[STARMAN 352ND]

I had a feeling this would happened.
JP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/...cia_leak_trial

[Captain Eddie]

'bout time, to!

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

'bout time, to!

You're kidding right?

[chiefs70]

As usual, there are rules for those with money and/or connections and rules for for the rest of us. Next they'll try to tell us that the office of the Vice President isn't part of the Executive branch or something.

[Old Crow]

As usual, there are rules for those with money and/or connections and rules for for the rest of us. Next they'll try to tell us that the office of the Vice President isn't part of the Executive branch or something.

I have to respectfully disagree. It may seem wrong, especially to our non-American members, but the Chief Executive's power to pardon or commute is an integral part of our Constitutional system, intended, among other things, to counter the influence of politics on decisions to prosecute. In my opinion, the special prosecutor came close to entrapment in the investigation of Libby.

It is important to note that President Bush did not pardon Libby; he commuted his sentence, leaving intact the felony conviction (which means Libby will likely be disbarred), the quarter million fine and the 2 years of probation. He could have just as easily pardoned Libby, but he chose the lesser course because of his stated belief the sentence is excessive. I would say he has suffered greatly already, and he still has huge attorney fees bills besides the fine.

While I can understand the sentiment that his money and connections means different rules, I would submit his connections are the reason he was prosecuted in the first place. Remember that former President Clinton also committed perjury but was not prosecuted, and the laundry list of pardons (not just commutations of sentence) when he left office is startling (but that is another story ).

[SKUNKY]

When will he be letting Duke Cunningham out?...

[admin]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

You're kidding right?

Nope. His prosecution was a sham from the get go.

[chiefs70]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I have to respectfully disagree. It may seem wrong, especially to our non-American members, but the Chief Executive's power to pardon or commute is an integral part of our Constitutional system, intended, among other things, to counter the influence of politics on decisions to prosecute. In my opinion, the special prosecutor came close to entrapment in the investigation of Libby.

It is important to note that President Bush did not pardon Libby; he commuted his sentence, leaving intact the felony conviction (which means Libby will likely be disbarred), the quarter million fine and the 2 years of probation. He could have just as easily pardoned Libby, but he chose the lesser course because of his stated belief the sentence is excessive. I would say he has suffered greatly already, and he still has huge attorney fees bills besides the fine.

While I can understand the sentiment that his money and connections means different rules, I would submit his connections are the reason he was prosecuted in the first place. Remember that former President Clinton also committed perjury but was not prosecuted, and the laundry list of pardons (not just commutations of sentence) when he left office is startling (but that is another story ).

I don't disagree Old Crow but - as you mentioned regarding Clinton - the use of pardons (and in this case commuting his sentence) is just as politically driven as the decision to prosecute. I am so weary of both parties - and you may be surprised on which side of the fence I fall politically based purely on this post - seemingly being more focused on posturing and playing "big boy" with each other instead of focusing on issues we Americans want addressed. There is a reason both Democrat led Congress and Republican President Bush have abysmal public approval ratings. The power of the executive to pardon/commute is important but doesn't seem to follow the original intent of the power of late - it probably never did but we are just better informed as to who gets them these days I suppose.

[Tyler109]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I have to respectfully disagree. It may seem wrong, especially to our non-American members, but the Chief Executive's power to pardon or commute is an integral part of our Constitutional system, intended, among other things, to counter the influence of politics on decisions to prosecute. In my opinion, the special prosecutor came close to entrapment in the investigation of Libby.

It is important to note that President Bush did not pardon Libby; he commuted his sentence, leaving intact the felony conviction (which means Libby will likely be disbarred), the quarter million fine and the 2 years of probation. He could have just as easily pardoned Libby, but he chose the lesser course because of his stated belief the sentence is excessive. I would say he has suffered greatly already, and he still has huge attorney fees bills besides the fine.

While I can understand the sentiment that his money and connections means different rules, I would submit his connections are the reason he was prosecuted in the first place. Remember that former President Clinton also committed perjury but was not prosecuted, and the laundry list of pardons (not just commutations of sentence) when he left office is startling (but that is another story ).

Well said....and in reguards to Skunky's comments I think they should have corgi or hobby master make Showtime 100 and President Bush could commute Duke's sentence to community service and have him sign every model produced

[PH-LKK]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

It is important to note that President Bush did not pardon Libby; he commuted his sentence, leaving intact the felony conviction (which means Libby will likely be disbarred), the quarter million fine and the 2 years of probation. He could have just as easily pardoned Libby, but he chose the lesser course because of his stated belief the sentence is excessive. I would say he has suffered greatly already, and he still has huge attorney fees bills besides the fine.

For now.... It is equally important to note that by not fully pardoning Libby at this time, Bush retains his rhetorical excuse for not "commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding" while the appeals process works its way out. The full appeal will likely take at least the 18 months remaining in Bush's term. I fully expect him to grant a full pardon to Libby, and probably Cheney as well (for all conduct related to the "war on terror"), during the final hours of his time in office, if he can put it off that long.

None of this particularly bothers me from a political or legal perspective, though I do have moral objections (as I did with the use of the pardon power by both the elder Bush and Clinton when the benefit was so clearly directed to political insiders). My principal objection to Bush's move, however, is that he is framing his act as one of serving justice. He asserts that Libby's prison sentence was excessively harsh. This is demonstrably false. The sentence was well within the norm for convictions of this sort. The fact that Libby spent more than the average defendant defending himself has no relevance to the justice of the sentence. What matters is the charge and the conviction. The trial court, and the court of appeals (unanimously), have concluded that Libby does not have a likelihood of success on his appeal. The jury was unanimous in its conviction that he intentionally lied to federal prosecutors and a grand jury.

And what he lied about does matter: whether the Vice President of the United States was involved in orchestrating an effort to unlawfully disseminate classified information to members of the Press for political purposes. The fact that the underlying crime was never charged does not lessen the seriousness of an act of obstruction of justice. Shall we reward an effort to obstruct justice if it succeeds? We still do not "know" (in a legally significant sense) whether there was an orchestrated effort to use classified information in an unlawful manner in connection with the outing of Valerie Plame. Note: The role of Armatige may be irrelevant to this question.

Burns me up when folks assert that this prosecution (by an honest, and fiercely independent prosecutor) was politically motivated or pointless.