocent as a blastocyst. Posted by: lampwick on July 2, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINKOutrage != surprise. I'm not surprised when I wake up and find more people have died in Iraq. I am disappointed, angry, ashamed, irritated, and frustrated, among other emotions. Posted by: Fred on July 2, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINKLet's hope the pretense and the charade that is this administrations only strength ends with impeachment and the taking of responsible action under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This commutation is an affront to anyone who is not a member of Bush's inner circle--the anointed who can expect a pardon for any kind of behavior...as long as it was to solidify the power of their Leader and the one party state. As scary is the thought that they have conspired to put on the Supreme Court of the United States folks who have no respect for the Bill of Rights, nor that of individuals, nor respect for their opponents in our political body. Without that respect and consideration for due process, the whole enterprise of the past 230 years is severely jeopardized. Posted by: parrot on July 2, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINKWith every one of these little frat rat gotchas I become even more convinced that Cheney/Bush will NOT finish out their term because one of their little gotchas will trip the levers of karma into overdrive Here`s hoping they will be around afterwards to suffer the consequences "Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille Posted by: daCascadian on July 2, 2007 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKI have read that in Scotland there is, or was at one time, a verdict of Not Proven which essentially means we can't prove you did it, but we don't believe you're innocent. It appears, with the Libby's commutation and Bush's exculpatory statement, that we now have a similar verdict (for those with the correct connections) in America: Guilty, but above the law. Posted by: clio on July 2, 2007 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKDo any of the Clinton-bashers remember who Marc Rich's lawyer was? Hint, his initials are I.L. "S." L. ... Posted by: jt on July 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINKTechnically, this does not seem to be even legal. He appears to have traded the power of his office for criminal conduct, later silence and Libby's taking the fall. This act is corrupt on its face, and should land a public official in jail. You see, this crime disguised Bush and Cheney's own criminal behavior--talk about conflict of interests! Indict Rove, Impeach Bush and Cheney. NOW! This is the final outrage. They are the most corrupt public servants ever. Even Boss Tweed had some limits. Posted by: Sparko on July 2, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINKOnly one reason that Scooter was not pardoned: As long as the conviction stands, Libby can still plead the 5th Amendment. Bush might be stupid, but Fred Fielding sure isn't. PS: Scoot gets the pardon as Bush leaves office. Bet the farm. Posted by: Stranger on July 2, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKI've seen it suggested that by merely commuting the sentence, Libby can still continue his appeal (to overturn the conviction and eliminate the fine and probation) - which has the happily coincidental side-effect of allowing him to continue to plead the Fifth about any administration malfeasance (he still has relevant business before the courts, you see). December 2008 - Christmas Eve pardons all around, including one for Scooter. Posted by: FMguru on July 2, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKSorry for the length. I just had to: It is well-known that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - once Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser - has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice. Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places - including his boss Dick Cheney - outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand into the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," wrote the chief prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton - a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-toss-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush - called the evidence "overwhelming" and threw the book at Libby. You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to "free Scooter." Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as "a man ... of personal integrity" - without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion. "A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being," said Donald Rumsfeld - the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of "bulletproof" evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. "A good person" and "decent man," said one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise "the noblest spirit of selfless service" that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" and that Iraq would "finance its own reconstruction." The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness. The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby's "honesty, integrity, fairness and balance" as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at The Weekly Standard and has led the call for a presidential pardon. "The case was such a farce, in my view," he said. "I'm for pardon on the merits." One Beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving - "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence. And there's the rub. None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" - a fallen soldier the president dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield. Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks. There are contrarian voices: "This is an open-and-shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice," said Pat Buchanan. "The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators." From the former governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." So it may well be, as The Hartford Courant said editorially, that Mr Libby is "a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot ... but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn't matter much."
Excellent point, Stranger. That should be more generally made. Posted by: lampwick on July 2, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK"Just because our White House has let us down in the past, that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in the future. In a campaign that’s going to restore honor and dignity to the White House." - George W. Bush, September 23, 2000 "On the first hour of the first day, we will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office. They will offer more lectures and legalisms and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth." - Richard B. Cheney, August 2, 2000 Brought to you by the "Because We Can" administration. Posted by: junebug on July 2, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. Finally, a little sanity. Scooter's sentance was obviously vindictive, an excessive slap by a court craving air time. This President is going to send the message: he protects his own, especially when there being persecuted by a bloodthirsty political movement. But Bush haters will whine like the pussies they are. Come on, pussies, whine for me!! Bush is President and you can't do a thing about it!! Posted by: egbert on July 2, 2007 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK@Al Hey man, I'm right there with you. That kind of crap is among the reasons I'll never vote for HC. Just try to muster the same rage here, and pass the same judgement. Posted by: Adam on July 2, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKIt is so sickening in its predictablity. Egbert, that's got to be one of the more insane, inane comments I've read about this whole affair. The mere fact that you can't deal in facts of law - and that it boils down to whining and then bragging speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend, let alone acknowledge the facts. What... George is smarter than the judges and jury? What, the sentence which was middling to begin with was too harsh? Please - grow up. Posted by: rainlion on July 2, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINKBwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Suck eggs, liberals. You will never win. Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Posted by: Norman Rogers on July 2, 2007 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKmAY the blogosphere erupt and the opposition emerge. This is corruption. Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINKWho was the lawyer who helped get Marc Rich's pardon from Clinton? Answer: Scooter Libby. What do you think about that, Al? Posted by: Apollo 13 on July 2, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINKKaLo and the rest of the Neo-- Fascist at the Corner will squeal like pigs, and spin so fast, they’ll effect the earth’s rotation. It is amazing that they have not been shamed into silence-- constant propaganda that at its core is against the rule of law, democracy, the Constitution and American international and security interests. Even Mussolini would winch at their brazen and shameful corruption. I guarantee, the next republican administration will pick Scooter as Sect. of State. This is their M.O. I mean, look at freaking Poindexter, Abrams, North - they were able to parley their way into appointments in this Administration, even after their Iran-Contra convictions and involvement. And all of these guys are jackassses left over from Nixon/Watergate. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 2, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINKegbert: "Scooter's sentance was obviously vindictive, an excessive slap by a court craving air time." As Steve Benen noted previously, "Libby was charged by a prosecutor appointed by a Republican administration, he was sentenced by a judge appointed by a Republican president, and his appeal was heard by two more judges appointed by Republican presidents." Hypocrisy becomes you. Posted by: junebug on July 2, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINKI'm not actually bothered by the decision. Having an obvious fall guy like libby serve five years really wouldn't have been justice. As it is he remains a convicted felon and still has probation and the fine. That seems like a reasonable punishment to me for the crime in question. A pardon would have angered me, this I can live with. Anger is one thing, vengeance another. Don't mistake the two. Posted by: Tlaloc on July 2, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINKThis President is going to send the message: he protects his own, especially when there being persecuted by a bloodthirsty political movement. So now the President of the United States of America has a proscribed "his own," and the laws of the land and a jury of one's peers are not included in that? The President of the United States of America is blatantly acting only in the interest of his friends and supporters, and not the whole country? I guess we really do have a junta now. Posted by: Mnemosyne on July 2, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINKcommute only part of Libby's sentence so that he could pretend this was some kind of deeply profound Solomonic judgment Tsk. Recall Solomon: the women brought the baby they were fighting over and he offered to cut it in half as a test. Whereas, Bush, when confronted with the two women and the child, whips out the sword, whacks the kid in half, grabs on ends and hands to one of the women with the immortal words: 'Here's your half, bitch!' Thus His Narcissistic Majesty and his administration in a nutshell: he REALLY DOES believe that that's what Solomon would've done. m, if you can fake sincerity and believe it, you've got it made ... for awhile Posted by: max on July 2, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINKI have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case ... I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. That might be worthy of consideration if he has exercised at least as much care weighing the arguments and circumstances of all those in Texas who were put to death on his watch. Posted by: has407 on July 2, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINKLibby's commuted sentence for perjury is substantially heavier than whatever sanction President Clinton suffered for the same crime. The only difference is that Libby committed perjury before a grand jury that was investigating a "crime" that the prosecutor knew to a moral certainty had not been committed. Still, lying to a grand jury is a bad thing, even where the prosecutor is out of control, and President Bush seems to have gotten the balance exactly right. Posted by: DBL on July 2, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINKBush might have just as well resign and give Hillary his office now, because he's effectively destroying what remains of the republican party. They spent the Rush revolution, they spent the attack indignity. There's nothing left. Posted by: patience on July 2, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK"Suck eggs, liberals. You will never win." On the contrary, we will win big in the 2008 elections. And I look forward to hearing you whine about your devastating losses when that time arrives. It is only until then that we will not win. Posted by: fostert on July 2, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINKLibby's commuted sentence for perjury is substantially heavier than whatever sanction President Clinton suffered for the same crime.... How many errors of fact did you count in DBL's screed above? I stopped at five. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on July 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINKhas407, That might be worthy of consideration if he has exercised at least as much care weighing the arguments and circumstances of all those in Texas who were put to death on his watch.
For him to do this in this case, where for anyone else he would do nothing, demonstrates like nothing else could that he does not think laws or legal responsibilities apply to him or those who work for him, but to anyone else. That the law exists only as a means of abusing others with a pretense of societal sanction. Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKOne can go a bit further then, and say that by being so outrageously out of character it demonstrates consciousness of guilt on his part. Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINKParis Fucking Hilton did more time than Scooter. Fuck these fucking fucks. Posted by: Cazart on July 2, 2007 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINKDBL, That is exactly what did not happen. Libby's lying was able to specifically obscure the role Cheney played in the affair so the prosecutor was unable to say what the Vice President might or might not have done. Libby's action specifically obstructed the investigation. Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINKSo apparently Paris Hilton is more of a threat to our social contract than Libby Posted by: Gabe on July 2, 2007 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINKAnd you know that Libby didn't actually pay a penny. Damn the press and that hereasay love for this entirely criminal president. Those press and media only ever serve Bush, liberal my ass. You know where they can stick that sheild law. Posted by: Me_again on July 2, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK"And how is Bush's pardon any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon of tax evader Marc Rich,..." DEMS win in '08. That's the upside. What will we tell the children about the Republican pResident saying lying under oath is a-ok For what it's worth, you might note that Slate's Tim Noah, who is as liberal as I am conservative, agrees with me on this, for substantially the same reason, namely that it's unfair to send Libby to jail for the same offense that Bill Clinton skated on, but it is important to affirm the principle that you can't lie to a grand jury. Noah says that most defendants convicted of this crime get a heavy fine and probation; all President Bush did was to treat Libby the same way. Posted by: DBL on July 2, 2007 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKIt is a tough call on whether this was the right thing to do because we don't really know Libby's motivation for lying. If he was trying to keep out of trouble himself, the commutation is arguably justified. If he was trying to protect others who had done something wrong, then it is much harder to justify. The most likely explanation is that he incorrectly thought he and others were at legal risk when they really weren't, which is odd but does not provide much support for commutation. Additionally, since the entire investigation and surrounding events were such a circus (espcially Wilson), that would be another reason not to send him to jail. I always thought Clinton's successful use of lies to keep his job was a very bad thing for the country -- it will be worse if those lies further succeed to make Hillary president (which I doubt). Now Libby lying and getting off from jail time seems to compound the problem of the people lying and mostly getting away with it. Posted by: brian on July 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINKAs it is he remains a convicted felon and still has probation and the fine. That seems like a reasonable punishment to me for the crime in question. The reasonable punishment was, and should have been, decided by the judge in the case, not by Libby's boss. I can assume that from now on Bush will intervene in the literally hundreds of thousands of cases where a convicted felon is serving a sentence harsher than his crime merits -- or will this sudden passion for mercy only extend to close personal friends of Dick Cheney. Posted by: Stefan on July 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINKI don't care how long it takes, if Sen. Leahy starts a wave find Bush/Cheney et al in contempt and then the Dems move into the Whitehouse, may we prusue these A-holes with one long never ending legal battle long after they leave office -hell, they won't even have a resignation to offer up, so it'll be cash or prison time. I don't care if Hillary wins or not, I just want to get these guys and make them all do time. I want pay back. \ Posted by: Me_again on July 2, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKThe time has come to impeach. Both of them, none of this drooling half-bright bullshit of impeaching Cheney. It is time for the Democrats to stand up and say enough to this thoroughly criminal junta. I'm writing my Democratic - and Republican - representatives to do so, and my money will now go to any effective impeachment advocacy group. It's time to take action. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 2, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKThe reasonable punishment was, and should have been, decided by the judge in the case, not by Libby's boss. Yes, the boss who is the indirect, if not actually the direct, beneficiary of that crime. Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINKIt is a tough call on whether this was the right thing to do because we don't really know Libby's motivation for lying. Legally his motivation is irrelevant. If he was trying to keep out of trouble himself, the commutation is arguably justified. What the fuck? So there's now a "perjury's OK if you were doing it to protect yourself" exception? Additionally, since the entire investigation and surrounding events were such a circus (espcially Wilson), that would be another reason not to send him to jail. The only people making it a circus were the rabid wingnuts such as yourself. Astounding, really, the gall to throw a temper tantrum and then claim that tantrum as an excuse. Posted by: Stefan on July 2, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINKI think Keith "The Man" Olbermann will say that the prez is "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD." He went to commercial break Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINKThe instant polls are comng out, with 60% against Bush's communtation. (Something like 21% are OK with it; another 17% would grant a full pardon.) So on that note: 1. Would someone take these poll numbers and shove them down Andrea Mitchell's throat? Or up her ass? 2. Would the pollsters NOW finally ask Americans about impeachment? 3. Would someone tell the MSM, especially the WaPo, NBC, CBS and ABC, to take the 2003 videos out and compare and contrast Bush's statements then, versus now? Thank-you, Blogosphere. You're our only hope. Posted by: maxGowan on July 2, 2007 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKI was right--worse person of the world. Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINKI meant, of course, Yes, not the boss who is the indirect, if not actually the direct, beneficiary of that crime. Posted by: cld on July 2, 2007 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINKStefan, You should calm down. 1. There are not "legal" issues that control commutation. It is an executive action. 2. The reason commutation is arguably justified if he was just trying to protect himself are: the sentence was too harsh, there was no underlying crime, he was mistaken in thinking that there was any legal risk, he apparently was otherwise a dedicated public servant trying to help protect the country, the events at issue involved stupid conversations with journalists, and it was a circus with Wilson, Miller, politics, and Cooper. Overall, I don't think he should have commuted the sentence. I think he should have deferred prison until the appeal on the merits was completed, then reviewed the case if the conviction was affirmed. Posted by: brian on July 2, 2007 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINKDBL on July 2, 2007 at 8:15 PM "Prosecutor out of control?" If you can, answer truthfully. Who appointed Fitzgerald USA? Fitzgerald is a member of what political party? What did Fitzgerald have to gain by prosecuting Libby? What did Fitzgerald have to lose?
What did you think when Martha Stewart went to prison for doing the same thing? You do realize there really was no "underlying crime" in her case. Face it, the President just pissed all over the rule of law. It takes a person of character to admit when they are wrong. George W. Bush is not a person of character. It takes a person of character to bravely face the consequences of their own actions. Scooter Libby is not a person of character. It takes a person of character to recognize when someone from their own political party is a criminal and deserves punishment. Norman Rogers is not a person of character. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on July 2, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKBush may come to regret that statement. Oh, wait! He never regrets. I wonder who wrote it for him? Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on July 2, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINKI, for one, am glad his sentence was commuted. In a dictatorship, it is not right that the dictator has to pretend to uphold the law. The little game that the Republicans have been playing where they pretend to still favor the rule of law can now end. Soon, the Republicans can feel free to stop all the pretenses; they won't have to keep saying silly things like "Saddam sent his WMD to Syria" and come right out and say what is on their mind -- "So there was no reason to invade, so what? So, over 3000 Americans are dead, 30,000 wounded. What you gonna do about it?" Instead of lying about the reasons for cutting taxes for the super rich they can simply tell the truth: "we got the money, you don't, so fuck off. What you gonna do about it?" Instead of lying about "no child left behind" they can say what's on their mind: "yes, we hate public education, and spending money educating ni----s and Mexicans, we're cutting the funding, what you gonna do about it". See, how much better it will be now? Now, the Repugs can simply say what they really feel: "fuck the Constitution. We're in charge and you are all fucked. What you gonna do about it?" And what are you going to do about it? March? Vote? Get real. You're not gonna do anything. Because for six years this shit has been going on and who can be bothered to actually do anything? Ask Pelosi. Action is "off the table". This is America. And Bush is in charge. Posted by: Dicksknee on July 2, 2007 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINKGovernmental oversight committees must get involved in this gaspingly corrupt commution. Do you think the administration watched Larry King's interview of Paris Hilton, saw her with her jailhouse scribblings, and feared Scooter would do the same? Recall his wife was quoted as saying, "We'll f--- 'em." Posted by: consider wisely always on July 2, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINKThe only thing I didn't foresee was that Mr. Principle would carefully read the polling tea leaves and commute only part of Libby's sentence so that he could pretend this was some kind of deeply profound Solomonic judgment, not just a craven favor for a friend. Not only was it foreseeable after David Frum made the rounds (see him on Hardball) pushing "respite," it was obvious. The full pardon will come as Bush is walking out the door on January 20, 2009. Count on it. Was Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence excessive? [See comparable Watergate sentences here, along with Bush’s statement of reasons for today’s interference in the process.] Comparing the price of fines (adjusted for inflation) between 1974 and 2007 ($45,000/$250,000), Libby seems to be getting off cheaply, but I think it’s fair to conclude that no matter what it had been, the secret fund set up for Libby (see Barbara Comstock) would have had enough to cover it. All those convicted during Watergate who were attorneys lost their licenses to practice, and should Libby fail to prevail on appeal, he will lose his license, too. Given Bush’s visit with his father at Kennebunkport this past weekend and Dad’s own history of preventing investigations with pardons, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party has teams of Federalist Society lawyers scheming about ways to pardon before indictments - perhaps we'll see a reprise of the "Arlen Specter/Patriot Act"-act. Because as of now, therre is nothing to prevent a prosecutor in the future, in the next administration, from opening up a new investigation. Should a new investigation uncover evidence of a conspiracy, Libby, et al, could face a whole new set of charges. What will Bush-Cheney and Republicans do to make sure that doesn’t happen? Impeachment may be the only way that Democrats take the White House in 2008. Posted by: Maeven on July 2, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINKNoah says that most defendants convicted of this crime get a heavy fine and probation; all President Bush did was to treat Libby the same way. Tell that to Victor Rita, who was convicted of essentially the same charges as Libby and whose appeal was just turned down by the Supremes. Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems. Even this Supreme Court wasn't moved by Rita's case. So, just to remind us, Bush makes it perfectly clear there is one law for the powerful, another law for the rest of us. Posted by: jrw on July 2, 2007 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINKIt takes a person of character to recognize when someone from their own political party is a criminal and deserves punishment. Norman Rogers is not a person of character.
Jeebus, Josh gets the best scoop of the day, and not corner's partisan HATE filled BS: A true American hero: Via Byron York at the Corner, Patrick Fitzgerald's statement ... 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. 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. -- Josh Marshall We should take our hats off collectively to Partick Fitzgerald, and my heart goes out to him. Fitzgerald is a true American Patriot, that he stood alone and defended the law of this land, while hate filled elite, worthless, members of the US press did nothing short of curicify the man and the truth right along side those radical beast of right-wing hell. Patrick is a true loyalist to the US Constitution. Americans should find love and respect for Patrick Fitzgerald, the same respect they have for Martin Luther King, jr. because Patrick stood his ground and would not yeld to any but rule of law, against many of atrocities of this administration. Patrick is man of deep courage and conviction and his heart and soul ran true for those who believe and support the rightousness of law and truth. Posted by: Me_again on July 2, 2007 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK>"how is Bush's pardon any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon of tax evader Marc Rich, Whitewater co-conspirator Susan McDougal, and corrupt Congressman Dan Rostenkowski" Actually I think there is a difference, and it's an important one. Clintons pardons were tainted by accusations of corruption from the power of money. Watergate, Israel-Iran-Contra and now Plamegate allowed those who participated in the corruption and misuse of raw government power itself to escape justice. In my own view, I see the Watergate pardons as really the begining of the end for the American system. The nation might have gone a different direction if Nixon had been put behind bars. Instead the message was sent that a rogue regime can simply pardon itself out of trouble. Posted by: Buford on July 2, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKwow, Kevin, what a profound condemnation of our prez's action. it really moves the ball forward. zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Posted by: coffeequeen on July 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKSuck eggs, liberals. You will never win. we'll pass that on to Speaker Pelosi, another liberal who "never wins", and we'll wrap this shit around the neck of whoever the Republicon nominee is who loses in '08. Suck on it, Lord Douchebag. Posted by: haha on July 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKthere was no underlying crime That we do not know because Libby effectively blocked the view. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that... In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball... And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view... Anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime... Posted by: snicker-snack on July 2, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINKAnd I was convinced Kevin would only break radio silence to spar with Sullyman over pharmaceutical policy or else because Bush had pardoned Paris (which would have been less depressing, and that in itself speaks to just how depressing this is). Posted by: Linus on July 2, 2007 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK
Au contraire, you moron. I AM a person of character. I believe that when a man breaks the law, he should be punished. Scooter was punished, as was Bill Clinton. Bush COULD HAVE PARDONED CLINTON, couldn't he have? It was well within his powers to do so, lo, these 6 and a half years. But, because Clinton DID NOT deserve pardon and Scooter DESERVED commutation of his sentence, your undies are all in a bunch. I thank the Creator we live in a great country such as this, where a hillbilly loses his law license and where a good man like Scooter gets treated fairly. Amen, liberals--your heroes fall hard, don't they? Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Posted by: Norman Rogers on July 2, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINKThis is a gob of spit on the American people. We do not stand equal before the law. Republicans are above the law; democrats and guilty as charged. The DoJ scandal shows this clearly. Loyal Bushies press forward with trumped up charges, phony claims, and faked evidence as in Wisconsin, Alabama, Nevada and other states. But when Bushies stand convicted of blatant and repeated lying under oath, blatant and repeated obstruction of justice, it's time to call in the sweet tender mercy of Bush père ou fils. Daddy pardoned the Iran-Contra creeps including the serial liar, Casper Weinberger to complete the cover up, so the son can do no less by commuting the fair and just sentence of one who's action in exposing a covert agent is committing treason for political purposes. What's to be done? Congress or Fitzpatric could now grant Libby use immunity. Since his sentence was commuted, he faces no punishment and with use immunity, there is no justification for pleading the Fifth. While he might still, but that opens contempt charges. ….As it is he remains a convicted felon and still has probation and the fine. …. Tlaloc on July 2, 2007 at 8:08 PMHis defense fund and/or friends will pay the fine. Being a convicted felon is a badge of honor in the Republian party. He'll be drafted into a future administration like Negroponte or Abrams. The sentence was 21/2 years, within the sentencing guidelines for the crime. Bush is the executive branch. His signing statements made him the legislative branch. Now, he is replacing the judicial branch with his preferences overriding professionals. One person rule is so convenient for the one person. ….the prosecutor is out of control…DBL at 8:15 PM What moronic horseshit. Kenneth Starr was an out-of-control prosecutor. David M. Barrett was an out-of-control prosecutor. Tim Noah is a media hack. Quoting him is like quoting Richard Cohen and numerous other beltway bozos who think they are the ruling class. Clinton did not commit perjury and those Republicans who condemned his statements are now the same whores wailing and crying for Libby. ….I always thought Clinton's successful use of lies to keep his job was a very bad thing for the country….brian at 8:34 PM Again and again for all your Republican hacks, there was no Clinton perjury …The reason commutation is arguably justified… brian at 8:53 PM The crime was lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. There was an underlying crime contrary to all the Republican spincrap. The sentence was not too harsh: it was within guidelines. Bush acted to protect himself. He has told all future felons in his administration that it's ok to lie. It's ok to obstruct. He will take care of them. Like his daddy, he will commit the ultimate cover up for his criminal administration. …. I thank the Creator…Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Norman Rogers at 10:03 PM This is an excellent illustration of the insanity of Bush's bitter-enders. In addition it sums up Republican's moral turpitude and complete lack of ethical standards. Posted by: Mike on July 2, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK Bush COULD HAVE PARDONED CLINTON, couldn't he have? Clinton was never convicted of any crime, you moron. Moron Rogers, still the king of the conservatards. Posted by: haha on July 2, 2007 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK
You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself--innocent men rarely are forced to surrender their license to practice law. I believe it was...shall we say...a plea agreement? And Scooter never plead guilty. Think about that for a cold, hard minute, won't you? Posted by: Norman Rogers on July 2, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK'But he [Norman Rogers] is a convicted felon.' I rest my case. I wish there were going to be retribution for Bush's actions, but there probably won't be. Democrats wouldn't want to do anything politically risky, would they, Nancy? "Come on, pussies, whine for me!! Bush is President and you can't do a thing about it!!" "Suck eggs, liberals. You will never win."
In my own view, I see the Watergate pardons as really the begining of the end for the American system. The nation might have gone a different direction if Nixon had been put behind bars. Instead the message was sent that a rogue regime can simply pardon itself out of trouble. You are not alone in that view. Republicans have been allowed to define Ford's pardon of Nixon as "wise and humane," just as they've been able to define Reagan as a good president, liberals as "tax and spend" and liberalism overall as "evil." Democrats have sat idly by and allowed it. Until the people rise up and become active (either by taking control of the Democratic party, voting incumbent Democrats out, finding new candidates to run as Democrats), things will just get worse until there isn't anything left to salvage. I think we're complacent because we can't envision what "worse" would be like. We think that the war zones (or economic depression, or gulags) going on in other countries couldn't possibly happen here, when, in truth, it wouldn't take much. Yesterday, WaPo published "A President Besieged and Isolated," about Bush "summoning leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians": Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate? Are we seriously to believe that Bush is doing this for any reason but to hoodwink the American people? As more information about the inner workings of this administration comes to light, we see an effort by Bush to try to separate himself from Cheney and lay his administration's failures on Cheney. The media is obviously swallowing it, or at least letting Bush give it the good old college try. A visit with the old man (or Jim Baker, or anyone connected to Reagan) is enough to get the media swooning and writing well of Bush. Again. "Fool me once, shame on you, ..." Norman Rogers writes: Never make the claim that you engage in rational, reasonable debate. You engage in adolescent, infantile name-calling; nothing more. Uh, Norman Rogers? I hate Bush, and when I first heard about the Libby commutation my immediate reaction was "Hot damn! This is too good to be true!" Every time I think the American people couldn't possibly hate Bush any more, he plays right into our hands. Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! This ought to be good for knocking AT LEAST another three points off of Bush's 20-something approval rating. Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! If that stupid, drunken frat boy motherfucker stays in there another 17 months, even Kucinich will be able to defeat the Republican nominee. Dumb W. Ass is the best campaigner the Dems have. Posted by: Kevin Carson on July 3, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINKAl: "And how is Bush's pardon any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon of tax evader Marc Rich, Whitewater co-conspirator Susan McDougal, and corrupt Congressman Dan Rostenkowski?" Um, something about the security of this country you pretend to love but really despise, as is clear in every post you feebly make. Tell us, Al and egbert, what members of your families would the Bush administration have to rape and murder for you to admit that they might be a little off-track? Far-fetched? It has happened many, many times in Iraq, and in your names. Shout "Clinton" all you like, but you idiots are happily complicit in crimes all Americans will be blamed for in decades to come. Posted by: Kenji on July 3, 2007 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINKwhen ford pardoned nixon a friend-of-mine's reaction was: if the public doesn't demand that when bushI pardoned weinberger my friend's reaction was: if the public doesn't demand that when bushII jail-time-pardoned libby my friend's Good for President Bush. The commutation is well-deserved. Posted by: Brian on July 3, 2007 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINKAl: "And how is Bush's pardon any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon of tax evader Marc Rich, Whitewater co-conspirator Susan McDougal, and corrupt Congressman Dan Rostenkowski?" The biggest difference is that Susan McDougal and Dan Rostenkowski had both already served their sentences. All the pardons did was clear their names in the eyes of the government. Marc Rich did avoid any jail time, but since he had been living overseas, effectively in exile, for 18 years and was never going to come back to the U.S. as long as those charges were hanging over his head, he wasn't going to go to jail anyway. Meanwhile, the pardon on the criminal charges required him to agree to a $100 million fine to settle civil tax evasion charges, which it is not clear the government could have won if they ever had gone to trial. In other words, there is no comparison at all between these case and Ford's pardon of Nixon which robbed us of the chance to finally and fully expose and punish the criminal behaviour of that administration. Or George H.W. Bush's pardon of several figures who still faced potential criminal charges in the Iran-Contra scandal in which he himself was an unindicted co-conspirator. Much less Bush Jr's ensuring that Libby never served a single day in jail after his obstruction of justice prevented the F.B.I. and Patrick Fitzgerald from proving the Plame outing was a result of a criminal conspiracy within the White House. Posted by: tanstaafl on July 3, 2007 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINKpoor peanut brain, once again demonstrating his complete ignorance of the subject. An appeals court already refused to stay the jail sentence pending appeal, which means he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of having his felony convictions overturned. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself--innocent men rarely are forced to surrender their license to practice law. So provide us with a cite that proves Clinton was ever charged or convicted of any crime. His Arkansas law license was suspended for a couple of years by that state bar, it wasn't part of any plea agreement, moron. …innocent men rarely are forced to surrender their license to practice law...Norman Rogers at 10:30 PMClinton acted in order to end the persecution of the notoriously corrupt Republican independent counsels, Starr and Ray …In January, Clinton reached an agreement with independent counsel Robert Ray that suspended his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered the former president to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials. Clinton also gave up any claim of repayment of his legal fees in the matter. ….He was never going to go to jail for something that puny. p-ant at 9:39 AM It's true; he would never go to jail. He was a Republican operative acting at the behest of tricky dickey Cheney. Cover-ups are de rigeur in those circumstances. There is no chance he will win an appeal. His crime was too blatant and expressed such contempt for the law and legal processes to get a pass except from corrupt Republican administrations. Posted by: Mike on July 3, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK Kevin, What is it with you? Why (once again) the smug investment in not being surprised by something? Many of us aren't surprised. But we're outraged. Surprise and outrage aren't the same thing. And if you aren't outraged, then fine. Shut up and let your betters speak. Posted by: Lindy on July 3, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK
December 2008
November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
| |||
