President Bush commuted 'Scooter' Libby's sentence

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
So, the criminal president commutes his criminal vice president's criminal assistant's sentence because we can't have anybody in the executive branch actually suffer the consequences of the crimes they've committed.

*puke*

Edi has the president been convicted of a crime? If you want to point fingers about a criminal pardoning other criminals then I suggest you review who Bill Clinton, a convicted criminal, pardoned on his last day in office.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Disclaimer: I'm 23 years old. That limits my political perspective somewhat. While I've studied history, practically all recent presidents are just that to me. My political interests are fairly recent. I started to pay attention during Bill, but it didn't really start developing until 2000. '04 I actually did research on the canidates. I'm not hugely interested in comparisons with previous presidents, because shamefully enough, those previous presidents were boring talking heads at the time, at most a dirty joke or two.

While listening to talk radio I've heard a lot of opinions on commutation versus pardons, and a lot of misinformation. I haven't figured out what the bare facts of the matter are yet, I'll probably do that tomorrow, and then throw myself fully into the fray with a heavily biased opinion.

Atrocities, it is worth it to point out that Edi hasn't used the word pardon even once yet, though you might find something like that reading between the lines, intended or not, there or not. The reason I point this out that the American populace are used to criminal pardons, and for that fact, commutations on sentences. But we're primarily used that happening on the last day in office, not all the way before an election year, not before the person's served any time, and not for a member of their own administration (I could very well be far off the mark in that very last comment, read disclaimer).

Look at the long list of Clinton's commutations.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm
These people had at least served time, the least of which is one year. Some over a decade. Libby served less than Paris Hilton - even before she got sent back.

Hmmm... this passage shows me I need to do further research.

"How many pardons did President Clinton give during his two terms?

In total, President Clinton issued 456 executive clemency orders - 395 pardons and 61 commutations - between 1993 and January 20, 2001. The vast majority were issued in the last three years of his presidency - 176 (140 pardons, 36 commutations) were issued on his last day in office. "

Anyways, point is, this is an unusually high profile case, and Bush has been pretty light on the pardons to date. 76, most around two decades old, not just fresh off the appeal. Much as I know wikipedia's not a reliable source, I'll link them for quickness' sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...George_W._Bush

This is the fourth such commutation he's done. And its quite exceptional to have a sentenced commuted before a day's been served. There have been past scandals around the presidental pardon - and this one might not be that unique (I don't know yet, but I'm looking) - but it still is scandalous.

[Atrocities]

Libby was convicted because he could not remember events that took place years before accurately. I ask you, can you remember what you did last July 1st? Now be specific, who did you talk to, what did you talk about. Now say that I told you that I know someone who said that they talked to you about something specific. You didn't mention that to me, you are therefore guilty of the same crime that Libby was. Mind you that Paris was guilty of a crime which was far more serious than forgetting a conversation that took place a year or two before. Comparing live to her is an absurdity.

I don't need to point out that at least one of the people that Clinton had pardoned was a guy who was under active investigation for ongoing criminal activities. Libby just forgot things and was sent to jail for that. I would rather he pay the 250k fine then server a day in jail for memory loss.

Now if it were up to me, I would have pardoned Libby too, and would have kept the fine in place. Which is what I think Bush did as well. However I would also pardon the two boarder patrol cops that were recently convicted on the testimony of a known drug deal for shooting him in the *** when he was fleeing while shooting at them. Those two should not have ever been convicted. Bush should pardon them, and I would have pardoned them BEFORE ever considering a pardon for Libby.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Interesting post, Atrocities. I know which way I lean on this issue, but I want to look into this further before I regretfully agree, or gleefully disagree. I shouldn't have much trouble finding a liberal commentary, given my biases. But would you recommend any well-thought-out conservative pieces most likely to sway my opinion in your favor on the issue of perjury vs. memory loss?

To be fair, I know more disreputable right-wing sources then reputable. But I do know there are some respectable right-wing sources- i've stumbled across them a few times, though this laptop doesn't have any bookmarks and I don't remember their names. If you'd give me a link, I'd read with an open, though left-leaning centrist mind.

Tomorrow, I'll see if I can get any of the facts on the perjury trial, or how much was made available to the public. And by facts, I mean transcripts or excerpts or first hand accounts. I won't comment further tonight on this point until I spend some time informing myself.

Is it true that the judge was a Republican Appointee? And that Fitzgerald was suggested and confirmed by Republicans?
A court of law found him guilty of perjury, and obstruction of justice, not merely mistaken.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
"and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."

I'll try to look over the facts of the case, but Perjury isn't merely a matter of being mistaken.

[Atrocities]

I doubt if we will ever know the truth depth of what really went on. I feel that given the weight of what Libby was convicted for against the crime of leaking top secret information in general, Libby's crime is barely a blip on the radar. If they will go after Libby for not remembering accurately, and not go after people who have leaked top secret information to the press because it embarrassed Bush, well then all I can say is that I feel this whole process has been nothing but a huge hypocritical political snow job. And that I cannot abide.

The thing is, if you are asked a question under oath, say for example, where were you on July 1st of last year, and you say that you believe you were at home. Then a few days later you are called back in and told that someone said that you were not at home on July 1st, but were instead seen at the movies. That is perjury and is tentatively similar to what happened to Libby. He remember it one way, but testimony from another source counterdicted his. Therefore he must be lying when in fact he could simply have not remembered. Again, put yourself in his shoes. Having dealt with elderly people on a regular basis I can assure you that there memories are not perfect and even someone as honest as my father could be found guilty of the same thing that Libby was because of memory issues.

[Edi]

Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring. Let's take a look at what Bush and his government have been doing during the past six years:

• started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
• illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
• illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
• illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
• torture of detainees

Just for starters. They've also ignored subpoenas from Congress on a number of matters and the fact that the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce those and investigate criminal activities including those by the executive branch, has not done it due to being headed by one of the criminals in question, does not make the actions of the administration any less illegal. So, yes, they are criminals. But it's funny how no matter what the Bush White House does, no matter how illegal, there are always people standing up for them and attacking anyone who criticizes them directly and has the balls to tell the truth without sugarcoating it and trying to make it seem less than it was.

Libby was convicted not because he could not remember, but becasue it was determined during the criminal investigation that he had in fact LIED instead of just forgetting, and thus he had perjured himself. What's even more appalling about this commuting of the service is that it's the supposedly tough on crime Republicans who are defending AFTER they themselves passed legislation that toughened penalties on precisely this sort of thing. The President who had no problem signing death warrants for mentally deficient people things that 30 months of prison is "too harsh" for one of his stooges is beyond the pale with the hypocrisy.

Your governmental system is rotten to the core and currently run by criminals. If you have a counterargument to those facts that doesn't hinge on lack of enforcement, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring.

So in other words Edi, no, Bush has not been convicted of any crimes.

[capnq]

Lazy_Perfectionist said: While listening to talk radio I've heard a lot of opinions on commutation versus pardons, and a lot of misinformation.

Talk radio is a horrible source for forming an opinion on anything. The signal-to-noise ratio is atrocious.

Libby was a scapegoat, thrown to the wolves to deflect attention from the real culprit.