Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Libby Eludes Prison
I know it's been a while since I've posted anything here. Truth be told, I've just been lacking inspiration, and have been unseasonably busy.
After listening to the fools on CNN blather on and on about how wrong Bush is for commuting Scooter Libby's sentence... something had to give.
Interestingly, back in 2001 Bill Clinton defended the 450 pardons(thats way more than Bush) he handed out during his presidency. On the many reasons a president can issue a pardon, Clinton writes, "A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances."
President Bush today said, "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." So then the real question is weather or not the sentence was too harsh or not.
Considering that Libby was never charged with leaking Valerie Plame's name, and that the originally leaker, Richard Armitage, was never charged with a crime, then not only does the sentence seem excessive, but also absurd that a conviction even occurred. Clinton himself issued pardons because, "in some cases, co-defendants had received significantly shorter sentences." So why would the same logic not apply when the co-defendant and primary culprit of the non-crime, was not even charged?
Patrick Fitzgerald deemed early in his investigation that no crime was committed by leaking Plame's name, but still decided to charge Libby with lying to investigators who were investigating a non-crime. How can you obstruct justice from being served when there is no injustice to correct? Clinton touched on this point as well:
Now, there is little doubt that President Bush is one of the best ever when it comes to making unpopular decisions. So, is it "the right thing" to do? Libby only had his prison sentence commuted, he wasn't pardoned. He still has a criminal record, and he still has to pay the fines, so he's hardly off the hook. And if you consider the conspiracy theorists' assumption that Libby was acting under direction from Vice-President Dick Cheney, that would be even more reason why Libby shouldn't go to jail, if he was in fact just following orders.
President Bush did the right thing today. Regardless of what the talking heads say, there is nothing unusual about this move - Clinton basically said so.
After listening to the fools on CNN blather on and on about how wrong Bush is for commuting Scooter Libby's sentence... something had to give.
Interestingly, back in 2001 Bill Clinton defended the 450 pardons(thats way more than Bush) he handed out during his presidency. On the many reasons a president can issue a pardon, Clinton writes, "A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances."
President Bush today said, "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." So then the real question is weather or not the sentence was too harsh or not.
Considering that Libby was never charged with leaking Valerie Plame's name, and that the originally leaker, Richard Armitage, was never charged with a crime, then not only does the sentence seem excessive, but also absurd that a conviction even occurred. Clinton himself issued pardons because, "in some cases, co-defendants had received significantly shorter sentences." So why would the same logic not apply when the co-defendant and primary culprit of the non-crime, was not even charged?
Patrick Fitzgerald deemed early in his investigation that no crime was committed by leaking Plame's name, but still decided to charge Libby with lying to investigators who were investigating a non-crime. How can you obstruct justice from being served when there is no injustice to correct? Clinton touched on this point as well:
The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be.
Now, there is little doubt that President Bush is one of the best ever when it comes to making unpopular decisions. So, is it "the right thing" to do? Libby only had his prison sentence commuted, he wasn't pardoned. He still has a criminal record, and he still has to pay the fines, so he's hardly off the hook. And if you consider the conspiracy theorists' assumption that Libby was acting under direction from Vice-President Dick Cheney, that would be even more reason why Libby shouldn't go to jail, if he was in fact just following orders.
President Bush did the right thing today. Regardless of what the talking heads say, there is nothing unusual about this move - Clinton basically said so.
Labels: politics, President Clinton, President George W Bush, Republican Party, Scooter Libby
