This is just like the invasion of Iraq: until he went ahead and did it, I could not bring myself to believe that he would actually do it.

This is bad, real bad, world historical bad.

Fuck Fuck Fuck....welcome to Amerikkan justice, Bush style. Paris Hilton got a tougher sentence than Scooter Libby. When the Clenis lied to the grand jury about a fucking blowjob, the GOD'S OWN PARTY insists that he be removed from office. It's ok if you are a rich white Republican. LAW AND ORDER, MY PALE SKINNY ASS.

Calm down, you guys, you're going to pass out. Deep breaths.

First of all, Libby wasn't pardoned. Bush commuted his sentence, but Libby is still guilty and will be fined and penalized.

Second, Libby was not an elected official, so whether Clinton got impeached for a similar offense is irrelevant. But speaking of Clinton, how much jail time did he do for perjury again?

GB's right. This is really no big deal. This whole "rule of law" nonsense is way overrated.

And he's on his own to provide his room and board for the next 2 and a half years

No, B, you're right. We need to go back to the days when this sort of nonsense wasn't tolerated.

Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to "replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair

I haven't heard of any new evidence, so I am assuming the trial was somehow unfair?

Commuting Libby's sentence = compassionate conservatism.

I don't see the listing where Clinton pardoned "the guy who was going to spill the beans on my criminal organization, until he got word that he would be protected."

But speaking of Clinton, how much jail time did he do for perjury again?

Remind me, GB, when was Clinton convicted of and sentenced for perjury?

The Gaijin Biker's servile willingness to lick the shit off the criminal bush administration's ass is endless. If the genocide unleashed in Iraq is perfectly OK with GB why would he worry about the criminal perversion of the justice system in America? When you're down with war-crimes, what does it matter if the criminals perpetrating that war are tearing the Constitution of their own country to pieces? And if it's fine to torture, rape and murder men, women and children so as to terrorise a nation into giving up their resources, what does a few criminals perverting their rule of law in their own country matter?
Gaijin Biker? George Bush's Garrulous Buffoon.

Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to "replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair

I haven't heard of any new evidence, so I am assuming the trial was somehow unfair?

Bush did not replace the jury's verdict, M/tch, unlike the many cases in which Clinton pardoned the guilty. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, which leaves the guilty verdict intact, but reduces the severity of the sentence, which is determined by a judge.

Oh, and Waldo: You're an idiot.

You are right, though, M/tch, in that Clinton was not convicted of perjury. He was charged with perjury and acquitted. My bad. The man is no more guilty than O.J.

Here is an NYT article on the difference between a commutation and a pardon.

11: That was actually me who put the quote from Bush's autobiography.

I understand the distinction between the pardon and the sentence commutation, I just though that a similar philosophy would apply to the judge's sentence. Was his sentence unfair?

Oh, and you're absolutely right regarding Clinton's pardons. Some of them seemed pretty ridiculous, and most of them were for men who were determined guilty by a jury.

Now back to Libby.

Do you think these guys will have enough left over to pay his fine?

Now back to Libby.

No, no. The real issue here is how bad Bill Clinton was.

I don't think Clinton was "bad", B. I bring him up merely in the interest of perspective. If y'all are going to brand Bush as evil incarnate for doing X, it's absolutely relevant to point out that a past president did X on a much grander scale, yet was idolized by the same sort of people who are slamming Bush today. In fact, the beef on Bush has long been that he granted too few pardons, believe it or not.

11: Sorry for the misattribution, Cangrejero. According to the NYT, the answer to your question is "Yes." Apparently, Bush did think the sentence was unjustly harsh:

Even as he publicly declined to comment on the case, Mr. Bush had privately told his aides that he believed Mr. Libby’s sentence, to 30 months in prison, was too harsh.

“I think he sincerely believed that Scooter was not shown proper justice,” said Charlie Black, a Republican strategist close to the administration.

Also, from the link in #19:

Mr. Bush said he had carefully weighed the arguments of Mr. Libby’s critics and defenders.

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” he said. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

Guck Bitch, tell everybody again how an armed society is a polite society. And you're the decider on who's an idiot? Your site should read Gestapo Brainless, political asswipe.

IMPEACH

The man is no more guilty than O.J.

That's true. You got a better idea for determining guilt for crimes than trial by jury? Maybe some sort of exception for when we really just know that someone's guilty?

We know what George W. Bush thinks of "excessive" sentences.

We might ask the family of Karla Faye Tucker,

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'"

Or Satar Jabar,

Jabar was not in Abu Ghraib on charges of terrorism, as is commonly believed, but rather for carjacking. Jabar was hooded, positioned on a box, and had wires attached to both hands and his penis and was told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off.

Gaijin Biker's paltry defense is embarrassing. Criticisms that he grants too little clemency don't mitigate granting it to cronies in light of the vast human rights abuses he's condoned. The president, in his majestic equality, pardons rich and poor alike who serve as chief of staff to his vice-president?

Shorter 18: I don't see any difference between pardoning unjustly convicted people on Texas' death row, and pardoning cronies of the administration.

20:

So the President clearly thinks the sentence was too harsh. Now I'm asking you, GB, do you agree?

Personally, not to get all Ashcroft, I don't think the sentence was unreasonable. It may be a few months more than usual for this kind of crime, but the circumstances were pretty extraordinary.

Well, so long as we know the real villain of the Libby matter is Bill Clinton, I guess that settles it.

Is anyone surprised that this is the straw the Republican lickspittles would grasp?

Kung Fu Monkey is very good on the issue.

(via some Persian guy)

GB: Don't try that Clinton bullshit with me. If it was up to me, he'd have been charged with perjury within the criminal justice system and faced a real jury (not 100 bloviating blowhards in the Senate), and I think there's a MUCH stronger argument that there was "no underlying crime" in THAT case than in THIS one.

I don't question the President's authority to grant this commutation -- I question his integrity.

Do you seriously believe that the President would NOT have exercised his clemency power if Judge Walton had sentenced Libby within the range recommended by the probation office? Please. The President violated DoJ guidelines with respect to clemency in this case because he couldn't bear to alienate any further the only constituency he has left -- rightwing nutjobs. For that, he spared poor Scooter even one day in prison.

And as for this idea that the sentence was too excessive, well, the mind reels. There are only two types of people who could ever make that statement -- 1) those with absolutely no experience with the criminal justice system and sentences handed down by judges every single day in this country; and 2) those with a desire, for whatever reason, to protect members of this administration from real accountability for their actions.

You haven't said whether you think Scooter's sentence was excessive, or why. You've restricted most of your comments to explaining why it's all Bill Clinton's fault. So I'm curious -- to which of the two groups described above do you belong?

I'm just going to repeat this:

And as for this idea that the sentence was too excessive, well, the mind reels. There are only two types of people who could ever make that statement -- 1) those with absolutely no experience with the criminal justice system and sentences handed down by judges every single day in this country; and 2) those with a desire, for whatever reason, to protect members of this administration from real accountability for their actions.

That was really, really good.

Mr. President, thank you so, SO much for making us all PROUD to be AMERICANS!

Your commuting of Libby's sentence really helps us to hold our heads up high, in the face of corrupt and vicous despots around the world.

No doubt they are all learning inspiring lessons about democracy, the rule of law and the greatness of America.

What a wonderful gift you have given us Americans - and the rest of the world - right in time for our "independence day" celebration!

Thanks again, Mr. President.

Glenn Greenwald makes a good read.

GB, it's fair to point out how Clinton misused the pardon - I agree with your implicit criticism of his very free use of it.

But do you actually care to take a position on Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence? Is it a proud moment, one that corrects a miscarriage of justice, or serves other important purposes?

Actually, I'm glad that GB brings up Marc Rich et al. As far as I know, no one on the left ever defended Clinton on this score. In fact many prominent liberal bloggers are themselves bringing up Clinton's abuse of the pardon power to argue that the pardon/commutation power is a bad thing in general. Whereas on the right it's circle-the-wagons-and-scream-"Clinton!" time. It's easy to say a pox on both houses. Thanks, Gaijin, for reminding us that there is still a hack gap.

Apostropher is cool.

Read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Limbo: The Scum Also Rises" and tell me just how surprising this was. I mean, really.

This has been pointed out elsewhere, but since it seems to belong in this thread, let me note that Marc Rich's lawyer was ... Scooter Libby.

KO Keith Olbermann

"Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances more tragic and threatening.
And we did that with which history tasked us.
We enveloped “our” President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to a razor-sharp point, and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Read it all, GB.....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-you-ceased-to-be-the-president-of-the-united-states/#comments

Ambivalent about this. The one who should have been indicted was Darth Cheney.

Libby vos just follo-vink orders.

Still, he burned not just Plame but an entire CIA outfit whos job was to determine inel about foreign nuclear capabilities. See Larissa Androvna's take on this at Rawstory.com.

Presumably so more bullshit could be filled in its vacum.

Tokyo Tom, my gut reaction is that it's unfair for Scooter Libby to serve 30 months in jail for perjury in this particular case. To make a more informed judgement, I would need to know what the usual sentence for perjury is, and how this compares to it, but it just seems too severe to me.

As mitigating factors in Scooter's favor, I would note that (1) there was no actual underlying crime behind the perjury in this case, and (2) whatever the wrongdoing behind the investigation might have turned out to be, Scooter was never considered to be the person who committed it.

Scooter may deserve to be punished, but he does not deserve to be treated like a box of baking soda in the Bush Administration refrigerator, who sucks up all its foul odors and is then tossed in the trash.

Just as a follow-up, this site says the average federal perjury sentence is 22.9 months.

The focus on perjury is misplaced. The prosecutor stressed that Scooter's real crime was in the obstruction of justice.

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

...

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

...

[Libby had] at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

...

He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

Source.

Republicons like talking about the multiple perjury convictions of Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff because it allows the false analogy to Clinton; but it is not what motivated the prosecutor.

It's a bit disingenuous to claim "there is no underlying crime" when the conviction is obstruction of justice, which prevents the successful prosecution of a crime.

Libby was pretty clearly a fall guy, but that doesn't make Bush's actions less despicable, since the message is pretty clear that lying in service of the administration deserves no jailtime, but not a pardon. We need that Fifth Amendment right in place.

GB:

18. Your bringing up Clinton's pardons is an interesting idea, but I don't think it works, for the following reasons (correct me if I'm wrong): We're interested in the Libby case because Bush's intervention was not impartial. He was acting on behalf of a friend. I'm not aware that Clinton used his power to intervene and overrule not just one but at least 4 different judges on behalf of a friend.

38. That's an interesting gut reaction, but a solid handful of Republican judges have disagreed. What do you think of the Supreme Court case, just 2 weeks ago, where a 33-month sentence was upheld in a case remarkable similar to Libby's? And what about Gonzale's stated goal (from a month ago) of imposing harsher federal penalties, which would presumably apply in cases like Libby's?

And finally, do you *really* think Libby has received any punishment? Do you believe that he's really going to pay, out of his pocket, a significant (to him) amount of money? Do you think it's going to really impact his future earnings potential? I don't. And, further, I don't believe the Republican commentators, or Bush, who say that he'll be hurt by the punishment. I believe they, like the President, know the untruth of their statements, and are deliberately lying to/misleading the public.

And for the other people in this thread, I obviously differ from GB in opinion, but I would ask that you remember that he's not doing anything concretely wrong, like torturing ponies, and so I think we'll all be better served by a less ad-hominem debate.

And to GB, you've probably noticed now that this event has a lot of people PISSED OFF. And, I think, rightly so. President's shouldn't operate like mob bosses, and should be impeached for trying. A responsible, mature person wouldn't put loyalty to his friends above his responsibility. Anyway, what I meant to say is that on the subject you're going to have to tread carefully or people are going to vent their anger *at Bush* onto you.

Another interesting thing came out today: it appears that the Constitution gives the President the power to grant pardons and reprieves, but not to commute sentences. Only Governors are able to do that.

(1) there was no actual underlying crime behind the perjury in this case

Can you explain what you mean by this, GB?

This by Greenwald says it well:

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.

But our political discourse and media institutions are so broken and corrupt that Bush followers (and their media enablers) feel free to make the completely-backwards and fact-free claim that the Libby prosecution was driven by "partisan" and "political" motives -- as though it was a mirror image of the Clinton persecution driven by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a purely partisan Republican prosecutor -- because they know that there is no such thing as a claim too false to be passed on without real objection by our vapid, drooling press corps.

M/tch, what I meant by that is that the perjury was not committed in connection with the prosecution of any separate criminal charge.

For example, let's say your buddy is charged with murder, and you're called as a witness, and you lie, saying he was at your house that night, so he couldn't have committed the murder. In that example, your perjury was an attempt to sabotage the actual prosecution of a serious crime. But aside from Libby's charges, no criminal charges were ever brought in connection with the investigation in which Scooter's perjury occurred, which leaves me more inclined to say, "no harm, no foul".

Another mitigating factor, which I alluded to but did not specifically mention above, is that Scooter was pretty obviously acting on the instructions of his bosses. Sending him to jail as the fall guy for whatever wrongdoings they may have been charged with (none, as it turns out) seems unjust to me.

But aside from Libby's charges, no criminal charges were ever brought in connection with the investigation in which Scooter's perjury occurred

See 41.

Re 41, a fair point in theory, but the leaker was Richard Armitage, not any of the people actually being investigated. Libby didn't prevent Armitage's identity from being found out.

But aside from Libby's charges, no criminal charges were ever brought in connection with the investigation in which Scooter's perjury occurred, which leaves me more inclined to say, "no harm, no foul".

Are you arguing that we should free all people who've been imprisoned solely for lying to the FBI or obstructing justice? Quite an idea. Do you not believe that it would be an incentive to lie, if one didn't have to worry about perjury as or obstructing justice as long as one did it well enough to escape any other conviction? Come out and say it if you're for that, or else show the distinction between Libby and other cases. From the WashingtonMonthly: "According to federal data, the average sentence for those found guilty of obstruction of justice was 70 months".

Scooter was pretty obviously acting on the instructions of his bosses.

Does this mean you're for impeaching Bush and/or Cheney, if they instructed him to lie?

And I'm genuinely interested in how you'll answer my previous questions.

So Cheney, and perhaps Bush, should be in jail? Sounds about right to me.

I listed three mitigating factors above, most of which don't apply in other cases. And of course, Presidential pardons (or commutations) are not meant to establish generally-applicable principles of law. By their very nature, they are case-specific.

And I doubt Bush or Cheney themselves specifically instructed Libby to lie; I overstated this aspect of the situation in my earlier comment. Hence, they should not be impeached.

Regardless of the above, however, the bottom line is that the whole investigation was ultimately a bust. It came up with nothing. Zip, zero, nada. Applying my "no harm, no foul" principle, I think this is the wrong battle for the Bush-haters to pick.

Michael

"but I would ask that you remember that he's (GB) not doing anything concretely wrong,". Challenge!
Gaijin Biker is a propagandist, an apologist for one of the foulest administrations ever produced by the US. He consistently make light of the illegal and criminal actions of this administration, telling people 'calm down' as each new act of criminal bastardry perpetrated by Bush and his scum is revealed.
He attempts to negate any criticism or outrage with pseudo-reasonableness, oozing soothing platitudes like "perhaps the Iraqi people will have peace one day" while, like his senior journalistic cohorts, spraying obfuscation over issues that reek of criminality and the perversion of justice.
Valerie Plame was outed so as to intimidate not only her and her husband but ALL Americans who were prepared to call Bush and his sleazy bunch of criminals on their absolutely false reasons for waging a criminal war on Iraq.
Even the Gormless Bullshitter realises that lying to the FBI and the courts so as to obstruct the course of justice gets you a couple of years in the slammer. Libby did this at the HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL. He was the cog that could have exposed Bush and Cheney's criminal involvement and after a month or two of jail time, surely would have done so. That's why Bush ensured he serves NO FUCKING TIME at all!!!! Bush's pardon removes the possibility of Libby 's confession, covers his own and Cheney's ass, and allows the corruption and perversion of the institutions and legal system of America to continue unabated.
The Gaijin Biker is a moral maggot. His complacency in the face of the war-crimes of this administration so that he can justify his pathetic political ideology goes beyond stupidity and into the realms of intellectual perversion.
I've cursed him long and hard in the past for his intellectual dishonesty, moral turpitude and ideological idiocy, I will continue to do so every time he raises his slimy head on issues of legal and moral importance.

Hmmm ... an administration willing to blow our intel for political purposes, and it's the "wrong battle for the Bush-haters to pick"?

No, I think this is the perfect issue to "pick" and run through the echo chamber because it shows how much Bush (as the point man of this administration) cares about national security, which the Republicans cite in just about half the cases they stonewall in an investigation of a scandal (the other half being "executive privilege"). How effectively the investigation was carried out doesn't matter at all.

It's important to remember that no administration official was charged with "blowing our intel" for political or any other purposes. The Plame leaker was not Bush, not Cheney, not Rove, not Libby, but Richard Armitage, who leaked the info to the press in mid-June 2003, when he was Deputy Secretary of State. Crucially, this was before Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed in the NYT, not after.

This fact is frequently and conveniently omitted by those who are tearing their hair out over this supposedly fatal blow to the heart of our judicial system.

And of course, Presidential pardons (or commutations) are not meant to establish generally-applicable principles of law. By their very nature, they are case-specific.

A pardon is certainly case-specific, presumably because the President doesn't believe the criminal is guilty or there is some other overriding consideration, but when Bush says that in this instance, even though Libby was guilty his sentence was to harsh - it's Difficult to Impossible to view that as solely case-specific. Hence the fact that it's started a "firestorm" in the judicial world, of appeals, reasoning, debates, etc... In short, I don't think your reasoning is correct, here, and I don't think the empirical facts support it.

Applying my "no harm, no foul" principle, I think this is the wrong battle for the Bush-haters to pick.

You're really advocating a radical overhaul of our legal system and tradition. And I think you're doing so much too lightly, without due consideration of the implications of what you're proposing.

Keep considering that Three Republican-appointed judges upheld Libby's sentence. And that Libby's sentence is quite routine. There was, contrary to conservative pundits (who surely know the falseness of their claims even as they speak/write them) no partisan persecution. And what the President has done basically amounts to a pardon. And that, BECAUSE he is not applying the principle equally*, it's a special favor, for a friend, who has, in all probability, protected the White House. (And further, probably exposed himself to legal danger after being promised protection.) It is a black-and-white abuse of power, and an abuse of public trust.

Look, the President is in charge of executing the law. And he has to treat people equal, because that's what we believe in. Bush, plain as day, isn't doing that. It's a breach of his duty, and therefore, I believe, an impeachable offense.

*Why is Libby's sentence any more unfair than Victor Rita's? Why hasn't the President interceded in that case, if he's really worried about unfairness?

no administration official was charged with "blowing our intel" for political or any other purposes

Not exactly. The law states that one has to knowingly and purposely expose an undercover operative. It is, apparantly, extremely difficult to prove motive. That the administration blew Plame's cover and endanger the operation isn't doubted. That's fact. What was lacking was a smoking gun to prove they knowingly did it on purpose.

Of course I believe someone would have to be mighty gullible to think it was all a big accident.

It seems to me what's really bothering you, Michael, is the Constitutionally-provided ability of the president to issue pardons. Any time a president pardons anybody, he is giving that person special treatment that most people convicted of a crime don't get. Arguably, the president's power to pardon people should be eliminated by an amendment to the constitution. But that hasn't happened.

For those interested in an accurate timeline of who said what to whom and when, look here.

GB, come on, I can't believe you're making a serious effort to understand my position here.

The power of the pardon can serve a good purpose. I don't want that to be taken away.

What bothers me is that Libby received a pardon for no other reason than he was the President's ally. (And I think any reasonable person now also believes that Bush most likely used the Pardon to protect his Administration. His staff can obstruct judicial oversight at their leisure, knowing there's no penalty.)

If you have another example of a pardon similar to this one, I'd like to see it. What other Presidents have pardoned members of their own administrations who got in trouble trying to protect the administration?

Further to my earlier comment re: the conviction of Dick Cheney's chief of staff for obstruction of justice, the LAT reports that the average sentence for this felony is more than five years in jail.

So, let me get this straight.

1. Somebody, probably several people, in the Bush administration blew the lid off an operative, which probably had the consequence of exposing some very sensitive details of our WMD intelligence to Iran. National security was endangered, especially in an area where we need all the security we can get.
2. The operative's husband was a diplomat who spoke out against Bush.
3. Despite the fact that it's next to impossible to prove intent especially with an administration that withholds its records on a consistent basis (yep Clinton did that too but he's not the subject of this particular discussion), the VP's former chief of staff was indicted, tried, and convicted of obstruction of justice by attorneys and judges appointed by Bush. He was sentenced to 2.5y jail, $250k fine, and probation.
4. Bush commutes the sentence to take out the jail term under the pretense that it's "too harsh."

And you don't think this is a conflict of interest, GB? That's it's the "wrong issue to pick" because there's no "underlying crime"?

I don't think what's at stake is the president's ability to commute sentences. That power exists for a reason (as a last resort measure to stop a judiciary that is probably too swayed by public opinion, media blitz, or whatever). The problem is the abuse of that power to cover up or mitigate the legal consequences of committing a crime (here, obstruction of justice and perjury) in the process of the investigation of a crime (in this case, the intentional exposure of an operative).

If this power is taken away, Bush still has plenty of other powers to abuse, and given his track record as president and governor, he'll abuse them again.

BTW, 63 was directed to 59 and 56.

Going further, to be honest, I don't think it's a disaster that Scooter is not serving time. The thought of him sitting in a country club with bars while eating taxpayer meals doesn't strike me as a punishment. Quite frankly, I'm glad this happened, because it shows exactly how much this administration -- and their echo chamber -- respects the law. In case there was any doubt before, there is none now.

What other Presidents have pardoned members of their own administrations who got in trouble trying to protect the administration?

This one was pretty close. Pardoned before the trial. Not technically GHWB's administration, but close.

"I can't believe you're making a serious effort to understand my position here."

Michael, you're working ultra-slowly through a realisation process.
Call me in a month when you realise GB is SHINING YOU ON.

63: Somebody, probably several people, in the Bush administration blew the lid off an operative, which probably had the consequence of exposing some very sensitive details of our WMD intelligence to Iran... it's next to impossible to prove intent...

You see, I have a problem with all those "somebody"s and "probably"s and "impossible to prove"s.

You also grandly claim that "National security was endangered" without explaining exactly how, and as a result of whose actions. There is no sign even suggesting that any details (let alone "very sensitive" ones) of our WMD intelligence were exposed to Iran in connection with the Plame affair.

At any rate, I don't think Scooter should be in jail because of assumptions about what someone else probably did, and the intent they could have had while doing it, and the consequences it might have led to. Even if you hate Bush.

I should clarify the last sentence in my #67: Scooter should be in prison because he was found guilty of a crime and sentenced to prison time — but Bush commuted his sentence.

So, in judging whether Bush's lawful use of his power to pardon and/or commute sentences was simply beyond the pale in this case, I am looking at the circumstances surrounding the charges on Scooter was convicted, and #67 should be read in that context. My opinion is that I want to see more (heck, any) hard evidence about Scooter's role in an underlying crime before I say that having his sentence commuted is intolerable.

Circumstances? Bush's own appointed judiciary tried and convicted Scooter Libby of a crime. Bush used his legal powers because he thought it was "too harsh." The judge saw the hard evidence, even out of an administration that's pretty darn good at keeping hard evidence away from prying eyes, such as U.S. attorneys.

More circumstances, from here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/libby_03-06.html

But the jury, in considering the defense put forward, indeed, the notion that Scooter Libby was a fall guy for others in the administration, certainly in the comments made after the verdict seemed to resonate with the jury. There was a lot of sympathy for Mr. Libby in that jury room. (Richard Benveniste)

First, I believe that the argument by the defense that Scooter Libby was a fall guy was really a political argument trying to put the trial in the context of what many of us believe it was: There was a political fight going on between the White House and the CIA at the time. (Victoria Toensing)

So, his defense was that he was the fall guy, and that it's other people's fault.

Circumstances, indeed.

The indictable offenses in this administration started way before 9/11, and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence shows us that we will have to wait until after the Bush administration ends for any more indictments to have any meaning.

In fact, Bush would be smart to have Gonzalez indict the whole administration, just so Bush can get everyone a "get out of jail free" card on the last day of his administration. Otherwise, they will remain in jeopardy under the subsequent administration.

#38: "Scooter may deserve to be punished, but he does not deserve to be treated like a box of baking soda in the Bush Administration refrigerator, who sucks up all its foul odors and is then tossed in the trash."

Is this meant as a partial concession that the Bush Administration stinks and that, until the commutation, it looked like Libby would be left out to dry for his very loyal act of covering wrongdoing by others that, helped by Libby, turned out to be too difficult to prosecute?

As for what Libby deserves, I hope you can keep separate in your head what he deserves from the legal system and what he deserves from the pack of criminals he works with. He's a made man, and perhaps a little honor among thieves is all that Bush and his crew have left.

But this commutation is entirely of a kind with the pardoning by Bush's father of the Iran-Contra criminals. Republicans, far from being conservatives, have always displayed an elevated and almosted fetished obedience to the President and to his agenda over more mundane and unmanly considerations such as the rule of law and the Constitution. It is no surprise to see Bush protect his own men, and thus to project false honor over his own lawlessness.

In this vein, it is rich to see two Republican appointees on the Sixth Circuit reverse on "standing" grounds a lower court ruling that Bush's extra-legal spying program was unlawful, solely because the petitioners could not prove that their communications had been captured by the NSA's secret surveillance program (naturally, the FSA refused to disclose this). Seems that the courts want nothing to do with oversight of secret violations of Consitutional rights. Boy, I can't wait until big brother in the form of Democrats get their hands on all of these expanded and unreviewable powers!

Boy, I can't wait until big brother in the form of Democrats get their hands on all of these expanded and unreviewable powers!

Oh, silly TT. Don't you know? It's only okay if you're a Republican.

GB, I`m curious how you match your defense of Libby and his commutation with the way the Administration skillfully played Judith Miller and let her take a fall (three months) to protect the Administration (Libby). Guess they showed everyone how little respect they have for anyone in the media, even those who sold out their craft to advance the Administration`s historic agenda and refused to break the secrecy of anonymous sources.

The Congressional Democrats are a bunch of wusses.

Can you think of a bigger Wuss than Tom Reed?

Why don't they get the impeachment proceedings going? What are they waiting for!?!!?! Christ Almighty what is their fucking problem.

Tom Reed?

Who?

Er...excuse me. Please delete previous post.

I meant to say

SENATOR HARRY REID FROM NEVADA.

Repeat. I meant to say HARRY REID FROM NEVADA re: my previous post.

Thank you.

Specifically speaking, "Tom Reed" is probably a very good guy somewhere. Probably many different good guys. So please delete this and the last three.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER _HARRY_ Reid, different.

He had the momentum to try the Bush regime for numerous crimes. He still does. What is his and his colleagues' problem?

Fuck you!

#73: "expanded and unreviewable powers"

NCProsecutor, I'm sure you'd agree with me the the abuse of law and Constitution we've been seeing from this Bush administration are matters that would also concern you if Dems had been committing them. But where are Dems lining up to advocate changes that would reduce the risks of a post-Bush Imperial Presidency and to better secure our rights?

80:

There are few to speak of other than Kucinich or the retired Senator Mike Gravel. The others are like Sauroman, frothing at the mouth for a chance to seize the Ring of Power.