Libby Sentence Commuted
How can the commutation of this sentence be justified? These guys truly think they are above the law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSWAT00783220070702
posted by Carl Spackler @ 6:41 PM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Here is a link to the bio of the prosecutor in Libby's case. His bio does not scream "over zealous liberal prosecutor" to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald
Okay... You know we all hear the jokes about CNN vs. Fox being representatives of the Left and the Right respectively, but TONIGHT I now really appreciate how true this really is. At 7 p.m., I flipped between CNN and Fox to watch the coverage of this issue:
On CNN Situation Room the commutation was the lead story.
- They covered the story (and no other) for 20 straight minutes.
- This 20 minutes included an interview with Joe Wilson.
- Plus a Libby defender.
- Plus polls on the public perception of the commute.
At 7:20, they covered other news quickly, and then went back to the Libby issue at 7:30 for the rest of the show.
On Fox Report with Sharpard Smith, their lead story was the UK terror situation, then proceeded through the following stories:
- The arrest of the docter in the wrestler murder-suicide.
- The Bobby Cutts Jr. case.
- A missing student in Wisconsin.
- Prosecutor in Duke case resigns again.
- Space shuttle Atlantis on way back to Florida.
- Details of Pentagon briefing on Iranian involvement in Karbala attack in Iraq.
- Pentagon destruction of old F-15's.
- Iphone bugs.
- Free internet from AT&T.
- Wall Street report.
- Several business briefs, including a Harry Potter update.
- A van crash in Pennsylvania.
- Wall collapse in NYC.
- A baby delivered in Police parking lot in California.
- Underwater marriage proposal in Missouri.
- 10 Homer Simpson Kwik E Mart's opening across the country.
- Transformer Movie Update.
- At 7:30, after another commercial break, they recapped the Top News, and DID NOT cover the Libby commutation.
- FINALLY, at 7:32, for 2 MINUTES, they covered the Libby commutation.
Wow. I think both of these stations are nuts. However, at least the CNN show is covering something that is happening RIGHT NOW versus all of this other nonsense. I really have lost whatever respect I had for Fox with this nonsense.
Actually, in the realm of pardons Scooter Libby is pretty benign. I mean, he wasn't proven to do anything other than being stupid for lying.
here are some notables:
http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/index.html
Also, FDR commuted about 4,000 sentences....now that's a new deal!
That's interesting, I followed this story online and FOX had it breaking across the masthead of their website at least ten minutes before it appeared on CNN's site.
As much as I mistrust the Bush admin I just cannot get myself fired up over this non-story. The Office of the Presidency is vested with the power of clemency so I can't agree that this move somehow seems "above the law". Presidents have been pardoning rascals and scalawags since Washington's first term, and Bush is hardly the first to spare one of his good soldiers a painful penalty.
Lest we forget, Bill Clinton completely pardoned a certain undeserving miscreant by the name of Mark Rich who was charged with tax fraud and evasion, trading with an enemy nation for pure personal gain, and laundering the money to cover his tracks. Rich never served a minute of what would have been a maximum 300 year sentence because he absconded to Switzerland to live in high comfort for 20 years...that is, until Slick Willy completely absolved this worthless fugitive entirely of guilt in what most knowledgeable observers suspect was a straight quid pro campaign contribution quo. Clinton also pardoned his own brother of a drug charge (after sentence served).
Libby on the other hand is a ruined and broken man, and still a felon on probation. Besides, lets all admit that if there was a real law breaker in the Plame case that person is still sitting in the West Wing of the White House (or in the Veep's office) and he got away with it Scot free.
GW's father pardoned Armand Hammer of campaign contribution fraud, and he commuted the sentence of an armed bank robber.
Reagan pardoned George Steinbrenner of campaign contribution fraud as well.
Gerald Ford had a controversial clemency episode of his own....
-Ico
I think it's hypocrisy of the highest degree. This president came to office on a platform which claimed to clean-up the mess that Clinton made. Now, the comments coming from conservatives sound eerily like the comments coming from liberals when Clinton was in office.
Lying is lying. Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. We should treat these items the same whether it is our party doing it or not.
Bush claimed that the sentence was too harsh. Yet, this sentence was very average on the basis of mandatory sentencing guidelines that "conservatives" are so fond of? So, what's the deal? We are only in favor of mandatory sentences when we put crack heads in prison?
Yes, the Mark Rich pardon stunk to high heaven. Does that make this commutation correct? I'll tell you something else as well. Ford's pardon of Nixon lost him the '76 election. Republican candidates are cringing right now because they are going to have to defend this, and they are going to sound like idiots.
I'm putting this group on notice. The first time I hear ANY outrage from this group for a Clinton or Obama administration in regards to justice, I'm defining a sub-group of hypocrites to go with the ostriches we have on this blog.
I agree that obstruction and perjury are bad offenses that demand stiff punishment and if it was my choice Libby would spend some time in Club Fed. The only reason Libby skips while crackheads fry is that crackheads don't consort with residents of the White House (unless your name is Roger Clinton).
I also agree that the Bush administration has categorically proven itself a dirty, underhanded operation with no regard whatsoever for precedent or the rule of law regardless of their vigorous protestations to the contrary (methinks they do protest too much). And their Justice Department is a laughingstock.
Where we disagree is that I don't think this story matters to anyone outside the most partisan circles. It was a simple calculus for the Prez: throw his core base of Cheney smitten neocons a bone while losing nothing among liberals that weren't about to change their next vote just cuz he kept Libby in jail. As for the rest of us - we just don't give a damn. At this point we all recognize the huge gap between this administration's spin and reality.
I have slammed the Bush administration plenty with regards to justice or its subversion thereof, but I prefer to keep my powder dry for bigger battles.
-Ico
WIKIALITY....defined as
"Reality as decided on by majority rule rather than facts." Based off wikipedia's 'majority rule' fact. Featured on The Colbert Report July 31, 2006.
Wikiality refers to the changing of reality or truth via a Wikipedia-like system, allowing the public to change facts as long as there are others that agree
seems like we have a lot of wikiality on the blg lately....since when is wikipedia a reference the bio of independent prosecutors?
Hey don't blame me I am just holding the tail here
hold on Spackler....
Nobody pardoned the pardoners here. I just said that you were ridiculous to bring up Libby's pardon without using context. The facts without context are really not facts. Many of these pardons were much more gregious than Libby's. You cannot launch a scathing attack without mention The Whiskey Rebellion, Draft Dodgers, Nixon, and yes Marc Rich.
Do I think pardoning Libby is wrong? Yes. Is it more wrong than these others? No. Was it politically a good move for Bush as Ico states? I think so.
Personally, he should not be pardoned and should serve out his 30 months.
Clinton or Obama administration? Have you really thrown in the towel? I can tell you this. If the liberals on this board are indicative of the general liberal populous they have no shot.
P.S. I love the term wikilaity so much that I changed the name of the blog to
Slaying Wikiality....
Maybe someone will find us out there since nobody knows what Cima is.
I didn't change the site address though! not yet anyway
]:-)
Does anyone know who Marc Rich's high priced lawyer was?
Answer: Scooter Libby
Interesting trivial fact...
By implementing Wikialty what we're really doing is bringing Democracy back to knowledge....Wolfowitz has assured me that the definitions will greet us as liberators
I listened to an piece on NPR the other day that explained how Clinton was really the one that fundamentally changed the entire pardon process. Prior to Clinton, the overwhelming number of pardon candidates were submitted to the President from the DOJ. This removed the vast majority of them from political influence since the group that made the recommendations were career bureaucrats. There were always exceptions (like some of the ones Nym mentions), but the vast majority were processed through the system, which is why someone like FDR had 4000 of them. Many of the past Presidents had hundreds or thousands.
Clinton changed all of that. He had his staff submit the list to him instead of starting with the DOJ. I have no problem saying that Clinton was/is a slimy politician. The Mark Rich pardon stinks, but I expect nothing less from him.
Bush, on the other hand, has adopted this holier than thou, HYPOCRITICAL attitude. During his entire time as Governor or President, he has had VERY FEW pardons/commutes. I'm sure you have all heard the story that he refused a request from the Pope to commute the sentence of a woman who had become a born again christian. So, NOW, 30 months is too much time for this convicted felon, give me a break.
In regards to the Wikipedia thing, did you bother to take the time to read the bio?
It included a list of all of the major cases this guy has prosecuted, and lo and behold there were a lot of Democrats on the list along with the Republicans. That was my point, and I don't think the majority is making that information up.
If you have some other "credible" sources, that can demonstrate that this guy was a froth at the mouth liberal, by all means, let us review them.
And in regards to Clinton or Obama, I have not "thrown in the towel", but I'll make a bet right now that a Democrat wins the presidency in '08.
$500. Who's in?
Rasmussen has the polls pretty tight so I think it's a toss up.
If the Democrats could put someone up that was not so polarizing then I think they would win in a land slide.
At this point, HillDog is not going to lose or gain anymore votes.
If we get say a certain NY gov run as a third party candidate and a certain former gov runs as the republican candidate then I think she is in big trouble.
I think it's going to be an interesting race.
IMO the Dems have the same problem that they had last time....no platform.
The Kerry platform was "I am not as bad as Bush" That did not work in 04 and won't work in 08 (I hope?)
Plus Hillary is very hard to like as a person ... if she slips into her 'Blaccent' one more time she might set a new standard in stupidity and in pandering
good article on why the Dems are still in trouble - they have given the Republicans the lead on what is still the main issue of the day
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110010295
Guiliani/McCain 2008
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home