Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak Case (Update1)

By Edwin Chen

Quote:

---

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush commuted Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby's prison term in the CIA leak case, saying the 2 1/2 year prison term was ``excessive.''

Libby, 56, was convicted of lying to investigators probing the 2003 leak of CIA official Valerie Plame's identity. Backers of Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, had argued for a pardon. Bush acted after a U.S. appellate court today refused to let Libby stay out of prison during his appeal.

``My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby,'' Bush said in a statement. ``The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long- lasting.''

The president's action means that Libby's conviction still stands and he is still required to pay the $250,000 fine ordered by a federal judge.

The question of whether to intervene in Libby's case had been termed a ``no-win situation'' for the president by David Gergen, who advised Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

With Bush already suffering poor approval ratings, a Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's March 6 conviction found that 69 percent of respondents opposed a pardon while 18 percent favored it. Congressional Democrats, including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, demanded that Bush promise not to pardon Libby.

---

Well, hmmm. No prison, but no pardon for Libby. But, could he still be pardoned down the road? Meanwhile, that rock star Joseph Wilson gets off for his lies (compare 9/11 Commission testimony with his famous op-ed claims), millions of dollars wasted on no convictions for "outing" Ms. Plame, a congress still bloodthirsty for the administration over doing what is entirely within his prerogative in firing some attorneys. If only the Democrats had that same zeal for prosecuting the war on terrorism...

Hello its:

He has the power to commute any sentence. He does NOT have the power to commute a sentence if the reason is to cover up his own crimes. And, that's what he did.

By the way, it isn't very patriotic to out a covert CIA officer and then lie to a grand jury about your involvement. It's EVEN illegal... I guess not to this law and order president.

However, the lesson is clear. Lying to a grand jury ain't so bad... You can bet that I'm NEVER going to tell them the truth either... Why not? He ain't no better than me.

excon

PS> I don't know. Bush hasn't ever been concerned with people in his own state who have been overly punished... Texas DOES execute MORE people than any other state by a LONG shot. I don't know why that is...

This went a little further than I suggested ;which was a respite to keep him out of jail long enough to go through the appeals process... Not that I'm complaining . He is still guilty .Libby still will have to pay a $250,000 fine and will remain on probation for two years.

If I were him I'd still go through with the appeal since the whole sham investigation was a travesty .

So why not prosecute the guilty? All of the Libby proceedings came when the prosecutor already knew it was somebody else. The whole thing was a trumped up witch hunt.

Quote:

---

However, the lesson is clear. Lying to a grand jury ain't so bad... You can bet that I'm NEVER going to tell them the truth either... Why not? He ain't no better than me.

---

But then you knew that in 1998 .

Libby has been found guilty . But the judge was being an .

*He sentenced him to twice the time recommended by the parol board.

*Bill Clinton spent no time in jail for blatant pergury... not faulty memory .If Libby hadn't been Cheney's assistant he would have gotten off with probation, a fine, and disbarment. The Libby sentence was a double standard.

*He denied a very routine request from Libby to delay the sentence until his appeal was heard. It was only through the skill of Libby's lawyers that he has not already begun a sentence.

*He mocked the requests for leniency by a bi-partisan group of legal scholars who's knowledge of the law far exceeds his.

* and don't get me started about " Inspector Javert "Fitgerald ;or his lead witness who himself admitted to having a faulty memory.. Tim Russert.

Bush did not intervene to spare Libby "futher disgrace" as Ford did with the Nixon pardon, and he didn't preempt a prosecution that might reveal embarrassing facts about himself, as GHW did with the Iran -Contra pardons . He waited until it was all over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I were him I'd still go through with the appeal since the whole sham investigation was a travesty .

---

Hello again, tom:

Oh, I'm sure going through with his appeal IS part of the deal. After all, when he's called before a committee, he can't be made to testify while his case is on appeal. He can't be immunized.

The effect of a commutation instead of a pardon, is to insure his silence. This has got Karl Roves fingerprints all over it.

I find it interesting that not ONE of you is a little bit embarrassed, being as how you all are from the law and order party. Parsing the law, because you happen to like what he did, is unseemly, and if you don't mind, hypocritical. Frankly, it stinks.

From the legal perspective, EVEN if there wasn't any underlying crime, and EVEN if they knew somebody else did the deed, Libby lied under oath to a grand jury. What kind of a message does this send?? Aren't you the "message" party?? Don't you want to keep marijuana from being prescribed because of the "message" it would send.

Nooooo, you're not the law and order party. I never believed you were. NOW, you don't either.

SO, the precedent is set. You think it's OK to lie because Clinton did, and got away with it. Frankly, using that excuse would make me throw up. Letting someone get away with a crime because somebody else did, ISN'T how our system works. Now you'll NEVER get the truth out of ANY government official... Boy, did you guys ruin things... And, I mean for generations to come.

excon

I will repost my comments from above

Quote:

---

This went a little further than I suggested ;which was a respite to keep him out of jail long enough to go through the appeals process... Not that I'm complaining . He is still guilty .Libby still will have to pay a $250,000 fine and will remain on probation for two years.

If I were him I'd still go through with the appeal since the whole sham investigation was a travesty .

---

What is your complaint ? That I did not want the book thrown at him ?

If that is it then you are right ;I did not think the sentencing was fair . Nor do I think it was just for the reasons I stated... and as I have told you before I have a bigger concern for justice than being a strict law and order type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I find it interesting that not ONE of you is a little bit embarrassed, being as how you all are from the law and order party. Parsing the law, because you happen to like what he did, is unseemly, and if you don't mind, hypocritical. Frankly, it stinks.

---

Embarrassed about what? Libby didn't commit any crime. There was no crime here. This was a witch hunt to try and implicate Bush, Cheney and Rove in something they had nothing to do with.

If anyone in this trial was guilty of lying it was Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was the one who knew that Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name, not Bush, Cheney or Rove. As soon as he knew that, he should have ended his investigation of the White House and brought that information to light. He didn't. THAT probably constitutes purgery, and certainly is unethical. Not only that, but he refused to allow Armitage to speak about it either, which meant that he didn't turn information that was supposed to be available to defense attorneys over to them. Former DA Nifong is going to be disbarred and possibly jailed for doing the same thing in the Duke rape case.

Quote:

---

From the legal perspective, EVEN if there wasn't any underlying crime, and EVEN if they knew somebody else did the deed, Libby lied under oath to a grand jury. What kind of a message does this send?? Aren't you the "message" party?? Don't you want to keep marijuana from being prescribed because of the "message" it would send.

---

Actually, this is incorrect. There is the legal concept of the "predicate crime". In order for purgery to be proven, the prosecution must first be able to prove that the witness had a REASON to lie in order to protect himself or others from the law. No such reason existed. Therefore, without a predicate crime that Libby would have been lying about, there was no reason to lie, and therefore, any errors in his testimony were just that... errors, not lies. The fact that information differs from witness testimony is NOT enough to prove purgery.

As for messages... what message is being sent by Fitzgerald? That Federal prosecutors are immune from the rule of law as long as they are investigating and persecuting (not a misspelling) Conservatives? That a Federal Prossecutor doesn't have to follow the normal rules of sharing evidence with the defense, as long as he's going after the Bush administration?

Seems to me that Bush is sending exactly the right message by commuting the sentence: Being a member of the Bush Administration is not in and of itself a crime, and if you try to falsely convicte a member of the Bush Administration of a crime that he didn't commit, you will fail.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I find it interesting that not ONE of you is a little bit embarrassed, being as how you all are from the law and order party. Parsing the law, because you happen to like what he did, is unseemly, and if you don't mind, hypocritical. Frankly, it stinks.

---

I like to think I'm more interested in justice than simply law and order. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Being a member of the Bush Administration is not in and of itself a crime, and if you try to falsely convicte a member of the Bush Administration of a crime that he didn't commit, you will fail.

---

Exactly my point in the opening post. Someone had to have a pound of flesh no matter what, and Libby ended up being the guy. If these people were interested in justice it would have never gotten this far, since as you and I and millions of others know - including the prosecutor - that Armitage was the leaker. The left is now throwing another tantrum that they can't find a solid reason to outlaw the Bush administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Boy, did you guys ruin things..... And, I mean for generations to come.

---

Hello again, its:

I've changed my mind - ENTIRELY. Bush did a GOOD thing! Heee's a great president. Happy Birthday America. Bush has given you a gift...

K, what did he do? Well, he started the conversation about harsh sentences... Yes, he contradicted his own deeply held, lifelong right wing policies, and the ENTIRE Justice Department, but he told the truth. Libby's sentence WAS too harsh.

But, so are ALL the sentences that have been meted out since the get tough on crime wave started - when?? Twenty, thirty years ago?

Now, about that conversation I mentioned... It's going to take place between defense lawyers and judges. It's going to take the form of what will become known as the "Libby Motion" or maybe the “Scooter Defense". It will demand that their client get the same treatment Libby got.

I think it'll work. We're going to end the horror that our prison warehouses have become, and I have Bush to thank for it. The Emperor has NO clothes after all, and it was Bush himself who revealed it... Hooray, hooray, the evil witch is dead!

excon

PS> Yeah, yeah, yeah…. This was the exact opposite of what he wanted to do... But, his presidency is rife with that kind of stuff, isn't it?

The Libby defense will be if you are found guilty of perjury and obstruction ;and then denied by a judicial system playing political football of the reasonable [and within the guidelines ]request of bail pending appeal ;then you can too petition the President for commutation.

Was the appellates decision to deny him that political ? Absolutely ! They knew that if Libby was out on bail pending appeal that the decision would ride throughout the rest of the Bush Presidency . Then after the elections Bush could issue a pardon without it becoming an election issue. The court acted to force Bush's hand . Bush then acted politically by issuing his commutation . The difference here is that a political decision is within the proper role of the President . It is not in the proper role of the judiciary .

So what you had in this case is a district court judge acting politically by issuing an improperly excessive penalty ;appellate court judges acting politically for the reasons I cited above ;and the President ,who's constitutional prerogative to issue reprieves is political ,acting politically .

But then again... this was a political case from the day Sen. Shumer began bleating for an "independent " prosecutor.