"Scooter" Libby skates

[Phantom Hawk]

Democrat , republican ..... whats the difference really? Why can't we just elect a fuckin' American ? One who puts our country first, second, and third ! Political parties should be abolished. The two major parties spend more time pissing at each other than actually trying to make things better. They'll actually vote against a reasonable idea at times merely because it was proposed my a member of the other party. That or "Hey, Barry Shitstick didn't vote for my idea, so I'm not voting for his" Goddamn shameful is what it is. Either abolish them or merge them into one big one and call it the Douchebag Party.

$400 billion spent on a war with a country that posed NO threat to us while the streets here are falling apart and the kids can't get new books at school ? People starving and old people getting their electric shut off while continually throwing billions to Isreal ? People can't afford health insurance while prisoners bitch about free tv and a second helping of meatloaf. Something is wrong here. Fuckin' shameful.

[Bert]

I heard on the news that he wasn't convicted of exposing the CIA agent, just obstructing the investigation or something like that. If that is true then I think the $250K fine, 2 years probation, and loss of his ability to practice law is probably punishment enough.

But this is irrelevant as he's almost sure to get fully pardoned at the end of Bush's term. Bush himself said he hasn't ruled it out.

Just because Clinton did something stupid or immoral doesn't make Bush any less incompetent. It's easy to say they are all crooks, lesser of two evils, yadda yadda, but it's also easy to see that just about anyone is going to be a huge improvement over the current bozo we have in office. I for one am looking forward to 2008.

[danastas]

You need a reality check, and a lesson on the rule of law...crime is crime. There's a penalty....regardless.

Your selective morality is nauseating in the very real sense of the word. The extent of the crime matters not...the law is the LAW. At least here in the US....This isn't Russia is it?

Don't like it?

Go live in Canada or Mexico, or anywhere in Europe...they could care less about laws or morality....and far less about what is right or wrong in the world.

Wake up dude.

People don't seem to get some of the basics here.

One, presidents commute sentences all the time. Every president does it. Personally, I never knew the extent of it, and I never knew why they do it. I have no idea. It doesn't seem right.

People are not bagging on Bush for commuting Libby's sentence. That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no check or balance on the executive branch.

Let's say a Democrat gets into office, and he decides to do an end around by congress by illegally doing a deal with Iran. Someone in the oval office does the dirty work himself, to the President's knowledge. The whole scheme is exposed, and the person who dealt directly is brought up on charges. On the witness stand, the prosecutor threatens that person with jail, and asks him to tell the truth about the entire scheme. The accused clams up, knowing that the president will pardon him if he's convicted.

That's the problem right there. With a pardon, the president has a tool that allows him to cover anyone who may be otherwise compelled to testify about crimes committed against him.

The discussion here about pardonning crimes or commuting sentences is irrelevant since all Presidents do it. The real problem is that the potential exists for a President to hold himself above the law and cover and crimes he committed.

[Twisteramps]

Oh, and if you are *actually* serious about China, stop funding them.

In some cases, I don't think there IS an equivalent item made in America, or even not China for that matter.

About the only good thing about buying crap from China is that if we are a good trading partner it makes it less likely for a war to brew between us.

And yeah, I am serious about China because Clinton did let them have a LOT of missile tech. Among other things. I think that both parties are full of shit, I just to agree with a little more of the republican platform than I do the democrat one... WHEN THEY STICK TO IT. I'm not enjoying Bush spending money like a soldier on leave. I more closely identify with the Libertarian party most of all, but it's going to be a long time before they get a candidate that even has a snowball's chance in hell with the way the political machinery is set up towards the 'big two'.

Pete

[danastas]

Maybe I'm wrong about Bush after all. Maybe instead of putting his friends above the law, he is just the victim of bad advice from his advisors and attorneys, who apparently have no clue about federal law.

Check this one out:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/libby_3583.pdf

[clifffclaven]

Libby was railroaded. The Dems drummed up the whole Valerie Plame affair in an attempt to smear the VP's office and it's absolutely critical to recall that no wrongdoing on the part of the administration was ever proven regarding the alleged leak of her identity. Deprived of their main issue the lefties did what lefties do and turned to a blizzard of accusations of wrongdoing related to the process surrounding the earlier investigation. Libby's "crime" was that he did not precisely recall the specific chain of details and events on different occasions spread over more than a year. Had he merely refused to cooperate by answering "I don't recall" rather than attempting to cooperate by revealing as much as he knew he'd never have been convicted. Libby appears to have tried to tell the truth and is guilty of having a faulty memory. I'd wager any of us under cross-examination regarding very specific aspects of our activities over the past several years would screw up at least as many details as he did. Screw up a detail, go to jail. That's a bad message to send as it will only encourage government officials to refuse to cooperate in future investigations. Bush's real mistake here is in not issuing a complete pardon for this miscarriage of justice.

Ahhh yes, the "i dont remember" defense. Youre right, reagan used it very successfully in the iran-contra affair. So did bush 1. If clinton wouldve just said that, instead of lying about a blowjob, he wouldve been ok, right?

[charvelguy]

Well, part of the 'root' of evil to the problem is us. We fund the bastards and there will always will be someone who is taking care of the expenses or the check due to party loyalty or such.
Even Libby had fundraisers to cover his costs so 250,000 is nothing compared to the funds being supplied and raised for him. Just a matter of time... the circuit (legal system, judges sentence) their 'crimes' are washed hands with money raised, which will appear as 'enough punishment and time served'. Its already in play, "it was a harsh sentence to begin with."
A pardon, you bet, it'll close out Bush's term.

As much as you may think Bush stupid, he is very skilled politician, he often knows how to get his way and works with those who butter his bread to keep the executive branch in the money, which buys off everything.

[YetAnotherOne]

People don't seem to get some of the basics here.

One, presidents commute sentences all the time. Every president does it. Personally, I never knew the extent of it, and I never knew why they do it. I have no idea. It doesn't seem right.

People are not bagging on Bush for commuting Libby's sentence. That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no check or balance on the executive branch.

Let's say a Democrat gets into office, and he decides to do an end around by congress by illegally doing a deal with Iran. Someone in the oval office does the dirty work himself, to the President's knowledge. The whole scheme is exposed, and the person who dealt directly is brought up on charges. On the witness stand, the prosecutor threatens that person with jail, and asks him to tell the truth about the entire scheme. The accused clams up, knowing that the president will pardon him if he's convicted.

That's the problem right there. With a pardon, the president has a tool that allows him to cover anyone who may be otherwise compelled to testify about crimes committed against him.

The discussion here about pardonning crimes or commuting sentences is irrelevant since all Presidents do it. The real problem is that the potential exists for a President to hold himself above the law and cover and crimes he committed.

The Presidential power to pardon is itself a check and balance on potential abuses by Congress and the Judiciary and quite an important one at least in a symbolic sense. The fact that it exists and that there is no corresponding power for the Executive to extrajudicially sentence someone is a clear illustration of the purpose of the power: it is merely a last-ditch mechanism that allows the Executive to correct what it views as egregious abuses by Congress or the courts. It was intended, at least in part, for situations precisely like the Libby case where politics enters into the process and seeks, essentially, to punish someone for their political affiliation. Absent the pardon power the Executive would be wholly at the mercy of Congress should Congress decide to conduct a series of political show trials in order to influence the conduct of the Executive. The pardon power is absolutely necessary to maintain a balance of power between at least the Executive and Legislative branches.

The potential for a President to hold himself above the law does exist but it's important to recall that he is already immune from prosecution for his official acts while in office and that this immunity extends to those conducting the business of the Executive branch. For example in your scenario in which, "... a Democrat gets into office, and he decides to do an end around by congress by illegally doing a deal with Iran," the President and those acting on his behalf have immunity if the deal was an official act of the Executive branch. The Executive has primacy in foreign affairs so the propriety of Congress' attempting to constrain the Executive in these matters is by no means clear.

An actual abuse by a President would not involve a member of the Executive branch caught up in a political show trial or someone doing the business of the Executive branch over the objection of Congress, those are the indended recipients of Presidential pardons and fall well within the proper range of the power. An actual abuse would involve pardons for wrongs done by the President or his close associates, friends, or family members outside the scope of their official duties. Those things can and do happen but they're of little consequence compared with the importance check the pardon power provides on the reach of Congress and the Courts.

[Tashtego]

The Clintons did use the "I don't remember" defense. There is so much rich material from the Clinton admin. I can't wait for everyone to start talking about it again if Hillary wins the nomination.

[danastas]

You didn't need to write so much. All you needed to say was that Libby was convicted because of political afiliation. I guess Fitzgerald the special prosecutor is just a political hack. This is what he had to say:

"We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as "excessive." The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."

Hmmm, seems Bush doesn't agree with you. Bush just thought the punishment was excessive. He doesn't seem to have a bone to pick with the judge.

By the way, pardoning is a check and balance, you say? Let's see what the framers of the constitution thought:

This came out of the judiciary committee after Watergate:

"At the Constitutional convention, George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him."

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

As for this current commutation, Tashtego, the actual crime that the jury convicted Libby of is obstructing the investigation into a potential Executive branch crime. The fact that a person in the White House was able to forestall this investigation is no cause for concern, I guess. Nor is betraying CIA assets so that the whole world knows that one particular firm (I can care less about Valerie Wilson) is crawling with American spies.

I don't want to hear it from conservatives ever again about being tough on crime. It's bullshit. You know it. I know it.

In fact, this is what conservatives had to say when someone lied about a blowjob:

"How can parents instill values and morality in their children?" asked a befuddled Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America – one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

Former Senator leader Bill Frist: "He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. "I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury," the senator said. "And I don't want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don't want it to be faded in any way."

Fellow Republican Texan Tom Delay:
"No man is above the law, and no man is below the law," Delay said. "That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

I guess Delay is not commenting on this one, because he may need a pardon soon himself.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) is also mad as hell! He had this to say: "It would be wrong for you to send a message to every American that it's acceptable to lie under oath and obstruct a federal investigation. It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter."

"Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about," - Robert Bork and James Rosen, National Review.

"And we know that when a person testifies under oath that he doesn't remember something when in fact he does, he has committed perjury," - Bill Bennett, Wall Street Journal.

Man, you guys will defend anything, do a 180 degree turn so fast, knee jerking so hard that it jams into your faces.

[Tashtego]

Getting a little excited eh? I think you missed your intended target Danastas, I haven't stated an opinion on Scooter.

[fett]

Yikes. You guys are really pissed one way or the other. I don't understand. I know, I am old and I was born in Truman's administration and this stuff has been going on a lot longer than that. What really concerns me is just how far it appears you people have lost "Faith" in the only form of government we have. This is very disturbing. "Happy 4th of July"

[charvelguy]

Very informative post though even if he is 'excited', some very good points made by you guys. I see this same problem in the workplace where honesty is also having been written policy to be upheld to the highest, but it isn't, as 'there are two sides to every story' and the value of the opinion and the weight or position of the individual often come heavily into play. Its about keeping the integrity of the structure intact lest the 'truth' that someone wants to know blows it apart. Everything was fine until this guy messed up or that slip was made..thats ok, we'll overlook it, everybody does it anyways.

[hippietim]

Those of you trying to justify the nefarious actions of one party by villianizing the other are cracking me up. It is both comical and tragic how the diehards on both sides so desperately want to believe the BULLSHIT FROM THEIR SIDE.

Just remember, when you cast your ballot in this next election you are just choosing one dirtbag over another. I just hope we get the least worst dirtbag. Bush is the biggest dirtbag we've had to date but I have a feeling he won't hold that title for long.

[hippietim]

In some cases, I don't think there IS an equivalent item made in America, or even not China for that matter.

Name one thing you requre that is only made in China.