code word: WRONG

nuf' said

Technically, Libby gets credit for "on day" served since he was booked and (those of you who were gloating about his Inmate # know who you are) already processed into the system. So, yes, the President felt anything more than one day was excessive. Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa.

They should be succinct like Clinton. He said, "I guess it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Here, they mean, "I guess it depends on what the meaning of 'equal justice' is".

I find it offensive that convicted felons who are friends of the powerful--or able to either protect them or bring them down--are able to get prison sentences completely commuted. If Bush had said, look, 30 months is too much. Instead I am going to commute all but the minimum amount of jail time recommended by the sentencing panel," he might have been able to eke out a faint comparison to Solomon from everyone. Instead, his decision further divides the country, undermines future federal criminal sentencing and perpetuates the belief that those in power now serve themselves first. It is bad for the republic. Conservatives should be both embarrassed and furious at that man.

Why am I not at all surprised that a cabal of imperialists find the phrase "equal justive under the law" to be such a head scratcher? For blatant imperial stupidity it beats the hell out of "Let them eat cake."

I'm glad to see a White House reporter(s) asking a solid series of follow-up questions. The White House's response may not be very reassuring, but the reporter(s)'s line of questioning certainly was. Good work.

Billy Pilgrim:

Did you erect guillotines outside Clinton's Chappaqua, NY house on January 22, 2001?

A real patriot is the fellow who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works.

Chinese Fortune Cookie

Jake: "Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Really? So Marc Rich was a member of Clinton's cabinet who had the potential to implicate him in a federal crime? And Jimmy Carter was protecting himself from prosecution by pardoning the draft dodgers?

Christ, this isn't comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and molehills.

The White House can mock the Congress. They can mock the Democratic Party. They have crossed the line in the sand when they begin mockinc the American people, as they are doing now.

It's time for all patriotic Americans to arm themselves as they did at our nation's birth -- reading Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* and *The Rights of Man*. Paine was our guide then, and he will be our guide now.

The whole horror of the Bush years began when the U.S. Supreme Court gave a certain former cheerleader, frat rat, and Bohemian Grovian "special treatment" in a 5 to 4 decision essentially throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and placing some of the most corrupt and scheming individuals ever in the White House who firmly believe they are above "the law," the U.S. Constitution and anything that Congress enacts or the courts judge.

Intentional double post, in honor of Thomas Paine.

The White House can mock the Congress. They can mock the Democratic Party. They have crossed the line in the sand when they begin mocking the American people, as they are doing now.

It's time for all patriotic Americans to arm themselves as they did at our nation's birth -- reading Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* and *The Rights of Man*. Paine was our guide then, and he will be our guide now.

Scott Stanzel needs to be more of a moving target. Snow muddies the waters with "what I find interesting" soliloquies. The fembot goes into broken record mode, chewing up time, and disheartening questioners with that glazed over stare. Mr. Stanzel needs to learn that simply delivering the days talking points will result in a dally pummeling. Spin harder Scott.

Hm, this story has a strange twist. Who knew that Marc Rich and Scooter Libby were "strange bedfellows" for more than 15 years while Libby advocated for Rich's pardon?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

Jake: Sorry, but you're mistaken. Rich wasn't convicted of anything, and even Libby agreed that Rich should not have even been charged.

Ahh, shitbag troll "Jake" from ThinkProgress has migrated here.

Worst of the lying shills out there. Works hard to earn his $10/hr from the RNC.

Yes, I know that Libby was Rich's attorney (until the spring of 2000 at least), but I am pretty sure the jury came back with a guilty verdict in that case -- I will try to double-check with Scooter next time I see him -- either way, Marc Rich and his partner were fugitives when Clinton pardoned them.

Ignore Jake - he is an infamous troll. His goal is to make trouble - this is a site for grown-ups and he is just a kid.

Billy - I'll run right out for knitting needles and yarn - can I knit you a nice red hat?

Powkat

You're off base on two counts.

Jake is not a kid. He's a hired gunslinger deliberately planted by the opposition for a specific purpose -- he's creating a commotion outside the bank while his accomplices are inside robbing it.

The Paine reference was not made to wax poetic. If you are familiar with the works cited, you would not have made your charming comment. Neglect Paine at your peril.

The press may be asking better questions, but they're still leaving much out:
1) Does the president believe the sentencing guidelines which generated Libby's sentence need to be changed?

2) If not, what is specifically different about Libby's case that warrants the deviation from the guidelines? [they should keep asking for specifics about Libby until the spokemonkey cries]

3) Did the President commute Libby's sentence to avoid putting Libby in a situation to bargain with prosecutors to avoid jail time--i.e., was the President afraid of what Libby might reveal?

4) If the President is determined to "respect the jury's verdict" why won'nt him commit to swering off a pardon--the verdict isn't going to change in January 2008.....

5) Why didn't the President wait for Libby to express remorse for his crime before commuting his sentence?

I don't expect honest answers to any of these questions, but it would be nice to see the Whitehouse spokesmonkeys squirm a bit.

It doesen't bother me near as much that the rich and powerful protect themselves and there is a two tier justice system in this country but to hear the Republican Party gushing on tv about being overjoyed that Libby beat the system turn my stomach. Someone should remind the Republican Party they and the Democrats are the system.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

For example, Scooters are WAY equal...

Jake the Snake, now there was a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Roberts

For everyone else, my initial post above pointed out the "legal theory" that Libby gets credit for "one day" served since he was booked and assigned an Inmate # -- nonetheless, plenty of other Presidents thought it was fine to pardon / commute sentences without even a SINGLE DAY of jail time -- Clinton did for Marc Rich, same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers, same as Ford did for Richard Nixon, same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa (although, now I'd better double check Hoffa now too ; )

Jake,

Now that it's been established that you're familiar with *Common Sense*, the obvious next question is, did you read it? Unlike Rousseau and Locke, Paine was eminently readable by even those of below average intelligence, such as you. He was able to penetrate the thick skulls of the NASCAR, pro wrestling crowd of his day, motivating them to think in terms of revolution -- not a shabby accomplishment.

Do yourself a favor. Do something to enrich your mind this evening and read a few pages from Paine. Tomorrow you may see the world from an entirely new perspective.

Does the troll (Jake) have any inkling how trite, stupid and false his attempts to absolve every one of the multitude of Bush/Cheney crimes by citing some irrelevant incident in the Clinton terms which K. Starr and the wing-nut media bums have tried to project into eternity?

One would think by now those wing-nuts who go on and on about supposed mis-deeds by Clinton as alibis for the present sad state of this nation's affairs would grow up and find some other excuses, huh?

For instance, Jake, your dumb suggestion that Clinton's pardon of Rich is comparable to Bush's 'commutation' of Libby marks you as a person whose cranium is filled with fecal matter rather than brains... As another commenter pointed out, there is no comparison.

Your blithering about erecting a guillotine outside Clinton's home as a counter to some facetious suggestion of comparing the Bush administration to the Louis XVI reign is not nearly so funny as you apparently think.

You are not only a troll..you are an un-mitigated, stupid bore.

And the CNN top news story right now (from the web) is:

White House: Clinton shameless on Libby

It's not special treatment, and even if it was, Clinton did it too, and how hypocritical of him to bring this up!

Clinton (Bill) should just STFU. He just takes the focus of the real issue.

Rich is irrelevant. Clinton did some unacceptable things years ago. So what? Wasn't Bush selected because he was allegedly a paragon.

The Bush/Cheney admin has been saying for months that they cannot respond to questions regarding on-going prosecutions, they need to let the justice system work, yet they now state that they have been deliberating for many weeks about Libby. Their plan to spring him was a long time in the making. Why is no one commenting on this very public contradiction and lie?

Why can't the Dem leadership understand that they are dealing with crazy people (Narcissitic Personality Disorder at the least) who have their fingers on the nuclear trigger? Why can't they understand that they immediately have to use every means possible to straightjacket these menaces?

Jake - what the hell does anything that Clinton (or any other president) have to do with what bush did? Please don't tell me that your sum defence is "But Clinton did it". I thought that Bush proposed a DIFFERENT White House from Clinton; therefore the call of "but Clinton did it" is patently false. Do you actually have an argument?

I guess the more appropriate comparison would GHW Bush's pardon of Cap Weinberger. Another instance of the Chief Executive pardoning a subordinate who had the potential to testify against him. Had Bush Pere tried that stunt prior to the end of his lame-duck presidency, he would have faced the impeachment his dim son should be facing now.

Singularity:

Why not something more recent in time, say, Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal? You know, if Bush is impeached for Libby, then Clinton can be as well.

oooooooooOOOOOO Tax evasion that's deadly, almost as lethal as treasonous leaking of a covert CIA agent, almost as lethal as lying to justify an illegal invasion of a small country.

"Do yourself a favor. Do something to enrich your mind this evening and read a few pages from Paine. Tomorrow you may see the world from an entirely new perspective.
Posted by: Billy Pilgrim
Date: July 5, 2007 5:12 PM"

A re-read of TP is a very good idea. I'll pull my copy out tonight and do that.

My momma always had a knack for judging people as to their honesty. She told me not to trust Bushit when he ran against Ann Richards for guv. I trusted her advice then, and she was so right.

Man Oh Man, it jst kills me that there are STILL some idjits out there that can't admit that they might have made a mistake when they voted for the moron so they have to use to old, tired candy-assed asinine, totally ridiculus, etc. etc. etc. wow.. excuse that Clinton did it. My one request of all those Goof Balls is... Step into the reality of the new millenium. Clinton ain't in charge no mo. The Bushits' are. They are the group responsible and they are the group which shall be held accountable. Throw these bums where they belong.. under the bus.
All others who do not agree please kindly STFU

"It's all a big joke to them."

Not for those who have to face the pointed questions about it, and and up twisting in the wind publicly. This isn't going away.

"I don't think even the 30% of remaining loyal "Bushies" has any notion that the administration is still interested in giving the appearance of transparency."

Bushit's polls are much less than 30 per cent. He is as result of the Libby coverup, at about the level of Nixon now. And it can only go down from there.

Posted by: Busta
Date: July 5, 2007 2:40 PM

"Technically, Libby gets credit for "on day" served since he was booked and (those of you who were gloating about his Inmate # know who you are) already processed into the system."

Which took a whole day, and occurred inside a jail/prison? Gee, I don't think so.

"So, yes, the President felt anything more than one day was excessive."

But only as concerns Bushit loyalist Libby. It isn't excessive according to the Republican-written and enacted sentencing guidelines, within which that 30 months falls. It isn't excessive according to the SC. It isn't excessive according to Bushit-appointee Judge Walton. It isn't excessive according to Bushit's DOJ.

Nor is 33 months for a veteran of two wars, and career military of 25 years, for perjury and obstruction of justice, excessive to Bushit. In fact, it isn't excessive to Bushit except in one case and one case only: Bushit loyalist Libby.

"Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Lying again, "Jake". There is no equivalence between the Libby case and the others you cite in effort to obfuscate and distract. In addition to which, this thread is about Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail time. It isn't about Libby-friend Marc Rich (who was only granted a partial pardon -- no commutation of sentence), draft dodgers (Bushit went AWOL; AWOL is a courts-martial offense), or even Ford-Nixon.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:40 PM

The President's judicial powers have no strings attached. The only check on this power is a political one.

Clinton pardoned Rich and Democrats payed (are still paying) a political price.

Bush pardoned Scooter and Republicans will also have to pay a price in reputation and trust in their brand.

I voted for Bush in 2000 because I wanted to show my frustration with actions like the Rich pardon. now Bush defends himself by saying I'm no worse than Clinton. Yes, I know that most of Clinton's "blizzard" of pardons came through the justice department. The Rich pardon was wrong and so is the Libby pardon. So when it comes to pardons both Clinton and Bush are disappointing.

I guess the comparison game can now move on to the foreigner affairs round. Guess who wins? Ask Republican Senator and future defendant Pete Domenici who today jumped ship, calling for a redeployment of troops. Maybe Jean Schmidt can accuse him of "cutting and running" and that will solve the problem.

Jake: "Same as Clinton did for Marc Rich. Same as Carter did for Vietnam draft dodgers. Same as Ford did for Richard Nixon. Same as Nixon did for Jimmy Hoffa."

Really? So Marc Rich was a member of Clinton's cabinet who had the potential to implicate him in a federal crime? And Jimmy Carter was protecting himself from prosecution by pardoning the draft dodgers?

Christ, this isn't comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and molehills.

Posted by: Clavis
Date: July 5, 2007 3:25 PM

I think "Jake" figgers guilty-as-sin Marc Rich is relevant because Rich's soul-mate, and the person who lobbied for his pardon (partial -- and no commutation of Rich's sentence), was oh-so-innocent convicted felon "Scooter" Libby.

Ya see (I don't), "Jake" somehow connecting the sainted convicted felon "Scooter" Libby with Clinton via Libby-soul mate and client Marc Rich is intended by "Jake" to smear Clinton because he gave automatically-and-forever-innocent-victim-because-Republican convicted felon "Scooter" Libby part of what "Scooter" wanted for "Scooter"'s guilty-as-sin soul-mate Marc Rich.

Let me try again:

You can't expect Republican "Jake," apologist-for-Republican-convicted felons/traitors -- in this instance "Scooter" Libby -- to make sense. "He" has a difficult task: on one hand, rejecting the rule of law in behalf of poor baby convicted felon "Scooter" Libby, while simultaneously and on the other hand endeavoring to lynch Clinton by means of a rope made of law for crimes Clinton didn't commit except in the lies uttered by morally superior anti-lie-and-liars "Jake".

Does that confuse? Not as much as "Jake" confuses himself by being an out-and-out and obvious hypocrite.

The only justice in the above twisted equation/s is that the first victim of "Jake"'s irrational and lie-sustained hatred is "Jake".

Clavis:

"Libby was not a member of Bush's Cabinet -- sitting Presidents cannot be indicted --"

False. But if you believe you can do it: Substantiate.

"besides that, the President is the authority who can declassify information and therefore cannot commit that crime."

Actually, he can commit "that crime," because the laws which apply to such materials and their disclosure also bind on Bushit. Further, there are stipulated procedures -- even in Executive Order applying to Bushit -- which define the legal means to declassify classified materials. Disobeying those is violating those requirements.

And keep in mind that an Executive Order, being subordinate to statute, cannot be inconsistent with the statute without also violating it, and being null-and-void. In short: if the Executive Order stipulated that Bushit were exempt from the statute which applies to him, that part of the Executive Order would be null-and-void. And if acted upon, the action would be illegal.

Ass. Anti-lying morally superior liar.

"From CNN and other sources:

"Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.

"The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.

"Posted by: ajk2821
Date: July 5, 2007 3:42 PM"

Don't confuse "Jake" with the facts: Marc Rich was without question guilty, and scum, as evidenced by the simple fact that Clinton pardoned him.

All evidence to the contrary is a vast rightness-of-rule-of-law conspiracy to undeceptively besmirch the lies told against Clinton -- and Marc Rich -- by such morally superior anti-lying-and-wrong-doing smearmongering liars as "Jake".

Not so by the way: the person who lodged the false charges against Rich was none other than upstanding US AG Rudy Guliani.

Yes, I know that Libby was Rich's attorney (until the spring of 2000 at least), but I am pretty sure the jury came back with a guilty verdict in that case -- I will try to double-check with Scooter next time I see him -- either way, Marc Rich and his partner were fugitives when Clinton pardoned them.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 4:07 PM

There wouldn't have been a petition for a pardon for Rich to present to Clinton if not for "Scooter" Libby. In fact, I think it is abundantly safe to say that "Scooter" Libby was for pardoning Rich before Clinton learned of the "Scooter" Libby pardon.

Got that, liar? "Scooter" Libby was for pardoning Rich before Clinton even knew the petition ofr the pardon existed.

Why are you not blaming Libby for initiating the pardon issue, in view of the fact that you hate the fact that Rich got pardoned? Ah, that's why: it isn't that you hate Rich; it's that you "hate" Rich only because associated with Clinton.

On the other hand, you certainly don't hate Rich because he was associated with the oh-so-innocent convicted felon Libby. Instead, you admire Rich's choice of stirling character and integrity to represent him in the effort to get the pardon.

Or is it that you hate Clinton because he didn't grant Rich a full pardon?

Make up your mind: Why do you hate Rich? Because he was associated with Clinton only because Clinton happened to grant him a partial pardon? Or because associated with the upstanding oh-so-innocent convicted felon "Scooter" Libby?

Come on, you can tell us the truth; we won't tell anybody. Oh, right -- I forget (like hell): you don't know the meaning of truth, let alone how to tell it.

As said before: I'd ask why you're a liar, but your answer would be a lie. Let me guess: your real name is "Scooter" Libby.

I hope everybody realizes that "equal justice under law" is the inscription on the front of the Supreme Court building. It speaks volumes that a White House spokesman would profess unfamiliarity with the term.

For the record, I have never stated I was against the Marc Rich pardon. Carry on . . .

". . . . The Rich pardon was wrong and so is the Libby pardon."

Posted by: Samsara
Date: July 5, 2007 7:16 PM

Still full of shit after all thewse years.

Your view of the Rich pardon is that you swallowed from the Clinton-haters. You swallowed the lie, and so far haven't corrected yourself about it.

Clinton did not give Rich a full pardon; he only pardoned him of the bogus charges against him. Otherwise, the pradon tightened the fulfillment of his obligations -- reimbursing to those he defrauded -- on him.

Your hatred of Clinton is -- bottom line -- lie-based. Smarten up and stop viewing the parties as the same. The Democrats are about obeyind the law. The republicans are party-bforeContitution, rule of law, and country.

You tell em Billy Pilgrim. Good to see you again.

code word: shame (something no one in this administration is acquainted with).

I hope the reporter who had the temerity to press on with his followups stays with it: if only the teevee or major newspaper would simply document this stuff . . . .

If it ain't equal, it ain't justice. Anything more you're unclear of Mr. Stanzel?

Cassidy: Read this:
The Libby Commutation: Coincidence, or Conspiracy?
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/05/2299/