Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Well that would depend on the subject. Internal politics like Bush pardoning Libby (which is what we were talking about) has nothing to do with Canada.

Well we somewhat digressed didn't we from the main subject. You generally said that foreigners should sod off, without qualifying veryu much. But I also pointed out that the US has routinely butted into internal Canadian affairs with no regard for our interest or our sovereignty.

But yes at the end of the day I have no say in what your president should do. But neither do you. He's an elected official and until the next election none of us can do anything about it. But since we're all people and we all have opinions and we have a vested interest in the health of American democracy we like to banter on about whats right or wrong with the most important country in the world. When I say he shouldn't have commuted Libby's sentense its a theoretical discussion. I'm talking about why it was a bad thing to do and why I as an observer of significant political occurances see it as a problem for democracy or just wrong morally.

And do you realise that while it is your constitution August, it is in many ways mine too? The American constitution, as my father put it, is the greatest document of the modern era. It gives us something that we never had before and it does it so well that so many nations have either used it heavily for inspiration or have down right ripped it off (I believe its Vietnam that has a constitution that is only different from the American one where 'The United States of America' is exchanged for 'Vietnam'). So the health of American democracy is important to us all.

And if you are so sensitive to non-Americans expressing opinions about your country then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a message board with significant numbers of nosey opinionated foreigners. But I don't mean that seriously, its just another point. What else is a message board for if not to discuss things?

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...120913,00.html

Ha ha. Good man Terry

Well that's a nice propaganda piece but just filled with inaccuracies

For example Terry Jones says:

When Bush became governor in 1995, the average number of executions in the state was 7.6 a year. During his time in office, he managed to put down a further 24 humans a year, bringing the annual number of executions up to 31.6

Maybe an foreign actor like Jones doesn't understand this but a US state Governor doesn't "put down" anyone. Juries and judges do that for capital crimes (like cold blooded murder) in accordance with long standing (read pre Bush) Texas law, but of course you knew that right?

Then there is the case of Victor Rita. Far from having an "umblemished record", Rita was first convicted of the crime of perjury in May of 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. So if we are being asked to compare the two cases we see that Libby gets a jail sentence for his first offense and Rita gets probation for his. That sort of shoots down the whole analogy don'cha think?

Then there is the fact that Rita's second perjury case (you know, the one Jones claim was his first?) was part of an investigation into Rita buying illegal machinegun parts which the court found he deliberately attempted to conceal by switching the illegal parts for other legal ones. In Libbys case the investigators already knew he wasn't the source of the leak they were investigating so, unlike the Rita case, there was no underlying crime to justify the more severe sentance.

Really Tchocky, you should at least check up on your facts just a little before you present the word of a foreign actor as relevant to the discussion. Last I heard experience with Monty Python hardly qualifies him as an expert in American legal proceedings.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe an foreign actor like Jones doesn't understand this but a US state Governor doesn't "put down" anyone. Juries and judges do that for capital crimes (like cold blooded murder) in accordance with long standing (read pre Bush) Texas law, but of course you knew that right?

No, I didn't know that. But doesn't he sign the death warrants? And wouldn't it be a bit strange if the executions tripled when he became Governor, but for a completely unrelated reason? I'm sure the process was the same before El Diablo got the Texas job, but why did the rate triple?
meh

Or maybe, just maybe, Jones was using the phrase "put down" in a comic/satirical sense, like he does in the rest of the article.

Then there is the case of Victor Rita. Far from having an "umblemished record", Rita was first convicted of the crime of perjury in May of 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. So if we are being asked to compare the two cases we see that Libby gets a jail sentence for his first offense and Rita gets probation for his. That sort of shoots down the whole analogy don'cha think?

The NYT tells me that, like Libby, Rita has a clear record as far as federal sentencing guidelines go.
That could be where Jones is getting his words from.

Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

So, as far as the courts were concerned, the cases were similiar. (Maybe, I'm not bothered going into this very far)
So, the analogy may stand up.

Then there is the fact that Rita's second perjury case (you know, the one Jones claim was his first?) was part of an investigation into Rita buying illegal machinegun parts which the court found he deliberately attempted to conceal by switching the illegal parts for other legal ones. In Libbys case the investigators already knew he wasn't the source of the leak they were investigating so, unlike the Rita case, there was no underlying crime to justify the more severe sentance.

Whether they knew he was the source or not, that makes no difference to the fact that he was convicted for perjury. Let's take it from the article

"did knowingly and corruptly endeavour to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice by misleading and deceiving the grand jury"

OK, so he didn't leak. Wahey, we knew that already. But he did obstruct the investigation into the source, from which we can assume his motive was to protect a guilty party. That's quite serious.

Really Tchocky, you should at least check up on your facts just a little before you present the word of a foreign actor as relevant to the discussion. Last I heard experience with Monty Python hardly qualifies him as an expert in American legal proceedings.

Ok, look at my post. It starts with "Ha ha". The article I linked was written by a comedian. It's written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I wasn't posting it as an incisive filleting of the American legal system as far as perjury is concerned, and you know that.
If I'm linking to something in pursuit of debate, I'll check it out at least superficially. But when the article isn't serious, when it's satirical and not set to change minds, I let it go unexamined.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by waste gate

How so? Is perjury somewhat treasonous and traitorous? Remember it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name to Robert Novak, not Scooter.

Her is the fella.




If anyone should have been prosecuted for outing a CIA operative it should have been Armitage. But it seems that the special prosecutor was after an administration official.

Armitage got the info about Plame's identity and covert status from the Vice-President's office according to Fitzgerald. So did Rove and Ari Fleischer. As Fitzgerald pointed out, the leaks all originated from the VP's office. It was the CIA who initiated the investigation with Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case due to possible conflict-of-interest, bringing Fitzgerald in as Special Prosecutor.

It was Fitzgerald's investigation and questioning of Libby that revealed his perjury and obstruction of justice as Fitzgerald attempted to determine if Cheney himself had ordered the leaks to discredit Ambassador Wilson.

The commutation and potential pardon by Bush are nothing less than the President becoming an Accessory to Obstruction of Justice.

To those who complain about Clinton's pardons. As sleazy as they were, none were granted to his own administration staffers involved in covering up his own crimes. Also, as sleazy as Clinton's behavior was, no one was killed and no unnecessary wars were generated by it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

To those who complain about Clinton's pardons. As sleazy as they were, none were granted to his own administration staffers involved in covering up his own crimes.

Yeah Susan McDougal wasn't technially part of his administration, just a business partner involved in covering up the Clintons involvement in the Whitewater scandal. I guess that's different somehow.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah Susan McDougal wasn't technially part of his administration, just a business partner involved in covering up the Clintons involvement in the Whitewater scandal. I guess that's different somehow.

How is that relavent? It isn't a direct equal to Ishmael's accusation. Pardoning someone is different than bringing someone to help in a scandal. The two actions are different, and any political entity would do what you accuse Clinton. If you want to get into why anyone hires who then I could say many of the people that Bush has in his Admin is far worse than anyone that ever surrounded Clinton. Karl Rove alone is enough to show the dishonest spirit of this particular presidential crew. But that isn't the issue at hand. Clinton didn't pardon someone in an attempt at self preservation or giving a free ride to a member of his inner group.

Stop referring back to Clinton. Its always a stretch. "Bush did this but Clinton sorta did something less than honest too thats not really of the same caliber." Can you muster a better argument than "Remember Clinton" or "Its in the constitution so sod off"?

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

How is that relavent? It isn't a direct equal to Ishmael's accusation. Pardoning someone is different than bringing someone to help in a scandal. The two actions are different, and any political entity would do what you accuse Clinton. If you want to get into why anyone hires who then I could say many of the people that Bush has in his Admin is far worse than anyone that ever surrounded Clinton. Karl Rove alone is enough to show the dishonest spirit of this particular presidential crew. But that isn't the issue at hand. Clinton didn't pardon someone in an attempt at self preservation or giving a free ride to a member of his inner group.

Stop referring back to Clinton. Its always a stretch. "Bush did this but Clinton sorta did something less than honest too thats not really of the same caliber." Can you muster a better argument than "Remember Clinton" or "Its in the constitution so sod off"?

Well it's only a stretch to you because your political leaning prevents you from seeing the obvious. Let me remind you that the other half of the Clinton team, and they ARE a team, is a serious contender for the Democratic party Presidential nomination next year, so stop acting like they are yesterdays news.

After all they are the people who sent Sandy Berger into the national archives to steal and destroy vital evidence on 9-11, they are the people who traded military secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions, they are the people whose 8 years of ineffective responses to various Al Quaeda attacks got more than a few Americans killed around the world and emboldened them to attack us here in our homeland. These are the people you think are less dishonest than Carl Rove?

Susan McDougal was pardoned in return for her silence about the details of the ClintonS (as in plural) involvement in the Whitewater scandal. She was exactly the same type of sacrifical lamb that you claim Libby to be and a direct comparison to the Ismaels original statment.

This is why I feel we shouldn't pay heed to the opinions of foreigners such as yourself, at least when its about our nations internal politics. Rarely do any of you have even a clue to our nations mood or the workings of our government, but you all still have an opinion which you insist on repeating ad nauseum. I apologize if i sound a bit callous or arrogant but I grow weary of it having read it ever since the days of DECnet.

Now you seem to have some kind of axe to grind against us with your repeated mention of various transgressions, like our subs travelling to close to your shores and the, what did you call it?, "treasonous"?, complicity of your government in cooperating with ours. Maybe instead of worrying about who our Presidents pardon for crimes that have nothing to do with your country, you ought to concentrate on your own politicans.

I PROMISE that if you do you won't hear a peep out of me about it. Your business is your own.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Susan McDougal was pardoned in return for her silence about the details of the ClintonS (as in plural) involvement in the Whitewater scandal. She was exactly the same type of sacrifical lamb that you claim Libby to be and a direct comparison to the Ismaels original statment.

Thats not entirely true. For one she was convicted in 1996 and pardoned in 2001. Libby was convicted last week and commuted... how many days was it? I think 5 years and less time than it takes to get transferred to prison after a sentense is just a touch different. And the other thing is loan fraud and a breach of national security sit in two very different worlds of severity. Its especially bad in a time when the executive is calling for more broad actions against freedom to protect said freedom and is acting in ways that don't conform to its own policy... or maybe they really do.

But you're right that it was a shady deal. But what I can't figure out is how you seem to be arguing two mutually exclusive points. Either the president can do what he wants with his constitutional rights, ie. commuting Libby's sentense, or its a sick miscarriage of the public good that he does whatever he likes with it, ie. Clinton pardoning McDougal.

Now you seem to have some kind of axe to grind against us with your repeated mention of various transgressions, like our subs travelling to close to your shores and the, what did you call it?, "treasonous"?, complicity of your government in cooperating with ours. Maybe instead of worrying about who our Presidents pardon for crimes that have nothing to do with your country, you ought to concentrate on your own politicans.

I PROMISE that if you do you won't hear a peep out of me about it. Your business is your own.

I certainly do have a problem with the US, but those issues were brought up in our little detour into the merits of me having an opinion about your country. And I don't see why you need to be so defensive about us misguided non-Americans. Its not as if the ideas of the winner of the arguments on this forum are binding on the US. No, you're telling me to go away because you think I'm wrong and not relavent. I do have my own gripes with my politicians and I'd be happy to talk about them if not for one thing: how many threads on this board about Canada actualy survive past 3 posts? Theres also the fact that America is both important and interesting and while the borders are there our shared interest in the happenings there are very much relavent to the rest of the world. Even the domestic things, because believe it or not influence is both direct and passive in the world. What happens one place can set a precedent and bleed into another. But I'm already playing your game and trying to justify my right just to answer a thread about the US. The fact is I have an opinion, you have an opinion, we disagree alot, and so the hell what? You don't want to answer it then don't. Do what Skybird does with WG. Otherwise just use your vastly superior position as a true blooded American to proove me wrong in my understanding of your country.

[Tchocky]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...EN-US-Bush.php

[robbo180265]

Just thought I'd say that I'm with P Funk on this one

[The Avon Lady]

Proper of the President, testimony delivered by David B. Rivkin Jr. to the House Judiciary Committee hearings Wednesday on the the president's Scooter Libby commutation.

David B. Rivkin, Jr. is a partner with BakerHostetler LLP, a former member of the White House Counsel’s Office and a Department of Justice Official.

[Tchocky]

There is no dispute about what Mr. Berger did, since he admitted, after some time had elapsed, to such transgressions as stealing highly — classified documents from the National Archives, destroying at least some of them, and lying about it to Executive branch officials. What he did certainly amounted to an obstruction of justice, providing misleading and false information to Executive branch officials, and several other serious criminal law transgressions. The only reason perjury is not on this list is because Mr. Berger was not put in the position where he had to testify under oath.

Yet, presented with all of these facts, the career DOJ attorneys decided not to prosecute him and settled for the imposition of a fine on Mr. Berger, as well as the forfeiture for a period of years of his security clearance. My point here is not to suggest that Mr. Berger was treated too leniently; rather, it is to suggest that Mr. Libby was treated too harshly.

It looks to me like Berger got away easily, thus knocking down the idea that Libby was treated too harshly.

That of course is just my opinion, and I'm not going to back it up. Just like the author in his last point. "I think this was false, so I'm right".

As a result, the overall narrative provided by the prosecutor, the context if you will, is extremely important. In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Fitzgerald presented the jury the following damning narrative — there was a nefarious effort in the White House to destroy Joe Wilson’s reputation and even to punish him, by allegedly hurting the career of his wife Valerie Plame; these activities were part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people. While I believe this narrative to be fundamentally false, it proved successful with the jury. The fact that the critics of the President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence invariably invoke the broad narrative of the alleged White House Iraq war — related nefarious activities, underscores how unfair and politicized this whole exercise has been.

Whut?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That of course is just my opinion, and I'm not going to back it up. Just like the author in his last point. "I think this was false, so I'm right".

No. That was not the subject of this article. What's your excuse?

Furthermore, I don't think his belief on the subject is the equivalent of someone who has no idea whether an appropriate fine would be $10,000 or $250,000 or whether 5 days, months or years in prison should be meeted out.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

That was not the subject of this article. What's your excuse?

He's saying that Fitzgerald presented the jury with a misleading version of events. He doesn't go into why he believes this is misleading, only holding opponents of the "jury argument" as evidence. That those who criticise the President invoke similiar ideas isn't much of an indictment, nice things to say about GWB are thin in the ground these days. The effort to sell the war isn't the subject, granted. But when it's brought in as argument for a pardon, then it's on the table. He's claiming it to be false/irrelevant, but not providing evidence/backup.

Furthermore, I don't think his belief on the subject is the equivalent of someone who has no idea whether an appropriate fine would be $10,000 or $250,000 or whether 5 days, months or years in prison should be meeted out.

His belief is as much as he says it is. I can infer a decent amount from his employment (Bush I, Reagan) and his association with the AEI.
If he believes the context to be extrememly important, as he says he does, further elucidation on that "fundamental" flaw wouldn't go amiss. "Because I say so" doesn't fly very far.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

He's saying that Fitzgerald presented the jury with a misleading version of events. He doesn't go into why he believes this is misleading, only holding opponents of the "jury argument" as evidence. That those who criticise the President invoke similiar ideas isn't much of an indictment, nice things to say about GWB are thin in the ground these days. The effort to sell the war isn't the subject, granted. But when it's brought in as argument for a pardon, then it's on the table. He's claiming it to be false/irrelevant, but not providing evidence/backup.

What damning irrefutable evidence did prosecutor Fitzgerald offer that establishes his claim that, to quote the author:

"these activities were part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people"

.

Objection. Hearsay, your honor!

His belief is as much as he says it is.

You're playing with the literal semantics of the word "belief". Try not reading into the most brittle literal meaning of words not in context.

I can infer a decent amount from his employment (Bush I, Reagan) and his association with the AEI.

Such as his possibly having a good grasp of the assault on the Bush administration and, further, a historic perspective dating back through the previous Democratic administration that would also explain the rationale for assuming that going to war against Iraq was the correct thing to do. Refresher: .

".....for a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

- Simon & Garfunkel, "The Boxer"