Comments (13)

Jeremiah wrote on July 9, 2007 5:18 PM:

Hey, give Bush a break... he told the truth for once! The leakers have been "taken care of"!

KilgoreTrout XL wrote on July 9, 2007 5:32 PM:

No Fitzgerald?

That's a right bummer.

JNagarya wrote on July 9, 2007 5:49 PM:

It'll be good to hear more about _Rita_, and have that information get out more generally. Of course, as happened with David Iglesias, the fact that Rita fought in two wars, and had a stirling 25 year military career, are reasons to the Bush gang not to commute his sentence.

Besides, they wouldn't want to appear to disagree with a legal decision made by the Supreme Court. Only the lawless would do that.

SC = rule. As in, When does the rule of law not apply? Tonight at 11:00.

skip edwards wrote on July 9, 2007 6:29 PM:

this question needs to be asked.....does the commuting of Libby's sentence still provie the shield of his 5th ammendment rights? if so, then we know why Bush did not pardon Libby and thus the truth shall remain buried for all to not see!

lgm wrote on July 9, 2007 6:52 PM:

I remember congressional hearings of old getting more questions answered than modern ones. Maybe that was because committee attorneys asked most of the questions, with the Senators or Congressmen just sitting there (Roy Cohn, Benveniste, ...).

With all the repetition and grandstanding, very few questions get answered.

lgm wrote on July 9, 2007 6:53 PM:

I remember congressional hearings of old getting more questions answered than modern ones. Maybe that was because committee attorneys asked most of the questions, with the Senators or Congressmen just sitting there (Roy Cohn, Benveniste, ...).

With all the repetition and grandstanding, very few questions get answered.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 7:14 PM:

That is too bad that Fitzgerald isn't a witness, because then he could explain under oath the following:

1) Why wasn't Armitage prosecuted?

2) Why does he agree with the White House that Libby's "supervised release" was effective July 2, 2007?

3) Whether Libby was "credited" with one day served?

4) Why Clinton commuted Arnold Properi's sentence and therefore did not stay in jail a single day either?

parhttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fitzgerald-probation/?resultpage=2&

Jane wrote on July 9, 2007 9:45 PM:

Gee, Jake:

You have been running all over this site suggesting that technically Libby should be credited with one day for having a number assigned. I asked for a cite or some authority since you claim to have some legal training and now you punt to Fitzgerald. What gives? Spouting off without doing your homework? Afraid to share?

In any case, Bush got some shoddy lawyering. Judge Walton should not have had to face any confusion about what Bush intended and since there was a relevant statute this should have been addressed in the pardon. Oh, I forgot, this was dealt with by the political branch -- not the regular channels. I would think that even you might wonder why -- or is your nose defective. Ever heard of the smell test?

Sure, Bush can commute but not for improper reasons. If this is to protect those involved in outing an undercover CIA agent, it is obstruction of justice and we can expect to see Bush pardon himself. Yet another reason why I am for Impeachment NOW.

Jane wrote on July 9, 2007 9:51 PM:

So Jake:

just catching up on my back reading and finding out how little your word is worth:

I like that Fitz made it a point to note that he couldn't find any case law on point because there was only ONE other time in which a President had commuted a sentence prior to the defendant serving any time. Even then, as noted, the commutation by Clinton was to 3 years of home imprisonment, not a get-out-of-jail free card.
Posted by: Glenn
Date: July 9, 2007 5:14 PM

No case law and you were just running your mouth and degrading Stanford Law's reputation. Where did you say you have your bar?

nolo wrote on July 10, 2007 12:32 AM:

i first saw this on the gavel,
speaker pelosi's blog, this after-
noon, then at thenexthurrah.com. . .

Tom Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Middle District of North Carolina (Attorney for Vincent Rita, Rita v. US)

and the original sources also con-
tained the error -- mr. rita's first
name is "victor" not "vincent".

victor a., in fact.

just for the record.

nolo wrote on July 10, 2007 12:34 AM:

i first saw this on the gavel,
speaker pelosi's blog this after-
noon, then at thenexthurrah.com. . .

Tom Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Middle District of North Carolina (Attorney for Vincent Rita, Rita v. US)

and the original sources also con-
tained the error -- mr. rita's first
name is "victor" not "vincent".

victor a. rita, in fact.

just for the record.

Mstessyrue wrote on July 10, 2007 2:52 PM:

By commuting Libby’s jail sentence, President Bush, once again, is misusing his presidential power to prevent the public from knowing the truth about this administration. Similar to the dealings with the war in Iraq, this administration has been feeding lies to the public. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now.

zoyd wrote on July 11, 2007 1:30 AM:

Dear Mr. Conyers, Please pick up the pace.