« Personal Passions | Main | Pain Reliever »

Comments

Greg

Wow the hypocrisy really runs over this post. Let me see if I get this correct. You state:

"a recent act worthy of applause; saving Sooter Libby from going behind bars."

But a month ago, in a post you wrote Conditions of Contest where you argued the following:

"Some of what we do, however, has most specific rules and regulations. When I indulge in my favorite pastime, bridge, I am inundated with laws! Not only must my play be proficient to win . . . . If I don't understand how the laws of bridge work, then I literally cannot compete. I must know how the game is scored, what is and is not allowed, when and where I can perform certain actions, and so forth, if I am to be a successful player. The same is true of our government and laws."

So if the President says he respects the jury decision, and that Scooter was essentially guilty, then why not enforce the law as it was applied by a Republican judge appointed by George Bush? A sentence that was also supported by an appeals court who saw no fault in the sentence? In inline with a Department of Justice that has been pushing for tougher sentences. Also in a way that has been upheld recently by the Supreme Court. Just two weeks ago the United States Supreme Court affirmed the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Scooter Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, like Libby was convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice. It was shown that Mr. Rita had performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals, unlike Scooter Libby. But also like Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines. So please let me know which position are you going to stand by? The one in which the law is the law, or the one when the law is the law except when it involves Scooter Libby. I thought the Republican Party was the party of rules and laws. I guess I got that one wrong.

Peg

Greg - check out your copy of the Constitution. Fully within the powers of the President to grant what he did to Libby. No rules nor laws broken whatsoever.

I guess if you think that what GWB did was so bad, you must have truly been appalled by the Clinton pardons - eh?

Greg

I do not recall anywhere in which I stated that the President doesn't have the right to grant a pardon. If I did, could you please point that out. Since we both know that was not my point, nice try with the distraction and clear avoidance.

The issue is, was Libby guilty or not. Please take a stand, and do not use the dodge of no underlying crime. That has already been debunked, along with the lies that Valarie Plame was not a covert agent. So let us stick to the subject at hand. If he was guilty, then why could he not do the same time, that the Bush's own Department of Justice sought for Victor Rita? If Libby broke the law, and was found guilty, then should he not serve the time. If you do not believe this, then just say so.

Now the bigger issue is, did Bush use this pardon to cover up his part in this crime. That is, was the pardon given to Libby so that his actions would not be uncovered. If this is so, then the pardon is un-Constitutional. History shows us that when Richard Nixon tried to stop judicial inquiries into his own crimes, Congress investigated and discovered that Nixon was part of a criminal conspiracy based in the White House. They responded with articles of impeachment which read in part:

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

…Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means Nixon used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1). Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2). Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3). Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4). Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees; …

5). Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

6). Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony. …

Now I ask was Bush’s commutation of Libby’s imprisonment just days before it was to begin and after his appeals of it were exhausted simply a coincidence, or part of a conspiracy that reaches back to the first months of this year? Was Bush’s commutation of Libby’s jail time a coincidentally-timed act of mercy by a man known as brutally unmerciful, or an act of criminal conspiracy to conceal previous criminal conspiracies?

While I compare this action to Nixon's impeachment, does not mean I am saying that Bush should be impeach over this? NO, that is not the case I am making. I just am asking for someone who has had no problem with executing sentences, such as death sentences, which included people who were slightly retarded and was objected by the Pope, he had no trouble with those cases, but Scooter Libby rises case is a great injustice??

I love it when Republicans cannot make a concise argument they go back to their favorite right wing talking point. Blame Bill Clinton. For the record the Mark Rich pardon was wrong, I cannot re-call anyone standing up and defending it like they have done the Libby case. But there is also a quite a bit of difference. While Clinton did what he did for campaign donations, sort of like no bid contracts to Halliburton, it in no way done to cover up guilt coming from his White House, or to perhaps cover up any crimes he might of done.

"The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt." – George Mason (1725-1792), the “father of the Bill of Rights,” noting his objection to presidential pardon powers in his first draft commentary on the Constitution of the United States he helped write

The comments to this entry are closed.