Politics: Bush commutes Libby's prison term

[Kyreth]

Pretty much a given from day 1. Bush had already made noises about this while the case was in progress. You can fault Bush for damn near anything, but he's loyal to his ass-kissers.

That being said, expect a lot of final-hour pardons and the like, as is normal for presidents at the end of their terms.

[Quicklet]

This thread generates much LOLs for me.

[Vedder]

Agree that things like this shouldn't really be part of the President's perview... but outraged? Probably not. Maybe if he was pardoned, but a commuted sentence isn't really that outrageous.

The guy got 30 months for essentially lying to a grand jury. I'm not a legal expert, but that seems to be more harsh than previously set precedent for a similar infraction.

What surprises me is all the polls, etc. that were in favor of a full pardon... it's not often that the American public as a whole thinks someone got a raw deal.

[MF Perm]

Props Aurik on an on point and clued in approach to this argument. Everything Aurik said was dead on. Aurik, you should have ignored skurlover from his first entry into this thread:

Prove that he actually outed her name and maybe I'll give a shit about him getting a free pass. He was railroaded from the beginning.

EDIT: Cue everyone saying we need to change the law because this president used powers fully within his rights. Look up Clinton's record if you need the other side of the story.

As it shows he obviosuly has zero clue about what's going on, and just repeating sheep talk he hears on Fox News.

CHOO CHOO CLUE TRAIN: LIBBY WAS NEVER TRIED FOR OUTING HER NAME. NEWS MUCH?


A crime was committed, and Libby was trying to protect his bosses. An active CIA agent was outed because her husband refuted a bullshit claim by the administration and that's not a crime? Are you fucking kidding me?

Who cares if she wasn't covert at the time. She had been involved in past investigations and her life was put in jeopardy because her husband blew the lid off of a bullshit lie about WMD the administration was trying to perpetuate and Rove and Cheney decided to retaliate. This is irresponsible and frightening that they would jeopardize the life of someone who serves the country over a political matter.


Who cares how many pardons who has, Bush commuted the sentence of someone who was charged with lying regarding an investigation of his own staff, does anyone here know what "conflict of interest" means? The presidents powers and the lame finger pointing don't apply here as this is a different situation that has very serious implications for our government.

[XxSlusherxx]

Just a couple of notes:

I never said it was proper, I said it is what it is. It's the way it always has been. GWB was completely in his rights to do it, and he's still getting a punishment that is fair according to the U.S. Supreme Court (unless he's not getting any probation, I don't recall reading that).

Technically, it's clemency, not a pardon. He's still on probation (not much of a punishment) and has to pay a $250k fine (not a big deal). The big thing is the conviction on his record which theoretically could hurt his employability and may involve forfeiture of certain civil rights in some states. He has enough friends in powerful places and enough money that it won't make a lick of difference. So in effect, it's a pardon in all but name.

The president has the ability to pardon or reprieve anyone convicted except through impeachment. However use of the power expressly to protect executive branch members who were convicted of obstructing investigations into possibly impeachable offenses in the executive branch is probably (and should rightfully be) an impeachable offense in itself.

It's not. He's not obstructing the law in any way. He has the full right and power to pardon or commute ANYONE he wants for ANY REASON he wants. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me, but theres no rules stating he needs a good reason for commuting Libby. Call it a perk of the job, every president does it.

It is the president obstructing justice in a way, when he can come to you ad say, just say whatever you have to say because I'll pardon you when it's all over. What insentive is there to tell the truth? in fact look at your options, a)tell the truth and put your employer/benefactor in the line of fire jeprodising your finantial future, or b)lie, get convicted, then have it wiped away by your boss. 250k is not a big deal, and is probly being paid back to him by the president in soe round about fasion.

“The reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson,” Fitzgerald writes, “included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.”

I stole this from Fuukos post but I think it actually proves my point better than his, seeing as it pretty much says, we could not go after the real issue at hand because Libby lied without any need to make it seem real.

The commuting of the sentence is dubious to me, I think he should have delayed it till after the appeal, if that is even possible. There are so many things wrong with the entire ordeal, that I personally think the conviction will be reversed on appeal. However, If not he should have had his time still to serve.

appeal was rejected about an hour before the sentance was commuted

[Septimus]

Ha ha ha! Par for the course.

I think a lot of people seem to forget the golden rule of scandals: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

[AzazaelFenrir]

considering he was the scape goat for the whole thing I was not surprised at the commute.

[Kuya]

Question: What exactly is the point of a presidential pardon? What was it made for?

[MF Perm]

Question: What exactly is the point of a presidential pardon? What was it made for?

I believe the idea is that it is the highest moral appeal of justice if law seems to fail due to activist judges and such for the appeal process.

Going to have to look into it for sure though.

[Correction]

Question: What exactly is the point of a presidential pardon? What was it made for?

I would assume for the same reasons Governors can pardon people. Last-ditch instant appeal. Keeps people from being executed.

Unfortunately the 'get out of jail for cronies' phenomenon is a side effect of granting executive power without oversight in this manner.

[Scragg]

CNN gave a summary of the numbers

PARDONS AND COMMUTATIONS
George W. Bush (2001 - )
Pardons -- 13
Commutations -- 4

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Pardons -- 396
Commutations -- 61

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Pardons -- 74
Commutations: 3

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Pardons -- 393
Commutations -- 13

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Pardons -- 534
Commutations -- 29

Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Pardons -- 382
Commutations -- 22

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Pardons -- 863
Commutations -- 60

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
Pardons -- 960
Commutations -- 226

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Pardons -- 472
Commutations -- 100

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

[skurlover]

Prove that he actually outed her name and maybe I'll give a shit about him getting a free pass. He was railroaded from the beginning.

EDIT: Cue everyone saying we need to change the law because this president used powers fully within his rights. Look up Clinton's record if you need the other side of the story.

As it shows he obviosuly has zero clue about what's going on, and just repeating sheep talk he hears on Fox News.

CHOO CHOO CLUE TRAIN: LIBBY WAS NEVER TRIED FOR OUTING HER NAME. NEWS MUCH?

Thanks slick, glad that I didn't already know that. Did you even watch the news in the beginning?

I love the "Sheep Talk from Fox News", that quote is great, you should become a Democratic politician since you already know the lingo. Happen to hear Hilary's comments about it today? I wonder if you look at the pardons from her husband's era, you wouldn't find any skeletons at all.

All in all, I agree with the decision to commute the jail time part of the sentence, as others have mentioned in the past, this would have set a different precedent than in past cases. It sadly, whether you want to admit it or not, was just another vicious witchhunt against an adminstration that is not well liked.

[Devek]

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Which is something we have been saying all along.. It is kind of fucked up to start panicking when Bush does something that presidents have been doing for a very very very long time. Doesn't make it right, but that is just how it is.

[Scragg]

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Which is something we have been saying all along.. It is kind of fucked up to start panicking when Bush does something that presidents have been doing for a very very very long time. Doesn't make it right, but that is just how it is.

IMO, just politics in the information age. You're probably going to hear calls for impeachment for every president from here on out.

[Septimus]

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Which is something we have been saying all along.. It is kind of fucked up to start panicking when Bush does something that presidents have been doing for a very very very long time. Doesn't make it right, but that is just how it is.

How many times does it need to be said, it is not about the use of pardons and commutations, it is about for whom they are used and why. Even Republicans are concerned about this commutation, the only people who don't seem to have issue with is are the 30 percenters.

[Scragg]

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

Which is something we have been saying all along.. It is kind of fucked up to start panicking when Bush does something that presidents have been doing for a very very very long time. Doesn't make it right, but that is just how it is.

How many times does it need to be said, it is not about the use of pardons and commutations, it is about for whom they are used and why. Even Republicans are concerned about this commutation, the only people who don't seem to have issue with is are the 30 percenters.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you there. The only problem is most people don't know the "Who" and "Why" for even 1% of them. You only have to look at the list for a second to realize they aren't all "noble" pardons.

[Correction]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you there. The only problem is most people don't know the "Who" and "Why" for even 1% of them. You only have to look at the list for a second to realize they aren't all "noble" pardons.

Can't prosecute dead people.

[Tyche]

The point I've been trying to make all along, and I think Aurik understood it even though our opinions are opposed is that this has happened before. I'm sure it has happened more times than I could cite off the top of my head. It was outrageous then, and it's outrageous now, and the legislation was still never revised. Some people are saying that these types of matters are not for the president to decide, it's for the legislative process to decide. There is a double-edged sword there however, because legislation allows for the president to decide. This goes without saying that only a year (or two?) ago the supreme court made a ruling that literally made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines a mere suggestion box. Essentially, that is the reason I'm not completely outraged about how this all went down. Granted, the implications of said perjurers are not by any means created equal, I realize this, but saying that "perjury demands jail time" is absolutely incorrect.

[MF Perm]

The point I've been trying to make all along, and I think Aurik understood it even though our opinions are opposed is that this has happened before. I'm sure it has happened more times than I could cite off the top of my head. It was outrageous then, and it's outrageous now, and the legislation was still never revised. Some people are saying that these types of matters are not for the president to decide, it's for the legislative process to decide. There is a double-edged sword there however, because legislation allows for the president to decide. This goes without saying that only a year (or two?) ago the supreme court made a ruling that literally made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines a mere suggestion box. Essentially, that is the reason I'm not completely outraged about how this all went down. Granted, the implications of said perjurers are not by any means created equal, I realize this, but saying that "perjury demands jail time" is absolutely incorrect.

The problem is that this is a base mentality you are being exposed to; that it is "just perjury." Lying about stealing money, or being an accomplice, or some other personal matter has short-term personal implications. I can see calling it "just perjury," but the problem is that his lying and then his sentence being commuted sends a message to anyone that ever wants to serve this country in a respect that their lives are in danger if their identity is revealed that their lives depend not on the morals and laws of this country but on the basis of whose side are you on of the politics of this country.


Why should any federal agent, or anyone serving this country lose their right to free speech or ability to associate someone who not only vocally opposes but completes a public investigation counter to the administration in powers views and goals? This sets an extremely insipid precedent that effects everyone in this country. It is a distortion of the law and a public flaunting of class and power. This isn't "just perjury," this is the ruination of years of lawmaking and moral obligation to this country, it's citizens, and most importantly its servants.


You cannot ever in a million years on any level of logic justify what was done today and throw it away as saying the verdict was too heavy for the crime. Furthermore the person who pardoned him, because of his attachment to the entire scandal, should not have the ability to have pardoned him in light of the facts. Like I said, conflict of interest.

Today all we witnessed was the return of the "good ol' boys" who can run around town causing as much trouble as they like, and no matter who catches or arrests them some type of daddy figure will bail them out. It's fucking disgusting beyond belief that the act that brought it to this occurred, and in a search for truth someone lies and the country and world is taught in America that it is ok to lie, as long as you have powerful friends to bail you out.


And then on top of it all you have 6 year olds - in this forum and on TV - saying BUT HE DID IT TOO!!!!! I CAN DO IT BECAUSE HE DID IT. Pathetic. To even use that phrase in any argument is the likeness of using Nazi in a forum argument. It's a catch all argument someone uses when they have no argument. I'd have more respect for people that had the balls to just say "Yeah nigga my fucking team just did that shit, what now?" instead of using babytalk to fake a point.

[Intense]

Ive read all this, but I'll still never be able to overlook the fact that our Commander in Chief has nicknamed another adult man "Scooter."