Is Anyone Really Surprised?
posted by kate @ 11:12 PM
8 comments
Out in Left Field
Where parenting and politics meet, but don't always play nice.
Monday, July 02, 2007
kate
See my complete profile
Talk To Me
Blogroll Me!
My Musings from The St. Petersburg Times
from In The Loop
from tbt*
from The Weekly Planet
from the world wide web
8 Comments:
If Bill Clinton didn't go to jail for lying to a grand jury about something that wasn't a crime, why should Libby?
It's not like Libby is off scott-free (or "scoot-free")... he is still a convicted felon, on probation, and has to pay a hefty fine.
Across America many other first-time, non-violent offenders don't get jail time or get suspended sentences.
Clinton lied about getting a freakin' BJ, which he ended up impeached for.
Scooter lied to cover the administration's arse and then the very administration he lied for pardoned him... This doesn't seem at all crooked to you Jim?
This is one of many reasons why people get turned off to politics.
Jim sees a difference between the two, but now's the time to stick together, right?
Bush has condoned a criminal act. And it isn't the first time. Therefore, like I said, not surprised.
On the eve of Independence Day, every American ought to be ashamed of our current administration.
The issue here isn't what Clinton did or didn't do. The cases are separate. The issue is that Scooter Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced by a conservative judge to a prison term well within the federal guidelines for this type of infraction. In fact, according to the guidelines, it was the minimum sentence that should be handed down. Then strangely, given the Bush's supposed love for sending everyone to jail that they possibly can, his sentence is found to be "excessive".
Bush once again showed his utter contempt for the basic laws that govern this country in order to help a friend out and illustrated his "Do as I say, not as I do" approach to governance. No real reason was offered other than Bush sitting back and smirking, "It's good to be the king," but credible bets on the reason for this jaded amnesty rest on the fact that not only does this reward Libby for keeping his mouth shut throughout the whole of the trial, it virtually guarantees he will continue to do so by allowing him to retain his right to plead the fifth.
Now, should we want to get relational, if Bush gave a damn about undue sentencing, then why isn't he hot in the biscuit to commute the sentence of Genarlow Wilson? The answer is simple: He only cares when it's his cronies who are in trouble and, by trouble, I mean in a position to roll over on him and divulge horribly damaging secrets in order to stay out of jail.
Crap like this isn't why people get turned off of politics, it's why people fricken revolt and line other people up against the damn wall.
Pete said: Clinton lied about getting a freakin' BJ, which he ended up impeached for. Scooter lied to cover the administration's arse and then the very administration he lied for pardoned him... This doesn't seem at all crooked to you Jim?
1) Clinton lied to save his own arse. Otherwise, why would he have lied?
2) Libby was not "pardoned." The term pardon and the term commute have different legal meanings. Libby's prison sentence was commuted, he must still serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) It does not seem crooked to me for two reasons: First, Libby will still be punished; second, in reality, the "administration" did not commit a crime in the Valerie Plame case. So he was covering up for no reason.
Kate said: Bush has condoned a criminal act. And it isn't the first time. Therefore, like I said, not surprised.
Well, no that is not true. Libby's crime is perjury, and for that he is a convicted felon, is on probation, and has to pay a fine. He was NOT pardoned, which you could say would condone lying to a grand jury.
Quakerjono - Remember, Bush has used the pardon and commute powers given to him by the U.S. Constitution less than any other president since World War II.
qj: Great links. Bush continues to put a premium on loyalty. Not loyalty to this country or the laws that govern us - but loyalty to his administration. And The White House isn't ruling out a full pardon. So stay tuned...
Jim: Gotta admire (read: pity) a guy who sticks to his conservative guns even with an issue and administration as unpopular as this.
And Bush uses a great many powers less than any other president since WWII. Powers of reason, intellect, integrity, compassion...how many can you name?
I've never been particularly impressed with the power of Presidential pardon, but what, exactly, is your point, Jim? If he's so hesitant to use this particular power set, then isn't it odd that he would choose to exercise it now, when what Libby knows and could say is a direct threat to him and his administration. Why Libby, who's sentencing falls well within the federal sentencing guidelines, and not Wilson, who's not only still serving a prison sentence for a crime that is no longer a crime (specifically because of his case) but who's imprisonment is clearly the result of a personal vendetta against him by the prosecuting attorney? Far from making it less questionable, the fact that Bush chose to grant a commutation in this incident makes it even more suspect.
Ultimately, though, it really doesn't matter how many times he's used his pardon or commutation powers (as you pointed out, this isn't a pardon, this is a commuting with the option for a full pardon still being on the table if Libby continues to play ball which is a vicious little sword of Damocles to suspend over Libby's head). What matters is that in this incident he's used that power in a transparently self-serving fashion that reeks of obstruction of justice.
Nonsensically, he has in a roundabout way accused a conservative judge who has taken great and scrupulous care to conduct every aspect of this trial in a fair and impartial manner of suddenly wigging out at the very end and imposing an unjust sentence. He's also chosen to ignore the Department of Justice's own guidelines for sentencing when at the beginning of this month AG Gonzales announced the administration's push for mandatory minimum sentencing. He's contradicting not only himself, but the DoJ that he went to all the trouble to stack in his favor. Bush has done all this to ensure that what Libby knows, what he could testify to or spill in order to further his appeal, will remain under wraps, as Libby's Fifth amendment protections are left intact.
So if the best you can do is, "Clinton was a bad man, so Libby should go free," (and yes, two years probation and a $250,000 fine are getting off free, particularly when the likely outcome is a full pardon before Bush leaves office and don't even talk to me about losing his law career because any money he needs to make he can make as a consultant to Halliburton or some other wing corporation) or "He doesn't do it very often," then you expose yourself as nothing more than a Bush apologist willing to use any sort of partisan hackery to justify the dismantling of our legal system by a presidential administration that's out of control.
Merry Fitzmas!!
Post a Comment
<< Home