Bush commutes Libby's sentence

[tah]

NO!! not that!!

I too was happy to hear he commuted the sentence..

[Celtic Warrior]

NO, she's not right and neither are you. Had it been a members of the "left" that this was all about you people would be all over them with Righteous indignation and Hell fire damnation for them. The words "DOUBLE STANDARD" certainly come to mind reading the posts in this thread. The real issue is that Bush overruled a legally constituted judge and jury to make sure his friend didn't pay for his crime(s) regardless of what (or how severe) they were. He couldn't wait for the appeals process to do it's job. He has NO respect for any other branch of government nor any respect for separation of powers or due process. Money is his chief ally

Laws specifically allow for such intervention by a sitting President. Almost all of them have taken the pardon process much deeper than Bush, but Bush is the one who cares nothing of the law?

The real issue of your post is that you don't like Bush, and have a problem with him doing what is legally at his disposal. You said nothing when Clinton pardoned all of those others just before he left office......or did you. Maybe you can find the posts and quote them here?

Somehow, I don't think you protested quite as loud when Clinton did it.

I know I didn't, because there is nothing we can do about it. Clinton could have pardoned Charles Manson if he wanted to, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's all legal, and it's something we have given to a sitting President.

Also, he did wait until part of the appeal process was over. Libby had an appeal to delay his prison sentence, but a judge denied it. That's when Bush commuted (not pardoned) the punishment portion of the conviction. The conviction still stands. The only difference is that he doesn't go to jail (unless, of course, he messes up in the next two years while on probation).

Relax.

Bush has respect for due process. He exercised it by commuting the sentence, which is an action that is legally at his disposal.

You just happen not to like Bush or Libby, and therefore, you think the action is wrong, right?

Be honest.....

t.

Actually I don't think my post took EITHER side. I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the DOUBLE STANDARD I'm seeing portrayed here. I'm neither right nor left, though I admit I probably lean to the left a bit. I see much EVIL on both sides, as well as the hypocrisy of decrying one evil by portraying another evil as somehow acceptable, moral or good. It's EVIL whether it be from the Right OR the Left, and that's the point all the Pro Bushers here are missing (and most of the pro Clintoners too). Defending evil is defending EVIL regardless of how moral it dresses itself. AND YES, PARDON is within the Presidents powers, not overturning a judges rulings piecemeal. If George wants to PARDON Libby, it is in his power to do so, but what he did is outside his authority.

And yes, I destest the policies and actions of this sitting president and his cabinet. I haven't made any comments about previous regimes because there has been no need to do so here. There are plenty of biased voices here that would hang a man for simply saying he was a democrat, so many so that I see no need to speak out against the evils of them as well. Too many forget that being Christian does NOT give one license to sin by being hateful, divisive, spiteful, bigotted, prejudicial or the ever popular judgemental. IN fact, as I read scripture, Christians are Citizens of THE KINGDOM OF GOD and only RESIDE in America or Canada or Europe or Asia or etc. And Christians DO NOT promote Hate, unlawfulness, deceptions, misuse of power or justify evil because there is another evil they hate so much they can't see beyond it to see the evil they are supporting instead. Those ARE NOT fruits of the Spirit, but instead are fruits of the Sinful Nature (flesh). SO make up your mind, be thee Christian or be thee republican/democrat/american/chinese/martian or whatever

AND please don't read things into my posts that I didn't put there. I don't support either side unconditionally. I try to pick the best man for the post, bsed on the information I can find about them, however in the past several elections (all the way back to Reagan) it's been really hard to tell which side has the greater evil!!

What I WILL NOT vote for is a candidate who's campaign is based pretty much solely on Lies, Character Assassination and avoidance of the issues, and sadly most republican candidates seem to fit that bill much better than their democrat adversaries, at least around here and what I've been able to discern on the national level.

My objections are to the hypocrisy of making Bush's evils somehow palatable because people don't like "liberals" or "demoncrats" There are many Christians who don't like the Republican way of things and support the other side. Perhaps it's time to quit being gutter extremists and start being truly moral, like trying to get a new party started with clean candidates.

I would provide a quote by Dwight Eisenhower:

People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. They have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface, The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.[/b]

-> Dwight D. Eisenhower

And by the way, how do you know what I did (or did NOT) say about anything Clinton did? Again someone tries to cloud the real issue by referring to things they have absolutely NO CLUE about!!!

Edited July 4, 2007 by Celtic Warrior

[Guest LadyC]

sorry celtic, but i do believe that the authority of a president to COMMUTE a sentence was established in 1927... biddle v. perovich.

EDIT: perhaps you should check out this link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/commutation_instructions.htm

[MorningGlory]

No! I don't remember Earl going after Hutchinson. When did that happen?

He tried hard to derail her senate campaign and bring her down in 1993, but it didn't work. You can type "Ronnie Earl and Kay Bailey Hutchison" into a search.

He did also go after Tom Delay.

I just read the Chronicle archives about Sen. Hutchison. I must have been asleep at that time because I don't remember her being indicted and I've voted for her every election since 1994. Without any regrets, I might add. Thanks for bringing me up to speed, Kat.

[Celtic Warrior]

sorry celtic, but i do believe that the authority of a president to COMMUTE a sentence was established in 1927... biddle v. perovich.

EDIT: perhaps you should check out this link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/commutation_instructions.htm

Perhaps so, one can't know everything or every decision made. So maybe George should be happy the court 'legislates from the bench' once in awhile or he'd have to rely on only the powers that the Constitution actually granted him.

[Guest LadyC]

hmmm, such a cynic.

perhaps people who post opinions should check to find out whether they're kneejerk reactions or facts before stating what authority the president does or doesn't have.

[kat8585]

The original charge was in reference to who supposedly outed Valerie Plame. It was not Cheney and it was not Libby. Libby was convicted of perjury because a jury didn't believe him when he said he couldn't recall certain details. Even members of the jury felt he was being made a scape goat and said so, yet they still convicted him. It was a complete travesty of justice. Cheney was never charged or convicted of perjury, and I have no reason to believe he committed any crime. In addition, if the left decides to go on another witch hunt to try to bring him down, I would support Bush going ahead and pardoning Cheney from any possible crimes he may be charged with. This is nothing but a game on the part of liberals who don't care one ioda about justice, but only care about bringing down their political enemies. I stand with the President 100 percent in this matter, and take great satisfaction in the fact there isn't a thing the liberals can do about it.

[Marnie]

hmmm, such a cynic.

perhaps people who post opinions should check to find out whether they're kneejerk reactions or facts before stating what authority the president does or doesn't have.

But didn't you know they're all experts here, Lady C?

[buckthesystem]

All this means is that Libby goes unpunished. I thought the jail sentence was a bit over the top but then again covering up for the VeeP (which I believe is why he lied) is pretty serious. Without the jail time though, he basically gets off scot-free. He will always have a nice cushy high paying job with a company that contributes to the GOP (mark my words this will happen) and he will pay the fine out of his legal fund from his supporters. Granted, he'll be in the history books as a perjurer but he and his family will do just fine.

Funnily enough I am going to disagree with you in this case. Libby has NOT gone unpunished. He has lost his prestige and a great deal of money. Surely that is enough without him having to do jail time as well.

Let the punishment fit the crime. The jail term previously issued was far too excessive.

Anyway, it seems that Libby might have been the victim of a "Liberal witchhunt", so it's good that he has been saved from too much blame.

[kat8585]

Anyway, it seems that Libby might have been the victim of a "Liberal witchhunt".

He definitely was.