Bush also made the statement that Queen Elizabeth II was around when the thirteen colonies declared independence. You can list a hundred, a thousand, or even a million quotes of people stating something that is wrong, and regardless of who they are, it’s still wrong. The definition of treason is very specific in the United States Constitution, and while many people are guilty of using the word “treasonous” or “traitor” lightly, that doesn’t change its actual, constitutional definition.
Don’t bother trying to engage Martin Hyde in debate. He is a wretched, soulless human being who takes perversely sadistic pleasure in seeing life get worse for people who are unlike him. Don’t waste your time.
See, that’s why I did it. I assure you, however, that my question was far from pointless.
And yet you support Libby spending no time in jail at all. Not 12 months, but zero months. Explain?
Meanwhile, I propose reducing homicide to a misdemeanor on similar grounds. Murderers will murder anyway; those who would not murder will continue with their non-killing lifestyle. No one wants to spend any time in jail so unless they have a very good reason to murder, they will not do so.
You know, every post I make in response to you, I feel I should stop mentioning your delusional nature. It seems impolite. But every post you just makes it so much more obvious how delusional you are.
Perhaps that’s the case. But that’s hardly my point. Bush is on record as saying that courts are infallable, and it’s not up to him to question a court’s decision. It looks as though he’s a little uneven on that stance when the convicted is one of his cronies. Suppose Libby was a political nobody, but was accused of perjury. Do you think for an instant that Bush would commute his sentence, much less even bother to know the guy’s name?
By a reading of the law and its sentencing guidelines, Sandy Berger ought to have been punished far worse than he was for what he did. And let’s remember that it was a Republican led administration that investigated his actions.
He pled out and avoided any serious penalty - he has had his security clearance pulled, relinquished his law license, and paid a fine and community service. Interestingly enough, his fine was raised fivefold by the trial judge from the amount agreed to by the government and him in a plea deal - she thought the crime was serious enough to warrant a much steeper penalty.
I recall, too, John Deutch, who kept classified material on his unsecured laptops. His malfeasance wasn’t investigated deeply, and he was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Now, I don’t particularly like these sort of Washington jabs and parries, and I don’t think anyone does. But if we go easy on some folks and come down really hard on others, then we have a situation where justice is at the whim of the party in power, and we really can’t have that.
Now, this may argue for all of these folks serving their sentences instead of skating free with a slap on the wrist. I don’t disagree with that, but it would have to be done for the whole bunch of them.
Its hardly surprising and is just one more nail in the coffin of this administrations shameful legacy.
Bush did commute the sentence of someone on Death Row here in Texas.
Henry Lee Lucas claimed to be the worst serial murderer in history. Well, in Texas history. But he told a lot of lies. He certainly killed a handful of people–including his mother. And he may not have been guilty of the only murder he was ever tried for.
Governor Bush commuted his sentence to life in prison. He died a few years later of heart disease.
Perjury
Obstruction of Justice
Lying to a grand jury
Pretty much prevented the case from going to Rove and Cheney. He should have done time in his cute little prison with tennis courts. He was proven guilty of a felony. Walton apparently thought a pardon was coming in a year and a half, so he wanted the sentence to start soon. The judge apparently felt he should do time.
The fine will be covered. He gets off essentially free.
This again?
If treason was committed, why was no one prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Richard Armitage prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Scooter Libby prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Karl Rove prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Dick Cheny prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Micheal Novak prosecuted for treason? Why wasn’t Judith Miller prosecuted for treason?
Do you actually think Fitzgerald had evidence that treason was committed, yet decided to only prosecute Libby, and that only for perjury? If revealing the name of a covert operative is treason, then all the journalists who printed the leaked story committed treason.
There was no treason. Libby wasn’t even the person who revealed Plame’s name–he just lied about the white house’s role in covering it up.
Libby was not convicted of treason. He was convicted of perjury. He committed perjury. Of the underlying crime–revealing Plame’s identity as a CIA operative–no one was convicted. If revealing Plame’s status was treason, why was no one charged? We KNOW the people who revealed Plame’s status, why were they never charged? If this was treason most foul, why was covering up the reveal the only crime ever prosecuted?
Is the contention that because of the cover-up the prosecutor was unable to prove what actually happened? That’s crap, we know exactly who revealed the information. I suppose we don’t have testimony that Cheney ordered the reveal–but given that none of the people investigated who actually called up the journalists and talked about Plame were ever prosecuted for doing so, what exactly do you think Cheney would have been prosecuted for? The only price Cheney would have faced would be the choice of either admiting in court that he ordered the reveal, or face perjury charges, just like Libby. And if he admitted in court that he ordered the reveal he would have faced nothing more than public scorn, not prosecution.
Libby deserves to be punished for committing perjury because he did commit perjury. He doesn’t deserve to be punished for treason, because he didn’t commit treason, no matter what Bush the Elder said.
BECAISE Libby’s lying prevented the evidence from being gathered. :rolleyes: Gawdamighty.
It’s called “evidence”. What we have is called “scuttlebutt”. Not admissible, ya know. :rolleyes: Gawdamighty.
It’s called “impeachment”. :rolleyes: Gawdamighty. And you *are * mistaken about his immunity from criminal charges, especially if he isn’t part of the executive branch at all.
I am SO glad you won’t be telling us Clinton committed perjury either, then.
Commuting the sentence takes away any hammer that investigating committees would have over Scooter.A pardon would have removed his 5th amendment privileges. This does not.
It is possible that when jail time came ,Libby would have turned on Bush and Cheney to save his own skin. This action removes that possibility. I do not think the Shrub gave a crap about poor Libby and his young kids. He saved his own hypocritical ass again.
I have resolved to not let this go unchallenged on this board. Armitage was not the leaker, he was one of multiple leakers. Armitage was Novak’s initial source, and Karl Rove confirmed it (which is no less a crime than revealing it in the first place). Rove also leaked it to Matt Cooper, along with Libby himself. Libby leaked it to Judith Miller. Ari Fleischer leaked it to several different reporters.
The fact that many of these reporters didn’t publish this information until after Novak did, if at all, doesn’t make the rest of the leaks any less criminal. Leaking Plame’s status was a large and coordinated effort by the administration, and Armitage should go down right along with them, but he shouldn’t be their patsy.
I don’t think that argument really holds water. Can’t the investigators arrange an immunity if they want Scooter to testify without the threat of self-incrimination? Or suppose he had been pardoned and then called to testify again. Is there any reason to think he would tell the truth?
What are they gonna do, charge him with perjury?
OK, that’s one thing we can definitely agree on. If anyone’s gonna be breakin’ rocks in the hot sun, he should be one of them.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html#WHAT%20IS%20EXECUTIVE%20CLEMENCY
Texas govs can and have.
Armitrage was the guy who leaked the name to the person who printed it, but Libby did leak the name to others (even if they didn’t print it). So it’s not clear to me that Libby wasn’t in on the underlying crime. The crime is the leaking, not the printing.
I had tried to come up with a coherent post, but I can’t. I am in shock. While I certainly wasn’t outside the courtroom burning him in effigy, I would have liked to see justice carried out - even if it meant a reduced jail sentence. This wasn’t some one-man show Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of his own peers and the judge gave a sentence within guidelines mandated the legislature and affirmed by the executive.
I would like to see Bush take steps in reducing jail time for those convicted of perjury. If the punishment for Mr. Libby was excessive, then it is clear that the problem is with the guidelines themselves not with the nature of Mr. Libby’s crime.
You must go into shock about every 4-8 years on Jan 19 then. This is SOP for presidents. I’m not condoning it, but let’s just keep this in perspective.
I keep hearing that Libby was “loyal to his boss” as if that were a mitigating virtue. Fuck that, and fuck him. He was supposed to be loyal to his country and the Constitution.
I guess I find it a farce, I suppose.
Why did Bush even let this go to trial? Why did he (Bush) let the taxpayers waste millions of dollars in trying and convicting Mr. Libby, if he was just going to commute the sentence anyway? The whole exercise was a waste of money and a waste of time. He should have pardoned Libby at the beginning and be done with it. The whole “the sentence was excessive” is complete bullshit.
- Honesty