Scooter Libby commuted

[Guard Dog]

I don't know if my sources are right or not, but Clinton had:

1 count perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

 

Libby has:

2 counts perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

1 count of making false statements to federal investigators

 

 

Maybe in Florida "perjury is perjury" but everywhere else 2 counts and 4 total charges is not the same as 1 count and 2 total charges.

 

 

No you are right, the more counts you have, usually the stiffer the sentence. But the counts almost always run concurrent so you will not be in prision longer than it takes to seve one count. For example, in FL, one count will get you six months. But two might get you two eight month terms that run concurrent. It does not matter what you lied about. The law makes no distinction as to how serious the offense is because that can be completely subjective (once again that is Florida, I'm not sure about other states of federal. We have a Truth-In-Sentencing law here). Perjury is perjury.

 

But what I'm trying to do is force eveyone to see their own bias here.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Tale]

I don't think its bias. Clinton didn't get the requisite number of votes for removal from office. Libby isn't President. If you're trying to expose bias, is your ultimate point that everyone who perjures, obstructs justice, and lies to the investigators should get away without a jail sentence or that both Libby and Clinton should have gone to jail for it?

 

And I don't think people thinking the spirit of the offense being applicable even if the law disagrees is a bias, either. Which is what Walsh and Pop are talking about.

 

I think people saying this should be used as evidence for Bush's impeachment might be a bit biased, however.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

I agree. I don't think this Libby thing should be used as a means to impeach Bush. There are many more solid reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney than this.

[Guard Dog]

I agree. I don't think this Libby thing should be used as a means to impeach Bush. There are many more solid reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney than this.

Such as?

[Tale]

I agree. I don't think this Libby thing should be used as a means to impeach Bush. There are many more solid reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney than this.

Such as?

WHY did you ask that question? WHY DO YOU HATE THIS FORUM?!

[Sand]

I agree. I don't think this Libby thing should be used as a means to impeach Bush. There are many more solid reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney than this.

Such as?

Lying about the Iraqi's WMD stash is one reason.

[Guard Dog]

If you're trying to expose bias, is your ultimate point that everyone who perjures, obstructs justice, and lies to the investigators should get away without a jail sentence or that both Libby and Clinton should have gone to jail for it?

 

What I'm driving at is, the majority of posters here wanted Libby in prison. On the surface they say it is because he comitted a crime that warrants the sentence. But underneath I think (based on many comments) it is because they hate Bush so much they want SOMEONE to go to jail for every percieved wrong Bush has ever done. I'm just trying to get them to admit that by pointing out that when Clinton did the exact same thing under similar circumstances none of those same people who want Libby punished, wanted Clinton punished. And the main reason (not the only) is that Libby is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat. That is why so many posters here are angry at the commutation. Clinton gives free and clear pardons to drug dealers and bank robbers, corrupt politicians and terrorists and nobody here has a problem with it. Bush commutes part of the sentence of a political flunky and they are ready for a civil war. That is the bias I'm just trying to get everyone to admit to. I'm not saying it is right or wrong to be that way, but I do think it's important for people to understand why the feel the way the do.

 

And kudos to Sand who was honest enough to admit it way back on page one!

 

And I don't think people thinking the spirit of the offense being applicable even if the law disagrees is a bias, either. Which is what Walsh and Pop are talking about.

 

I understand where you guys are coming from. I just disagree on that point.

[Sand]

I think its the fact that Bush never in the past, as governor or as president, commuted sentences and made pardons in such a way until one of his own was in trouble. Sure Clinton commuted sentences and pardon people, but it was more spaced out than just his friends and family.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Lying about the Iraqi's WMD stash is one reason.

 

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem.

 

Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong?

[Tale]

I think its the fact that Bush never in the past, as governor or as president, commuted sentences and made pardons in such a way until one of his own was in trouble. Sure Clinton commuted sentences and pardon people, but it was more spaced out than just his friends and family.

Whaaaa?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl..._George_W._Bush

 

Those people are not Bush's friends and family. Bush did pardon people before "one of his own was in trouble."

[Sand]

Lying about the Iraqi's WMD stash is one reason.

 

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem.

 

Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong?

 

Oh come on, man. They new Iraq didn't have WMDs. The intelligence office altered the raw data and presented it so that we would go to war. Even I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs at the time of invasion. It was blatantly obvious that Saddam was simply posturing. Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent.

 

@Tale: Whoops, okay. I was wrong.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent.

 

The first assumes facts not in evidence. There has been no credible evidence supporting the theory that the CIA deliberately falsified intelligence at the behest of the Bush admin. The second is not an impeachable offense.

[DeathScepter]

Lying about the Iraqi's WMD stash is one reason.

 

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem.

 

Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong?

 

Oh come on, man. They new Iraq didn't have WMDs. The intelligence office altered the raw data and presented it so that we would go to war. Even I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs at the time of invasion. It was blatantly obvious that Saddam was simply posturing. Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent.

 

@Tale: Whoops, okay. I was wrong.

 

 

how do you know that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? Also Have you ever thought about their connection to Syria? And Also how to cover a paper tales?

 

 

 

Maybe there were other reasons than just WMDs in why we are in and staying Iraq.

[Tale]

Lying about the Iraqi's WMD stash is one reason.

 

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem.

 

Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong?

 

Oh come on, man. They new Iraq didn't have WMDs. The intelligence office altered the raw data and presented it so that we would go to war. Even I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs at the time of invasion. It was blatantly obvious that Saddam was simply posturing. Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent.

 

@Tale: Whoops, okay. I was wrong.

 

 

how do you know that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? Also Have you ever thought about their connection to Syria? And Also how to cover a paper tales?

 

 

 

Maybe there were other reasons than just WMDs in why we are in and staying Iraq.

Plural? Are you calling me fat? What do I have to do with this anyway?

[Walsingham]

Firstly, if the president receives a briefing which tell shim there are WMDs and he presents that to Congress his ass is covered. You can haver about the thinking that went into the brief all you want. Neither you nor I will ever know. What I DO know is that there were compelling reasons to suspect WMDs existed. Reasons I was moved by, as were a number of very clever acquaintances, including ex-members of the intelligence services, and ex-diplomatic corps. If we want to go into this we can start another thread.

 

I must point out this still has nothing whatsoever to do with Scooter Libby. Please try to stay on topic, gentlemen. George Bush could be satan himself, it's Mr Libby and his pardon on the charge. If anyone wants to start a 'Isn't George Bush a twit in general' thread then go ahead.

 

GD, the charge of perjury does not acrry a uniform penalty. If I vandalise a street light and my friend vandalises a railway signal light (I'm not saying I've ever done this), then a British judge would certainly accord different penalties. They are the same action, with very different implications. Or would you argue they should be treated in an identical fashion?

[WITHTEETH]

There is one thing you are missing here Teeth, and as much as it sucks, there is no getting around it. The Iraq war was legal. Unconventional to be sure, but the Congress did give the President permission to attack Iraq on Oct 11, 2002 in a joint resolution. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war. They chose to give that authority away in this case and that was also legal. And a little stupid. You cannot impeach a President unless he violates law, and Bush has not done that.

 

Most of the arguments on this board are based on emotion rather than cold reasoning. You (not you Teeth, just a general term) hate the war, the man, the political philosophy, therefore think he deserves to be impeached. You THINK Constituitonal freedoms have been violated. But you cannot say which ones because the answer is none. But if people THINK they have it takes on a truth of it's own.

The war was legalized by congress, but the facts in the report were manipulated. Where did the facts come from and who sent them to the congress without checking them? The white house administration has become a mafia almost with so many buffers that its impossible to charge someone. This goverment is not right if we cannot check it. Our founding fathers told the future generation to overturn the goverment if it came to this.

Article 1, section Nine of our Constitution Habeas Corpus was rendered useless. This is HUGE. The legal concept of Habeas corpus is a fundamental right, the right to go into a court of law and have it proved that the authorities are detaining you with proper cause. If this right is denied doesn't that necessarily mean that the state does not answer to the people, and is therefore a dictatorship by definition? On October 17 president Bush signed a bill essentially repealing that right. It barely made the news.

 

The cold truth of the matter is Bush has not comitted a crime. Clinton on the other hand lied under oath and obstructed justice. Granted, I do not think he deserved to be impeached, but he actually DID something illegal and opened the door. If he had just come out from the get go and said "Yes, I did that. So what?" the whole business would never have happened.

Congress has no right to be worries about Clinton's *genital region*, that whole idea is complete lunacy, a trap by the republican party to win votes for their own political agenda for the next presidency. In fact Newt Gingrich the guy leading the impeachment is a Hypocrite because he was having an affair while he was impeaching Clinton. Well Republicans got the white house somehow and look what they did with it.

 

I could easily get side tracked here but to stay on topic, my whole point here is not to defend Bush or impune Clinton. I am simply pointing out that everyone is screaming about "corruption" from one political party, but is mute about the same actions from the other political party. That is hipocrisy.

 

With the crippling of Habeas Corpus. repeatedly wrong intelligence on Iraq that was manipulated. The terrible idea of preemptive war that goes against even bushes ideology technically on Just War by Augustine. Ill reasoned fear mongering for 6 years. and the longest string of disapproval rating's I've ever heard of/ Living in the US of A i feel that i have a right to my opinion and that opinion is that President Bush, his vice president and the rest of his administration is a corrupt embarrassment to the United States Legacy, I vote No Confidence.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Walsingham

[Walsingham]

I don't mean to sound like Tarkin, but I grow tired of asking this... where does Iraq become relevant to the issue of Scooter Libby? Alright, now I think about it I mentioned it earlier, but I shouldn't have.

[Pop]

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the US decided that Victor Rita, a 25-year army veteran convicted of perjury, had recieved a fair sentencing of 30 months in jail, whereas 33 months for Libby was "excessive", according to the President. I wonder who's got a more reasonable approach to the law...

[Gorgon]

Isen't it more or less custom that presidents pardon their shady buddies when they are runninh out of time in the whitehouse ?

[Guard Dog]

Apologies to Wals, but I must answer this.

 

The war was legalized by congress, but the facts in the report were manipulated. Where did the facts come from and who sent them to the congress without checking them?

 

To date, no credible evidence has been offered that the CIA falsified intelligence on the orders of the administration. Yes, it was bad intelligence and there is enough blame to spread around there. From bad info out of Mi6 to Clinton and George H Bush's decimation of the CIA to the GWB admin presenting only facts they thought "relevant". And you could argue Congress did not do their due diligence in fact checking. But you seem to believe there was some kind of deliberate conspiracy to deceive here, and there is simply no evidence of that.

 

The white house administration has become a mafia almost with so many buffers that its impossible to charge someone. This government is not right if we cannot check it. Our founding fathers told the future generation to overturn the government if it came to this.

 

That is hyperbole and does nothing to contribute to the debate.

 

Article 1, section Nine of our Constitution Habeas Corpus was rendered useless. This is HUGE. The legal concept of Habeas corpus is a fundamental right, the right to go into a court of law and have it proved that the authorities are detaining you with proper cause. If this right is denied doesn't that necessarily mean that the state does not answer to the people, and is therefore a dictatorship by definition? On October 17 president Bush signed a bill essentially repealing that right. It barely made the news.

 

I believe the "bill" you are referring to here was actually an executive order signed by Bush on 11/13/2001 which did, in effect, suspend Habeas Corpus for anyone who was designated an "enemy combatant". It was later codified into law by Congress in the Defense Appropriation Act. It did not make the news because it was buried in an otherwise non descript bill. And yes this is a sickening and despicable thing to do. And it was also shot down by the Supreme Court in 2006 in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. The court ruled that Congress could not limit Habeas Corpus motions by American citizens. Congress revisited this in 2006 in the "Military Commissions Act". Only now the wording specified that non US citizens who were enemy combatants could not seek Habeas Corpus redress from the court. THAT has since been upheld by the US Court of appeals in Boumediene v. Bush. The SCOTUS has declined to review the case so it will stand. So, no they have NOT suspended Habeas Corpus for citizens. But yes, they did try. The system worked as it should.

 

 

Congress has no right to be worries about Clinton's *genital region*, that whole idea is complete lunacy, a trap by the republican party to win votes for their own political agenda for the next presidency.

 

No argument there. It should never have come to that but it does not change the fact the the President of the United States committed a crime (Perjury and Obstruction of Justice) during an investigation that should never have taken place. But I was only citing this example to illustrate my point.

 

 

Ill reasoned fear mongering for 6 years. and the longest string of disapproval rating's I've ever heard of/ Living in the US of A i feel that i have a right to my opinion and that opinion is that President Bush, his vice president and the rest of his administration is a corrupt embarrassment to the United States Legacy, I vote No Confidence.

 

Of course you have the right to that opinion. And you are not the only one who thinks that way judging by the approval ratings. But to return to topic, I was only pointing out that the people crying over Libby not going to prison were the same people who had no problems with Clinton not being punished for the same offenses. And had no problem with anyone he pardoned.

[WITHTEETH]

I don't mean to sound like Tarkin, but I grow tired of asking this... where does Iraq become relevant to the issue of Scooter Libby? Alright, now I think about it I mentioned it earlier, but I shouldn't have.

Just wait until it starts to get into WW2 again. it aways comes back to the Nazis!

[WITHTEETH]

Ill reasoned fear mongering for 6 years. and the longest string of disapproval rating's I've ever heard of/ Living in the US of A i feel that i have a right to my opinion and that opinion is that President Bush, his vice president and the rest of his administration is a corrupt embarrassment to the United States Legacy, I vote No Confidence.

 

Of course you have the right to that opinion. And you are not the only one who thinks that way judging by the approval ratings. But to return to topic, I was only pointing out that the people crying over Libby not going to prison were the same people who had no problems with Clinton not being punished for the same offenses. And had no problem with anyone he pardoned.

Valerie was working on Iran and their Nuclear proliferation during her outing right? If so, Libby outing her out is a Major blow to national security since they think Iran is a "Axes of Evil" Country. I understand perjury is perjury, but there are min and max penalties for perjury. I think we should make an example out of him for risking everyones life for this... Administration. Its over, i understand and i think it was bad judgement on Bush's side but it is legal. Bush just has no moral or intellectual capacity. Hes stupid, mediocre at best, and hes my president, even though I didn't vote for him.

Looking down at New Orleans

I can't wait until budlight gives a radio commercial thanking the president. The last one was hilarious, it was about the taco salad inventor, the maker of the 12 thousand calorie salad.

[Lokey]

I don't mean to sound like Tarkin, but I grow tired of asking this... where does Iraq become relevant to the issue of Scooter Libby? Alright, now I think about it I mentioned it earlier, but I shouldn't have.

Off by one letter. Iran primarily iirc (at far as what Libby was on trial about).

 

Ok, what WithTeeth said simultaneously, but plenty there to quibble with.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Lokey

[Guard Dog]

Valerie was working on Iran and their Nuclear proliferation during her outing right? If so, Libby outing her out is a Major blow to national security since they think Iran is a "Axes of Evil" Country. I understand perjury is perjury, but there are min and max penalties for perjury. I think we should make an example out of him for risking everyones life for this... Administration.

Ummm, you do know that Libby did not out Plame right? It was Richard Armitage. Ironically, he was not prosecuted.

[WITHTEETH]

Valerie was working on Iran and their Nuclear proliferation during her outing right? If so, Libby outing her out is a Major blow to national security since they think Iran is a "Axes of Evil" Country. I understand perjury is perjury, but there are min and max penalties for perjury. I think we should make an example out of him for risking everyones life for this... Administration.

Ummm, you do know that Libby did not out Plame right? It was Richard Armitage. Ironically, he was not prosecuted.

I think your half right actually, it was Richard Novak right?