Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[MDM4AU 336]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/lib...ence/index.html

[TexasTiger 13,006]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/lib...ence/index.html

What I expected. The only real surprise is that Bush finally found a sentence he thought was "excessive."

[BZ770 2]

A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court,

Bush's action today demonstrates that the White House is "corrupt from top to bottom."

It's nice to see that the good ole boys still take care of each other.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court,

Bush's action today demonstrates that the White House is "corrupt from top to bottom."

It's nice to see that the good ole boys still take care of each other.

Perhaps it can't be challenged by an attorney or court, but the Founding Fathers thought it could be challenged:

In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...ergatedoc_3.htm

[bigsixfive 328]

Yeah, this is pretty bad. I mean, the guy committed purjury. Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have gotten the hefty fine and 2.5 years of jail for purjury, I could be a little more understanding... wait a minute......

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yeah, this is pretty bad. I mean, the guy committed purjury. Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have gotten the hefty fine and 2.5 years of jail for purjury, I could be a little more understanding... wait a minute......

Typical Republican response. Paris Hilton is more accountable.

Again, one was convicted by a jury, and one was not. You don't know the difference.

[MDM4AU 336]

We've seem Presidents pardon similar or worse criminals for such things as Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War, Assault with dangerous weapon, Making a mutiny during wartime, Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, and Making false statements to federal agents and Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery - among others.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

We've seem Presidents pardon similar or worse criminals for such things as Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War, Assault with dangerous weapon, Making a mutiny during wartime, Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, and Making false statements to federal agents and Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery - among others.

Again, address any other activity you consider questionable instead of addressing this one. Even Nixon didn't pardon Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Mitchell. Letting off your own guy for keeping your secrets from a grand jury is an abuse of power. This isn't complicated.

[MDM4AU 336]

We've seem Presidents pardon similar or worse criminals for such things as Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War, Assault with dangerous weapon, Making a mutiny during wartime, Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, and Making false statements to federal agents and Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery - among others.

Again, address any other activity you consider questionable instead of addressing this one. Even Nixon didn't pardon Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Mitchell. Letting off your own guy for keeping your secrets from a grand jury is an abuse of power. This isn't complicated.

For those paying attention, I posted the link about this story. I think I addressed it just fine. And you and I will just have to disagree on this point:

"keeping your secrets from a grand jury"

If you want to continue to believe that "Bushco Outed Plame," then that is your prerogative. I think this President has done some stupid things, this just isn't one of them.

With the way you are reacting, I'll just assume you were just as outraged over the pardons (not commuted sentences with fines and probation still intact) I listed above.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There is nothing wrong with commuting the sentence.

What W should have done was reduce the fine to $50,000, which it just so happens is how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn't charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

A $50,000 fine & probation would have been more in line with Libby's transgressions.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

We've seem Presidents pardon similar or worse criminals for such things as Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War, Assault with dangerous weapon, Making a mutiny during wartime, Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, and Making false statements to federal agents and Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery - among others.

Again, address any other activity you consider questionable instead of addressing this one. Even Nixon didn't pardon Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Mitchell. Letting off your own guy for keeping your secrets from a grand jury is an abuse of power. This isn't complicated.

For those paying attention, I posted the link about this story. I think I addressed it just fine. And you and I will just have to disagree on this point:

"keeping your secrets from a grand jury"

If you want to continue to believe that "Bushco Outed Plame," then that is your prerogative. I think this President has done some stupid things, this just isn't one of them.

With the way you are reacting, I'll just assume you were just as outraged over the pardons (not commuted sentences with fines and probation still intact) I listed above.

I don't know the details of those cases and neither do you. Deflect, deflect, deflect...

Libby lied repeatedly and obstructed justice. Bush's own appointed judge said the evidence was overwhelming. The jury had no problem reaching that conclusion. Libby would not tell what he knew. The prosecutor-- a Republican appointed by Bush-- indicated he was protecting Cheney and that his obstruction prevented him from getting to the truth. He served the administration instead of his country and he was taken care of. This isn't complicated. Anyone with any interest in the truth can and will see it.

You can shorten a sentence if you think it is "excessive"-- it was within the guidelines, BTW. Not one day.

I'm not really outraged. This is exactly what I expected. The next step is the full pardon on 1/20/09.

Politically, it's bad for Republicans. Principally, however, it is bad for the country. Not that Bush and Cheney give a damn about this country.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

There is nothing wrong with commuting the sentence.

What W should have done was reduce the fine to $50,000, which it just so happens is how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn't charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

A $50,000 fine & probation would have been more in line with Libby's transgressions.

Deflect, deflect, he was sentenced within guidelines. Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There is nothing wrong with commuting the sentence.

What W should have done was reduce the fine to $50,000, which it just so happens is how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn't charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

A $50,000 fine & probation would have been more in line with Libby's transgressions.

Deflect, deflect, he was sentenced within guidelines. Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

No deflection there at all. I just said what W should have done.

Of the two, Berger was clearly the one who deserved jail time, and who was willing to compromise national security to protect himself and his buddy Clinton. Libby was not even the person who "outed" a supposedly covert Plame--in what has to have been the most over-rated and politically motivated revenge lynching in history.

Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

You know that how? Did KOS tell you?

[MDM4AU 336]

Why do you say I am deflecting? Because I think your outrage has more to do with who it involves more than anything else...and that you treat more egregious actions by someone else of your political persuasion with less indignation? I don't agree with the commuting of the sentence. If he did the crime, he should do the time. Not, if he is a liberal and he did the crime, etc.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

There is nothing wrong with commuting the sentence.

What W should have done was reduce the fine to $50,000, which it just so happens is how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn't charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

A $50,000 fine & probation would have been more in line with Libby's transgressions.

Deflect, deflect, he was sentenced within guidelines. Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

No deflection there at all. I just said what W should have done.

Of the two, Berger was clearly the one who deserved jail time, and who was willing to compromise national security to protect himself and his buddy Clinton. Libby was not even the person who "outed" a supposedly covert Plame--in what has to have been the most over-rated and politically motivated revenge lynching in history.

Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

You know that how? Did KOS tell you?

KOS and I haven't spoken today. Berger pled guilty and took a plea. Libby lied until the end like a true Bush/Cheney Republican.

This conservative sums it up well:

If this shores up his conservative base, then his conservative base has no principles. They impeached Clinton for the same crime. But they let their own go free. If you needed a reason to rid Washington of the president's corrupt party, you just got one. Get angrier.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-for-the-2.html

It took awhile, but Bush has succeeded in exposing the so-called conservative elite class as the total frauds that they are.

Try to claim the principled road again. They can't. You that support this can't. No one will buy the mock outrage anymore. "Rule of law! Rule of law!"

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Why do you say I am deflecting? Because I think your outrage has more to do with who it involves more than anything else...and that you treat more egregious actions by someone else of your political persuasion with less indignation? I don't agree with the commuting of the sentence. If he did the crime, he should do the time. Not, if he is a liberal and he did the crime, etc.

If we agree on this, why change the subject to cases neither of us know anything about? The first one you list is from 1945. Was it just? I have no idea. Was Mark Rich's pardon just? Absolutely not. Clinton's most inexcusable act, in my opinion.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nothing Bush did n this case was wrong, immoral or remotely corrupt. I fully agree w/ what he did. Libby was railroaded by a prosecutor who already had the name of the person , Richard Armitage, who 'outed Val Plame. And she wasn't even a covert agent, so this entire case was so blown out of proportion that Bush used his Constitutional power to fix a wrong. Good for W.

[Tigermike 3,053]

It took awhile, but Bush has succeeded in exposing the so-called conservative elite class as the total frauds that they are.

Try to claim the principled road again. They can't. You that support this can't. No one will buy the mock outrage anymore. "Rule of law! Rule of law!"

Sanctimony coming from the left is hard to swallow. You are yelling "Rule of law! Rule of law!" so I have a question. Is it illegal for the president to commute a sentence? I am not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking if it is illegal.

[BZ770 2]

Deflect, deflect, he was sentenced within guidelines. Cheney will pay the fine, anyway.

Haliburton will bill it out as putting out an oil fire. BTW I was driving through TTown today and saw a Haliburton truck coincidental.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

It took awhile, but Bush has succeeded in exposing the so-called conservative elite class as the total frauds that they are.

Try to claim the principled road again. They can't. You that support this can't. No one will buy the mock outrage anymore. "Rule of law! Rule of law!"

Sanctimony coming from the left is hard to swallow. You are yelling "Rule of law! Rule of law!" so I have a question. Is it illegal for the president to commute a sentence? I am not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking if it is illegal.

Generally not. Unless they are found to be obstructing justice.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, it is a sad day for the US. it was an even sadder day 1-20-01.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

CLINTON, Roger.....

Marc Rich, a real bastard, that had Scooter Libby for a lawyer!

Marc Rich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Marc Rich (born Marc David Reich on December 18, 1934) is an international commodities trader. He fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

He received a presidential pardon from United States President Bill Clinton in 2001, which required him to pay a $100 million fine before the charges would be dropped.

Contents [hide]

1 Life

2 Scandal

3 Legacy

4 Citizenship

5 Private life

6 See also

7 External links

8 Footnotes

[edit] Life

Rich was born to a Jewish working class family in Antwerp, Belgium in 1934. The Rich family immigrated to the United States in 1942 to avoid the Nazis. Young Marc attended high school at the Rhodes School in Manhattan. He later attended New York University, but dropped out after one semester to go work for Philipp Brothers. Rich worked as commodities trader for his father, who sought to build an American manufacturing fortune through burlap sack production. Marc Rich later worked with Philipp Brothers, a dealer in raw metals, learning about the international raw materials markets and commercial trading with poor, third world nations. One of his biggest market coups came during the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, when he used his Middle Eastern contacts to circumvent the embargo and buy crude oil from Iran and Iraq. After purchasing the crude for roughly $12 per bbl. Rich doubled the price and sold it to supply-starved U.S. oil companies. In 1974 he and Co-Worker Green set up their own company

His tutelage under Brothers afforded Rich opportunities to strike deals with various dictatorial regimes and embargoed nations, such as Iran, using a special relationship with Ayatollah Khomeini. His company Marc Rich Real Estate GmbH is involved in large developer projects (e.g. in Prague, Czech Republic [1]).

[edit] Scandal

In 1983, Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Both of them fled to Switzerland before a court appearance, and they remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.

On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2].

His business partner, Pincus Green, is known to be the "logistics" brain of their company.[citation needed]

[edit] Legacy

Whilst Marc Rich certainly didn't invent commodity trading he was its major architect[citation needed] and engineer[citation needed]. Centred in London, the global oil trade can be said to improve the efficient use of fixed assets such as terminals, ships, refineries and production which oil majors and governments are not incentivised to put to best use. His obvious corporate legacy is Glencore, a company he founded, domiciled in Baar (close to Zug, Switzerland) but centred in London, where the arts of trading were discerned and practiced[citation needed]. Glencore also spawned and nourished (unwittingly) many imitations[citation needed]. The Oil Markets are now awash with trading companies such as Trafigura and Projector, attempting to profit both through the direction of risk capital towards vanilla trading of commodities on exchanges and in OTC markets but also in the more opaque deals for which Marc Rich was infamous.[citation needed]

[edit] Citizenship

While most sources agree that Marc Rich voluntarily relinquished his U.S. citizenship, there is one contrary opinion [3] that "Rich assumed an oath in Spain would remove his US citizenship. The Spanish naturalization oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US citizenship. Due to a variety of circumstances the court judged that he was still a US citizen." In order to renounce U.S. citizenship, a citizen must "appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer" outside the U.S. and "sign an oath of renunciation." [4]

Since he is still considered a US citizen, Forbes ranks Rich as the 242nd richest American with a 2006 net worth of $1.5 billion [5].

[edit] Private life

Marc Rich, after spending several years in the canton of Zug, moved his domicile to Meggen, a city part of the Swiss canton of Lucerne, where he zealously guards his privacy, but managed to be hunted down by a 60 Minutes TV crew once and he agreed to a one-time only interview. He resides in a property called "La villa rose" (the pink villa) on the shores of the Vierwaldstättersee (also known as Lake Lucerne). Rich also owns property in the ski resort of St. Moritz, Switzerland and in Marbella, Spain. He is an important art collector and friends say he lives surrounded by Picassos, Chagalls and Miros.

In May 2007 Rich received an honorary doctorate from Bar Ilan University in recognition of his contribution to Israel and to the university's research programs

[quietfan 233]

Just my gut feeling, without proof:

Libby took the fall to cover Karl Rove's a$$, and now Rove/Cheney/W are fulfilling their part of the bargain by keeping Scooter out of jail. ...Not the first time such things have happened in D.C. nor will it be the last, nor is it limited to any one President or party. [However, "everybody does it" or "President X did the same" is never an excuse for tolerating corruption.]

I've always been a little surprized that Nixon didn't pardon the whole Watergate crowd before he resigned. Perhaps he knew the country would be outraged and he hoped to salvage a little bit of his reputation by not looking so blatent. (He was probably already assured of his own pardon from Ford, though.)

Finally: A $250,000 fine at that level of power/influence is meaningless--may as well be $250 to you or me.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Just my gut feeling, without proof:

Libby took the fall to cover Karl Rove's a$$, and now Rove/Cheney/W are fulfilling their part of the bargain by keeping Scooter out of jail. ...Not the first time such things have happened in D.C. nor will it be the last, nor is it limited to any one President or party. [However, "everybody does it" or "President X did the same" is never an excuse for tolerating corruption.]

I've always been a little surprized that Nixon didn't pardon the whole Watergate crowd before he resigned. Perhaps he knew the country would be outraged and he hoped to salvage a little bit of his reputation by not looking so blatent. (He was probably already assured of his own pardon from Ford, though.)

Finally: A $250,000 fine at that level of power/influence is meaningless--may as well be $250 to you or me.

Probably right on the money.

[otterinbham 0]

Question for the Libby apologists. Do you really, really in your heart of hearts believe Ole Scooter had clean hands? Seriously.

Question for the Anti-Libby crowd. Is this pardon any worse than the pardons handed down by Clinton? Nope.

You can either be a bunch of partisan nitwits, or you can actually view this pardon and Clinton's pardons all as part of the same fundamental problem: The ongoing corruption of the ruling class in this country. Essentially, the findings of twelve jurors was overturned because the executive branch was really afraid that Scooter Libby was going to start really talking. Then it would be ballgame over. However, both parties are contributing to the continued growth and power of the executive branch, to the point that the judicial and legislative branches of government are slowly becoming irrelevant in the daily governance of the country.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Granted, Fred Thompson is staunchly on one side of this fight, but I found the highlighted part of his comments about the Libby case to be interesting:

Doesn't Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor's press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.

Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.

The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.

From there the players' moves were predictable. Fitzgerald began his Sherman's march through the law and the press until he thought he had finally come up with something to justify his lofty mandate -- a case that would not have been brought in any other part of the country.

The media by then was suffering from Stockholm syndrome -- They feared and loved Fitzgerald at the same time. He was establishing terrible precedent by his willingness to throw reporters in jail over much less than serious national-security matters -- the Ashcroft standard! Yet Fitzgerald was doing the Lord's work in their eyes. This was a "bad leak" not a "good leak" like the kind they like to use. And it was much better to get the Tim Russert and Ari Fleischer treatment than it is to get the Judith Miller treatment. Fitzgerald paid no price for his prosecutorial inconsistencies, his erroneous public statements, or his possible conflicts of interest. And now they get to point out how this case revealed the "deep truths" about the White House.

The second decision was made by Libby himself. It was the decision to spend eight hours without counsel in a grand-jury room with Fitzgerald with this controversy swirling around him while trying to remember and recount conversations with various news reporters -- reporters who he knew would be interviewed about these conversations themselves. These, of course, were reporters Libby had no right to expect to do him any favors. This sounds like a man with nothing to hide. This sounds like a man who doesn't appreciate the position he is in or what or whom he is dealing with.

It is ironic that what Libby is facing today is not due to the evil machinations so often attributed to the White House but rather due to an apparent naivete.

Like most Washington political fights, very few participants have been left unscathed. Among the results of this investigation and trial, there will be less cooperation by public officials in future investigations and less ability of reporters to get information. We should ask ourselves: Are our institutions or is our sense of justice stronger because of this prosecution?

link

The perjury case was made because Libby made statements under oath that were then contradicted by others - mostly issues of timing and who said what when and to whom. Who among us could sit down and recount in vivid detail every single thing about an encounter than had taken place months before? National security breach this wasn't. But still this qualified as perjury. Libby was not the one who leaked her name, and the prosecutor knew it. The leakign of her name was not even a crime. But someone had to be punished for SOMETHING, and Scooter Libby was it. I think this was a HUGE waste of taxpayer time and money. Even the most liberally partisaned among you have to see this for what it really was - a witchhunt. What justice could he have been obstructing? Cheney didn't order anything done - Armitage didn't work for Cheney. NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!!!!!