Comments (79)

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 1:24 PM:

No problem, as I think Libby fully intends to comply with the terms of his probation while appealing the conviction. All's well that ends well.

LS wrote on July 13, 2007 1:26 PM:

Sorry, but I can't agree with your assesment that a portion Judge Walton's statement "calls his professionalism into question." We have seen extraordiary behavior from the Bush administration--so much so that each passing revelation only seems to make the previous appear 'normal.' It's not.

Remember, "all that evil requires is that good men stay silent."

Sojourner wrote on July 13, 2007 1:31 PM:

If I were Judge Walton, I would be a little hacked, as well! Even more so because my "boss" decided to make it all better for one of his buddies, and undermined a LOT of work that I had done (not to mention that Mr. Fitzgerald and his team had done, too).

The Republican Party that we see today -- George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney -- does not stand for real law and order for all. It stands for law and order for the masses -- but its leaders are above the law.

I have changed my voter registration -- I no longer want to be identified with these criminals!

Needles wrote on July 13, 2007 1:35 PM:

LS,

I think you misunderstood. Walton said that Bush's commutation calls Walton's professionalism into question.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 1:42 PM:

No, Needles, I believe it was SPENCER ACKERMAN who wrote that Bush's commutation calls Walton's professionalism into question -- Walton never said that -- I've just read his Memorandum Opinion and he never writes that either.

BS wrote on July 13, 2007 1:46 PM:

"No problem, as I think Libby fully intends to comply with the terms of his probation while appealing the conviction. All's well that ends well."

Until Bush pardons him.

Needles wrote on July 13, 2007 1:50 PM:

Jake,

Yes, you're right. But LS understood it as "a portion [of] Judge Walton's statement 'calls his professionalism into question.'" I think that's a misunderstanding of what Spencer wrote.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 2:04 PM:

Needles:

I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what he/she "understood", as LS's first sentence at 1:26 PM seems disjointed, at best -- are you inserting the word "of" between "portion" and "Judge" -- are you reading that first sentence as a reference to the Court's professionalism, rather than the President's? If so, even I would say that I can't agree with the assessment that Judge Walton's opinion claims the President is "call[ing] his professionalism into question."

Supdog wrote on July 13, 2007 2:04 PM:

"on an ad hoc basis"

There was nothing 'ad hoc' about Bush commuting Libby's sentence; it was done expressly to protect the administration from any damage done by Scooter cutting a deal to avoid prison time.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 2:18 PM:

Walton's opinion also never states any "displeasure with the commutation" -- Mr. Ackerman has taken more than a few liberties with the Court's "public remarks" (they are not even his "first" as the Memorandum Opinion notes on July 3, 2007, the Court directed the parties to submit their positions on this issue -- YMMV.

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 2:26 PM:

What Spencer said is the following:

Underscoring his displeasure with the commutation -- which calls his professionalism into question -- Walton referenced Alberto Gonzales's June 1 statement that sentencing guidelines should be considered "a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion."

It does not state in any way that Walton ever claimed that his professionalism is called into question. What it is saying is that the commutation, which endorses the Jury's work (conviction) but criticizes the judges' work (sentence) as "excessive" is (Spencer's analysis) calling the judge's professionalism into question by implying that Walton is the one that made a mistake. Clearly Walton's reaction is as if his professionalism was called into question, as it vigorously defends what he decided.

Code = "judge" -- imagine that!

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 2:32 PM:

In fact, the Court writes ". . . it is certainly the President's prerogative to justify the exercise of his constitutional commutation power in whatever manner he chooses (or even to decline to provide a reason for his actions altogether)". No doubt, the Court feels the sentence was consistent with the guidelines -- and even points to the Rita case and the Attorney General's speech urging restoration of the binding nature of said guidelines -- but that does not mean the Court takes any "displeasure" with the commutation. Bottom-line "the Court cannot say that the conditions of commutation imposed by the President in this instance are constitutionally objectionable." Again, all's well that ends well.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 2:38 PM:

I should have stated above that Libby fully intends to comply with the terms of his "supervised release" (as the Court correctly highlighted the difference between that and probation) while appealing the conviction. If anyone else wants to discuss the Court's purported "displeasure" or whether the commutation called the Court's "professionalism into question" please let me know.

RW wrote on July 13, 2007 2:50 PM:

I think the Bar Association and Fed Judiciary should make a statement about the underlying reasons Bush used. If Bush wants to say he used his Constitutional powers to commute a loyal servant and friend...okay...let him be accountable, but don't hide behind something like this.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

If this country had an honest mainstream media, the headline would read, "If you work for the Buhs administration and get caught doing anything wrong, don't worry, the fix is in."

As it is, the mainstream media is a member and supporter of "the fix".

Libby's presidential pardon is a done deal. He need not waste his time on an appeal.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Official A wrote on July 13, 2007 2:56 PM:

Here's what I read:

"Underscoring his displeasure with the commutation -- which calls his professionalism into question -- Walton referenced Alberto Gonzales's June 1 statement that sentencing guidelines should be considered "a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion."

It's clear that this does not even come close to quoting Walton, it is editorial comment of the sort the right employs continuously.

Jake is simply a paid disrupter. He is The Disrupter. There is no worse troll anywhere, even on Huffpo where Trolls are ubiquitous. Ignore him, for God's sake.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 2:57 PM:

RW:

Considering the sheer number of people who have worked for the Bush Administration (and there have been others besides Libby who "got caught" doing anything wrong -- remember that guy who defrauded some Target store?) I think it's a stretch to claim "don't worry, the fix is in" for everyone. As you are well aware, the circumstances leading to Libby's conviction are fairly unique and, regardless of whether you think he did something wrong or not, at least so far, no one else has gotten such a commutation.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:03 PM:

Sorry, that last post was to Dennis, not RW (I had a portion drafted slamming the American Bar Association but decided not to include that, yet ; )

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:04 PM:

I wonder, also, while rendering his letter, Judge Walton has damaged his future career as a judge. As, in effect, he has stood up to the president of the United States; something Congress is not willing to do.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:06 PM:

Official A:

I am not paid to post here -- I don't consider myself a "disrupter" or "troll" as I've simply replied to what's been posted -- by all means, however, feel free to ignore me.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:09 PM:

Dennis:

Perhaps you could quote something from Judge Walton's "letter" that you consider as evidence he "stood up to" Bush?

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:13 PM:

Jake, the guy who defrauded the Target store was not someone who was involved in shielding Bush from all of his personal lies and the lies and coverups of the Bush administration.

I know that, you know that, everyone else on here knows that.

The "fix is in", now or later, for anyone who shields the Bush administration.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Powkat wrote on July 13, 2007 3:19 PM:

Sojourner: You are in good company; I have heard the same from many honest folk who call themselves Republican as they realize that their party has been hijacked by criminals who care for neither country or party.

Join in the conversation - let's work together as a nation to end the debacle in Iraq and deal with the outstanding problems here at home.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:21 PM:

Dennis:

We now know that Judith Miller was "shielding the Bush Administration" -- she spent time in jail, right?

As for everyone else's heartfelt concern that Libby report to the probation office right away, have you tried contacting:

Gennine A. Hagar, Chief
United States Probation Officer
333 Constitution Ave., NW, Suite 2800
Washington, DC 20001-2866

I wouldn't be surprised if Libby already did, the same day he paid the fine : )

Powkat wrote on July 13, 2007 3:21 PM:

The troll weeps when you call it by name.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:24 PM:

Jake, as to Judge Walton's standing up to Bush, "in effect", Bush criticized the judge "in effect" by giving his personal opinion and not a legal opinion, that Libby's sentence was "too harsh".

In his response, Judge Walton has clearly stated and cited his legal grounds for the sentence handed down to Libby. A minimum sentence, by the way, under the DOJ guidelines.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it

connski wrote on July 13, 2007 3:32 PM:

Calling Judge Walton's professionalism into question?

HA HA HA HA HA

Isn't that what Bush did with the Attorney's General?

Under this dictatorship all justice is at the pleasure of the President.

Impeachment time/

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:33 PM:

Oh, I get it, Dennis: you think Judge Walton stood up to Bush "in effect" (kinda like Pelosi has stood up to Bush "in effect" so far?). And, here, I thought I was the only one who's not "reality-based." Thanks for the clarification.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:35 PM:

If I recall correctly, Jake, Judith Miller was protecting a source (she said). Libby, on the other hand, works/ed directly for and in the White House (in particular for Cheney).

Libby's commutation was/is a political payoff to keep his mouth shut for what he knows of all the wrong doings of Bush/Cheney - which are numerous and criminal (including war crimes).

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:36 PM:

connski:

Bush never called Judge Walton's professionalism into question. Therefore, your first premise is false. Try again.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:38 PM:

Jake, if you want to discuss something in an adult way, fine. But don't expect me to put myself on your 6th grade level, "he hit me first".

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:40 PM:

Fine, Dennis, as long as we agree now that the "fix is NOT in" for anyone who shields the Bush Administration. Don't worry, you're bound to fine a way out of the paper bag if you just keep trying.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:46 PM:

P.S. -- for someone who has copied "You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it" in every post on this thread, you are hardly in a position to start quibbling about schoolyard taunting.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 3:47 PM:

By use of his presidential perogative, Bush commuted Libby's sentence by rendering his "personal opinion" over the sentencing guide lines - which were established by his own Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Under Bush's thinking, hundreds of others ought to be released as well and we can just throw the sentencing guidelines away.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Scribe57 wrote on July 13, 2007 3:53 PM:

Has anyone else noticed that Jake's level of sophistry and illogic is growing more desperate every day? I've noticed that.

Here are two of my favorites:

"We now know that Judith Miller was "shielding the Bush Administration" -- she spent time in jail, right?"

This one is called the "false dilemma". If Miller isn't in jail, then clearly, she didn't shield the Bush Administration. Makes no sense at all.

And then there's this chestnut:

"Fine, Dennis, as long as we agree now that the "fix is NOT in" for anyone who shields the Bush Administration. Don't worry, you're bound to fine a way out of the paper bag if you just keep trying."

In fact, as anyone can see, Dennis said nothing of the sort. Jake just sorta made that one up.

jimbo92107 wrote on July 13, 2007 3:55 PM:

Who told this uppity judge that he could back-talk against his president's decision to disqualify the judge's decision?

He better watch out, or he's liable to get a whole bunch of hate mail and life-threatening phone calls from Scooters Hooters!

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 4:06 PM:

If anyone has decided to change parties, be sure to send a letter to your state Repub. Comm telling them why. Hopefully they will get a LOT of letters.
I sent one, worded to indicated why I could never be affiliated with the current party.
Didn't mention I was NOT a Republican, tho....
it's all in the phrasing.

connski wrote on July 13, 2007 4:23 PM:

Jake,

You are correct that Judge Walton did not write that the President questioned his professionalism. It was Ackerman. However that's immaterial to my argument.
On page 9 of his statement the Judge wrote that the President had rewritten the law AD HOC, that is, arbitrarily. Since the President's rationale for clemency was "unnecessary harshness" and Judge Walton's sentence followed Justice Department guidelines, I don't think Mr. Ackerman's out of line in writing that Bush questioned the Judge's judgement and therefore his professionalism. Indeed "professionalism" here is a manner of speaking. Judge Walton's judgement was pre-established by government sentencing guildlines.

I stand by my claims that Bush is crossing the boundaries of power separation by commuting under false pretences.

MS 040 wrote on July 13, 2007 4:33 PM:

"Bush never called Judge Walton's professionalism into question." -- The president said that Walton's sentence was "excessive." He didn't have to, but he did. A reasonable person can interpret this as a dig on Walton. The guy doesn't have to say, "I call Judge Walton's professionalism into question" for it to be true.

"Walton's opinion also never states any "displeasure with the commutation" -- Naw, he's fine with it. When he says he's "perplexed," it's a cry for help...can anyone explain it to him? His poor head is bursting.

Dennis wrote on July 13, 2007 5:00 PM:

In stating his professional opinion, and backing that up with legal citings, Judge Walton has taken a stand that other judges secretly applaude, but publically and career wise, fear to take.

And, if they remain without protest, the American Bar Association might as well not exist.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 5:19 PM:

Jake D.:
"Feel free to ignore me" does not excuse your illtempered and unwelcome presence, jackass!

Now,here is why this is serious shit: Libby, by nature, is a duplicitous, self-serving egomaniac with no respect for the law. It is inevitable that he will fail to comply with the terms of his "supervised release" particularly since he still has tracks to cover. It seems to me that Judge Walton is reasserting his role in the outcome of this matter.

Doofus wrote on July 13, 2007 5:48 PM:

Once again, "Jake D." is hijacking this comment forum, as he has been hired to do. Moderator, I once again renew my call to have this lizard banned.

molly wrote on July 13, 2007 6:13 PM:

Conrad Black, Republican media mogul got 30 years prison time for money laundering and rackateering. I don't know..but would bet he was tried in Canada. Because if he were here ...he would get no jail time. If I'm wrong I would be glad. This is the way people feel who live under a cruel dictatorship. Think Stalin and Hitler...the propaganda is rumbling to take another country out for having oil under the feet. And why was there no outcry from progressive blogs over election fraud. It's still going on. Read bradblog. It's the only way to end the nightmare.The crooks in D.C. were hand picked ..fascist or out.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 10:00 PM:

No problem, as I think Libby fully intends to comply with the terms of his probation while appealing the conviction. All's well that ends well.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 1:24 PM

It's okay with you that everyone convicted of perjury and obstruction must serve their prison sentences -- except Libby?

A Republicans-can-do-no-wrong bigot. It would be difficult for you to be more instellectually dishonest -- and revealing of your opposition to the rule of law, but only when the lawlessness is engaged in by Republicans.

Not only are you a liar, you are a flat-out hypocrite.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 10:05 PM:

No, Needles, I believe it was SPENCER ACKERMAN who wrote that Bush's commutation calls Walton's professionalism into question -- Walton never said that -- I've just read his Memorandum Opinion and he never writes that either.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 1:42 PM

He said it implicitly, ass. And in fact that is exactly what Bushit does: everyone who is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice must serve their sentence -- except for Libby.

Calling Libby's sentence "excessive" -- a flat-out lie -- implicitly accuses Walton either of unprofessionalism or wrongdoing.

Tell us why you are opposed to the rule of law. Why you have no problem with the blatant subversion of the rule of law by Bushit, et al., despite the fact that the US is based upon the rule of law, not upon Republican lawlessness, and self-exemtption from the rule of law.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 10:11 PM:

"on an ad hoc basis"

There was nothing 'ad hoc' about Bush commuting Libby's sentence; it was done expressly to protect the administration from any damage done by Scooter cutting a deal to avoid prison time.

Posted by: Supdog
Date: July 13, 2007 2:04 PM

From within the context of our system of laws, it is wholly "ad hoc" in relation to the rule of law, and in its impact on the rule of law -- and the consequences of that.

The Bushit criminal enterprise doesn't care about the rule of law -- and this is just another blatant evidence of that fact. Even as it was a day or two after the Roberts court held that the sentencing guidelines are neither insuffcient nor excessive in a case involving a person who was sentenced to 33 months for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Even though -- unlike chikenhawk Libby -- the appelante served in two wars, and 25 years in the military. And even though his family doubtless suffers as result.

There is no question that Plame was covert, and that Bushit's people illegall blew her cover -- but there has been no apology for the destruction of her career, and the suffering inflicted on her family.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 10:17 PM:

In fact, the Court writes ". . . it is certainly the President's prerogative to justify the exercise of his constitutional commutation power in whatever manner he chooses (or even to decline to provide a reason for his actions altogether)". No doubt, the Court feels the sentence was consistent with the guidelines -- and even points to the Rita case and the Attorney General's speech urging restoration of the binding nature of said guidelines -- but that does not mean the Court takes any "displeasure" with the commutation. Bottom-line "the Court cannot say that the conditions of commutation imposed by the President in this instance are constitutionally objectionable." Again, all's well that ends well.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 2:32 PM

Keep on lying, anti-American: we love you showing all the slime you are.

There is no justice in Bushit's commutation of jail time for only one of all convicted of the same crimes, and given the smae -- or greater -- sentences.

That Bushit has the authority does not mean that authority cannot and has not been abused, ass. You are among the 5 per cent who support Bushit no matter lawless he becomes. You are thoroughly outnumbered by those who realize the necessity for stability in the law, and justice for all -- not only for Bushit's loyal chickenhawk sycophants.

What has Libby done to serve his country? Lobby Clinton for a pardon for Marc Rich. Illegally leak a covert agents name. Whine that he, becaue Republican, is exempt from the rule of law.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 10:22 PM:

RW:

Considering the sheer number of people who have worked for the Bush Administration (and there have been others besides Libby who "got caught" ". . . . As you are well aware, the circumstances leading to Libby's conviction are fairly unique and, regardless of whether you think he did something wrong or not, at least so far, no one else has gotten such a commutation.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 2:57 PM

There is nothing unique about his trial and conviction, including the sentence, except perhaps the fact that everyone involved was Republican, like Libby, or non-partial, and he was convicted anyway.

Unique is Clinton being impeached by an hyperpartisan REPUBLICAN-controlled -- and was ACQUITTED.

There is no question: Libby was convicted by a non-partisan jury based upon overwhelming evidence that he is a liar, and as such violated the law. Four felonies.

And no question that the sentence was not excessive.

Why do you hate your country?

drmoore wrote on July 13, 2007 10:51 PM:

My advice to all who post here. Avoid getting caught up in drawn out arguments with Jake D. He has as much right as anyone else to express his views and raise some counter points, but a lot of time is spent trying to make a point with him/here that starts making this posting area sound like one of the infotainment (supposedly news) roundtables where the loudest guest supposedly wins.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 10:58 PM:

JNagarya:

I do not hate my country. Also, Clinton's impeachment by an hyperpartisan House and acquittal was not "unique" -- see Jackson, Andrew.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 11:17 PM:

Latest revelations concering Siegelman case. This is advancing rapidly, and the noose tightening with remarkable speed.

And the issue is entirely outside any legitimate claim of Execuitve Privilege -- which would evaporate in the face of the facts so far known.

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

SC = shame. As in, "Jake" has no shame: he supports the nationwide subversion of justice, as the Siegelman case is beginning to expose and make coherent, against his country. And he bases his public defenses of that treason based upon the lie that he is concerned with right and wrong.

The Siegelman will do two things: identify judges to not bring cases against the Bushit criminal enterprise. And identify judges who need t be impeached and removed.

It's going to be a busy Democratic Congress for the next several years; it may have to establish a permanent committee for the investigation of the crimes of the Bushit criminal enterprise. Ultimately, of course, as Bushit was unconstitutionally appointed, and thus every "official" thing he has done is null-and-void, it is essential to reverse and eliminate every "official" thing he has and will do.

JNagarya wrote on July 13, 2007 11:19 PM:

JNagarya:

I do not hate my country. Also, Clinton's impeachment by an hyperpartisan House and acquittal was not "unique" -- see Jackson, Andrew.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 10:58 PM

To support Bushit, regardless degree, is to oppose the rule of law. The US is based upon the rule of law.

Yes, you hate the US.

FDC wrote on July 14, 2007 12:08 AM:

Bush is doing a favor to Libby in order that Libby not uncover the wrongdoings of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

He really doesn't care if he crosses his own sentencing guidelines or not. He is covering his own behind now.

He is the wrong president for the US at this important time in history.

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 12:08 AM:

Bush is doing a favor to Libby in order that Libby not uncover the wrongdoings of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

He really doesn't care if he crosses his own sentencing guidelines or not. He is covering his own behind now.

He is the wrong president for the US at this important time in history.

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 12:09 AM:

Bush is doing a favor to Libby in order that Libby not uncover the wrongdoings of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

He really doesn't care if he crosses his own sentencing guidelines or not. He is covering his own behind now.

He is the wrong president for the US at this important time in history.

strangelet wrote on July 14, 2007 5:48 AM:

JakeD, et. al: I don't know if Judge Walton was trying to criticize the Bush administration, and I don't care. It is instantly apparent from reviewing the Federal sentencing guidelines that Judge Walton's sentence for Scooter-pooter was appropriate and even a little on the light side. There are lots of people currently doing time (per the guidelines) for similar offenses.

If Scooter's sentence was indeed excessive, then Mr. Bush should be vigorously commuting the sentence of hundreds of other Federal prisoners, whose sentences must be just as excessive.

Of course, this is not happening. What this tells us is that, as far as Herr Bush is concerned, these sentences are NOT excessive. Rather, Scooter-boy is "special", and not to be subjected to the annoying laws the rest of us have to obey.

I have to admit, this is a master-stroke of executive overreach. It's even got me responding to a troll. Go figure.

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 10:37 AM:

FDC:

Actually, the pardon and commutation powers have traditionally been viewed as mercy under our system of justice. In Christian theology, a "pardon" is the result of forgiveness, extended by God through Jesus Christ dying on the Cross. A pardoned person is forgiven their sins, and thus experiences new birth, or is born again. For more information, see: Atonement, Sin.

Of course, if you have actual evidence of a quid pro quo by Libby to not uncover the wrongdoings of Bush, Cheney, and Rove, by all means, share with the class. In the meantime, I will continue to believe that Bush is President

strangelet:

As long as we agree that Judge Walton was not trying to criticize the Bush Administration (that the whole TOPIC above), I'll take that any day of the week. Bush never stated that all sentences for perjury / obstruction of justice are "excessive" -- see above, regarding "Pardon" -- not only is this NOT a master-stroke of executive overreach, it is an EXPLICIT AND SOLE power of the Chief Executive. Sorry if you think the truth is "trolling".

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 11:09 AM:

Sorry -- I left this out: "In the meantime, I will continue to believe that Bush is President EXACTLY for a time such as this."

safemike1 wrote on July 14, 2007 12:04 PM:

I can't believe that some of you are saying that it was OK for the President to pardon the prison part of the sentence because he didn't think it was fair. It is not you or the President who gets to decide which sentence is fair, and what crimes are fair to prosicute. That is what the judicial system is for.

We may not always like the results, but it has withstood decades of scrutiny and still managed to come out on top.

It has nothing to do with whether you like the President or don't, whether you are Republican or Democrate, or even whether you are a conservitave or liberal. It has EVERYTHING to do with we are a nation of laws that must be followed by everyone. And for those who go around it, there are consequences.

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 12:49 PM:

safemikel:

You do realize this is not the first time in American history that a President has commuted a prison sentence, right?

safemike1 wrote on July 14, 2007 2:18 PM:

I am not saying that a President does not have the authority to commute a sentence. But, there is a major difference when the appeals process has not been carried out first.

And in this case, if you remember, prior to Libby being indicted, the Presidnet himself made a statement to the press that whoever was responsible for the leak should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. While Libby was not sentenced for being the person who leaked the information, he was sentenced for lying to the prosecutor about it.

And lets be real fair about this. A reporter went to jail for quite some time because she would not reveal who leaked the information to her.

safemike1 wrote on July 14, 2007 2:35 PM:

And, it was the Attorny General who in the beginning of June put out a memo that stated federal sentencing guidelines "would be a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion."

safemike1 wrote on July 14, 2007 2:36 PM:

And, it was the Attorney General who in the beginning of June put out a memo that stated federal sentencing guidelines "would be a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion."

SadButTrue wrote on July 14, 2007 9:33 PM:

The key passage here: " By ordering the commutation, Walton wrote, Bush has "has effectively rewritten the statutory scheme" for sentencing "on an ad hoc basis."

IOW, he has tread on the authority of the judiciary, just as he has tread on the authority of the legislature for his entire incumbency through signing statements. He seeks nothing less than the plenary powers of an absolute dictator, fitting Madison's definition to a tee.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of a tyranny." -- James Madison

guitrock wrote on July 14, 2007 11:45 PM:

I recently retired from the Federal Defender's Office in Memphis, where I worked since 1989. I've said for years that the Sentencing Guidelines are far too harsh. Judges are forced to hand out draconian sentences every day because of mandatory minimums established by Congress as well as the terms of the Guidelines. Unfairness abounds in the federal system, but few are concerned.

Two and a half years imprisonment because of a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction for a lifelong public servant like Libby may well be too harsh in a theoretical sense. The problem in the Libby situation, though, is entirely different. I cannot understand why anybody would pay the slightest attention to the president's stated belief that the sentence was "excessive." Under the Guidelines, which the Supreme Court just held in the Rita case to be presumptively reasonable, Libby's sentence was one that is consistent with those given every day in federal court over and over again ad nauseam. The president could find thousands of "excessive" sentences which have occurred while he was in office, were he prone to do so.

The simple fact is that Libby got preferential treatment because of his association with the White House. The president pardoned Libby because he had the authority to do it. It is incredibly naive to compare Libby's case with those of similary situated people in federal court. The one variable is that the other people who are victims of "excessive" sentences did not work for the White House. What we have is selective justice, no more and no less. We need to take it for what it is.

JNagarya wrote on July 15, 2007 2:40 AM:

safemikel:

You do realize this is not the first time in American history that a President has commuted a prison sentence, right?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 14, 2007 12:49 PM

Argument by dodge -- er, "substitution".

We aren't talking about other presidents or other commutations, twit. We're talking about Bushit giving preferential treatment to a friend, even against his own (untrustworthy to begin with) statements on the issue.

taters wrote on July 15, 2007 2:42 AM:

C'mon guys, that troll has a point.
Bush never calls Walton's professionalism into play. It's only those that were involved with the sentencing that he is questioning and disagreeing with. Shame on Ackerman!

Remember, it was the most ardent supporters of the war that objected the most strenuosly to the conviction and sentencing of Libby. The same guys that still state that Saddam was involved with bin Laden, the WMD's were moved to Syria or dumped in a lake in Iraq - and still buy into the now thoroughly debunked British claim about Iraq & Niger.

"If Scooter Libby, working with the blessing of the vice president, lied about what he did in order to protect higher-ups, he is a good guy, he is loyal. It is an exquisite example of self-justification because the good guys are defined as those who are loyal to the cause even if the cause is wrong."

For Bush to have allowed Libby to go to jail, he would have had to live with the idea that someone who he thought was a good and loyal soldier was being punished for being a good and loyal soldier -- a fairly extreme form of cognitive dissonance. The only way to keep such cognitive dissonance at bay, the psychologists said, was for Bush to see Libby's prison sentence as overly harsh and do away with it altogether, even though Bush, both as president and governor of Texas, has long prided himself on refusing clemency to felons.

"He sees no inconsistency, just as we cannot see our own inconsistencies even though they are strikingly clear to everyone else," Tavris said. "He is protecting one of his own, but his reasoning is consistent with the way the mind works to preserve consistency."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070800742.html

guitrock - Well said.

bud wrote on July 15, 2007 3:04 AM:

===
safemikel:

You do realize this is not the first time in American history that a President has commuted a prison sentence, right?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 14, 2007 12:49 PM
===

Sorry, Idiot Jake, but you really walked into this one.

In fact, this is the very first time in US history that a President has "commuted" the sentence of someone who had yet to serve a single day of their sentence, in effect thus redefining what a "commutation" is.

I quote the old, pre-W dictionary definition of "commute":

2: a warrant substituting a lesser punishment for a greater one

I don't see any "lesser" prison term being imposed here. Just as W re-defines the very meaning of law whenever necessary, Jake re-defines and enhances our previous understanding of what it means to be an idiotic troll.

Congrats, Jake, on both your lack of erudition and your originality in displaying same.

taters wrote on July 15, 2007 3:05 AM:

In 1776, in the early days of the American Revolution, Nathan Hale, a twenty one year old captain in the Continental Army, went behind enemy lines disguised as a Dutch school teacher. He was caught and executed by the British as a spy and as an unlawful combatant. He was reported to have said I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country. Like Nathan Hale, Valerie Plame was covert and undercover. Those who condone the outing of a covert intelligence officer dishonor all those that have served honorably since Nathan Hale.
Hell, on July 4th, they probably said a prayer for Benedict Arnold and lit a candle for Philip Agee.
Shameful traitorous SOB's..

Jake D. wrote on July 15, 2007 10:48 AM:

safemike1 and bud:

President Clinton "commuted" the sentence of Arnold Prosperi before he had served a single day of his imprisonment term:

Check out footnote 2: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fitzpatrick-probation/?resultpage=2&

Also, the Attorney General made a speech urging CONGRESS to restore federal sentencing guidelines "as a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion." He doesn't control judges otherwise. Sorry if you took Spencer Ackerman's "statement" above literally without clicking on the actual link. Maybe next time.

SadButTrue:

Instead of quoting Madison, who was not the Judge on this case, I will again quote Walton on that very question: "the Court cannot say that the conditions of commutation imposed by the President in this instance are constitutionally objectionable."

JNagarya:

If you would actually read what I was responding to, I think you would see why I am bringing up Clinton:

"It has EVERYTHING to do with we are a nation of laws that must be followed by everyone. And for those who go around it, there are consequences."

Posted by: safemike1
Date: July 14, 2007 12:04 PM

taters:

Was Plame "covert and undercover" when the Novak article came out? If Bush sent her to GITMO instead, would you advocate the next President "commute" her sentence?

The Falcon of the Adirondacks wrote on July 15, 2007 11:22 PM:

Good God, is Walton really that stupid? The deal was Libby takes the fall and Bush catches him with some kind of pardon. If there were justice, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby would all have their heads placed in the door jam on a 1972 Electra and have the door slammed shut a few dozen times. Then they'd be tied to the bumper and dragged to their deaths.

Justice.

America waits for you.

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 12:03 AM:

"JNagarya:

"If you would actually read what I was responding to, I think you would see why I am bringing up Clinton:"

I read that to which you were responding, and your response.

""It has EVERYTHING to do with we are a nation of laws that must be followed by everyone. And for those who go around it, there are consequences.""

And for those who go around it -- such as Bushit, Cheney, and Libby.

Posted by: safemike1
Date: July 14, 2007 12:04 PM

taters:

"Was Plame "covert and undercover" when the Novak article came out?"

Yes, she was. And you know it.

"If Bush sent her to GITMO instead, would you advocate the next President "commute" her sentence?"

What in hell has that to do with any fact or reality, other than a slur at Plame? -- who was covert at the time her cover was blown by, in addition to others, Novak. I note you bring up Clinton -- but not Novak -- as concerns those who go around the law.

Apparently the law making it illegal to blow the cover of a covert agent includes an exemption reading, "Unless you're a right-wing Republican hack pretenidng to be a non-ideological pundit.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 15, 2007 10:48 AM

Druthers wrote on July 16, 2007 4:15 AM:

A dull and boring reply column taken over by repetitious egomaniacs.

FunnsFurmentsod wrote on July 16, 2007 4:59 AM:

Hi

G'night

Rick wrote on July 16, 2007 5:35 AM:

Jake asks:

Was Plame "covert and undercover" when the Novak article came out? If Bush sent her to GITMO instead, would you advocate the next President "commute" her sentence?

I don't think it would be necessary, since the President has no lawful authority to simply throw his domestic enemies into prison. In such a scenario, the next President should release Plame and prosecute President Bush for unlawful arrest and violation of civil rights.

Those charges could be added on top of the charges of violating FISA, violating the Geneva convention, war crimes (it is a war crime to invade a non-threatening nation), etc.

It sure would be nice for the rule of law to be restored at some point in the near future.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 11:06 AM:

JNagarya:

No, I don't KNOW that Plame was "covert and undercover" when the Novak article came out -- do YOU have access to such classified information? As for my hypothetical about Bush sending Plame to GITMO, that was directed to taters' sarcasm about the President's commutation power, trying to find out if a Democrat exercising such power would be fine with him/her. Again, please read before you post.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 11:09 AM:

safemike1 and bud:

Are you two back yet?

Middle Earth wrote on July 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

The controlling post here is guitrock's, July 14, 2007 11:45 PM. Even Jake is unwilling to take it on.

The problem of executive pardons's is, of course, not new. What is new is the glaring quid pro quo. Scooter was not just a loyal foot soldier in the administration, he was Cheney's. Bush has been doing Cheney's laundry for 7 years.

The real challenge America faces is the insidious fascism of the southern aristocracy that controls the Republican party. The unitary executive is just the advance scout. Is martial law on the horizon?

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:44 PM:

Are you trying to troll me?