Scooter Libby won't serve jail time

[Emilie]

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

From MSNBC:
WASHINGTON - President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter� Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2½-year prison term that Bush said was excessive...

I respect the jury’s verdict,� Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.�

More here at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570081/)

[jesvet]

Oh for god's sake...Martha and Paris have bigger sets of balls than these jerks.

[MLA]

"the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. "

Blech. That's just such BS. From what I've heard on the news, others who've been convicted of obstruction of justice have served even longer terms.

[Rosebud]

Surprise, surprise. Once again, Cheney & co. get off scott free after doing a really terrible thing. This administration has no respect for the law or the will of the American people.

[maxandmolly]

What a joke.

[ysolde]

Oy. Umm, didn't these guys out a CIA operative?????

[Sophia]

BS BS BS

And yet, I'm not surprised.

:mad:

[MLA]

Oy. Umm, didn't these guys out a CIA operative?????

Yeah. But they weren't tried for outing a CIA operative -- just for lying about it.

I hate this administration. I can't wait for them to be gone.

[msnicolea]

Pathetic.

And completely unsurprising.

[bookworm]

Well, I for one am shocked.


Oh wait....

[pocket]

dirty, dirty, dirty.

[jennylou]

That's BS.

[ginadc]

Why was I actually surprised for half a second when I read this? I keep thinking that this administration can't sink any lower...and then they get out the shovels and start digging again.

[Rose]

How do they look the American People in the face?

[jbenny75]

Hey, King George has spoken, people. Deal with it.:rolleyes:

I can't wait until this administration is GONE.

[maxandmolly]

How do they look the American People in the face?
That's the biggest problem with this administration-they have no knowledge, or interest in, the American People. Only themselves.

[Delta]

My view on this is that Scooter Libby took the fall for other higher-ups in the administration. He knew it, they knew it and everyone else knows it. The president wasn't going to let Scooter Libby leave his young kids and wife for 2.5 years to go take the fall for other people's mistakes and shady behavior while they get off relatively free. I do wonder why it wasn't a full pardon (I guess that could come later) or why he didn't just pardon him before the trial even started. Even a few of the people on the jury that found him guilty said they would not oppose or would agree with a pardon.

[Niobe]

Gee Delta, do you think he should pardon every other convicted criminal with young kids at home too? :rolleyes:

[maxandmolly]

Gee Delta, do you think he should pardon every other convicted criminal with young kids at home too? :rolleyes:
Well, now we know what Paris needs to do before she gets her next DUI-have babies!:rolleyes:

[Rose]

My view on this is that Scooter Libby took the fall for other higher-ups in the administration. He knew it, they knew it and everyone else knows it. The president wasn't going to let Scooter Libby leave his young kids and wife for 2.5 years to go take the fall for other people's mistakes and shady behavior while they get off relatively free.

Really, why should anyone pay for a crime. Oh, except say if I did something illegal. Where would Bush be then with the pardons?

[Myra]

How many millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on this trial? "Gee, jurors, thanks for your time and opinions, but we're going in a different direction."

[artist]

Don't commit any crimes unless you happen to be close personal friends with George W. Bush...in which case he likely helped you commit the crimes in the first place!

Seven years later, I am numb to the shock of anything anymore.

[ginadc]

My view on this is that Scooter Libby took the fall for other higher-ups in the administration. He knew it, they knew it and everyone else knows it. The president wasn't going to let Scooter Libby leave his young kids and wife for 2.5 years to go take the fall for other people's mistakes and shady behavior while they get off relatively free.

Yeah. He's such a humanitarian.

[gayle]

My view on this is that Scooter Libby took the fall for other higher-ups in the administration. He knew it, they knew it and everyone else knows it. The president wasn't going to let Scooter Libby leave his young kids and wife for 2.5 years to go take the fall for other people's mistakes and shady behavior while they get off relatively free. I do wonder why it wasn't a full pardon (I guess that could come later) or why he didn't just pardon him before the trial even started. Even a few of the people on the jury that found him guilty said they would not oppose or would agree with a pardon.

As if this justifies preferential treatment by the law?

I was actually saddened that this decision came as no surprise to me. In fact, I rather expected it. This is after all, is Georgies good-ole-boy network, their top priority has always been themselves and their interests. Not the good of the country, or the will of its people.

[Jenyfer9]

I think pardons in general are a bad idea (wasn't very pleased when Clinton did it either), but this is just another on a LONG list of strikes against this president and his administration. I'm starting to agree with the people that have been camped out in front of my post office with the "Impeach Cheney" signs. Oh wait... that wouldn't matter either. I'm so tired of having my government do what they want to do regardless of what the American people have said their wishes are.

[Asha]

kinda off topic, but it was interesting to hear hear the comparison of number of presidential pardons. i wish they would show more stat/discussion for each of the presidents to compare what crimes they pardoned people for committing. bush has actually the lowest number of pardons, but i wonder what he is reserving his pardons for. clinton, reagan, and nixon all had quite a large number of pardons. nixon had the largest number. did he actually pardon a lot of vietnam war draft dodgers?

[msnicolea]

Leave it to you, Delta--a "yes" woman to the end! So, since he was covering for Cheney, should Cheney serve out his sentence instead? Oh wait, he has a new grandchild by his "I'm totally fine with the fact that she's gay" daughter, right--so no time for him either!

I tell you what, if I ever need spin, you're my go to gal!

[chefker]

Let me get this straight - Obstruction of justice - you get a 'get out of jail free' card.

Blowjob from intern - Impeach! Impeach! tar and feather him!

(I know someone will probably point out that Clinton lied under oath - which of course WAS wrong - but the whole thing was a witch hunt from the start. It's nobody's business who's getting off on whom in the Oval Office, I don't care.)

[EJH]

Ah, Kerrie, you read my mind!

[msnicolea]

Maybe if Chelsea had been an 8 year old at the time, they would have gone easier on him?

[conneals]

I rarely discuss politics, but this deserves our attention. I am so disgusted by this commune I can barely see straight. While I understand what Delta is saying, it doesn't give Bush the right to commune the sentence of a criminal, even if that criminal is just doing what he was told to do.

Scooter Libby is an adult and can make decisions for himself as an adult. He made a mistake and should have to pay the time for said mistake. But then again, Bush is the type of person to take his ball and go home if the rules aren't giving him the advantage. Ann Richards was right. He is a spoiled brat.

[Jenyfer9]

But then again, Bush is the type of person to take his ball and go home if the rules aren't giving him the advantage.
Or change the rules so they will.

[ginadc]

Rules? There are rules? Please. The rules don't apply to W. or Darth Cheney. (Don't get me started on the "he's not a member of the executive branch because he's also the president of the Senate--except when he wants to invoke executive privilege, when he's reallyreally an extra-important member of the executive branch"--thing.)

...and am I a total cynic to think that Bush deliberately waited until there were tons of headlines over the UK terror plot to make this announcement, hoping that it would get less notice that way?

[conneals]

...and am I a total cynic to think that Bush deliberately waited until there were tons of headlines over the UK terror plot to make this announcement, hoping that it would get less notice that way?

If you are a cynic then so am I.

[msnicolea]

And all this talk about poor Libby--his career is ruined, he'll lose his law license, blah blah blah--how long before we hear about his 6 figure job with Haliburton or another Bush-friendly company? After all, he has little mouths to feed.

[IrishEyes]

R..and am I a total cynic to think that Bush deliberately waited until there were tons of headlines over the UK terror plot to make this announcement, hoping that it would get less notice that way?

I think this happened now because the courts just decided Scooter has to go to jail while awaiting his appeal. I think he had to report in a week or two.

I am really disappointed that Bush did this. I really think that he should have allowed the justice system to work how it's supposed to. Whether or not you agree to the sentence, maybe we should discuss whether mandatory sentencing is a good thing. There are a lot of excessive sentences given out these days because mandatory sentencing does not allow judges to consider circumstances, and most of the jailed people don't get their sentences commuted.

There are plenty of people still in a tizzy because Clinton lied in front of a federal grand jury and didn't get punished... I guess they don't think Libby should be punished either.

[jnettie]

It's also a holiday week, so lots of people are on vacation...I think that went into the decision making for announcing the pardon (thanks to Jon Stewart for pointing that one out).

I guess Bush just figured all those Liberal judges just can't be trusted to carry out justice properly. It's too bad that Gonzalez got caught fixing the courts. :rolleyes:

So, let's compare perjury charges, shall we?

Lie about a blow job = bad!
Lie about undermining the CIA = eh, well, he was just doing his job.

And, thanks to the NYTimes for publishing these quotes:
On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush said:
There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Then, on July 2, 2007:
I respect he jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to sped thirty months in prison.

So, Mr. Bush, which is it? Accountability or a slap on the wrist?

[Esq.]

There are plenty of people still in a tizzy because Clinton lied in front of a federal grand jury and didn't get punished... I guess they don't think Libby should be punished either.

lying about who you are boffing and lying about leaking the identity of an undrecover CIA agent. Not the same kind of lie in my book. I understand that both are lies, but come on.

[bookworm]

While I'm the last one to apologize for this administration, I do think it would be helpful if we stopped talking about Clinton's impeachment as "punishment for a BJ." His lying to the grand jury was an example of the same behavior that is so disgusting about this administration--acting above the law.

Yes, I think it was a witch hunt. But overall, we have a system of laws in this country and when the leader of the country flouts them, it is a very big deal.

[MLA]

kinda off topic, but it was interesting to hear hear the comparison of number of presidential pardons. i wish they would show more stat/discussion for each of the presidents to compare what crimes they pardoned people for committing. bush has actually the lowest number of pardons, but i wonder what he is reserving his pardons for. clinton, reagan, and nixon all had quite a large number of pardons. nixon had the largest number. did he actually pardon a lot of vietnam war draft dodgers?


My understanding is that presidents usually wait until their last days in office to dole out pardons (which are generally pretty unpopular), so we won't really know what Shrub's record on pardons is until he leaves office.

[IrishEyes]

Esq. -- I agree with you! Didn't mean to sound like I felt like this was acceptable, because I don't think it is. I don't think the two 'offenses' compare at all.

So, since Bush said he'd root out the source of the leak and find them accountable...what happened to Richard Armitage?

[Emilie]

From MSNBC: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570081/)

“The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged,� Bush said. “His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.�

This quote disturbs me to no end. What about the Wilson-Plame family and all those people who were put at risk by his outing Valerie as a CIA agent? They had no lasting effects from this whole thing, right? It wasn't just her that they put at risk, it was anyone associated with her - how many people lost their jobs, even lost their lives from this whole situation? This reaches so much beyond Valerie Plame it isn't even funny but you know, poor Scooter - his life will forever be changed. I, for one, have no sympathy in this case for Scooter.

[westamp]

I'm not surprised considering the dirty shenanigans this administration has done in the past 7 years (this goes beyond Monicagate & the other purported Clinton happenings). I just hope Valerie Plame sues Scooter's little ass in civil court. Since he was convicted in the criminal matter, this all but seals the deal that she will get some money for her pain and suffering.

I do not feel sorry for Scooter, his young wife (robbing the cradle aren't we Scooter) and his young kids. If he considered their welfare in the first place, he wouldn't have carried out Cheney's demands, would he?

As for Cheney, for a man with a "broken ticker," he certainly is going and going isn't he? All I know is payback is a bitch and I'll wait for that day when he gets a taste of his own medicine.

[Delta]

My previous post wasn't my particular view about all of this, rather I was pondering Bush's motivations. In addition to what I said earlier, there could also be some sort of quid pro quo going on here now whereby Libby isn't going to tell the rest of what he knows now that his prison sentence was commuted.

Personally, I am glad that SL won't be serving time because I think he was covering for Cheney and possibly others. He still owes a quarter of a million bucks and is on probation and is a felon (unless he gets a pardon.) I certainly understand where all the outrage over the commutation is coming from WRT cronyism and corruption and all of that, however. I just can't muster any up. I think I'm numb to anything that goes on in this administration now - good or bad. It's all been such a disaster. Bush basically didn't have anything to lose by doing this, and I think in his mind he did the right thing. I think Bush could have saved himself and everyone a lot of trouble if he'd just pardoned Libby last year though. His critics were going to hate him for it no matter when he did it. I also am annoyed because this gives Joe Wilson more air time.

[bookworm]

Personally, I am glad that SL won't be serving time because I think he was covering for Cheney and possibly others.

Well...yeah. But if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. I would have been just fine with him avoiding jail time by cutting a deal that exposed Cheney. Taking the fall because the worse offenders will give you a parachute is just more shady dealings.

[Delta]

Another reason Bush may have done this when and the way that he did was because the judge had decided he was not going to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

[am_81]

So typical of this administration . . .

I am so unsurprised by this announcement that I cant even work up the energy to get angry about it.

[Delta]

Yes that is true bookworm. I think he should have given up what he knew, too. I am just being honest about my feelings here. I didn't want to see Libby go to prison.

[Emilie]

Delta - should the solders who were in those pictures from Abu Graib have gone to prison or should they have been pardoned because they were obviously covering up for their higher ups?

[westamp]

Bush Won't Rule Out Libby Pardon (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/03/national/w092713D45.DTL&tsp=1)

President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Ha! Who didn't see that coming? :rolleyes:

[Asha]

My understanding is that presidents usually wait until their last days in office to dole out pardons (which are generally pretty unpopular), so we won't really know what Shrub's record on pardons is until he leaves office.
mla - i didn't know that. thanks.

[pocket]

I'm not one who is a big fan of impeachment, but it does seem like we are getting closer and closer to an unavoidable confrontation. When you step back and look at the whole picture, it seems like much of what's been going on lately - especially in the last month or so - has to do with preparing for a confrontation with Congress around the legality of many actions of the VP's office.

[jnettie]

My understanding is that presidents usually wait until their last days in office to dole out pardons (which are generally pretty unpopular), so we won't really know what Shrub's record on pardons is until he leaves office.

"All Things Considered" on NPR did a comparison to the same amount of time - the first 6 years - of Regan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, and still he's given out the least. Reagan gave 13 pardons in his first 6 years, Bush II gave only 3. And he doesn't have a good record as governor, either. Denied commutation of the death penalty to a woman that even the Pope himself petitioned for.

Personally, I am glad that SL won't be serving time because I think he was covering for Cheney and possibly others.
You know, this is what gets me about this. I can hear the conversation in my head: "Don't worry Scooter, even if you get caught, we won't let anything bad happen to you." No. An individual makes a choice. He made a bad choice. He should not be bailed out. However, I think my ire goes toward the administration, Bush, Cheney, et al more than it does to dear ol' Scooter. How dare they ask someone below them to do something very wrong, take all the blame, then just simply bail him out. The nerve!

I'm getting really sick of all this crap.

[jennylou]

"All Things Considered" on NPR did a comparison to the same amount of time - the first 6 years - of Regan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, and still he's given out the least. Reagan gave 13 pardons in his first 6 years, Bush II gave only 3. And he doesn't have a good record as governor, either. Denied commutation of the death penalty to a woman that even the Pope himself petitioned for.



Yes, but they weren't committing crimes on his administration's behalf. :p

[Rosebud]

My previous post wasn't my particular view about all of this, rather I was pondering Bush's motivations. In addition to what I said earlier, there could also be some sort of quid pro quo going on here now whereby Libby isn't going to tell the rest of what he knows now that his prison sentence was commuted.

I agree with you on that point. The more I read about this, the more I think Bush is trying to prevent Libby from having a reason to open up about what actually happened sometime down the line.


Libby didn't actually out Plame. He's just taking the fall on a perjury charge. So the person/persons who actually conspired to do the outing are never going to be held responsible. I think that's what's making me crazy, here. Even though I knew Libby wasn't the baddest one in the Cheney bunch, I really felt someone ought to be held accountable for their illegal and unethical behavior, and if they were going to offer up Libby, well I guess I'll take it. But now no one has to pay for what happened to Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. No one has to face the consequences of betraying them, undermining our national security, and then covering it up. That makes me furious. The American people deserve better than this!

It's this deliberate flaunting of the law and circumventing the best interests of the people that makes me believe we are living in the most corrupt and reprehensible time in American history.

[pocket]

It's very upsetting isn't it? It's so outrageous that we can't even keep our minds around it. As part of the campaign to create a reason for the invasion of Iraq, information of dubious quality and information that had been discredited was promoted by Cheney's office. One important piece of disinformation was that Iraq was currently seeking material for nuclear weapons from Niger. The CIA sent a consultant to Niger to investigate a report of yellowcake being sold to Iraq. The consultant reported that there was nothing to this allegation and it seems that it was fabricated completely including forged documents. When Cheney's office disregarded completely the consultant's report, he (Joe Wilson) wrote an op-ed explaining the entire thing. Cheney's office then tried to discredit the consultant with the aim of maintaining the credibility of their claims that Iraq was seeking nuclear material. One of the ways they tried to discredit him was by claiming that his wife arranged for this assignment. Basically that Wilson was unqualified for the assignment and the only reason he got it was that his wife who is an undercover agent, FYI, set it up.

In retrospect, we know now that Cheney's office made most of the rationale for the Iraq invasion up completely. I think we all need to ask ourselves how we feel about this. It doesn't seem like he has the best interests of the US at heart, and it also doesn't seem like he upholds his oath to defend the Constitution. What exactly is Cheney's agenda and who does he really serve?

[Red'sGirl]

As for pardons, keep in mind that FOG (Friends of George) rarely get convicted of anything (or serve, like Scooter Libby), so he doesn't have much reason to pardon anyone. Plus, he has the distinction of being the only person on the planet to just KNOW that everyone convicted and sent to deathrow is guilty, despite conventional wisdom. Therefore, there cannot be too many non-FOGs that he'd consider pardoning either.

They are all too evil for words.

[Niobe]

What exactly is Cheney's agenda and who does he really serve?

*puts on conspiracy theorist hat*

Agenda = oil, money

Serves = Halliburton, his own bank accounts

If you want to go a little further into the theoretical, plot possible routes for a pipeline to the oil-rich Caspian Sea. Which countries could you go through...

;)

[AmyE]

Cheney serves the President. That's the VP's role. The "ticket" we elect is really President and Second-Guy-Who-the-Candidate-Signs-Up-There.

I don't think Bush is nearly as dumb as some people think. I believe he knows exactly what Cheney is up to and finds it useful politically. Some strong conservatives think Cheney is doing exactly what he should be doing, and wish Bush were more open about supporting him. Some liberals think Cheney is just scary. Bush gets to appeal to the center by keeping quiet and letting the VP do his thing. For right-leaning centrists "hey, look what my Adminsitration is doing,' for left-leaning centrists "that's not what *I* said..."

It's just politics. But if you think Cheney is dead wrong, or exactly right, I think you have to blame/credit Bush. Cheney is not an indepedent actor, IMHO.

[Niobe]

Founding father James Madison said, "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

Really, may he? Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. seems to think so, he's calling on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. :cool:

[artist]

Founding father James Madison said, "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

Really, may he? Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. seems to think so, he's calling on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. :cool:

Gee, it's about time! :)

[Asha]

uh, if we impeach bush, wouldn't we end up with cheney? can you impeach the vice president?

[MLA]

uh, if we impeach bush, wouldn't we end up with cheney? can you impeach the vice president?

Yes. But from what I've read, it looks like you can do a double impeachment, which is what I guess would happen.

The thing is, though, I doubt it will happen because I don't think there'd be 2/3 of the Senate needed to convict (2/3 of the House to bring up the charges seems more realistic to me, but I just don't see enough votes in the Senate).

[chefker]

Yes. But from what I've read, it looks like you can do a double impeachment, which is what I guess would happen.



Huh. If that actually happened (which I don't think it will), what are the provisions for succession to president/VP? I know for the VP spot Pelosi would be next in line, but if the presidential office is ALSO vacant, I wonder what the laws are on this. Hypothetically speaking , of course. ;)

[MLA]

Huh. If that actually happened (which I don't think it will), what are the provisions for succession to president/VP? I know for the VP spot Pelosi would be next in line, but if the presidential office is ALSO vacant, I wonder what the laws are on this. Hypothetically speaking , of course. ;)

Actually, Pelosi would become president. But I don't know how the VP slot would be handled. Would she get to choose her VP, or would the president pro temp (Senate majority leader) move into that slot?

[sxsw_dad]

This whole scooter thingy just reeks of cover up to me. Have you guys seen this on PBS show Frontline? You can watch it online. I found it a few weeks ago. It's very interesting about the Bush administration and Dick Cheney.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

As much as I despise Bush and Cheney, I don't think impeachment would be a good thing for our country. I don't think we can afford the time, expense, and diversion of our attention. Personally, I'd just like to see the House of Representatives and the Senate step up.

Although I think it's probably pretty unlikely, I think it has as much chance of success as an impeachment does. (Not that I don't think an impeachment could go through, I just don't think it'd accomplishment what we need.)

[Niobe]

uh, if we impeach bush, wouldn't we end up with cheney? can you impeach the vice president?

Actually, Kucinich introduced the articles of impeachment for Cheney a few months ago, but so far only 12 Democrats have signed on.

[jnettie]

Yes, but they weren't committing crimes on his administration's behalf. :p
*snort*

Actually, Pelosi would become president. But I don't know how the VP slot would be handled. Would she get to choose her VP, or would the president pro temp (Senate majority leader) move into that slot?

Sweet!

Isn't the process called impeachment? Because, Clinton was impeached, but he wasn't removed from office because they didn't find the grounds to do so. Andrew Johnson was also impeached and also not convicted of treason. It seems to me we were taught in school (or, at least I was taught) that Johnson was impeached and therefore found guilty and forced to resign, but that doesn't seem to be true.

I wouldn't be against the process of impeachment for Bush and Chaney at all. I don't think it would be a distraction. It would serve to bring all the evidence that they've hidden from the American people to light.

[westamp]

They dirty two will never be impeached because the Republican part of Congress don't have the balls to bring them down. Just like they don't have the balls to get rid of Gonzalez & to end the war. Again my question, who are voting for these clowns?:rolleyes:

[kris97]

The commutation of Libby's sentence is a slap in the face to the prosecutors, the judge, the jury, and everyone else who worked to put this case together. And the fact that Bush used "oh, the Guidelines sentence is too high" as his reasoning is even more maddening. The NY Times had a story today about how defense attorneys across the country are going to make "Libby motions" basically saying that since the President said Libby's sentence was too harsh, the sentence I'm facing is too harsh too. :rolleyes:

[MLA]

Isn't the process called impeachment? Because, Clinton was impeached, but he wasn't removed from office because they didn't find the grounds to do so.

Yes, that's right. Impeachment is the process. You can be impeached and not convicted.

[MLA]

And now this (http://http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/05/clinton.libby/index.html)!

It looks like Libby may not even have to serve his probation time:

Snow also said the White House feels it is on safe legal ground in contending that Libby will serve two years of probation, despite questions now being raised by Judge Reggie Walton, who issued an order Tuesday suggesting Libby cannot serve any probation since he never served any prison time before the commutation.

"Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment," Walton wrote.

After first suggesting he wasn't sure, Snow said White House counsel Fred Fielding had "absolutely" checked on this question before the president signed off on the commutation.

"The White House did not make a misstep," he said. Despite the certainty expressed by Snow, he did add that there's some "gray area in the law."

[ysolde]

The commutation of Libby's sentence is a slap in the face to the prosecutors, the judge, the jury, and everyone else who worked to put this case together. And the fact that Bush used "oh, the Guidelines sentence is too high" as his reasoning is even more maddening. The NY Times had a story today about how defense attorneys across the country are going to make "Libby motions" basically saying that since the President said Libby's sentence was too harsh, the sentence I'm facing is too harsh too. :rolleyes: I can't tell you how frustrating this is to the federal prosecution community.

I wonder about the Mandatory Sentencing for Drug Convictions. One of the criticisms has been that they unjustly penalize the wives and girlfriends of dealers, since the dealers have every incentive to "give up" these women, whose only connection to the crime is often that the dealer used their phone to set up a deal, and the women, who know nothing of the drug ring, have no one to give to the prosecution, so they get the toughest sentences.

These women often leave behind their children. Sounds like a perfect "Libby Defense" right there, no?

[kris97]

Well, the federal sentencing guidelines aren't mandatory anymore, plus there always was a safety valve for those convictions, so I don't think the scenario is quite so bleak. Plus, in my experience, prosecutors are very attuned to who is a low level and who is not, and won't go after a wife or girlfriend whose phone was used for a drug deal with guns blazing. They have to prove mens rea as well, and in many places juries are skeptical of drug crimes anyway, especially with respect to women. In any event, it doesn't bother me if people like you've described are given a break.

What I"m more concerned about are the far less sympathetic defendants - the white collar stock fraudsters, the obstructors-of-justice (like the deft mentioned in the nyt article), the gun runners, the drug king pins, the violent felons - who will use the President's appalling partisan gesture to try to argue for a reduced sentence.

[ysolde]

What I"m more concerned about are the far less sympathetic defendants - the white collar stock fraudsters, the obstructors-of-justice (like the deft mentioned in the nyt article), the gun runners, the drug king pins, the violent felons - who will use the President's appalling partisan gesture to try to argue for a reduced sentence.

Oh, good gosh, you don't think that will work, do you??? :eek::eek:

[kris97]

I certainly hope not, but people (including judges) who oppose the guidelines sentences - which I will admit, I think are for the most part very fair - can now point to the President's stated rationale for commuting the Libby's sentence as an additional reason why the guidelines range for a particular defendant is too high.

This comes at a really frustrating time in terms of federal sentencing law - several years ago the Supreme Court said that mandatory use of the guidelines was unconstitutional in cases where the range depended on facts found by a judge rather than a jury (sorry to get too legal-ese here) but just a few a months ago the Court said that on appeal a sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.

So now we have the President, in one foul (fall?) swoop, giving fodder to the defense bar's attacks on the guidelines, and effectively undermining doj's position in support of the guidelines. If the President were a raging liberal who supported lower prison sentences for everyone, then maybe I would see some consistency in his position, but to do this in such a blatantly partisan way - on grounds that are diametrically opposed to his own justice administration's position - UGH!

[ysolde]

This was part of a Keith Olbermann piece on msnbc.com:

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

The rest of the piece, which is beautifully written (IMO), can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

[lawyerlee]

You're totally right, Kris. I'm sickened (yet again) by the hypocricy of this White House and this attitude that a whole different set of rules apply to them and their insiders. As pointed out in this great post, Coddling Criminals (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2007/07/coddling_criminals.php), the Bush admin is ALL about being tougher on criminal and mandatory minimums - except when dealing with one of their own. Then the punishment is just too tough. Wah! :rolleyes:

And the Sentencing Law & Policy blog (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/claiborne_and_rita_reasonableness_case/index.html) (which I highly respect) has been pointing out for quite some time the parallels between the cases of Libby and Victor Rita. They found themselves in highly similar situations - both convicted of obstruction of justice, both receiving very similar sentences (Rita's is actually longer). Yet, when Rita asked for relief, the White House said his punishment was appropriate. And somehow it was not appropriate for Libby. I think we can all see the difference. It's not what you did, it's who you rub elbows with. :mad:

I love Olbermann. He's always got such great comments on these totally effed up events.