With all this talk of hate mail, I was beginning to feel left out of the fun, so here’s my daily diatribe!
I completely disagree with President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s jail sentence. Mr. Libby obstructed justice and regardless that no one was charged with the underlying crime, Libby knowingly and purposely obstructed the investigation.
Sometimes, politics has to take a back seat to common sense and this my friends is one of those things that sticks out to me like a soar thumb as being one of the most political decisions ever made by this President. I believe that this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for most Americans too.
I can only gander to think that his logic was that the only people still with him are the neo-cons so why not keep them on his side by commuting Libby’s sentence.
I know most neo-cons on this site will disagree with me, but I’m not a neo-con, I’m a mainstreet common sense conservative who can at least still remember what it means to be a Republican.
{ 79 comments }
What investigation did he obstruct again?? Scooter Libby was mixed up in a witch hunt.
I have disagreed with President Bush on90% of what he has done in his 2nd term, and I too am a common sense individual.
But commuting this sentence is part of the 10% I agree with.
Countdown to snide McCain reference … 3 … 2 …
And the judged disregarded the sentencing recommendation, opting to hand out a far more punitive sentencing than is standard.
Well, we can agree to disagree… I don’t believe it was a witch hunt though. Fitzgerald is not some partisan attorney, he was a respected US Attorney.
How is one supposed to find out if an investigation is a witch hunt if the people being investigated do not tell the truth or simply say “I do not recall.”
Why is it okay to impeach a sitting Democratic President in an eerily similar type of perjury case, but not convict a Republic functionary?
Atta boy Bull Moose! Way to stand up for politically motivated prosecutorial overreach! A real maverick you are. Right up there with John Conyers and Harry Reid.
“I’m a mainstreet common sense conservative who can at least still remember what it means to be a Republican.”
Because, after all, Patty Fitzgerald’s hardon for nailing a Republican in a political show trial has everthing to do with both “common sense” and being Republican.
Demon,
With McCain’s reduction of salaries and staff, the counter needs to be more like 100 … 99 …
“Why is it okay to impeach a sitting Democratic President in an eerily similar type of perjury case, but not convict a Republic functionary?”
Which is easier to remember: having sex with an intern in the White House or a five minute conversation with a reporter from awhile back? I think the former would be hard to forget and the latter very forgettable.
(Note: not saying I agree with Bush’s decision; just making a point)
Gol’D,
I wonder if you had the same words about Ken Starr’s investigation?
$2 million on hand-debt=broke
Here we go with the hate mail! Libby was convicted by a JURY of his peers.
What you think those jury members were incapable of rendering a verdict?
Let it work its way through the appeal process but until then there should have been no commute of the sentence or pardon.
Doug, it’s intellectually dishonest to compare Clinton’s and his cronies’ pattern of deceit with Libby’s actions.
Rogue,
Good point, but I was pointing out that most of the screams of “Scooter Libby is a victim!” seem to be from people looking at the (R) next to his name, rather than anything else.
Certainly it is easier to remember, but a jury found that Scooter knew the correct answer and chose to lie. As finders of fact, they correctly applied the law.
I’ll give you this much – 30 months is a bit much, so perhaps reduce that to say, just 12 months. That would have been okay to do in my view.
I’m not a neocon either, but Bush did the right thing. The whole incident was the latest round of the Inside the Beltway Gotcha Parlor Game and a pretty boring and stupid one at that.
This doesn’t come anywhere close to the level of justifying jail time and I would say that regardless of the party membership involved.
Jacks Post – why not compare? Because actually, Libby’s actions have had more negative consequences for our country. Hmm….
Way to rally that last bit of the 26% or so that support the President.
For the record, I am neither opposed or unopposed, I am indifferent.
Doug: Understood. And he was fairly convicted…there are no two ways about it.
I suppose I’m rather indifferent to the whole thing. He was legally convicted but then legally had his jail sentence set aside according to Article II of the Constitution. Pretty much the only person that makes me mad is Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. who is now calling for Bush’s impeachment for the pardon and, thus, demonstrating that he has never read the Constitution.
Bull,
I am not opposed to the commute, as it is the President’s power to do so, but I am against the people who think Libby was a hapless victim. He made his own bed. Perhaps not try to mislead a federal investigation. Just because you think it is a witch hunt, doesn’t mean everyone does.
How is one supposed to find out if an investigation is a witch hunt if the people being investigated do not tell the truth or simply say “I do not recall.”
The problem here is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew that a crime had not been committed before Mr. Libby committed his “crime”. So if Mr. Fitzgerald knew who leaked the Plame info, and knew it wasn’t a criminal act, what justice did Mr. Libby obstruct, exactly?
You’re an idiot. No, seriously.
Would you like to see the VERY long list of pardons our previous president (you know, that guy that’s married to Hillary) handed out? Larceny, drug trafficking, embezzlement, tax fraud, counterfeiting, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, bank robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, bribery of public officials, mutiny in a time of war, wire fraud, mail fraud, perjury…
Shall I go on? It is the perogative and right of any president to excersize his power to pardon someone convicted of crimes under federal law. It doesn’t matter what his motives are. It’s his right under the Constitution.
Bull,
That last sentence was supposed to be “you” in the general sence, but it sounds like I am accusing you of holding that belief.
Rogue,
I am generally indifferent as well. It’s a power the president has, and one I wish more Presidents would use more often, so I don’t really have a complaint against it.
Icarus,
Just because it turn’s out in the end to be something that would not result in a crime, the intent was to mislead investigators to save his own skin. If he didn’t think he was in jeopardy with his actions, he would have had no reason to knowingly lie (as the jury found).
CobbGOPer
Did you complain when Bill Clinton handed out these pardons?
If so, you are just being a hypocrit, if you now challenge Bull’s complaint.
Oh dear, CobbGOPer, really, get off the RNC talking points and start thinking rational!
The President has a lot of powers but he has the responsibility to discharge them in a fair and accurate manner.
I guess we’ll just let him go ahead and do whatever he likes whenever he likes because he’s the President and the Constitution says he can do it!
I didn’t agree with President Clinton’s pardons and I don’t agree with this commutation.
I would have understood had Bush reduced the sentence but I think that Mr. Libby should have done SOME time.
Keep in mind that our men and women in the armed service are off fighting and dying for a war that came out of the indirect actions related to what Scooter Libby was obstructing.
I support our troops in this war, but can’t help but to wonder just why Scooter Libby felt it necessary to mislead the prosecutor.
Sunshine and transparency makes for good government and if this White House has operated with a little more transparency we may not be having this dicussion today.
Doug,
My point isn’t that it didn’t result in a crime “in the end”, but that Fitzgerald knew a crime had not been committed before he interviewed Mr. Libby. If Mr. Fitzgerald knew a crime had not been committed, what was he investigating?
This is the kind of abuse of government power that both liberals and strict conservatives (Bob Barr) both abhor. Upon learning that no crime had been committed, Mr. Fitzgerald should have ended his case. Instead, he continued until he found something he could prosecute. In most cases, this is considered entrapment.
And as for the argument that this was a jury of Mr. Libby’s peers, Finding a D.C. jury that will convict a Republican is about as easy as finding a L.A. jury that will acquit O.J.
I’m sorry, could someone please tell me what was so crucial to our national well-being about the Lewinsky incident? (and not regarding the character if our president — regarding the president’s ability to govern or lack thereof, which is all i care about.) I find Libby’s actions more troubling because they are tied to a very clear pattern of intimidation — and whatever time he gets should be served.
Uh, no, I didn’t. Know why? Because the Constitution (say it with me) grants this right to the president to excersize as he sees fit.
You got a problem, draft an amendment.
“And as for the argument that this was a jury of Mr. Libby’s peers, Finding a D.C. jury that will convict a Republican is about as easy as finding a L.A. jury that will acquit O.J.”
Word.
Icarus, I don’t doubt your sincerity, but I’m a little hesitant to go off and just write Fitzgerald off as an out of control prosecutor. His profile up to date, just doesn’t fit that mold.
We (the general public) don’t know all the facts. I still think it is somewhat odd that Libby just wasn’t honest and upfront.
I just wish and hope that one day Republicans will get back to being the party of common sense smaller government!
This Libby thing will only be another smudge on the Republican party.
CAN WE PLEASE get back to the OTHER important issues where Republicans win and do well? Is that an impossible task?
“We (the general public) don’t know all the facts.”
What facts do we not know. Any fact that was used to convict Mr. Libby was used in open court, and every national and D.C. media outlet was there to cover it.
And because it’s late and laziness rules at this time of day, I won’t research exact quotes, but I do remember jurors saying things like “they felt sorry for Mr. Libby, and believed it was his superiors who deserved the blame, but someone had to pay, and he was it.”
Political vendetta, accomplished.
COBBGOPer – Learn to spell… It’s exercise!
And now, you want to attack the underlying foundation of our judicial system – the jury!
What’s next? Reinstate the poll tax and reading tests for voters?
Get real.
As for getting on to more important things, I agree. But scapegoating Mr. Libby isn’t the right thing to do in order to move on.
I think I attacked the jury system, and I never want to trust my fate to 12 people who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
And by the way, Bull, seriously, no one outside the Beltway even really cares about this “scandal.” Except political junkies like us, obviously. But we don’t make up the majority of the voting public.
This was a partisan witch-hunt the same way the Lewinsky affair was a partisan witch-hunt. Looking for crimes where none exist. What Libby did was stupid, no doubt. But the special prosecutor, as has been established by fact, knew that no crime had been commited in the first place with the “outing” of a no-longer-covert CIA agent. He kept going under pressure from the Dems to find something, anything, they could use against the President.
Bull,
You were right in your post: This thread is chock-full of rabid neocons who think Bush hung the moon.
I am rabid, but the shots are helping.
I’m not a neo-con, nor do I believe that Bush can spell or pronounce “moon”, but I bet he enjoyed hanging a few during his college days.
I guess we should expect moronic posts like this from a die hard McCain supporter. That’s an obvious sign of brain damage.
This was a partisan witch-hunt the same way the Lewinsky affair was a partisan witch-hunt.
Arguably. See below.
But the special prosecutor, as has been established by fact, knew that no crime had been commited in the first place with the “outing” of a no-longer-covert CIA agent.
I’m tired of hearing this because it simply isn’t accurate. Libby and co. wouldn’t have bothered leaking Plame’s identity if they didn’t see an advantage in it — and that advantage was intimidation. Her status is arguable, but the fact that they felt they were damaging Wilson by helping craft the “his wife sent him to Niger” story is undeniable.
He kept going under pressure from the Dems to find something, anything, they could use against the President.
His record doesn’t suggest it. And again, I’m a lot more concerned about someone who acts to retaliate against someone who is interacting with them in their official capacity than I would be regarding the same in an unofficial capacity. Along the same lines, I’m very concerned about the purported coercion of scientists working on reports that ultimately inform policy.
Ugh, seeing as this is tied to the war in Iraq, the case that was made against Saddam, etc… I’d say the American people probably are pretty damn interested in this, but enough already!
Now I know who the neo-cons on here are.
If Republicans want to win in 2008 this needs to be their message:
1. Flat Tax within 3 years (before incumbent Pres. runs again)
2. Path to 25% increase in alternative energy exploration within 10 years and be 25% energy independent within same period
3. Association health plans with health screenings left intact implemented within 2 years
4. Reign in out of control government spending with a top to bottom audit – reduce duplicity (it exists)
5. Reconstitute empowerment zones, enterprise communities through tax incentives
6. Guranteed veto of any pork barrel spending – from either party
7. ZERO tolerance on special interest influence in government – ensure all cases are prosecuted to the fullest
8. Secure the border first before any other immigration steps are taken
9. Reduce size of federal government through attrition
10. We’re on our way out of Iraq and will be gone within 2 years on a time table of benchmarks (not dates)
Icarus,
Your comment about jurors who are “too stupid to get out of jury duty” smacks of rabid stupidity and ignorance…neither of which can be cured by any number of medical shots.
Um, but Nicki, Libby nor Rove nor the Vice President nor the President leaked Plame’s name.
It was Richard Armitage at the State Department, someone the libs and Dems do not care about bringing down because he’s not part of the “evil axis” entourage of Rove/Cheney/Bush.
So tell me, if it wasn’t a concerted effort to get at people close to the White House, why wasn’t Richard Armitage prosecuted?
And if you look at the testimony Armitage gave, it seems pretty clear he was not instructed to do so by anyone. And no one was prosecuted for issuing any order to that effect.
I suspect that Fitzgerald zealously pursued the Plame investigation not out of partisanship, rather out of a concern that the administration has shown a pattern of abusing and overstepping its powers. Along with manipulation of intelligence, the pattern includes widely expanded use of signing statements to subvert the intent of laws passed by the legislature, widely expanded claim of executive privilege (not to mention Cheney’s novel theory of quasi-legislative privilege), abrogating habeus corpus and sanctioning torture, and wiretapping without warrants.
The commutation of Libby’s sentence fits nicely into this pattern. The message of the “get out of jail free” card is that members of the administration are not accountable to the other branches of government. That our leaders behave as though they are above the law should be unacceptable to anyone of any political persuasion.
(I know that Bush was within his constitutional rights to commute this sentence. It still stinks of cronyism and flies in the face of the principle of equal justice under the law for all Americans.)
I love how everyone uses the term “neo-con” like it’s some kind of insult. You people do realize that it only means “New Conservative” don’t you? Ya know, a conservative like Ronald Reagan as opposed to Eisenhower or Rockefeller.
Fitzgerald was commissioned to 1. find who “leaked” and 2. prosecute them. As soon as Richard Armitage came forward, that’s it. Done. Over. Kaput. Scooter Libby “obstructed justice” in a trial that should have ended before it ever really began.
Bull Moose, is creating ‘Sista Soulja moments’ with fellow Republicans on PP really that empowering? I don’t know who is sadder: you, Bill Simon, or Jeff.
Remember, unless Bush pardons Libby fully, Scooter STILL has to pay $250,000 for his 5 minute conversation he couldn’t recall and/or choose to lie about. Punishment=crime. + 30 months is excessive. Partisan witch hunt or not, the jury (truly, try finding a DC jury who WOULD NOT convict any member of the Bush Adminstration of anything) did find him guilty.
By the way, I don’t remember Bill Clinton ever serving one day or paying $1 in fines for his “eerily similar” obstruction of justice.
No, Grand, you’re wrong.
The term “neocon,” while being an abbreviation of “neoconservative” ACTUALLY defines someone who is a Socialist at heart and uses the principles of the Republican Party as their own tools to enact their agenda.
People like Bush, for instance, who claimed he was a Republican turned-out to be nothing other than a Big-Government Socialist who cut your taxes while increasing spending on programs like No Child Left Behind, Medicare, Part D, and invading countries out of his own personal whim.
Reagan was not a neocon.
What the hell does bull moose know anyway…. he thinks John McCain is a common sense conservative…
Oh, there’s a clever rebuttal, Blazer…do tell us, did you graduate from UGA?
Nice, Bill. I’m as pissed as the next guy about Bush’s spending habits, but Socialist?…wow.
And for the record, I’m right on the definition of neo-con. Look it up.
G’day gentleman. Golf course for me.
Comments on this entry are closed.