Scooter off to jail

[gldstwmn]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

July 2, 2007
Appeals court rejects Libby’s bid for bail

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby “has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question” that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

A trial judge ordered Libby to serve 30 months in prison, to start when a location is determined by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and a date is decided for him to surrender himself at that location.

A court official told CNN Libby’s attorneys may still file for relief from the US Supreme Court, to try to keep Libby out of confinement pending his appeal.

[Livia]

Kid from the Simpsons: HAAAA-HA!

[DavidMn]

Scooter meet you new cellmate Bubba.:laugh:

[Beachwood Mac]

Not so fast. Bush just commuted Libby's sentence :mad:

WASHINGTON - President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.


Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

[strandinthewind]

And THAT ladies and gentlemen is a payoff that left Cheney's head attached to his neck and, likely, W in the Oval Office. And, it is perfectly legal unless they can prove the payoff, which isn't likely because the only one who can spill the beans in SL, and he was just awarded a get out of jail free card :shrug:

This is a pathetic misuse of our justice system.

In any event:

Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

Story Highlights

White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby faced 30 months in prison

Libby will not serve that sentence but will pay $250,000 fine

Libby convicted in relation to investigation into 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity

Bush called 30 months in prison "excessive"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has commuted the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

Earlier Monday, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that Libby could not delay his sentence.

The charges relate to the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Libby was only weeks away from surrendering to a prison.

Bush was under great pressure by Libby allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a written statement issued hours after that ruling, Bush called the sentence "excessive." But he also rejected calls for a pardon for Libby.

"The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting," Bush said.

But he said Libby was given "a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."

Libby was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

The conviction remains on Libby's record and he still has to pay a $250,000 fine.

Commutations are rarely granted, says CNN's chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court, he said.

It means that Libby will still have the conviction on his record -- unless he is able to overturn it on appeal, which he will likely continue to pursue.

A pardon is a complete eradication of a conviction record, making it appear as if the person has never been convicted. It's possible that Bush could still grant Libby a full pardon.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html

[Beachwood Mac]

Libby will not serve that sentence but will pay $250,000 fine.

Cheney and his cronies will be picking up this tab.



A pardon is a complete eradication of a conviction record, making it appear as if the person has never been convicted. It's possible that Bush could still grant Libby a full pardon.

Bush will take care of this when he leaves office.

[strandinthewind]

The book deal alone will likely be a million, if they go that route. But, yes, that fine along with his million dollars + legal fees most assurdedly have been paid. I wonder if there is a place to find that out. He no longer is a public official, so his records are not discoverable via that route. Moreover, he only made MAYBE $125,000 at his govt. job.

I don't know if W will pardon him. It is not really necessary as he got off already. But, who the hell knows as this admin. is not known for its wisdom.

[sasja]

I am just thinking events like these are clinching a Democratic Presidential Candidate's victory in advance.... :nod:

[catinthedark]

I am just thinking events like these are clinching a Democratic Presidential Candidate's victory in advance.... :nod:

they certainly aren't hurting!

[irishgrl]

I am just thinking events like these are clinching a Democratic Presidential Candidate's victory in advance.... :nod:
from your mouth to Gawd's ear.

&^%#$%^&^%$$%^& I HATE BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!one! (wavey to ryan!)

[strandinthewind]

Here is his defense fund:

http://www.scooterlibby.com/

Here is a comment on it:

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2005/11/15/libby_defense/index.html

Libby's secret defense fund

How much of the money given to Cheney's former aide will come from Halliburton et al.? The public now has no way to know.

By Joe Conason

Page 1

November 15, 2005 |

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby may have taken the perp walk for the Bush White House, but he will never walk alone. As the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney considers his options -- including possible cooperation with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- friends of the administration are rallying to his side. Unlike his old boss Cheney, the indicted Libby lacks the millions of dollars needed to mount a proper Washington scandal defense, but evidently he will have no trouble attracting the assistance of right-wing operatives, administration aides and Republican lobbyists.

Actually, someone who personifies all those categories and more has materialized to mastermind the Scooter Libby defense committee, with promises of financial assistance and supportive publicity.

Her name is Barbara Comstock, a minor figure from the Whitewater era, when she served as "chief investigator" for Rep. Dan Burton, the wigged-out Indiana congressman who once executed a watermelon to demonstrate his sinister theory concerning the fate of Vince Foster, the White House counsel who committed suicide in 1993. During those glory years, she joined David Brock and the rest of the Republican pack in the hunting of Bill and Hillary Clinton. In his memoir, "Blinded by the Right," Brock described Comstock as almost unhinged in her passion to bring down the Clintons.

Comstock calmed down enough to serve as director of public affairs in John Ashcroft's Justice Department, to run opposition research for the Republican National Committee and, ultimately, after leaving government, to join the powerhouse lobbying firm of Blank Rome, best known for its huge contributions to the Republican Party, its close association with former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and other Bush appointees, and its lucky clientele of DHS contractors.

Is there something wrong with this picture? The most illuminating way to answer that question, perhaps, is to imagine what Comstock and others of her ilk might have said if the same situation had obtained during the Clinton administration.

Of course, nobody with the same rank as Libby was indicted back then, and nobody who worked for Clinton ever exposed a clandestine CIA agent for partisan purposes, as Libby did in the case of Valerie Plame Wilson. But certainly there were plenty of scandals and investigations back then, and lots of expensive lawyers to pay. There were defense funds, including the massive Clinton Legal Expense Trust, which collected money to pay the former first family's multimillion-dollar legal bills.

Democrats made donations large and small to that fund, some of which became highly controversial and sparked congressional investigations. In fact, the Clinton trust hired a private investigator to look into a donor named Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, who was suspected of seeking to influence the president.

Outraged accusations of corruption rang across Capitol Hill and the talk show airwaves, although no misconduct was ever charged, let alone proved. Every donation and expenditure of the Clinton defense trust was carefully recorded in a publicly available document whose contents were widely and regularly reported in the media. The trust's director testified under oath in the Senate about its operations. That didn't satisfy the loonies of the Rush Limbaugh persuasion, who still believe to this day that the fund was somehow used unethically (even though Clinton left office with millions in debt to his attorneys).

Then there was the matter of Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department who eventually went to prison for stealing from Hillary Rodham Clinton and his other former partners at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm. Before he was indicted but after he left Justice, Hubbell got legal work from various companies, with the help of Washington power broker and Clinton confidant Vernon Jordan, among others.

Republican politicians and pundits loudly denounced those arrangements as a form of bribery to ensure Hubbell's silence. But after years of investigation, Ken Starr could never charge anyone with seeking to pay off Hubbell, who did his time insisting that he knew no incriminating information about the Clintons. It was perfectly natural for the Republicans to suspect the use of hush money, since that had been the modus operandi of their beloved "Tricky Dick" Nixon, dating back to the Watergate scandal.

But now the scandal worm has turned again, with a vengeance. If the Libby indictment is to be believed, the vice president and Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, may be implicated in nefarious misconduct that included a serious breach of national security. At the very least, they should both be asked to resign. They and others could be subject to prosecution should Libby ever decide to purge himself of his alleged perjury and obstruction charges in a plea agreement with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

But Libby's resistance to any such dangerous deal could be enhanced by two factors: the promise that he and his family will not be bankrupted to pay for his defense, and the prospect of a pardon before George W. Bush leaves office. Such self-serving abuse of the pardon power would follow the pattern set by Bush's father in his last-minute reprieve of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-Contra affair.

That is why Democrats have demanded that the president promise to not pardon Libby -- a demand that ought to be the subject of press questions to the president himself, just as reporters regularly used to ask Clinton whether he intended to pardon Whitewater figure Susan McDougal. (He did finally pardon McDougal, long after she had served 21 months in prison and Starr had acknowledged that there was no case against the Clintons in Whitewater. Clinton didn't grant a pardon to Hubbell, who didn't ask for one.)

Meanwhile, the emergence of Comstock, a corporate lobbyist and Bush loyalist bearing checks with Libby's name on them, is troubling. Unlike the Clinton defense trust, the Libby fund is under no obligation to report the names of donors or the amounts they give. And the public has no way of knowing how much money might be funneled to the Libby defense by the vice president's friends at Halliburton, ExxonMobil and the myriad other corporations and lobbying firms that have fattened themselves on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the other disasters of the Bush era.

No way, that is, unless Fitzgerald finds probable cause to subpoena the records of the Libby defense fund. Certainly his investigation should continue until the special prosecutor can be certain that the coverup and the obstruction of justice have ended.

_________________________________________________________

So, this is costing him nothing other than he cannot practice law - which I can assure you is no big deal as he has not done so in years and he will not want for a job :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Not so fast. Bush just commuted Libby's sentence :mad:

Jesus H. Christ. I make a tedious trip to the airport yesterday to shuttle off my niece. I come home and lay down on the sofa for a bit and wake up to Glenn frigging Beck talking about Scooter's sentence being commuted.
I think any way you slice this, it is political suicide for Bush. A good portion of America is going to think Bush had pardoned Libby (which will surely happen on his way out the door in 2009). What further evidence do we need that this president has absolutely no regard for the rule of law? Seriously, I think this is going to be the last straw for a lot of people across both party lines.

[gldstwmn]

Cheney and his cronies will be picking up this tab.




Bush will take care of this when he leaves office.


Yes and yes. Also, it is interesting to note that presidential candidate Fred Thompson is a donor to Scooter's defense fund. Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday and said he agreed with the president's decision. WTF? :confused:

[strandinthewind]

The thing about this is that the decision did not come though the DOJ as most do. It came sua sponte from W. I think W realizes that he can play now only to his base and they appaud the decision and think the pardon is coming. In any event, W has sent out a message loud and clear that it is okay to lie to the prosecutor when you are friends with the Pres.

[Rickypt]

This incident will not hurt the GOP if Hillary is the Dem candidate.

[gldstwmn]

The thing about this is that the decision did not come though the DOJ as most do. It came sua sponte from W. I think W realizes that he can play now only to his base and they appaud the decision and think the pardon is coming. In any event, W has sent out a message loud and clear that it is okay to lie to the prosecutor when you are friends with the Pres.

I think his base is about 18% on this issue, looking at recent polls.

[DavidMn]

I think his base is about 18% on this issue, looking at recent polls.I'll say this. I consider myself a moderate, and I havent been angered as much by what Bush has done as I am about this. I just wonder how long it will take to start the impeachment hearings now.

[irishgrl]

I'll say this. I consider myself a moderate, and I havent been angered as much by what Bush has done as I am about this. I just wonder how long it will take to start the impeachment hearings now.
he shoulda been impeached for the Iraq war lies. the Katrina fiasco. Alberto Gonzales cronyism Democrat Attorney firings (did that make sense?) The man is absolutely thumbing his nose at justice. I think all his Supreme Court appointees need to be impeached too. They are flouting precedent all over the place.

[DavidMn]

he shoulda been impeached for the Iraq war lies. the Katrina fiasco. Alberto Gonzales cronyism Democrat Attorney firings (did that make sense?) The man is absolutely thumbing his nose at justice. I think all his Supreme Court appointees need to be impeached too. They are flouting precedent all over the place.Oh I havent forgotten any of those things. believe me, but frankly I havent ever seen in my (short) political observational life any thing that's blatantly flouted the law like this!:mad:

[strandinthewind]

I think his base is about 18% on this issue, looking at recent polls.

True - but they wanted a pardon. So, they are miffed about the communting instead. I think though that they all think the pardon is coming later.

[irishgrl]

True - but they wanted a pardon. So, they are miffed about the communting instead. I think though that they all think the pardon is coming later.
so are the GOP above the law? what is this country coming to???

[strandinthewind]

so are the GOP above the law? what is this country coming to???

Ask Denise Rich's ex husband :shrug:

[DavidMn]

Ask Denise Rich's ex husband :shrug:U mean Marc Rich right?

[irishgrl]

sorry, the reference doesnt ring any bells :shrug:

[DavidMn]

sorry, the reference doesnt ring any bells :shrug:Marc Rich was the ****bag Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. I'll leave it to Jason to provide details of his transgressions

[strandinthewind]

U mean Marc Rich right?

Yes -

Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2001

The Marc Rich Case: A Primer

By Jessica Reaves

President Clinton's eleventh-hour pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich has sparked a firestorm of controversy, launching investigations in both houses of Congress and igniting fierce protest from both Democrats and Republicans. The U.S. House and Senate have issued a rash of subpoenas calling for witnesses as well as financial records, as the House Government Reform Committee continued its hearings and the Senate Judiciary Committee geared up for its own proceedings.

Thursday, the controversy took another step forward — no, we're not at impeachment yet, but it's been suggested — when federal prosecutors in New York officially opened a criminal investigation into whether Rich did indeed buy his pardon with his ex-wife Denise's pointed largesse to the First Couple and the Democratic party.

That prompted Dan Burton, chairman and lead Clinton-hunter on the House Government Affairs Committee's ongoing investigation into the matter, to put on hold his request to the Justice Department to give Denise Rich immunity in exchange for her testimony. Rich has already declined to testify, citing her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

As with almost everything relating to the former president, the Marc Rich pardon case raises a lot of questions. Some answers will surface only after all the Capitol Hill witnesses are heard and the U.S. Attorney's office does its thing. Others, happily, we can answer here and now.

First of all, what does it mean to be "pardoned" by the President?

In legal terms, a pardon in an exemption from punishment for a criminal conviction. Presidential pardons are granted unilaterally and cannot be reversed.

So what's the point of all these hearings?

Some are calling the inquiries a field day for die-hard Clinton-haters. But most see this as a source of bipartisan outrage. Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon. The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon: He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.

The congressional panels were called to investigate the path to Rich's pardon — which, as various documents seem to indicate, did not follow usual channels. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. pardon attorney Roger Adams says when the White House sent over Rich's name for pardon consideration — only a few hours before the President was due to leave office — there was never any mention of Rich being a fugitive. There is also suspicion that donations made to Clinton campaigns and to the Clinton presidential library by Rich's ex-wife, Denise, could be a quid pro quo for the pardon.

There are other questions looming: Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked whether Clinton even had time to sign all of the paperwork required to seal Rich's pardon before he left office — raising the possibility that the pardon may not be valid. Specter has also floated the idea of a constitutional amendment giving congressional oversight to presidential pardons.

Will Clinton be brought in to testify about the pardon?

It doesn't look like it. Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated he's interested in having Clinton appear to "clear the air," but says he doesn't believe the former president should be forced to testify.

How does President Bush feel about the Rich pardon inquiries?

Bush has been quoted as saying he thinks "it's time to move on," and by all accounts has little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight.

What was Marc Rich's alleged crime?

In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

So does the pardon mean that if Rich leaves Switzerland (where he's been living for 17 years and seems quite happy to stay) and comes back to the U.S., that he won't face any legal proceedings at all?

Possibly. He's free of any criminal charges in connection with the case, but Rich can still be charged in civil court on, say, tax evasion charges. In fact, when Clinton finally signed off on Rich's pardon, the President stipulated that Rich waive the statute of limitations normally placed on as yet unspecified civil charges.

Rich has been living in Switzerland for almost 20 years now. Is he still a U.S. citizen?

That's one of the major questions connected with this case. And the answer, legally, anyway, appears to be yes. While Rich's lawyers can't seem to decide if their client is a citizen — sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't — and Rich himself reportedly considers himself a citizen of Israel and Spain, a federal appeals court ruled in 1991 that Rich had not actively renounced his U.S. citizenship, and therefore he was subject to U.S. law.

Why does his citizenship matter?

If Rich is, in fact, still a U.S. citizen, he's liable for taxes, no matter where he lives. So the IRS wants to know if Rich filed taxes for 17 years he spent abroad — and the congressional panel is investigating whether Rich's money made it back to Bill and Hillary Clinton; non-citizens are not permitted to make political contributions.

What does Denise Rich have to do with all this?

Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon. Investigators want to know if Denise's contributions led to a direct quid pro quo exchange for her ex-husband's pardon. Clinton has denied any connection, saying he relied solely on the information provided by Jack Quinn (former White House counsel and Rich's current lawyer) when he was weighing the pardon request.

What happens to Denise Rich now?

Last week, when she was called to testify before the congressional panel, she took the Fifth (the amendment to the Constitution that allows potential witnesses to decline testimony out of fear that they might incriminate themselves). Now the same House panel wants to offer Rich immunity in order to discuss her ex-husband's case. House Republicans want approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft before granting immunity. Ashcroft is currently "considering" the request.

What about Washington Democratic fund-raiser and socialite Beth Dozoretz, whose name has come up in connection with the case?

Beth Dozoretz, fund-raiser and FOB, was, according to TIME, skiing when she heard that Clinton was "impressed" by Rich's case for a pardon. Dozoretz eagerly told skiing partner Denise Rich about the development, who called Marc Rich's supporters in Israel, then Washington. Dozoretz is also a big contributor to the Clinton presidential library fund. As in Denise Rich's case, congressional investigators want to know if there's a trail leading straight from Dozoretz's bountiful checkbook to Clinton's signature on Marc Rich's pardon.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

[irishgrl]

well, it wont be long until we're back at the vigilante justice sort of society, Im thinking....

[irishgrl]

and now, a few choice words from Chris Matthews:

“For him to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”

[stargazer99]

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), February 2, 1999, at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton:

"[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), October 23, 2005, on "Meet The Press", speaking about the investigation of Scooter Libby:

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

RepuGlicans: This is how they roll.

[priestofnothing]

I'm so tired of you America.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c202/priestofnothing/scooterbush.jpg

[gldstwmn]

True - but they wanted a pardon. So, they are miffed about the communting instead. I think though that they all think the pardon is coming later.

There is no doubt in my mind he will be pardoned. You?

[gldstwmn]

I'll say this. I consider myself a moderate, and I havent been angered as much by what Bush has done as I am about this. I just wonder how long it will take to start the impeachment hearings now.

They cannot impeach him for commuting Scooter's sentence. It is his privilige as the president of the United States and cannot be challenged in any court of law.
However there are far many other things for which he could be impeached. The problem is, there needs to be proof. Fitzgerald (prosecutor in the Libby case) has said that the reason he was not able to get any further with this case was because Libby lied repeatedly. He certainly covered Rove's ass, if not Cheney's and Bush's as well.

[irishgrl]

get a rope.

[gldstwmn]

Ask Denise Rich's ex husband :shrug:

Ironically, Scooter was his lawyer.

[gldstwmn]

Marc Rich was the ****bag Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. I'll leave it to Jason to provide details of his transgressions

And Richard Nixon was the ****bag President Ford pardoned while he was in office. To bring Clinton into the argument serves no purpose but to draw attention away from the subject at hand.

[strandinthewind]

There is no doubt in my mind he will be pardoned. You?

None whatsoever

[gldstwmn]

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), February 2, 1999, at a press conference announcing a resolution to open the Senate trial on the impeachment of President Clinton:

"[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), October 23, 2005, on "Meet The Press", speaking about the investigation of Scooter Libby:

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

RepuGlicans: This is how they roll.

That hag is bought and paid for.

[gldstwmn]

Here ya go David:

http://cbs2chicago.com/homepage/local_story_183225657.html

Jackson: Bush Actions 'Crime Against Constitution'
Congressman Calls For Impeachment Proceedings After President Commutes Libby Sentence

As CBS 2’s Katie McCall reports, there was negative reaction in Illinois to the announcement Monday.

”Since the president has intervened in this process, it is now the Congress’ obligation and responsibility to intervene in the executive process and begin an inquiry into these very serious crimes against the constitution of the United States,” said Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago).

Jackson says this time the president went too far. After word that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence Jackson plans to call on House Democrats to start impeachment proceedings.

“I certainly hope Nancy Pelosi will withdraw her initial remarks that impeachment is completely off the table,” Jackson said.

Libby was convicted of lying under oath to cover up the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

"I respect the jury's verdict,” Bush said in a statement about his rationale for lightening Libby’s load. “But I have concluded that the sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

Jackson's weren't the only angry words on the matter.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin evoked another famous convict, saying, “Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law."

There were detractors in the president's own party, including north suburban Congressman Mark Kirk (R-Northbrook), who expressed his disappointment.

“He was indicted by a grand jury and convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt by one of the best prosecutors in America, Patrick Fitzgerald, and didn’t have a single member of a 12-member jury stand up with him,” Kirk said. “At that point, if you’ve done the crime, you should do the time.”

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted Libby, said all citizens should stand before what he called the bar of justice as equals.

Libby still has to pay a $250,000 fine and will be on probation for two years. The president says that is still a harsh punishment.

[Rickypt]

”Since the president has intervened in this process, it is now the Congress’ obligation and responsibility to intervene in the executive process and begin an inquiry into these very serious crimes against the constitution of the United States,” said Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago).


There were no crimes against the Constitution. It would be nice if Dems would stop the grandstanding and actually do stuff to fight the President. Such as starting hearings on truly impeachable offenses, voting to cut off funding for the war and then sticking to it, etc.

[irishgrl]

Jesse Jackson is a CONGRESSMAN? :eek:


also: Jeez Ryan, when did you become a Dem-hater???

[stargazer99]

Jesse Jackson is a CONGRESSMAN? :eek:

Jesse Jackson JR is indeed a Congressman. (My mom lives in his district.) He was also one of 20 Congressmen that formally contested certification of the 2000 vote count in Florida. They only needed 1 of the 50 democrats in the Senate to sign on in order for a vote on the objection to take place. Not one of them did so.


also: Jeez Ryan, when did you become a Dem-hater???

Why does criticism = hatred? :shrug: I'm with Ryan on this one. The Dems have done nothing but give soundbites since becoming the majority. Yet they've backed down every time it counted. Being blindly loyal to the Dems is no different than the die-hard Bush supporters who would support him even if they personally witnessed him eating babies. (Eating a zygote would be a different matter. His base would burn him at the stake for that.)

[irishgrl]

Jesse Jackson JR is indeed a Congressman. (My mom lives in his district.) He was also one of 20 Congressmen that formally contested certification of the 2000 vote count in Florida. They only needed 1 of the 50 democrats in the Senate to sign on in order for a vote on the objection to take place. Not one of them did so.




Why does criticism = hatred? :shrug: I'm with Ryan on this one. The Dems have done nothing but give soundbites since becoming the majority. Yet they've backed down every time it counted. Being blindly loyal to the Dems is no different than the die-hard Bush supporters who would support him even if they personally witnessed him eating babies. (Eating a zygote would be a different matter. His base would burn him at the stake for that.)
I wish I had $$$ to burn. I'd be a firebrand, like Barbara Boxer and Dennis Kucinich. (sp?) the Dems would be shamed into having a backbone.

[gldstwmn]

There were no crimes against the Constitution. It would be nice if Dems would stop the grandstanding and actually do stuff to fight the President. Such as starting hearings on truly impeachable offenses, voting to cut off funding for the war and then sticking to it, etc.

Libby obstructed justice, so there is good reason to believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were commited.
Also as an aside, did you know that your man Obama came out against impeachment the other day?

[gldstwmn]

Why does criticism = hatred? :shrug: I'm with Ryan on this one. The Dems have done nothing but give soundbites since becoming the majority. Yet they've backed down every time it counted. Being blindly loyal to the Dems is no different than the die-hard Bush supporters who would support him even if they personally witnessed him eating babies. (Eating a zygote would be a different matter. His base would burn him at the stake for that.)

I am extremely disappointed with Congress at this juncture. If Gore doesn't run for president, then I am going to have to hold my nose to vote for Hillary/Obama come election day.

[strandinthewind]

There were no crimes against the Constitution. It would be nice if Dems would stop the grandstanding and actually do stuff to fight the President. Such as starting hearings on truly impeachable offenses, voting to cut off funding for the war and then sticking to it, etc.

I agree.

1. It is wholly false when the head of their party was selling pardons and they did not seem to have a problem with it then :shrug:

2. It is easy to show a sack when like 80% of the country agrees with you and no matter what you do, there is no recourse.

Thus, the D's are rather pathetic IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Libby obstructed justice, so there is good reason to believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were commited.
Also as an aside, did you know that your man Obama came out against impeachment the other day?

The only person I can see who can possibly cause any significant weight to any impeachment hearing on the commuting is Libby himself and he ertainly is not going to do that.

In the end, W sold a parson/commutation - they all do it and that is that. If we do not like it, we need to change the Constitution.

[Rickypt]

Jesse Jackson is a CONGRESSMAN? :eek:


also: Jeez Ryan, when did you become a Dem-hater???

What on earth are you talking about?

[Rickypt]

Why does criticism = hatred? :shrug: I'm with Ryan on this one. The Dems have done nothing but give soundbites since becoming the majority. Yet they've backed down every time it counted. Being blindly loyal to the Dems is no different than the die-hard Bush supporters who would support him even if they personally witnessed him eating babies. (Eating a zygote would be a different matter. His base would burn him at the stake for that.)

Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. I am quite disappointed in the Dems, especially the pathetic Harry Reid, since they took power. I'm saying that chest-thumping about impeachment specific to the commutation is useless. If you're serious about starting impeachment proceedings, then focus on offense which are relevant. I don't think Jackson Jr. is serious about impeachment.

[Rickypt]

Libby obstructed justice, so there is good reason to believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were commited.
Also as an aside, did you know that your man Obama came out against impeachment the other day?

I'm all for investigating the hell out of Bush and Cheney, but Jackson Jr. seems to be saying he wants to impeach because of the commutation and that Bush "went too far". Bush may have gone too far politically, ethically, etc. (and I believe he did), but not legally.

And Obama's not really my man anymore since going to his less than impressive public appearance in Oakland. I'm undecided and hoping for Gore to jump in. Otherwise I'll probably vote for Edwards.

[gldstwmn]

Here's an interesting take that seems to reinforce Rep. Jackson's position:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070307R.shtml

Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Tuesday 03 July 2007

Let me get this straight.

Like a thief in the night, George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He made no public appearance to announce the decision, but instead air-mailed a written statement after 5 p.m. at the outset of a midweek holiday. The statement praised Patrick Fitzgerald as "a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged." As for Libby himself, the statement noted that "the consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

Not 24 hours later, Bush delivered a stammering, vacillating, nervous public statement defending his decision to commute Libby's prison sentence. During his statement, Bush made it clear that a full and complete pardon for Libby was still very much on the table.

Quite the boomerang, yes? Bush respected Fitzgerald, the truth, the jury and the rule of law on Monday night, but didn't respect these things in the morning. Mr. Bush, in doing so, has proven himself once again to be a quintessential moral philanderer, screwing around with justice at a whim, a serial cheater and a man who absolutely cannot be trusted.

Libby was part of a White House plot to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose early criticism of the administration's Iraq claims were deemed a grave threat to the policy. The White House attacked Wilson by exposing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a deep-cover CIA operative. This exposure destroyed the intelligence network she had created to track any person, nation or group that might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Libby lied under oath and obstructed justice to cover up these White House activities, and to protect Vice President Dick Cheney from scrutiny and censure for his direct role in the plot.

Despite these serious crimes, Libby will spend less time in prison than Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart and Susan MacDougal. The same Republicans who championed the impeachment of Bill Clinton now celebrate Libby's liberation from the consequences of the very same acts they accused Clinton of committing.

Beyond Bush's two-faced blather about potential pardons are details and possibilities of vast complexity.

By commuting the prison sentence, Bush left Libby's 5th Amendment rights intact. Thus, any Congressional committee or prosecutor wishing to call him to testify will have to immunize him from any potential legal repercussions arising from his testimony. If Bush chooses to fully pardon Libby, those 5th Amendment protections will go right out the window.

Libby has repeatedly stated his intention to go on with the appeals process so he can clear his name. If he does this and an appeal is granted, Patrick Fitzgerald will suddenly be back in business, because a granted appeal opens the way for a whole new trial. Libby, if granted this appeal, may well be tried and convicted all over again.

Appeals are commonly granted only if a mistake was made during the initial trial, a difficult standard to meet, which is why most appeals are not granted. Should Libby's team decide to base their appeal on the spurious claim that Patrick Fitzgerald was not properly authorized to prosecute the case to begin with, however, the playing field would be changed dramatically because Fitzgerald would no longer be in a position to retry the case. If the appeals court grants an appeal based on this argument, one would be forced to wonder if that court acted in collusion with the administration.

Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?

A wise man once said that the life of the law is procedure. There are processes to be undertaken, papers to be filed and forms to be obeyed. In this commutation, no procedures whatsoever appear to have been followed. The haste in which this action was undertaken smacks of fear, desperation, and of a cover-up in process.

Consider the factors.

Libby's legal defense from the first day of his trial was that he was a fall guy taking the rap for others.

Fitzgerald pointedly stated that the details surrounding Libby's actions put a cloud of suspicion over Vice President Dick Cheney.

Combine these two details and you wind up with Libby standing as a patsy taking the rap for Cheney.

Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation, if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.

This, more than anything else, must be investigated.

Senator Leahy, Representative Waxman, Representative Conyers and any other Congressional chairmen must absolutely and actively work to get to the bottom of this. If doing so requires immunizing Libby to secure his testimony, so be it. Calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify on these matters is likewise required; the idea that he can safely continue to refuse comment must be dismissed. Fitzgerald cannot make statements about clouds over Cheney, in light of this new situation, and still be allowed to stand in silence. The lawyers assembling Joe Wilson's civil suit should subpoena Libby into a deposition room and grill him, whether or not he stands on his 5th Amendment rights.

This isn't over by a long chalk, unless our representatives and law-enforcement officials choose the safe path - public statements, toothless accusations, substanceless denunciations - in lieu of true and effective action. The rule of law itself is on the hook here. This cannot be allowed to stand.

[gldstwmn]

I'm all for investigating the hell out of Bush and Cheney, but Jackson Jr. seems to be saying he wants to impeach because of the commutation and that Bush "went too far". Bush may have gone too far politically, ethically, etc. (and I believe he did), but not legally.

And Obama's not really my man anymore since going to his less than impressive public appearance in Oakland. I'm undecided and hoping for Gore to jump in. Otherwise I'll probably vote for Edwards.

Edwards is the real candidate right now, IMO. He talks the talk and walks the walk.

[irishgrl]

Here's an interesting take that seems to reinforce Rep. Jackson's position:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070307R.shtml

Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Tuesday 03 July 2007

Let me get this straight.

Like a thief in the night, George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He made no public appearance to announce the decision, but instead air-mailed a written statement after 5 p.m. at the outset of a midweek holiday. The statement praised Patrick Fitzgerald as "a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged." As for Libby himself, the statement noted that "the consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

Not 24 hours later, Bush delivered a stammering, vacillating, nervous public statement defending his decision to commute Libby's prison sentence. During his statement, Bush made it clear that a full and complete pardon for Libby was still very much on the table.

Quite the boomerang, yes? Bush respected Fitzgerald, the truth, the jury and the rule of law on Monday night, but didn't respect these things in the morning. Mr. Bush, in doing so, has proven himself once again to be a quintessential moral philanderer, screwing around with justice at a whim, a serial cheater and a man who absolutely cannot be trusted.

Libby was part of a White House plot to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose early criticism of the administration's Iraq claims were deemed a grave threat to the policy. The White House attacked Wilson by exposing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a deep-cover CIA operative. This exposure destroyed the intelligence network she had created to track any person, nation or group that might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Libby lied under oath and obstructed justice to cover up these White House activities, and to protect Vice President Dick Cheney from scrutiny and censure for his direct role in the plot.

Despite these serious crimes, Libby will spend less time in prison than Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart and Susan MacDougal. The same Republicans who championed the impeachment of Bill Clinton now celebrate Libby's liberation from the consequences of the very same acts they accused Clinton of committing.

Beyond Bush's two-faced blather about potential pardons are details and possibilities of vast complexity.

By commuting the prison sentence, Bush left Libby's 5th Amendment rights intact. Thus, any Congressional committee or prosecutor wishing to call him to testify will have to immunize him from any potential legal repercussions arising from his testimony. If Bush chooses to fully pardon Libby, those 5th Amendment protections will go right out the window.

Libby has repeatedly stated his intention to go on with the appeals process so he can clear his name. If he does this and an appeal is granted, Patrick Fitzgerald will suddenly be back in business, because a granted appeal opens the way for a whole new trial. Libby, if granted this appeal, may well be tried and convicted all over again.

Appeals are commonly granted only if a mistake was made during the initial trial, a difficult standard to meet, which is why most appeals are not granted. Should Libby's team decide to base their appeal on the spurious claim that Patrick Fitzgerald was not properly authorized to prosecute the case to begin with, however, the playing field would be changed dramatically because Fitzgerald would no longer be in a position to retry the case. If the appeals court grants an appeal based on this argument, one would be forced to wonder if that court acted in collusion with the administration.

Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?

A wise man once said that the life of the law is procedure. There are processes to be undertaken, papers to be filed and forms to be obeyed. In this commutation, no procedures whatsoever appear to have been followed. The haste in which this action was undertaken smacks of fear, desperation, and of a cover-up in process.

Consider the factors.

Libby's legal defense from the first day of his trial was that he was a fall guy taking the rap for others.

Fitzgerald pointedly stated that the details surrounding Libby's actions put a cloud of suspicion over Vice President Dick Cheney.

Combine these two details and you wind up with Libby standing as a patsy taking the rap for Cheney.

Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation, if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.

This, more than anything else, must be investigated.

Senator Leahy, Representative Waxman, Representative Conyers and any other Congressional chairmen must absolutely and actively work to get to the bottom of this. If doing so requires immunizing Libby to secure his testimony, so be it. Calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify on these matters is likewise required; the idea that he can safely continue to refuse comment must be dismissed. Fitzgerald cannot make statements about clouds over Cheney, in light of this new situation, and still be allowed to stand in silence. The lawyers assembling Joe Wilson's civil suit should subpoena Libby into a deposition room and grill him, whether or not he stands on his 5th Amendment rights.

This isn't over by a long chalk, unless our representatives and law-enforcement officials choose the safe path - public statements, toothless accusations, substanceless denunciations - in lieu of true and effective action. The rule of law itself is on the hook here. This cannot be allowed to stand.
I love truthout.

also, Ryan, Im aware that criticism doesnt equal hatred, and I am not too thrilled with the lukewarm performance of the Dems either. I just wish SOMETHING would be done to hold this Administration accountable, whether its impeachment or something similarly harsh, just SOMETHING.