Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Wake up. The guy lied his ass off.

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!!!!!

[CCTAU 3,342]

Bush should have pardoned him. Then if anyone didn't like it, they could run for president. I look forward to the full pardon. Another nice little message that says, "Hey dim, I got you again." You guys can't get to Bush so you trump up charges on anyone connected to him. This was a witchhunt and the whole nation knew it. THAT'S WHY THERE IS NO OUTRAGE OVER THIS.

[DKW 86 7,440]

There was no crime but lying under oath. Libby was a lawyer, he should have known better. PERIOD.

I am with otter, the two parties look frighteningly more alike every day. You cant tell them apart anymore.

[Tigermike 3,053]

An objective look from a liberals liberal.

Playing Politics with Libby

Alan Dershowitz

Posted July 3, 2007 | 10:09 AM (EST)

The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president's action -- whether right or wrong on its merits -- was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process. What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershow...ib_b_54772.html

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Dershowitz has been very supportive of this administration on the war in Iraq, etc. Whatever side he takes, left or right-- he tends to go overboard.

I don't know any "liberals" that claim Dershowitz the last few years.

BTW, these "political" judges, are Republicans. Dershowitz calls them "political" because they disagree with his politics on this issue. The trial judge issued a sentence within guidelines that was actually LESS than a sentence on the same charges that the Bush administration recently took to the Supreme Court to uphold-- which those REPUBLICAN judges also did. The hypocrisy is palpable.

I find Dershowitz annoying even when I agree with him.

An objective look from a liberals liberal.

Playing Politics with Libby

Alan Dershowitz

Posted July 3, 2007 | 10:09 AM (EST)

The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president's action -- whether right or wrong on its merits -- was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process. What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershow...ib_b_54772.html

[Tigermike 3,053]

There is nothing political in this piece by Dershowitz. He not only didn't write from a political agenda (from either side) but without animus toward anyone.

Dershowitz has been very supportive of this administration on the war in Iraq, etc. Whatever side he takes, left or right-- he tends to go overboard.

I don't know any "liberals" that claim Dershowitz the last few years.

BTW, these "political" judges, are Republicans. Dershowitz calls them "political" because they disagree with his politics on this issue. The trial judge issued a sentence within guidelines that was actually LESS than a sentence on the same charges that the Bush administration recently took to the Supreme Court to uphold-- which those REPUBLICAN judges also did. The hypocrisy is palpable.

I find Dershowitz annoying even when I agree with him.

Dershowitz called the judges political because they acted in a political way. The fact that they are Republican is irrelevant.

You say "Dershowitz has been very supportive of this administration on the war in Iraq, etc.".

I say he is one of the few liberals who have had the nerve to speak up that this war needs to and must to be won. Libs & dims have turned on him almost as completely and vehemently as they did the Senator from Connecticut.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Dershowitz called the judges political because they acted in a political way. The fact that they are Republican is irrelevant.

Yeah, and there's nothing political in you posting this or anything else.

Libs & dims have turned on him almost as completely and vehemently as they did the Senator from Connecticut.

I haven't "turned on him." I never cared for him. But you called him a "liberals liberal." Now you contradict yourself. Which one is it?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Dershowitz called the judges political because they acted in a political way. The fact that they are Republican is irrelevant.

Yeah, and there's nothing political in you posting this or anything else.

So says the pot to the kettle.

Libs & dims have turned on him almost as completely and vehemently as they did the Senator from Connecticut.

I haven't "turned on him." I never cared for him. But you called him a "liberals liberal." Now you contradict yourself. Which one is it?

I have not contradicted anything. The fact that libs & dims turn on someone who has an opinion different than them is no surprise. Are you saying that Dershowitz is not a life long liberal?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Dershowitz called the judges political because they acted in a political way. The fact that they are Republican is irrelevant.

Yeah, and there's nothing political in you posting this or anything else.

So says the pot to the kettle.

Libs & dims have turned on him almost as completely and vehemently as they did the Senator from Connecticut.

I haven't "turned on him." I never cared for him. But you called him a "liberals liberal." Now you contradict yourself. Which one is it?

I have not contradicted anything. The fact that libs & dims turn on someone who has an opinion different than them is no surprise. Are you saying that Dershowitz is not a life long liberal?

On some things yes, some things no.

How about this as something we can agree on, brother:

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[Tigermike 3,053]

.

How about this as something we can agree on, brother:

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!

That we are in total agreeance on!