Hey folks! Been a while.
The Left has gone all ga-ga over this recent turn of events. The usual suspects have chimed in with numerous posts (and TV show bits) blasting the president's move. Of course, these same buffoons were cheering at that press conference nine years ago where Bill Clinton was dubbed the "greatest president of our generation" even though HE lied under oath. Oh, but you see, he lied to "protect his family" while Libby what -- lied to protect his friends? Gee, what a difference.
How come Richard Armitage, the man who actually leaked Valerie Plame's name, hasn't been prosecuted? Maybe it's because the law in question requires that the person who actually did the "leaking" KNOW that the leaked identity was covert. Since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not go after Armitage, it seems logical that his reason for not doing was because he knew Armitage committed no crime. So, that leaves Libby, who got caught in a fib either because he thought (wrongly) that he was "protecting" somebody, or he was downright "sloppy." Hey -- "sloppy"! That sounds familiar! Riiiight -- that's the excuse Clinton administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger used for his hiding National Archive documents in his socks(!) when exiting the Archives building! This is clearly a crime, yet what did Berger face? A $10,000 fine and a suspension of his national security clearance. For stealing national security documents. And Scooter Libby still has to pay over 20 times that amount despite President Bush's prison sentence commutation. For ... lying about a non-existent crime.
If Berger's restitution is fair, Libby's is more than fair.
Hube:
I oppose these insider deals where the perp gets special treatment. No matter what the party affiliation. They send the wrong message to the rest of us peons.
That said, did you know Libby was one of Marc Rich's attorneys? He helped defend Rich in his big-dollar white-collar corruption case.
Posted by: AJ Lynch at July 3, 2007 10:18 AMAJ: I tend to agree (and it was Felix's post, BTW, not mine). I opposed Clinton's impeachment quite vociferously.
Posted by: Hube at July 3, 2007 10:33 AM"I oppose these insider deals where the perp gets special treatment."
You're right of course. Libby got special treatment from Patrick Fitzgerald because he worked for the evil Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed, and even who had committed the non-crime. Still, he went ahead with his special treatment and managed to badger Libby into perjuring himself. Heck, he even got Novak, Armitage, and Colin Powell to keep quiet so he could manufacture a crime. That's prosecutorial misconduct, in my book.
Posted by: G Rex at July 3, 2007 11:57 AMCan justice be obstructed if no crime was committed?
Posted by: Ryan S. at July 3, 2007 04:06 PMCome on guys- a jury convicted him of lying to a grand jury. How would you explain this commutation to kids in a civics class? How would you explain to a kid in a civics class that no underlying crime was involved?
Perjury is a crime- and I agree the Plame imbroglio was much ado about nothing. But why did he lie? Is he a dope? He can't remember things? If so, what the fluff was he doing working for our VP in a high position?
AJ, Your point is valid, but then how would you explain to kids in a civics class (do they even teach that any more?) why Libby was subpoenaed in the first place if there was no crime?
Posted by: G Rex at July 3, 2007 05:17 PMGreg X:
Grand juries are convened to consider evidence and determine if a crime was convicted and if someone should be charged with commiting the crime.
That is what happened here and Libby apparently lied for some strange reason.
It is not that unusual for a target of a grand jury to not be charged with a crime (i.e dumbass incompetent Philly Mayor Street).
Posted by: AJ Lynch at July 3, 2007 06:02 PMClinton, Libby: "There's no lying in baseball!"
Clinton was charged but never convicted.
Libby was convicted and awaiting appeal.
It is a Presidential prerogative to change a judicial outcome at any time for any reason.
Clinton did it.
One would expect any President to use good judgment. Bush has already done it, and now once again.
Did Clinton use good judgment? Not always, in my view.
Did Bush use good judgment? Not with Libby, in my view. I could understand Bush reducing Libby's prison sentence, but not all of it, in my view.
Lying and obstructing justice to a Grand Jury, regardless of the reason, is a terrible thing to do. It's simply illegal. Don't we all agree?
The Grand Jury is charged with evaluating evidence presented to determine if a crime has been committed. Libby's behavior interfered with this process as far as Fitzgerald was concerned, the Jury agreed, and the Judge agreed and sentenced him. That is the process and the outcome.
Perhaps 30 months was too severe, but Libby should have served some time, in order to uphold the rule of law.
Once again, Bush has shown that he does not value the rule of law when he does not care for its restrictions or the outcome therefrom.
How does one teach that value, the rule of law, to a civics class when a contemporary President violates that value right before their eyes?
Posted by: Perry Hood at July 3, 2007 07:09 PMThe "rule of law" explicitly gives the President this power in the Constitution; it does not defy the rule of law but it rather IS the rule of law. Article II, Section 2 should be taught in these same Civics classes; an example might actually be helpful. Whether or not it is appropriate in this case is another argument. Bush has not (as of yet) overturned the jury verdict; he merely disagreed with the judge's sentence. I doubt our legal system is in danger. And given the recent study that 1 in 6 juries may be incorrect, I wouldn't be too upset with a system refinement anyway.
I also find the "special treatment" argument specious. Given the number of pardons/commutations throughout history, and the total number of convictions throughout history, you'd arrive at a minute percentage, I'm sure. ANY pardon or commutation is by definition "special treatment".
Posted by: The Unabrewer at July 4, 2007 02:42 AMI'll add that if Bush did break the law by doing this in return for political favors or money or as a cover-up, impeachment proceedings should begin, which would also be the rule of law.
Posted by: The Unabrewer at July 4, 2007 02:43 AMOddly enough, there is clear evidence that Clinton did issue pardons in exchange for money, but no investigation or criminal charges were ever pursued.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 4, 2007 11:26 AM