Nonsense.
He will have to make up the 250K with his book deal, speaking engagments and his salary from being a political commentator on FOX. (about 6 to 8 months away) He might even get his own show!
Scooter will be just fine.
Reality is clearly something you really have a problem with. I thought we may have made some progress with your delusions after my last couple of posts, but apparently you are more afflicted than I thought.
Please tell me how you expect a system of justice to operate if it only treats lying to pervert its course as a misdemeanor. Come on, you can even use your fictional justice system for this question.
I don’t really see the problem here. If you commit a crime, you pay the price. The former Texas governor stated so over seven years ago. He had such faith in the court system that he did not pardon one single person on death row, even in the face of evidence of innocence. Of course, the perfect court system does not apply to those we know are guilty, we just let them rot in Gitmo.
Would that Libby had been non-white, poor, and unknown.
Yeah, I guess it does, but hey without government corruption John LeCarre would have nothing to write about.
Ah, but the actions Libby was lying to cover up WERE treasonous! So the trial was essentially about treason. (I feel so terrible, making thes finicky distinctions between the treasonous outing of a cover CIA agent and a blowjob, just to attack Scooter Libby … wait a minute … no I don’t!)
revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative is a treasonous thing to do, made doubly evil because it was done for cheap political vindictiveness, as was the case with Libby.
There was no conviction because LIby and others lied like rugs, and it worked. Which is why Libby belongs in jail, along with Rove and Cheney.
Jumping into this kinda late…
But you seem to be ignoring that it is a serious crime and it is a felony.
I don’t see how anyone can say Libby didn’t get a fair trial and that the judge didn’t give him an appropriate sentence. Could it have been less? Could it have been more? Yes and Yes. But them’s the breaks. I’ll say the same thing about Libby I said about Clinton-- all they had to do was not lie (or obfuscate). There was a furor over the Plame issue, and Libby knew damn well he was at the center of it. He should’ve come clean in the beginning.
But he’s a lucky guy, just like many of lucky guys before him who had a friend in the WH. Some of those lucky guys actually got pardons, so maybe he’s a little less lucky. Or maybe the story isn’t over yet.
I never said he didn’t actually commit perjury. Nor do I think any of the people who are in Federal prison serving a life sentence for drug trafficking are innocent. In both cases I think we’re talking about crimes that shouldn’t carry a lengthy prison sentence. Thirty-months was too long, the President was right to commute it.
- Wasn’t treason. Let’s not make a bad crime worse through hyperbole.
- I was always disturbed by several things in this case, primarily the fact that the leaker was Richard Armitage, who has not been punished at all, and also by the fact that the matter seemed to rest on a he-said-he-said between Libby and Tim Russert, and was kind on unprovable either way, especially given that there were other people in Washington besides Libby who knew of Plame’s identity.
- This case once again illustrates the absurdity of independent prosecutors in general. That has never been a well-structured way to conduct investigations of the government.
Now, even with all of that, I think a jury’s decision ought to be respected unless it is massively wrong or unless a felon has substantially redeemed himself. Commutation serves this purpose.
No, they weren’t treasonous. Treason means giving material aid to the enemy in a war. There’s no way Libby was guilty of treason, period.
In Texas the Governor is very weak. We’ve gone over this many times, actually. Bush did not have the authority to commute death sentences or pardon people on death row, I don’t remember the exact name of the authority, but there is a board in the Texas criminal justice system which can grant pardons or reprieves to people on death row. Only if that board does so can the Governor actually effect a pardon/reprieve/commutation of sentence, he/she does not have the power to do so independently, many State Governors do, in Texas that is not the situation.
Martin Hyde, you have gone waaaay off the deep end here. You’re not even making any sense.
The duly elected legislature that made the sentencing guidelines for the crime which Libby was convicted of would beg to differ. The appropriate sentence for a crime is whatever the legislature says it is, and what the judge imposes within the guidelines.
And you’re excusing perjury as long as it is committed by a crony of Bush/Cheney. He committed perjury. If it was a big deal when Clinton did it, it’s a big deal when Libby did it. Is it a big deal or not?
Wrong! Libby lied. Even Bush, in his statement commuting the sentence, states explicitly that Libby lied and that Libby broke the law. Are you going against the word of your Dear Leader? Perhaps you should read Bush’s statement and then come back and tell us that Libby did nothing wrong.
OK, here’s where the sanity train really jumps the tracks. In a thread about Libby getting his sentence commuted, you bitch about special treatment for special people? You’re out of your gourd. I really think your brain is no longer attached to your fingers.
And, the survey says… Wrong Again! What you lie about is an element of the crime of perjury. I quote from the Indiana perjury statute:
I.C. 35-44-2-1: (a) A person who: (1) Makes a false, material statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true; [snip] commits perjury, a Class D Felony.
The lie has to be material. If you lie about something that is not material to the case, it’s not perjury. I’ve seen cases thrown out of court for this reason. Nice try though. When come back, bring sanity. And cookies.
The leap of logic you just made is over a canyon so wide that Evel fucking Knievel is standing on the other side going “Nah, you’d have to be crazy…”
So because a sentence was commuted, the judge was wrong in imposing that sentence in the first place? Mind if you take us through some of the serpentine twists in that logic?
And because your judgment is in alignment with Bush’s, you therefore have better judgment over sentencing than a judge? Apparently, then, I’m a better sports commentator than John Madden because my picks did better than his last year. Send my TV and endorsement contracts to the e-mail address in my profile.
:rolleyes:
I’m making plenty of sense, Shirley.
I’ve made it perfectly clear I think the sentence was inappropriate. Nowhere did I say that the sentence wasn’t consistent with what is allowed statutorily. I just don’t think someone should go to prison for years for committing perjury. I don’t think Clinton should, I don’t think Libby should.
It’s a big deal that doesn’t warrant a lengthy prison term. I never excused Libby’s perjury.
I never said he didn’t lie.
Libby would never have been charged with perjury if not for the acrimony between Democrats and Republicans and the desire of a special prosecutor to make a name for themselves. It’s directly comparable to the Clinton situation.
It’s my understanding that neither Libby nor Clinton was being accused of committing perjury in the State of Indiana.
I didn’t say that whether or not a lie was material was not part of the crime of perjury. I said that whether or not what was lied about “mattered” was not part of the crime of perjury. The person I was responding to was making the claim that Clinton’s perjury didn’t “matter” because the issue of whether or not he got a blow job didn’t matter. That poster was wrong, it may not have mattered in the grand scheme of things whether or not he got a blow job, but in the case of Jones v. Clinton it was a material point that would have established what sort of acts Clinton was prone to engage in with subordinates, and he lied about it.
You sure that compromising the identities of dozens of CIA agents who are currently working in a hostile country isn’t helpful to any of our enemies? (Yes, I do mean dozens, since the company Plame worked for as a cover is no longer able to shield sny of its employees.
And you know, funny thing is, even when that board recommended a pardon, Bush never gave it. IIRC, there was one case in which a committee member wrote a letter to W telling (or even pleading) him to pardon the prisoner, and he still didn’t do it.
It has to be a specific enemy we are specifically engaged in war with. Even then I’m not entirely sure it’d qualify as treason, I imagine there’s a constitutional law expert out there somewhere who could chime in.
Cite.
Also according to this GQ thread there were several pardons as well as commutations of sentence for people on death row while Bush was governor of Texas, so the general assertion is factually wrong in any case.
Hey, Martin Hyde! You missed this one. Come on, I’m looking for an answer to this little riddle you’ve set up. How do you expect a justice system to work if it treats lying to it as a misdemeanor?
I’ve asked you twice. Are you going to respond, or do you ignore difficult questions that challenge your poor grip on reality?
I’m virtually certain that I’ve read somewhere than the subject of the lie could be considered during the sentencing process: the worse the effect of your lie (say, for example, that your lie impeded a federal investigation), the worse your sentence for the lie would be.
Daniel
The question is a pointless question. There’s an old saying that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. I don’t ascribe to that saying and I believe many questions are simply stupid and not worth answering, the only reason I’ve decided to answer this one is you’ve made yourself a pest about it.
The justice system would operate just fine if it treated perjury just like it treats contempt or similar crimes. People don’t need to be told that they’ll spend 30 months in prison to dissuade them from lying under oath. People who are going to lie under oath are probably going to do so regardless of the punishment; people who aren’t will likewise probably be telling the truth not because they are afraid of going to prison but because they simply don’t want to lie under oath.
Making it a misdemeanor level offense simply means people guilty of the act would “only” be able to spend a year in jail. People don’t want to spend any time in jail, period, so unless they have a very very good reason to lie under oath they aren’t going to commit perjury (or they know there’s no way they can ever be shown to have lied, in which case the punishment is likewise meaningless as the person doesn’t believe it is relevant to them.)
The idea that the justice system couldn’t properly function if the punishment for perjury was capped at twelve months in jail is in and of itself ludicrous.
Which similar matters are you referring to? :dubious:
Martin:
But then, Clinton got a blowjob, so you’re even. :rolleyes:
Exactly. “Gotcha” politics is here to stay.