If the sentence was ‘too severe’ it should have been reduced, not eliminated. Perjury and obstruction of justice by a White House official deserves the severest punishment not as just a deterrent, but as confirmation that we are a nation of laws and that no person is above the law. We expect more from our leaders—much more.
Libby will be pardoned. You can bet the ranch.
(And even Nixon didn’t pardon his pals.)
For Bush to pull this stunt is shameful beyond words, but small potatoes compared to the fiasco that is the ‘war’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. IMHO, the damage Bush has done to America will cost treasure…and blood…for decades, if not longer. (But that’s for another thread.)
Would someone with a better memory than me kindly list all the scandals, resignations and incompetencies the Bush Administration has produced thus far.
Selling the ‘war’ in Iraq (Yellow cake, mushroom cloud, etc.)
How the ‘war’ has been bungled
Libby
Gonzales
Miers
Katrina
Illegal wire taps
Guantanamo
Abu Ghraib
…
I usually am in agreement with you about matters like this. But in this case, I would agree only if matters like the Deutch case or the Berger case were similarly treated seriously, and not with slaps on the damn wrist.
Perjury may make the administration of justice impossible, but the improper handling of classified material has consequences too, doesn’t it? Hell, this case proved that as well.
My preference, as I alluded to above, would be for strict treatment of them all. But since it seems like sweetheart deals flow like Scotch in DC these days, having one person or another get a harsh sentence seems like it is done on a whim. That can’t engender respect for the law either.
First, I think the Berger and Deutch cases are materially distinguishable. But let’s say that they aren’t - for this argument, they were equally serious crimes.
The proper response is to demand a proper response for all three crimes. Yes, it’s bad to see two serious crimes treated as slaps on the wrist, but it’s worse to see THREE serious crimes treated as slaps on the wrist. We cannot turn back the clock to the earlier miscarriages of justice, but we can demand that we don’t repeat those mistakes in future cases.
I’m starting to firm up in my view that it may be time to start a searchable thread or list: “Things that Republicans unequivocally condone now that a Democrat in the White House.”
Pardons only apply once a conviction has been obtained. You’re probably asking (and I’m wondering the same thing), why didn’t he work to have the investigation halted or the charges thrown out beforehand.
Is it true what I heard on one of the news shows last night that, in the case of commutations, normally those cannot be invoked until the convicted has begun to serve their sentence?
Even if technically allowed to commute Scooter’s sentence, hasn’t Bush (i) again charted new presidential powers, just 'cause he can, and (ii) appointed himself a franchisee of the judiciary, based on his reasoning for the commutation?
Perhaps a pardon is in order then for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. I doubt he would harm anyone on the street. Oh wait, he’s a Democrat. Not going to happen. :smack: The rules apply to everyone… unless you’re a loyal Bushie. :smack:
Hmmm, I don’t get this. If Bush isn’t legally allowed to commute Libby’s sentence, then he didn’t commute Libby’s sentence and Libby will serve his sentence. His declaration that Libby’s sentence is commuted only works if the rest of us–Congress, the Judiciary, the voters–agree that he has that power under the constitution. If Bush doesn’t actually have this power under the constitution, why is everyone else acting as if he does?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution reades that the president has the “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
I phrased it that was because I honestly don’t know; it’s what some of the talking heads were saying last night. I took it as, “It’s written that way, but they’ve twisted into what they want it be somehow. Even experts don’t have a clearcut answer.”
Again, I’m just trying to understand these things based on what’s being reported.
Also, is a commutation the same as a reprieve or a pardon (obviously not pardon, since the two choices have been discussed here ad infinitum)?
I’m surprised, Bricker. The ability of the President to do this is unquestionable. He has the right to commute any sentence. It’s clear and legal for him to do so.
Why is this action of his different from other actions?
Yes, I think he should be (mime vigorously) until (mime further), but I don’t see how your previous attitudes result in you being upset by this at all.
I’m curious about that, too, Bricker. After 6,5 years of your hypertechnical, often pettifogging, even stubbornly petulant rationalizations of whatever Cheney & Co. have done, while scrupulously avoiding involving the concept of justice and the spirit of the law, this is a remarkable place for you to start. Perhaps, at long last, the sleeper awakes?
I’m not sure how exactly it works, but can’t Valerie Plame sue the pants off Libby for derailing her career or something? (She may already be doing that, for all I know). Maybe she could pull a Goldman and get all the proceeds from Libby’s inevitable book deal.
Doubtful, Elvis. Bricker is a very principled person. He undoubtedly has a good and logical reason for why he opposes this. I’d like to hear it.
(I wonder if it has something to do with ‘the Libby Option’ I’m hearing about in federal cases, now.)
Sure. I find it apalling because it thwarts the administration of justice, in that a perjurer, convicted of hsi crime, does not experience the sentence he was given and which he (IMO) richly deserves.
Perjury is contemptible. It represents the worst, most base kind of attempt to evade responsibility for one’s actions. For Joe Blow, I’m not so steamed, but when perjury is commited by a government official, someone we pay to follow and uphold the law, there is no excuse.
What other actions? When has he enabled a perjurer to escape the legal consequences of his actions before? When has he perjured himself before?
