georgesbluegirl Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I wasn't talking about precedent, I was talking about rules. The president is not supposed to be able to commute sentences unless all other options have been exhausted - i.e. Bush should have waited until the appeals process was over, at least. No such requirement exists. Besides, all other options were exhausted. A judge ruled that Libby would have to serve his jail sentence immediately, even though his appeals were not completed. Had Bush not commuted that sentence, he would have gone to jail, and that would have been a travesty of justice. I have had issues with Bush lately with regard to the immigration bill, but I support his decision here. I only wish he had given Libby a full pardon. While he is at it, there are others I would like him to pardon, like the border agents who shot the Mexican drug dealer, and the Abu Grad soldiers who humiliated terrorists. No, there is technically no requirement - only "recommendations" from the U.S. Pardon Attorney. I'm not surprised Bush commuted Libby's sentence, but I wish he'd at least followed the guidelines: Sec. 1.3 Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence. No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. What were the exceptional circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 I wasn't talking about precedent, I was talking about rules. The president is not supposed to be able to commute sentences unless all other options have been exhausted - i.e. Bush should have waited until the appeals process was over, at least. No such requirement exists. Besides, all other options were exhausted. A judge ruled that Libby would have to serve his jail sentence immediately, even though his appeals were not completed. Had Bush not commuted that sentence, he would have gone to jail, and that would have been a travesty of justice. I have had issues with Bush lately with regard to the immigration bill, but I support his decision here. I only wish he had given Libby a full pardon. While he is at it, there are others I would like him to pardon, like the border agents who shot the Mexican drug dealer, and the Abu Grad soldiers who humiliated terrorists. No, there is technically no requirement - only "recommendations" from the U.S. Pardon Attorney. I'm not surprised Bush commuted Libby's sentence, but I wish he'd at least followed the guidelines: Sec. 1.3 Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence. No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. What were the exceptional circumstances? The exceptional circumstances were the ordering of Libby to jail in a travesty of justice. Prior to the appeals process being worked out. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Libby was convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge who followed the standards for reasonable punishment that existed long before Libby's case. It is not for us to decide whether or not Libby is innocent despite that ruling; the court system takes care of that. Bush stated that he thought Libby's sentence was "excessive," not that Libby himself was innocent of the crimes of which he had been accused. He then proceeded to commute his sentence before the appeals process was over - the judge's order to start serving time should have stood, regardless of what Bush decided to do AFTER the appeal. It's clear favoritism. Equal treatment under the law and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Yes, it was his right, but that's not really the question (aside from the fact that he did ignore the guidelines, but I'll set that aside for the moment). What it comes down to is a question of ethics. Given the stalemate between Congress and the White House over the subpoena orders, it worries me that the President is willing to quickly pardon those in his administration doing the dirty work - specifically, Cheney's dirty work (maybe we should just impeach Cheney and take care of all of it that way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Libby was convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge who followed the standards for reasonable punishment that existed long before Libby's case. It is not for us to decide whether or not Libby is innocent despite that ruling; the court system takes care of that. Bush stated that he thought Libby's sentence was "excessive," not that Libby himself was innocent of the crimes of which he had been accused. He then proceeded to commute his sentence before the appeals process was over - the judge's order to start serving time should have stood, regardless of what Bush decided to do AFTER the appeal. It's clear favoritism. Equal treatment under the law and all. Scotter's sentence was decried by most attorneys as excessive. Do a Nexis/Lexis search and you'd be amazed that even not-partisan liberal talking heads at the time were commenting at the severity of the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Cheney's dirty work To what are you referring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Speaking of "equal treatment under the law." For months and months now we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is now well known that the only thing Scooter is guilty of is perjury. Let's see, I guess you can get away with perjury if you are a sitting President of this country. Good point, Clinton was certainly no better, the people he gave clemency to were real criminals versus just political hacks like Libby. So yeah I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arff33 Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 5 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is now well known that the only thing Scooter is guilty of is perjury. Let's see, I guess you can get away with perjury if you are a sitting President of this country. Good point, Clinton was certainly no better, the people he gave clemency to were real criminals versus just political hacks like Libby. So yeah I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is now well known that the only thing Scooter is guilty of is perjury. Let's see, I guess you can get away with perjury if you are a sitting President of this country. Good point, Clinton was certainly no better, the people he gave clemency to were real criminals versus just political hacks like Libby. So yeah I don’t see big differences in that way. The thing that bothers me is that there was a leak, it was real, and it all got obscured, I don't think Libby was even the original person who leaked and then he got tangled up in the mess and had to take the fall for those higher up. I don’t know how Cheney can look at Libby and what he did to that man’s career and family. THERE WAS NO REAL LEAK. Yes Armitage let it be known that Plame worked for the CIA, but the prosecuter already knew that. Plaime was not a covert agent so NO CRIME WAS committed. This was nothing but a political witch hunt. THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED!! Right. According to the timeline, by the time Scooter said what he did, even the press knew about Plame. And there is still some question as to whether or not she was even a covert operative! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts