[QUOTE=Garius]
…I didn’t know the ol’ cowboy had it in him.
[/QUOTE]
He has people for that.
[QUOTE=Wile E]
Oh, well 15 is nothing like 3,000. 15 dead people could have been an accident and lots of people kill their mothers. He probably didn’t have a nice cookie-baking mom like Dubya. Poor little murderer.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and everybody knows (since yesterday anyway), similar to perjury convictions, this death penalty sentence was way too harsh for killing only 15 people – so, if the crime doesn’t compute, you must commute.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Why not a full pardon? One explanation making the blog rounds is that leaving the conviction in place lets Libby keep his Fifth Amendment rights not to talk if/when he’s called before Congress to testify on the matter.
In Mr. (not President, he hasn’t earned the title) Bush’s world, friends take care of each other, get each other out of jams, whether that’s in business or politics or the law. He’s been taken care of many times in the past, and it was just his turn to do the same.
[/QUOTE]
My first thought was the bloggers were on to something, but now I’m not so sure. Can one still plead the Fifth for something for which one has already been convicted? And strictly speaking, he still could take the Fifth for anything not specifically covered by his perjury conviction, commutation or not. (Course, figuring out what parts of the Plame leak were not covered by his conviction would be a can o’ worms.)
Anyway, on to the snark I came here for:
Impeach the bastard. And take away his puppydog, too!
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Yeah, and everybody knows (since yesterday anyway), similar to perjury convictions, this death penalty sentence was way too harsh for killing only 15 people – so, if the crime doesn’t compute, you must commute.
[/QUOTE]
Yea. And while we’re at it - ‘attempted’ murder? What sort of lame-ass charge is that?
Q: If the POTUS has the right to Commute or Pardon, does not the POTUS also have the right to recind a prior Commuted sentance or a Pardon?
The idea being that a future president might rescind this and sentance Scooter to hard time until he roles on the higher-up criminals.
Of course this all becomes moot as soon as he takes that Mid-East job as CEO of Haliburton and that company/country refuses to extradict him. Or is that Cheney’s exit strategy?
[QUOTE=Count Blucher]
Of course this all becomes moot as soon as he takes that Mid-East job as CEO of Haliburton and that company/country refuses to extradict him. Or is that Cheney’s exit strategy?
[/QUOTE]
No, he is supposed to be named CEO of this firm.
What scares me though, is with this continuous disregard of accountability by TPTB, the chance increases that someone might decide to take justice in their own hands and kill the next accused Pubbies.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
My first thought was the bloggers were on to something, but now I’m not so sure. Can one still plead the Fifth for something for which one has already been convicted? And strictly speaking, he still could take the Fifth for anything not specifically covered by his perjury conviction, commutation or not. (Course, figuring out what parts of the Plame leak were not covered by his conviction would be a can o’ worms.)
[/QUOTE]
The bloggers’ argument doesn’t work. If the investigators think he has anything to say, they could grant him immunity; and then there’s no risk of self-incrimination, same as if he’d been pardoned.
Now, supposing that happens, does anybody think he’d tell the truth?
[QUOTE=Count Blucher]
Q: If the POTUS has the right to Commute or Pardon, does not the POTUS also have the right to recind a prior Commuted sentance or a Pardon?
The idea being that a future president might rescind this and sentance Scooter to hard time until he roles on the higher-up criminals.
Of course this all becomes moot as soon as he takes that Mid-East job as CEO of Haliburton and that company/country refuses to extradict him. Or is that Cheney’s exit strategy?
[/QUOTE]
No, the power to pardon is absolute. If Libby committed crimes other than this particular perjury he could be prosecuted for those other crimes, but this particular perjury charge cannot be reinstated. And anyway, Libby was facing 30 months in jail, which is two and a half years. As for the idea that he would roll over for the higher-up criminals, how would that work? The only higher up criminal possible is Cheney. What exactly could Libby testify to that would put Cheney in jail? Libby wasn’t sent to jail because he leaked Plame’s identity, he was sent to jail for perjury. OK, so Libby testifies that Cheney ordered him to do it, in return for the perjury charges being dropped. Now what does Cheney get charged with?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
OK, quick question. We all know that Cheney was the one who ordered this whole thing. So…was ORDERING Libby and Rove and Armitage to reveal Plame’s status a crime, but actually doing it wasn’t a crime? Because Libby and Rove and Armitage, the people who actually made the calls, were never charged for revealing Plame’s status.
Sure, Cheney was part of the conspiracy, if he ordered them to do it, he’s as guilty as they are. But why would Cheney be charged with a crime if his minions were never charged with a crime? It’s not like the chain goes very far. Libby and Rove work directly for Cheney (and, er, well, Bush).
What crime would Cheney be prosecuted for? I suppose you want something like Libby testifying in court that Cheney made him do it? Except if Cheney committed a crime doing so, why weren’t Libby and Rove prosecuted for doing so? It isn’t like the crime of actually talking to the journalists and revealing Plame’s status was covered up, because we have the testimony of the journalists themselves. So Libby’s perjury didn’t cover up the actual reveal of Plame’s status. So what would Cheney be charged with? I suppose if Libby had testified that Cheney ordered him to do it, then Cheney would have had to testify, and therefore probably would have committed perjury himself. But Cheney didn’t commit perjury in this case because he never testified. So what crime would Cheney be charged with, if his underlings weren’t charged with the crime?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, if Cheney ordered them to do it, one could argue that there is no crime at all since Cheney aparently had been given the authority to declassify information.
But if he wasn’t given that authority, then he’d be charged with conspiracy. A charge, btw, which is generally easier to get a conviction for than the actual crime itself.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Actually, if Cheney ordered them to do it, one could argue that there is no crime at all since Cheney aparently had been given the authority to declassify information.
But if he wasn’t given that authority, then he’d be charged with conspiracy. A charge, btw, which is generally easier to get a conviction for than the actual crime itself.
[/QUOTE]
I thought there was a specific law against revealing covert operatives’ names, so that information could never be declassified. Am I wrong?
TG, IANAL, but seems to me that if revealing a covert agent’s name is a crime, the classificaton of the secret is not relevent. There are definitions as to what and/or whom constitutes a “covert agent” and, IIRC, it doesn’t directly depend on a classification like “covert” or “deep deep cover” or “licensed to kill”.
This might be useful:
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
I thought there was a specific law against revealing covert operatives’ names, so that information could never be declassified. Am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Could be. But it’s also my understanding that that statute is almost impossible to prosecute. So, if that’s the crime, then there’d by only an infinitesimal chance of Cheney being convicted. For one, you have to know that the agent was covert. Very tough to prove.
[QUOTE=Wile E]
Oh, well 15 is nothing like 3,000. 15 dead people could have been an accident and lots of people kill their mothers. He probably didn’t have a nice cookie-baking mom like Dubya. Poor little murderer.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but Wikipedia pointed out that he was not guilty of the murder for which he received the death penalty. It would have been wrong not to pardon him.
[QUOTE=alreadymichigan]
Which part of “you break the law, you do the time” don’t you understand? If a group of criminals robs a bank, do you support letting the driver of the getaway car escape jail time if the prosecutor can’t put away the guy who held the gun to the teller’s head?
[/QUOTE]
What part of “president’s power to pardon” don’t you understand? Helping out your fall guy was not, in this case, in any way illegal, and it was the decent thing to do. Yeah, I would have loved to see Libby go to jail – don’t get me wrong on that. I’m truly disappointed that he gets off with a slap on the wrist. But if we’re going to go after the Bush administration over this one, it should be for the actual crime that Libby helped cover up, not for Bush commuting Libby’s sentence.
[QUOTE=straight man]
it was the decent thing to do. Yeah
[/QUOTE]
Decent in a ‘pee on the rule of law’ and ‘take a crap on our covert services’ kind of a way. Yeah
straight man, that’s twice now, you’ve asserted that it was the decent thing to do. How do you reconcile that assertion with the fact that it was a thing that Shrubya did?
[QUOTE=straight man]
What part of “president’s power to pardon” don’t you understand? Helping out your fall guy was not, in this case, in any way illegal, and it was the decent thing to do. Yeah, I would have loved to see Libby go to jail – don’t get me wrong on that. I’m truly disappointed that he gets off with a slap on the wrist. But if we’re going to go after the Bush administration over this one, it should be for the actual crime that Libby helped cover up, not for Bush commuting Libby’s sentence.
[/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying but it overlooks the fact that perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes all by themselves. No so-called “underlying crime” is needed.
The justice system relies on people telling the truth in legal proceedings. Without that you might as well not bother with a grand jury investigation or any trial.
[QUOTE=straight man]
What part of “president’s power to pardon” don’t you understand? Helping out your fall guy was not, in this case, in any way illegal, and it was the decent thing to do. Yeah, I would have loved to see Libby go to jail – don’t get me wrong on that. I’m truly disappointed that he gets off with a slap on the wrist. But if we’re going to go after the Bush administration over this one, it should be for the actual crime that Libby helped cover up, not for Bush commuting Libby’s sentence.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying he doesn’t have the authority to do it, I’m saying it’s wrong. I’m not sure what convinced you that giving preferential treatment is somehow synonymous with “the decent thing to do.” I’m sure there have been plenty of people convicted of perjury over the past six years who would have loved to have had their sentences commuted.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
This was a no-brainer of a decision for Bush.
[/QUOTE]
Well… Nah, too easy.
[QUOTE=alreadymichigan]
I’m not saying he doesn’t have the authority to do it, I’m saying it’s wrong. I’m not sure what convinced you that giving preferential treatment is somehow synonymous with “the decent thing to do.” I’m sure there have been plenty of people convicted of perjury over the past six years who would have loved to have had their sentences commuted.
[/QUOTE]
Because Bush and Cheney told Scooter to throw himself in front of the bus with the promise that he’d never go to jail and his family’s financial future was secured till the day his last grandchild died of old age? Therefore, it would have been quite crass for Dubya to NOT let him off the hook, eh?
-Joe