CNN: Bush commutes Scooter Libby’s sentence. Good. I really don’t care if this guy personally goes to prison, and I figure this will cause Bush to lose another point or two in the polls, increasing demand that Congress get to the bottom of the leak of Plame’s identity.
Comments are closed.
Good? Are you kidding? Do you really think that him losing another couple of points in the polls is going to make a bit of difference?
The most dangerous man is one with nothing to lose. He’ll take us down in flames.
Hell yeah. I’m riding this train clear to November 2008. Bush doing something stupid means our odds are that much better of taking back the White House.
Waldo, by that logic are you hoping for, say, a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Tehran? Or another federal non-response to a major hurricane this year?
The more stupid things GW does in 2007, the more damage he does. If he gets away unscathed from the Libby commutation it enhances his ability to continue to do stupid things that affect more than a single person. I’ll concede that if this blows up in his face and proves to be the final straw that leads the Democratic leadership to get a backbone transplant and seriously consider impeachment then it will have produced some positive results, but in general I don’t think that good comes out of a reprehensible action.
Ah, no, not with the caveat I posted in the original blog entry:
Not responding to a hurricane kills many people. Dropping a nuke would kill hundreds of thousands of people. Whether or not Scooter Libby goes to prison? It’s all the same to me. Seems to me like the guy’s mostly a scapegoat, anyhow.
If you’re curious about who “leaked” Plame’s oh-so-super-secret identity: His name was Richard “Dick” Armitage and this was known to Javert, er, Fitzgerald, long before he even began looking at Libby.
Again, it’s the “I know you are, but what am I?” man.
~
Waldo, I know we’ve gotten a bit used to the idea of GOP figures getting away with their crimes, but that doesn’t make it any less bad each time it happens. Further, we’ve now moved into an obscenely active obstruction of justice, which if allowed to pass into the media narrative as just another political act will have done serious and permanent damage to our political system. This is the kind of shit they do in Pakistan. I enjoyed my time visiting that country, but I’ve no interest in living there.
Heaven forbid that Scooter-pie has to spend one day at Club Fed.
This is inexcusable, and Bush will still lose a few more points in the polls. If Congress didn’t have enough to ask questions and get to the bottom of this before, then this would make little difference.
I hope I don’t see Congress just going through the motions on this. I want the answers to many questions that have been begging for years.
Watch what John Dean had to say tonight on Countdown for more on the inside of an administration’s meltdown.
GRANT OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
– – – – – – –
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, 2 years’ supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
I’m beginning to wonder if the low approval numbers are turning into Bush/Cheney’s ticket to ride. Like MB says, with nothing to lose, maybe they feel even more free to do absolutely anything they want. Maybe Bush thinks God is speaking to him through his low numbers — Blessed are the poor in approval ratings, for they care not what they do.
It took Bush-leage almost a week to ‘provide (federal) aid’ to New Orleans, but let one of the inner circle folks who ‘know enough to roll on him’ have to report to prison…and he will move a mountain to ‘provide aid’. The full pardon will come with the rest at the end of Shrubs tenure (to keep Scooter from writing a book).
Oh Smails, that cut and paste from the Home Office will surely earn you $100 Rove Dollars to spend at Kamp Karl this summer.
It’s really amusing how feral-toothed all you rabid leftwingers become when someone else’s tit’s in the wringer. Of course, you couldn’t be bothered much with Slick Willie’s perjury or Sandy Berger’s destruction of documents, but when it comes to some Republican who misremebered a few phone calls pertaining to a “crime” for which it’s already been established another person was guilty of “leaking” you wanna lock him up and throw away the key. Whatever.
If it’s any consolation, I’m pissed off too. Pissed off that, in all likelihood, Scooter Libby has to wait another 18 months for what Marc Rich already has – a full pardon.
Again, son, successful trolls are either clever or funny. Please try harder.
The reason for the commutation was to preserve his 5th amendment excuse not to explain why he lied.
“His name was Richard “Dick” Armitage and this was known to Javert, er, Fitzgerald, long before he even began looking at Libby.”
Oh, is that the story you guys are telling now? Amusing.
Right Wing Dictionary
Lying = ‘misremembered’
Court of Law = inconvenience
Lying about the outing of a covert CIA agent = ‘crime’
Conviction by a jury of their peers = ‘excessive’
some Republican = The Chief of Staff to the Vice President and
Assistant to the President
JS, you seem to think everything is black and white. Do you see anyone here applauding the pardon of Marc Rich? I thought it was a very bad decision, and yes, my tit was in the wringer.
Oh, the handwringing! The extreme measures! Who, I say, Who will think of the children?
Gotta disagree with you on this one Waldo. We paid a big price for failing to punish the Iran Contra conspirators, we will pay a bigger one if we don’t punish this crowd.
Send them to The Hague!
Judge,
hmmmm, do you think you would get this special treatment if you happened for some reason to be convicted of perjury?
Also, lets see Republican Prosecutor, Republican Judges . . . they sure are pushing a political agenda.
And lets talk about selective outrage . . . were you this sanguine back about Rich’s pardon? I am sure you were, right? I wasn’t. Me, I was pissed. But at least he had been a fugitive for awhile. By the way Libby was one of the prime movers in attaining the Rich pardon . . . justice is so inconvenient for him.
Oh and then there is this poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4b5255b9-3878-4082-b7d0-160d8ddcd52e
I suppose it is only left wingers who are down with excluding the goose from what is good for the gander.
You know because Republicans and Bush are SOOO tough on crime . . . but then again having young children is an acceptable reason for not sending someone to jail . . . when you are friends with the guy.
It’s worth noting that most people who bring up the Rich pardon do so in deliberate ignorance of the actual stated reasons for the pardon. Clinton did, in fact, explain why he thought it advanced the cause of justice in this case, and it’s not like Rich got off scott free: part of the conditions of the pardon was paying back the government millions and millions of energy dollars that otherwise would have been tied up in endless litigation as well as waiving any protections from civil suits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600
It’s also amusing that Judge Smalls thinks there is some sort of “cat’s out of the bag” exception to covert secrets law: perhaps he could let us all know where in the statute that clause appears?
Since there seems to be some disbelief/dispute that Richard Armitage was the one who actually outed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, I am providing the following:
Here is a Robert Novak column – the guy at the center of the storm – from September 14, 2006.
In case you’re tempted to NOT read the article, here’s part of Novak’s first sentence that should help clarify things: “When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee …”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html
Thanks Smails. That little diatribe woke up a brain cell, because I had seen that sentiment before. A little Googlin’ and I finally figured out who you are. Of course, I will not divulge that (cant say that for Scooter or Dick.*, eh?) but suffice it so say folks…he is actually quite reserved here.
Oh, on Slick Willie, I was calling for his impeachment, when he lied under oath. Remember, he was impeached for lying under oath? And I am also calling for a Bush impeachment…if you could get a Bushie, a bible and a judge in the same room?
Olivia, I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. But I’m not at all sure how it’s relevant (in the non-Smails world, I mean).
My biggest problem with the Libby conviction was that it occurred as a result of an investigation into who leaked Val. P’s identity when the name of the leaker was already known to Fitzgerald from the earliest stages. It’s akin to, oh, I don’t know, going after someone for lying about an affair when the basis for the investigation was a failed land deal in Arkansas.
Gotta agree with Alice. This right-wing notion that they can subvert the law has its roots in Nixon, but was vindicated by Iran Contra. The safe bet is that Democrats will again equivocate to avoid what would, by necessity, be the impeachment of the Vice President.
Libby was the loose thread, and his prison sentence was how the truth would have been pulled free. Bush fixed that danger. But Bush is no Reagan, and Iraq/Afghanistan is no anti-communist diddle.
I do think you’re right about that, Bubby. It seems likely that Libby was saved from prison by Bush in order to keep him from talking. But I just can’t muster any outrage at this. Perhaps if the possibility had never been suggested, surprise alone may have been enough to do it. I’d come to accept a pardon as inevitable, though so if anything, this commutation seems restrained, though only in comparison to my cynical expectations.
The commuting of the sentence was a move calculated to provoke equivocation from Congress and the public illusion that Bush is “restrained”. The pardon comes later, after Libby’s probation is complete.
But after 6.5 years of Bush43, it should be clear that “restrained” and “George Bush” don’t belong in the same sentence. Any restraint on George Bush will have to be imposed.
So by this logic, it would be morally justified if, during future President Michael Moore’s term (or whatever liberal boogieman you want), he also commuted the sentance of his VP’s chief of staff after he was convicted by in a trial by jury of purjury? After all, G. W. Bush did it.
Honestly, what gets me most is that Libby gets out of two years of minimum security prison (and frankly, neither parole nor a fine of that size is really hurting him that bad, and contrary to what Bush has said, his reputation amongst the Republican die-hard has only increased from this affair), while someone like Genarlow Wilson was being left to rot (until very recently) because of a technicality in the law.
On an unrelated note,
Hello, irony. As I’ve said previously, this kind of crap just brings the level of discourse here down, and I’m disappointed to see regulars here jump on the conservatives who pull this crap, but look the other way when it’s someone you agree with. And since I have no interest in engaging in a flame war this time around, I’ll leave the discussion with that thought.
Thank you, hall monitor.
I’ve made up a badge for Ben, and he will make people sit in the front of the bus.
Good thing I’m a walker.
Smalls: “My biggest problem with the Libby conviction was that it occurred as a result of an investigation into who leaked Val. P’s identity when the name of the leaker was already known to Fitzgerald from the earliest stages. It’s akin to, oh, I don’t know, going after someone for lying about an affair when the basis for the investigation was a failed land deal in Arkansas.”
I don’t know where you got this story, (well I do: it’s the story conservatives tell in order to hoodwink folks) but it’s BS.
1) there wasn’t just one leaker
2) Armitage couldn’t be prosecuted under the statute because it requires knowledge that he couldn’t be proven to have
3) there wasn’t just one leaker, and it doesn’t matter, in terms of the law, whether or not it was already leaked
4) perjury charges are about obstruction of justice, not about whether or not the investigation turns up anything, ever, so the issue you raise is utterly irrelevant
5) Fitzgerald certainly has a good case to make that Libby’s lying helped stymie the investigation: part of the reason he hasn’t been able to bring charges is precisely because people lied and lied and lied again as well as stonwalling him.
Please keep your alternate reality out of the actual reality. If you guys want to comfort yourself with imaginary legal principles and fantasy stories, please do it in the comfort of your own political spectrum.
MB – plunge was disputing that Armitage was the one who outed Plame. That is why I posted the link.
Ah, sorry. Didn’t read it like that, but thanks.
I got some of them Rove Dollars once. They ain’t no good.
Olivia, I don’t want to be insulting, but perhaps you could read what I say before pretending to respond. Armitage was A leak, and no one disputed that in the first place. He was not the ONLY leaker, and his leaking was irrelevant to whether or not Fitzgerald had cause to investigate the matter or belief that there were crimes to prosecute. My initial post wasn’t exactly clear on that, since it was simply snark, but my subsequent posts have, I think, made that quite clear. The “Armitage was THE leak and Fitzgerald knew it so the whole thing was a sham” is poppycock.
That’s a pretty thin reed. As David Corn from The Nation noted with remarkable understatement:
The Plame leak in Novak’s column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence. The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=116511
Yes, you DO mean to be insulting. It is quite clear.
Your original post was NOT clearly a snark.
And if you will look at the time, maybe you could note that it was highly probable that I was forming my post as you were forming your more in-depth post. Therefore, your only post on the subject was the one which said that the Republicans were using Armitage as their story now. But perhaps it is far easier to be nasty when someone dares to post something contradictory to you. Especially since you seem to be making the assumption that I am some kind of conservative.
I’m with Waldo on this one. And as far as voters go, I believe that no one but political junkies care in the least.
“Therefore, your only post on the subject was the one which said that the Republicans were using Armitage as their story now.”
Which isn’t the same thing as claiming that Armitage wasn’t a leaker. You jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
The Armitage excuse remains poppycock.
So what’s yer theory? That a VP WH aide leaked the identity of a CIA Officer after it had already been published in a national newspaper column? Well, it’s different. I’ll give you that.
Isn’t it more likely that the WH was just trying to push back against Joe Wilson’s false claims about Niger and how he got sent there? A bipartisan Senate Cmte.’s already called him a liar.
You just seem like you’re a hyper-partisan uninformed fool.
“So what’s yer theory? That a VP WH aide leaked the identity of a CIA Officer after it had already been published in a national newspaper column? Well, it’s different. I’ll give you that.”
Not only different: exactly what Fitzgerald was investigating.
Of course, since you are prepared to write me off (in addition to somehow pulling in conservative Bush appointees in your web of Democratic conspiracy), why not check what actual informed conservative lawyers have to say about that matter?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_01-2007_07_07.shtml#1183476772
And again, please understand that the legal principle you seem to imply, the “cat’s out of the bag” principle, does not, in fact, exist. The excuse that it’s okay for government officials to confirm classified informationif the information is accidentally released into the public domain is a non-starter. I’ve worked as a paralegal on lots of cases in which I’ve come across juicy information about various public figures, some of which was already out there as rumors in the press. But my duty of confidentiality still requires me to stay silent on those things regardless: there, again, is no “cats out of the bag” clause to such agreements, or in national security.