Uh...what? "Unmistakably govern"? Is this phrase even a legal term?

So Bush can unilaterally now change the law at whim? Wow....

What good would probation do, at least for the first 18 months? If he violated probation and was ordered to prison by a judge, Bush would just commute that jail time as well!!

Oh, please, don't tell me you people never heard of Clinton, for instance, laying down rules how the execution of laws would take place?! Clinton used "signing statements" too.

Jake the troll is disgruntled because he knows he can't do anything to stop the administration from self distructing. Since his retirement from Disneyland, Jake has started two new jobs. Beside being a paid troll. Jake also greets customers at the Walmart on Crenshan Blvd. in L.A. Jake's posts remind me of that brown stuff running down the back window of Romney's station wagon, LOL.

Jake:
Oh, please, don't tell me you've never heard of a little kid screaming, "Well, he did it, too." for a defense; can you come up with any examples of Clinton not enforcing the law? Can you defend Bush without saying "Clinton did it, too?

Facts, not pr; unless you're just a pr hack, that it.

Hello Jake, you old jerk off. The guys on the grounds crew today are too young to remember Vietman, but they are all familiar with the stories of how you used to masturbate after watching co-eds walking around campus whike you leaned on your rake.

SPENCER ADAMS:

In case you missed my very first post, I already pointed out that Libby served "one day" by being processed and assigned an inmate number -- by point about Clinton was in response to the "chicken little" claims that Bush is doing something never, ever done in the entire history of the republic!

Technically, didn't Libby serve "one day" by being processed and assigned an inmate number?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 1:59 PM

No, because he was presumed innocent at the time. And he was presumed to sufficiently know the meaning of "good faith" to not attempt to flee prosecution.

In addition: it is standard that appeals to remain out on bail while appealing conviction are denied.

Oh, please, don't tell me you people never heard of Clinton, for instance, laying down rules how the execution of laws would take place?! Clinton used "signing statements" too.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 2:05 PM

Irrelevant --

1. Clinton isn't in office;

2. The war crime of torture cannot be made legal -- even by means of "signing statement"; yet Bushit relies on the uninformed, and the hyperpartisan REPUBLICANS who put party before Constitution, rule of law, and country, to lie that he can.

Correct, "Jake"?

But, "Jake," we know where you're coming from, "Jake," right "Jake"? --

1. The first WTC bombing occurred a month after Clinton took office -- so it was Clinton's fault

2. The 9/11 destruction of the WTC occurred 8 months after Bushit bullied and stole his way into office. Therefore, it was Clinton's fault.

The perpetrators of the first WTC bombing -- as with the Madrid bombings -- were persued and arrested and prosecuted and imprisoned. Clinton did not invade and bomb New Jersey in order to accomplish that; instead, he used all the tools necessary and applicable, including that of criminal law and international policing.

Bushit and his drooling chickenhawk ass-kissing followers mock the use of policing and criminal law, even though effective: where's Osama, "Jake"?

SPENCER ADAMS:

In case you missed my very first post, I already pointed out that Libby served "one day" by being processed and assigned an inmate number -- by point about Clinton was in response to the "chicken little" claims that Bush is doing something never, ever done in the entire history of the republic!

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 2:48 PM

What part of "The war crime of torture cannot be made legal, even by means of 'signing statement'" do you not understand?

Substantiate that Bushit _isn't_ the only white house occupant to illegally attempt to legalize torture against Constitution, US Federal law, and international law.

JNagarya:

Libby was presumed innocent AFTER his conviction and sentencing?? That's when he was assigned an INMATE number.

mbbsdphil:

While I never practiced criminal law, I understand that it would have indeed counted as "one day" toward the thirty months Mr. Libby was to have spent in jail. Are you saying that Clinton's pardon of Rich was an "abuse"? Because I think there would be some disagreement with you on that.

Isn't it funny Jake. Just like those they hate the supposed Democratic posters attack you and NOT what you post. You have to be careful what you hate, you become like it.

P.J. Evans:

I believe Bush explained himself more than adequately on that issue:

"From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power."

What isn't funny, JDet?

"supervised release" = "probation".

Incorrect, Jake.

"supervised release" = parole

Like a Tony Snow presser, the President's self-contradictory words tell us very little. They don't accurately describe the Libby case. They don't describe Mr. Bush's motivation: very little research would reveal that the sentence was less than half the average sentence for obstructing a federal investigation, and lots of good folks fall off the rails, commit felonies and spend time in the slammer. The courts and prisons are full of them.

It is objectively true that the president's action relieves Libby of any consequence he himself must pay, while keeping in place Mr. Libby's jeopardy, pending the outcome of his appeal. That allows Mr. Libby to plead the Fifth and say nothing, preventing Fitzgerald from continuing his investigation of what may be an ongoing crime.

That Mr. Bush lives in a land of wishful thinking this anecdote attributable to Colin Powell makes clear: Mr. Bush, using his guts (not his limited courage), looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw his soul; Colin Powell used his brain and knowledge, and saw the ruthless but effective head of the KGB.

Bush knows keeping Libby quiet for life is good for him. Only his intimates know how good it is for everybody else - except the rest of America.

This Libby story reminds me of the buildup for the war. Anyone paying the least bit of attention knows where the lies are, the scoundrels barely try to conceal them, but the decision makers pretend to have no idea of the time of day.

If I knew Saddam didn’t pose a threat, the President and Congress knew it. If I know why Libby was not given a full pardon, Congress and the President know it. It’s not rocket science.

What I’ll never, ever, neverever understand is why so many of our representatives play along. The rational part of my brain tells me the answer could only be that they support the actions; the emotional part of my brain won’t allow me to believe the deception is as large as it must be.

The closest comparison to what BushBoy did in commuting Libby's sentence is his father's pardoning the Iran-Contra felons and indictees. Both father and son had a measure of self-interest, as well as concern for their appointees and supporters--wouldn't want anyone facing jail time to try to bargain it down by spilling any info about the higher-ups.

But, somehow, this is never noted by Republicans and by most MCMers*. I wonder why....

*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media

I also note that shipwreckedcrew pointed out on another thread that the imposition of the term of imprisonment hasn't evaporated by virtue of the clemency -- it's just been discharged -- in other words the effect of the clemency is to simply put Libby in the same position as he would have been the day after his last day in federal prison. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.