Interesting take on how commuting Libby's sentence smacks of hypocrisy when one considers this administration's policy of seeking strict adherence to federal sentencing guidelines, regardless of the sob stories defendants may have. Guess Scooter Libby doesn't count: http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/ The Quality of Mercy Is Strained Bush commutes Libby's sentence, while his lawyers come down hard on everyone else. By Harlan J. Protass Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2007, at 5:09 PM ET What's stunning about President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, if you're a criminal defense lawyer, isn't that it was politically motivated. Or that it tramples on principles of equal justice. Or even that it is the latest in a long string of Bush administration assaults on the rule of law. Rather, what's astonishing is that the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else. The specific bases Bush gave for the commutation are that the 30-month prison sentence was too harsh for Libby's crime, that he was a first-time offender who had a long history of public service, that his conviction had already damaged his career and reputation and caused his wife and young children to suffer, and that sentencing Judge Reggie Walton rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended that he consider "factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." Defense attorneys would generally agree that these are all good reasons for reducing Libby's sentence—particularly in light of the nature of his offense. They would also agree that 30 months was too long in the first place to serve for the nonviolent crime of making false statements. The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for. Only the rarest of exceptions to this rule would be permitted. That proposed legislation would effectively reverse the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which authorized sentencing judges to consider factors like a defendant's life story and the nature and circumstances of his or her offense. Gonzales' bill would also make the federal guidelines, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, essentially mandatory again—again leaving judges less leeway for showing mercy. Consider, in that light and in comparison to Libby, the case of United States v. Rita, which the Supreme Court decided two weeks ago. As Douglas Berman describes at Sentencing Law and Policy, Victor Rita also got "caught up in a criminal investigation and ultimately was indicted on five felony counts based on allegations that"—like Libby—"he lied while giving grand jury testimony." Rita was convicted. At sentencing, he argued that he should receive a sentence below the range in the federal guidelines because he was elderly and sick, had served for 24 years as a Marine, including tours in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and was vulnerable to abuse in prison because he'd worked in criminal justice on behalf of the government. After receiving a within-the-guidelines sentence of 33 months, Rita appealed on the ground that the sentence was unreasonable given the nature of his offense and his personal circumstances. The Bush administration opposed Rita's appeal. The government argued that 33 months was reasonable simply because it complied with the federal guidelines. And the Supreme Court agreed, affirming Rita's sentence. Berman lists other cases in which Bush prosecutors demanded and got harsh sentences for minor crimes committed by sometimes-sympathetic defendants. The point is that this administration has steadfastly asserted its belief in uniform sentencing. Nationwide, the Department of Justice requires prosecutors to advocate for sentences that adhere to the guidelines because, the administration argues, this is the best way to narrow sentencing disparities among defendants who commit similar crimes. Pardons and sentence commutations are by definition tickets that are good for only one ride, special treatment for special defendants. And yet, one can't help asking, what of all those fears about disparity? In the weeks and months to come, defense attorneys across the country won't be able to resist tapping away at their keyboards, arguing that their clients' individual circumstances call for sentencing breaks, just like Libby's did. It probably won't work. But the administration's inconsistency is so glaring—and so perfectly illustrates the flaw of harsh and mandatory sentencing regimes—that to point it out to judges will be irresistible.
do you think bush will commute the 12 year sentences that 2 border patrol officers got for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt?
More on Rita and other matters from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ Oh, and as to that probation, you know, the one trumpeted by the WH? Eh, not so much. So, Scooter doesn't have to go to jail and can't serve probation because he never went to jail. He can still use the 5th to not answer questions and has his fine paid for by rich donors. Some penalty. Seriously, if these guys put as much thought into running the country as they do dreaming up schemes and trying to escape accountability, everyone would be much better off.
i was listening to npr yesterday and they reported that sentencing guidelines allowed for a sentence of up to 36 months so to say this is excessive is a joke. and i love how chimpy mentions the harm it has done to poor scooter's family and scooter's ability to earn a living. didnt exposing plame harm her ability to earn a living? and what about the families of the two border patrol agents who are in prison for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt? why doesnt he show any sympathy for them? didnt plame testify under oath that she did indeed have undercover status? if she didnt than she committed pergury, right?
I hear ya Jeff, and R2K, about hypocracy on this issue. For what its worth I didn't agree with Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich but Clinton's pardon shouldn't have much bearing on the ethics of the Libby situation. Clinton wasn't exactly a paragon of ethic so the fact that he did something is no ethical excuse for the current admin. A couple of things though that I find interesting about the current situation in regard to previous Admins. is that GW Bush Admin. has issued far fewer pardons and commutations than previous Administrations and in general tends to reject requests for those. Also unlike previous Admins the current Admin. doesn't tend to follow recommendations from the justice department in regard to pardons and commutations.
he is trying to offload the cigarrette cartons that he bought for libby as part of the Scoooter Libbby rectal defense fund.
What I don't like about what's happening here is that we're seeing the creation of a means for a president to get away with criminal misconduct by using pardons. So, if a president tells someone to leak info or anything else that would get him in hot water....then you just have that subordinate lie or stonewall the info no matter what happens. The underling will get thrown in jail, but the president can then pardon him. I think there should be an exception to a presidential pardon when it is deemed that part of the reason the person is going to jail was for activity that may have benefited or been at the behest of a president or the senior members of the admisistration.
^Like it or not the Constitution grants the President an unlimited pardon power and it will take a Constitutional ammendment to change it. If Congress chooses to restrict the President's pardon power they already have the tool of impeachment.
Was this liberal outrage present when Clinton sold pardons to the Jews and Puerto Ricans in an effort to grease the skids for Hillary's NY Senate bid? Guess you boys forgot all about that. The President left in tact most of Libby's sentence, by the way. These lying, hypocritical libs are just too much... Zero cred. Zero. Gotta give 'em something to cry about I guess...
Even assuming that your accusation is correct, Clinton pardoned people for political gain as opposed to covering up a crime committed by a member of his administration (likely at the behest of either Bush or Cheney or both). Really? How many days of the 30 month sentence will Libby serve? Oh, that's right, to you the money (which will be paid by well-heeled GOP folks anyway) is more important. What will you say when Bush gives Libby the full pardon 18 months from now? You will flip-flop as the Bush apologist as usual. Cite a single lie, please. Not doing so will make you a liar, which we already know, so slink away, Bush boy.
how do you know that clinton wasnt covering up a crime committed by a member of his admin? if you think about it, he actually saved some of your tax dollars by not being kept in prison. his fine is all profit. now, you can sleep better tonight ohh well...thats what presidents do. people will say the same thing they did when clinton did it, it will just be the other side of the aisle. and so will the bush bashers. welcome to politics.
It's really amazing how the right works on these matters. Lying under oath about an affair in a civil trial is grounds for impeachment. Lying to Congress and the nation on the grounds for precedent setting pre-emptive war and pardoning a guy who's covering Bush's ass in the outing of an undercover intelligence officer is no big deal. The guy who campaigned on the rule of law, the guy who pledged to return integrity and honor to the oval office, the guy who campaigned against nation building is shaming himself and the nation. It's as disgusting a display as I can ever remember.
What disgusts me is how you are incapable of accurately remembering some key facts: 1) Lying to Congress -- Are you talking about President Bush? Perhaps you conveniently forgot the rest of Congress, the intelligence services (both US and other nationalities), all kinds of advisors, etc? Nice try at singling out one person responsible for the war though. Typical libpig selective amnesia. 2) Plame was hardly undercover with regard to her desk job at a known location with a known job. But again, that truth doesn't suit your side's manufactured controversy. What a joke these libs are. They aren't happy unless they are whining about some misrepresentation of past events... No wonder the Democrat-controlled Congress has a lower approval rating than the White House. America notices their negativity and distortions as well...
tj's just upset because the rest of the country refuses to join him in sniffing Bush's jock- On Independence Day, Founding Fathers still get high marks A presidential posting for the Fourth of July: "The nation's first four presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison -- all continue to earn rave reviews in the twenty-first century," Rasmussen Reports writes this morning. According to the polling firm: • George Washington continues to be the most popular president. "The Father of our Country is viewed favorably by 94% of Americans.." • Abraham Lincoln is close behind. "The man who gave us the Gettysburg Address is viewed favorably by 92%." • "The next five are Thomas Jefferson (89%), Teddy Roosevelt (84%), Franklin D. Roosevelt (81%), and John F. Kennedy (80%). Five other presidents are viewed favorably by at least 70% of Americans today -- John Adams (74%), James Madison (73%), Ronald Reagan (72%), Dwight Eisenhower (72%), and Harry Truman (70%)." • As for the other side of the measure -- "The highest unfavorable rating for any president is earned by Richard Nixon. Sixty percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the only president to resign from office. ... Close on Nixon's heels for most unpopular is the current president, George W. Bush. Fifty-nine percent have an unfavorable opinion of him." Rasmussen's complete list of presidential ratings is here. It says the results are based on national automated telephone surveys of 1,000 "randomly selected adults" done between June 13 and June 24. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/on-independence.html
Bush is the Commander in Chief. He pushed the war. He threw Powell in front of the UN with a vial of Anthrax and information they were warned was false. He had the Congress vote on authorization of force to circumvent a declaration of war in an election time fiasco. It's his war, period. Plame was an undercover CIA operative, period. That's the truth.
"im the decider" - chimpy "im the commander guy" - chimpy keep parroting this line texx. plame testified under oath that she was undercover. if she was lying than she committed perjury, but i havent seen any charges against her, have you? congress approval ratings are low b/c they are not doing what the american people elected them to do - they are marching lock-step w/ bush - they put up a little dog and pony show, but cave into bush practically every time. that is why their approval ratings are low.
Senators who favored Clinton impeachment silent on Libby. Of the 25 current Senators who voted in 1999 to impeach President Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, none have issued a public statement on the commutation of Cheney aide “Scooter” Libby’s sentence for the same crime in the three days since it occurred. http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/gop-senators-who-voted-for-clinton.html The 25 GOP Senators Wayne Allard (R-CO) Robert Bennett (R-UT) Kit Bond (R-MO) Sam Brownback (R-KS) Jim Bunning (R-KY) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Larry Craig (R-ID) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Pete Domenici (R-NM) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Judd Gregg (R-NH) Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Trent Lott (R-MS) Dick Lugar (R-IN) John McCain (R-AZ) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Pat Roberts (R-KS) Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Gordon Smith (R-OR) George Voinovich (R-OH)
