Will Bush pardon Libby?

[kfrost06]

The sentence imposed on former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday put President Bush in the position of making a decision he has tried to avoid for months: Trigger a fresh political storm by pardoning a convicted perjurer or let one of the early architects of his administration head to prison.

The prospect of a pardon has become so sensitive inside the West Wing that top aides have been kept out of the loop, and even Bush friends have been told not to bring it up with the president. In any debate, officials expect Vice President Cheney to favor a pardon, while other aides worry about the political consequences of stepping into a case that stems from the origins of the Iraq war and renewing questions about the truthfulness of the Bush administration.

The White House publicly sought to defer the matter again yesterday, saying that Bush is "not going to intervene" for now. But U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton indicated that he is not inclined to let Libby remain free pending appeals, which means the issue could confront Bush in a matter of weeks when, barring a judicial change of heart, Cheney's former chief of staff will have to trade his business suit for prison garb. Republicans inside and outside the administration said that would be the moment when Bush has to decide.

"Obviously, there'd be a significant political price to pay," said William P. Barr, who as attorney general to President George H.W. Bush remembers the controversy raised by the last-minute pardons for several Iran-contra figures in 1992. "I personally am very sympathetic to Scooter Libby. But it would be a tough call to do it at this stage."

At the same time, some White House advisers said the president's political troubles are already so deep that a pardon might not be so damaging. Those most upset by the CIA leak case that led to the Libby conviction already oppose Bush, they noted. "You can't hang a man twice for the same crime," a Republican close to the White House said.

The issue comes at a time when the Bush administration already has been trying to deflect allegations of cronyism stemming from the dismissals of U.S. attorneys. After resisting months of bipartisan calls for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's resignation, the White House had hoped that the matter was fading from the headlines and was relieved that the latest corruption news was the bribery indictment of a Democratic congressman, William J. Jefferson (La.).

Lobbying the White House
But Walton's decision to sentence Libby to 2 1/2 years in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice refocused attention on the administration and touched off a new debate. Libby supporters kicked off a bid to lobby the White House for a pardon. Barely an hour after the sentence was handed down, the conservative National Review posted an editorial on its Web site headlined "Pardon Him."

The magazine contended that Libby had been "found guilty of process crimes," when the special prosecutor never brought charges relating to the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name: "He is a dedicated public servant caught in a crazy political fight that should have never happened, convicted of lying about a crime that the prosecutor can't even prove was committed."

The Weekly Standard followed with a cutting piece accusing Bush of abandoning Libby: "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage -- well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

Some former Bush administration officials joined in. "I think the prosecution was unwarranted, and I think a pardon would be exactly the right thing for the president to do," John R. Bolton, a former ambassador to the United Nations, said by e-mail.

Democrats asserted that a pardon would be an outrage. "Serious offenses resulted in the appropriate sentencing of Scooter Libby today," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). "The president must not pardon him." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) added: "The Libby case revealed the lengths to which the Bush administration went to manipulate intelligence and discredit its critics."

‘It’s Ethics 101’
Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, said a pardon would be improper. "My view of this is that given the supervisory-subordinate relationship that existed between Cheney, the president and Libby, they should recuse themselves," he said. "It's Ethics 101."

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice ***artment guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

But the president's power to pardon under Article II of the Constitution is essentially unrestricted, so he can ignore the guidelines if he chooses. Other presidents who did so stirred furors, most prominently when Gerald R. Ford pardoned his Watergate-stained predecessor, Richard M. Nixon; when George H.W. Bush issued his Iran-contra pardons; and when Bill Clinton in his last hours in office pardoned financier Marc Rich, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, his brother Roger Clinton and scores of others.

The current president has not ruled out a Libby pardon but tried to put off discussion of it. Informed of the sentence while traveling in Europe yesterday, Bush sent out a spokeswoman to say that he "felt terrible for the family" but would wait to see what happens when Walton holds a hearing next week on whether Libby goes to prison during his appeal. "The president has not intervened so far in this or any other criminal matter, and so he is going to decline to do so now as well," Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Cheney's office declined to comment beyond giving a statement in which he praised Libby and expressed the hope that he would avoid prison. "The defense has indicated it plans to appeal the conviction in the case," Cheney said. "Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man."

[kfrost06]

I personally think he should be pardon. He is definitely guilty of lying to the grand jury but he was a pawn and not even the source of the CIA leak. Bush needs to step up and pardon him before he does even one day in jail. Prison is for the hard core criminals like Paris Hilton.

[Theatrix]

Why would he? The pardon could only be executed at the time time that he leaves office. By the time he would be in a aposition to pardon, Libby would have served most of his sentence.

[gixxerboy1]

Why would he? The pardon could only be executed at the time time that he leaves office. By the time he would be in a aposition to pardon, Libby would have served most of his sentence.

He could pardon him anytime. Most wait to the end of their terms to avoid any consequences.

i think he will pardon him but after the Nov 08 elections.

[kfrost06]

He could pardon him anytime. Most wait to the end of their terms to avoid any consequences.

i think he will pardon him but after the Nov 08 elections.

I think it ***ends on when he has to start to serve his sentence. He is out pending an appeal but the judge can and hinted at sending him, Libby, to jail before the appeal hearing. If that is the case then Bush will HAVE to pardon him sooner rather than later. What's Bush risking? He already is unpopular and a pardon may actually help his conservative base support.

[gixxerboy1]

I think it ***ends on when he has to start to serve his sentence. He is out pending an appeal but the judge can and hinted at sending him, Libby, to jail before the appeal hearing. If that is the case then Bush will HAVE to pardon him sooner rather than later. What's Bush risking? He already is unpopular and a pardon may actually help his conservative base support.

I agree bush is already at rock bottom it wont hurt him. But i think it will hurt the republicans come next year elections. I think the dems would make a huge issue out of it. I would.

[kfrost06]

WASHINGTON - A federal judge said Thursday he will not delay a 2 1/2-year prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case, a ruling that could send the former White House aide to prison within weeks.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's decision will send Libby's attorneys rushing to an appeals court to block the sentence and could force President Bush to consider calls from Libby's supporters to pardon the former aide.

No date was set for Libby to report to prison but it's expected to be within six to eight weeks. That will be left up to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, which will also select a facility.

"Unless the Court of Appeals overturns my ruling, he will have to report," Walton said.

Libby's wife, Harriet Grant, wiped tears away from her eye but Libby was stoic as Walton ruled. Libby and Fitzgerald left court without speaking to reporters.

Libby is the highest ranking government official ordered to prison since the Iran Contra affair.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of lying to investigators and obstructing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Walton never appeared to waiver from his opinion that a delay was unwarranted. After 12 prominent law professors filed documents supporting Libby's request, the judge waived it off as "not something I would expect from a first-year in law school."

He also said he received several "angry, harassing, mean-spirited" letters and phone calls following his sentencing but said they wouldn't factor into his decision.

Libby argued he had a good chance of persuading an appeals court that, when Attorney General John Ashcroft and other senior Justice ***artment officials recused themselves from the leak investigation, they gave Fitzgerald unconstitutional and unchecked authority.

Walton was skeptical, saying the alternative was to put someone with White House ties in charge of an investigation into the highest levels of the Bush administration.

"If that's going to be how we have to operate, our system is going to be in serious trouble with the average Joe on the street who thinks the system is unfair already," Walton said.

Libby's newly formed appellate team — Lawrence S. Robbins and Mark Stancil — will seek an emergency order delaying the sentence.

Libby's supporters have called for Bush to wipe away Libby's convictions. The president publicly has sidestepped pardon questions, saying he wants to let the legal case play out.

If Bush were to decide to issue a pardon, a delay would give him more flexibility to pick a time that makes the most political sense.

[kfrost06]

WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled Monday.

The decision is a dramatic setback for Libby, who likely will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Libby believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. In a two-sentence ruling, the court refused.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has not yet assigned Libby a prison or given him a date to surrender. But last week it designated him as federal inmate No. 28301-016.

Libby's attorneys did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Libby's supporters, who raised millions of dollars for his defense fund, immediately renewed a call for a pardon.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby's defense fund. "It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."
The leak investigation was a political cloud over the Bush administration for years. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed Bush and Cheney and ordered key White House aides to testify before a grand jury.

Nobody was charged with leaking Plame's identity but Libby was convicted of lying about his conversations with reporters regarding the outed operative. Fitzgerald says his investigation is complete.

Like Libby's trial judge, two of the three judges who ruled against him Monday were Republican nominees.

[Logan13]

Libby's prison sentence was commuted by Bush. Not a full pardon.

[kfrost06]

Libby's prison sentence was commuted by Bush. Not a full pardon.

Not yet, Bush said he has not ruled out a pardon.

[RamyGras]

Libby's prison sentence was commuted by Bush. Not a full pardon.

I thought he doesn't have to go to jail now. I realize the fine is still in place, along with public humiliation. However, what's the deal with the actual prison sentence?

[Tock]

Why Bush commuted the sentence without pardoning Libby -- he doesn't have to go to jail, but he still can't be subpoenaed to testify about what he did.

The Bush administration said it was ok to commute the sentence because other presidents have done such things. The problem here is that the crooks that other presidents have pardoned were ordinary crooks. Libby, on the other hand, was involved in illegal things that Bush himself was involved with. So, in this case, Bush is trying to protect himself and his actions from being discovered.

[Logan13]

Why Bush commuted the sentence without pardoning Libby -- he doesn't have to go to jail, but he still can't be subpoenaed to testify about what he did.

The Bush administration said it was ok to commute the sentence because other presidents have done such things. The problem here is that the crooks that other presidents have pardoned were ordinary crooks. Libby, on the other hand, was involved in illegal things that Bush himself was involved with. So, in this case, Bush is trying to protect himself and his actions from being discovered.

Do you think that Libby should have served his prison sentence for perjury? What specific "illegal things" do you believe that Libby was involved in that fell at Bush's feet?

[Tock]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/...l5x0mdfwYb.3QA

Conyers: Reprieve may have quieted Libby
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 8, 2:18 PM ET


WASHINGTON - The Democrat probing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of a former White House aide said Sunday there is "the suspicion" the aide might have fingered others in the Bush administration if he served time.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers spoke of "the general impression" that Bush last week commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2 year sentence in the CIA leak case to keep Libby quiet. The White House said Conyers' claim was baseless.

Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled a committee hearing Wednesday on the matter.

Bush contended Libby's sentence was too harsh. Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity. The former operative said the White House was trying to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

Conyers said the hearings would include pardons made by President Clinton, the first President Bush and possibly other past presidents. In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

"What we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton's pardons, nor, according to those that we've talked to ... is that it's never existed before, ever," Conyers said in a broadcast interview Sunday.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said in response: "That's a fairly ridiculous and baseless assertion. It may be impossible to plumb the depths of Chairman Conyers' 'suspicions', but we can hope this one is near the bottom."

Conyers' counterpart in the Senate, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said "it would do no good" to ask Libby to testify before Congress. "His silence has been bought and paid for and he would just take the Fifth," Leahy said, referring to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

A Republican on Conyers' committee took issue with the investigation into Bush's decision in the Libby case.

"It's clearly within the authority of the president," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah. "To go after the president on this issue shows a dearth of any opportunity to go after something substantive in this administration. I would prefer that we not waste our time in Congress on these witch hunts and frivolous activities."

A second GOP lawmaker said Bush's action in the Libby case would hold up well against Clinton's pardons. "I think we'll put up the record of the president versus the record of Bill Clinton, and the president will come out relatively good on that," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.

Bush acted last Monday just hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. Libby probably would have had to report soon, which could have put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Conyers said he wants Bush to waive executive privilege and let his pardon lawyers or other experts, "who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail. ... Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn't the case here."

In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.

The special prosecutor in the leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, took issue with Bush's claim the prison term was excessive.

Leahy, asked about the prospect of Fitzgerald testifying before the committee, said, "We may very well find ourselves going down that path."

Conyers appeared on "This Week" on ABC, Cannon and Hoekstra were on "Fox News Sunday" and Leahy spoke on "Late Edition" on CNN.

[Tock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070501823.html

The Commuter in Chief

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, July 6, 2007; Page A15

Let's put this in perspective. Martha Stewart is convicted of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice, and soon she's decorating a prison cell. Lil' Kim is convicted of perjury before a grand jury and conspiracy, and off to the big house she goes. Paris Hilton commits a crime that could be described as "driving while blond, vapid and obnoxious," and next thing you know she's freaking out in solitary confinement.

But when Scooter Libby is found guilty of perjury before a grand jury, lying to FBI investigators and obstruction of justice -- basically the same crimes that got Stewart and Lil' Kim locked up, and miles beyond anything Hilton ever did -- George W. Bush intervenes to save him from the indignity of spending a single night behind bars. No home confinement, no ankle bracelet, nothing. Now that he's paid his $250,000 fine, Scooter is free to scoot on with his life.

What led us to this point -- when a lifestyle maven, a bling-bedecked rapper and a table-dancing celebrity are held more accountable than a powerful member of the White House inner circle who functioned as Dick Cheney's right-hand man -- was an abuse, or at least a misuse, of presidential power.

It's true that the Libby affair pales beside other recent abuses of power -- the war in Iraq, intrusive domestic surveillance, secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo, torture "lite" and whatever else Bush and Cheney have done to the Constitution that we don't know about yet. But we can't accept presidential rule-by-fiat as the norm. If we do, our way of life is threatened, and the terrorists have won.

I'm joking, but I'm serious. Bush and his erstwhile ally, Tony Blair, often defended their war in Iraq by saying they were fighting terrorists who hated our "way of life" and wanted to destroy it. Leave aside the question of whether this is really the terrorists' motivation (and, by the way, if they're bothered by uppity women such as Martha Stewart, Lil' Kim and Paris Hilton, they can relax; we've taken care of them). Isn't the rule of law an aspect of our way of life that's worth defending?

A duly constituted jury of his peers found Libby, who was a top-notch lawyer before joining the administration, guilty of serious charges. The case was brought by a special prosecutor whose dogged, just-the-facts-ma'am approach involved no political agenda. Libby's 30-month prison sentence was pronounced by a judge appointed to the federal bench by none other than George W. Bush. This was no partisan exercise in scapegoating -- and no miscarriage of justice.

It's true that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton threw the book at Libby. But Walton acted within sentencing guidelines, perhaps thinking that for a lawyer and high-ranking government official to lie under oath was a particularly vile betrayal.

Why did Bush commute Libby's sentence, knowing the criticism that would follow? Pay no attention to the nonsense that poor White House spokesman Tony Snow tried to sell when he faced reporters Tuesday -- about how the Libby commutation was an extraordinary matter, handled routinely. Maybe he should have tried claiming it was a routine matter, handled extraordinarily. Or maybe he should have just shrugged and left the podium.

For the record, it would have been routine for Bush to consult with Justice Department lawyers and perhaps with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, before issuing a commutation. He did neither.

The reason Bush gives -- that he accepts the verdict against Libby but thinks the sentence was excessive -- makes no sense either. The remedy in that case would be to wait until Libby served a non-excessive amount of time in prison and then commute the sentence.

Bush was under pressure from the Republican base to give Libby a full pardon. But most of that clamor was coming from inside the Beltway, and it was nothing compared with the insurrection he had faced -- and resisted to the end -- over immigration. It doesn't make sense that Bush, at this point, would start fretting about his popularity ratings.

What does make sense is that the president would feel responsible for Libby's plight. Libby's criminal lies were about his part in discrediting claims that the administration's rationale for invading Iraq was bogus. Bush might have decided that since this is his war, he, not Libby, should be the one held to account.

Then again, Bush might have worried that sitting in prison, with time on his hands, novelist Libby might turn his pen to a nonfiction memoir of his White House years. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" would have been a good working title.

[Tock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070501822.html

An Unpardonable Act

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, July 6, 2007; Page A15

I harbored no personal desire to see I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby spend a long time in prison for his perjury and obstruction-of-justice convictions. People who know him tell me he is a thoughtful and interesting man, and I have no reason to doubt them.

Yet when I learned that President Bush had commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, I was enraged although not surprised. Rage should not be a standard response to political events (though avoiding it has gotten harder in recent years), so I had to ask if my anger was justified. Here's the case for getting mad and staying mad.


The core point is that "equal justice under law" either means something or it doesn't. In this case, all the facts we know tell us that Libby received far more than equal justice, as evidenced by the irregular way his commutation was handled.

President Bush's rationale for commuting Libby's sentence was based precisely on arguments that have been, as the New York Times reported Wednesday, "routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department."

"Given the administration's tough stand on sentencing," the Times's Adam Liptak wrote, "the president's arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads."

After you've finished your head-scratching, is it possible to avoid concluding that this was a one-time-only action rooted not in law but in politics and favoritism for an aide who loyally misled the prosecution in a case that implicated top figures of Bush's own administration?

Bush said Libby's sentence was excessive. But as Ron Fournier of the Associated Press reported, "the 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases."

In fairness, Fournier also pointed to a certain inconsistency on the issue of perjury on the Democratic side (Bill Clinton and all that). Ed Morrissey, a staunch conservative who runs the influential Captain's Quarters blog, also went after the Clintons, but Morrissey's own sense of consistency wouldn't allow him to embrace Bush's decision. "I'm not convinced that the administration should have intervened at all," Morrissey wrote. "The sentence fit within the sentencing guidelines championed by Republicans for years as a bulwark against soft-on-crime federal judges, even if it was on the long end of the guidelines by some interpretations. The underlying crimes go to the heart of the rule of law, and those who commit perjury and obstruction should go to prison."

If Bush had been confident that the law was on his side, he might have sought input on the decision from his Justice Department. He did no such thing.

As Michael Abramowitz reported in Tuesday's Post: "For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney." Again: This was a one-time-only ticket for one guy.

Bush purported to be seeking a "third way" (forgive me, Tony Blair) between an outright pardon and allowing the law to follow its course. "I respect the jury's verdict," the president said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. . . . The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

But if Bush meant that, he'd declare that a full pardon for Libby is out of the question. The day after he commuted Libby's sentence, Bush explicitly refused to do so. Moving back to stonewalling, the president said, "As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out."

Notice the pattern: When the heat was on in the CIA leak case, Bush issued a strong pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking. He didn't. When Libby was indicted, Bush ducked comment until Libby was at prison's door. Now, by keeping Libby free, Bush can conveniently postpone a full pardon until after the 2008 election. In the meantime, Libby has no incentive to tell prosecutors anything new about what happened in this case. As liberal blogs have noted, since he was not pardoned outright, he can use the pending appeal of his conviction to avoid testifying before Congress.

It's an airtight coverup made possible by the administration's willingness to bend the law. We spent months talking about Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. This commutation is an even greater outrage because it involves the administration taking steps to slip accountability for its own actions. Are we just going to let this one go by?

[Logan13]

Tock, you posted three editorials in response to my two simple questions. "Do you think that Libby should have served his prison sentence for perjury? What specific "illegal things" do you believe that Libby was involved in that fell at Bush's feet?"
The fact that there should never have been a case in the first place since it was discovered before trial that Libby was not the one who first divulged the info. on Plame. Again, can you do a little more than copy and paste in response to my questions above?

[kfrost06]

Tock, you posted three editorials in response to my two simple questions. "Do you think that Libby should have served his prison sentence for perjury? What specific "illegal things" do you believe that Libby was involved in that fell at Bush's feet?"
The fact that there should never have been a case in the first place since it was discovered before trial that Libby was not the one who first divulged the info. on Plame. Again, can you do a little more than copy and paste in response to my questions above?

It's simple Logan, he dislikes Bush therefore Libby should go to jail, thats the only reason he needs. I bet he also believes Bush and Cheney should be put in jail too.

[Tock]

"Do you think that Libby should have served his prison sentence for perjury?

Yes.

Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice. He lied to the FBI.

Seems to me that if they can send Ms. Hilton to jail for drunk driving, then they can send the Vice President's #1 assistant to jail for lying to the FBI in the course of an official investigation. Especially since he's involved with a high and sensitive government position.

Don't you agree? Or do you think that politicians in high places shouldn't ever get jail time for this sort of thing?

[kfrost06]

Yes.

Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice. He lied to the FBI.

Seems to me that if they can send Ms. Hilton to jail for drunk driving, then they can send the Vice President's #1 assistant to jail for lying to the FBI in the course of an official investigation. Especially since he's involved with a high and sensitive government position.
Don't you agree? Or do you think that politicians in high places shouldn't ever get jail time for this sort of thing?

Based on that statement I assume it's safe to say you think Bill Clinton should have gone to jail for lying to a grand jury under oath(also perjury) about Monica Liewiski? No I didn't think so, only Repbulicans should go to jail for those things, right?

[Tock]

Based on that statement I assume it's safe to say you think Bill Clinton should have gone to jail for lying to a grand jury under oath(also perjury) about Monica Liewiski? No I didn't think so, only Repbulicans should go to jail for those things, right?

Perhaps so.

But then, the Republicans were trolling for something to get Clinton on. After years and years of searching, the best they could find was Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinski. Compare that with what Bush has done -- he's got close to 4000 Americans killed and over 20,000 more maimed in a needless war . . . And it's a war he lied to us Americans to get us to agree to. Ya, the CIA gave Bush all the information they had, and Bush disregarded everything that didn't fit what he wanted, and exaggerated the rest (where are those weapons of mass destruction?) . . .

Yes, when the Republicans were scrutinizing Clinton's sex life, he should have owned up to sex with Lewinski. But then, what kind of low-life investigators would have stooped so low as to waste time on National Enquirer type BS?
Personally, I don't think the investigators should have posed those questions. There wasn't a crime involved.
But on the other hand, Bush lied to the American people, started a war, plunged the US deep into debt, killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Arabs, greatly increased the number of terrorists who hate the US, degraded the image of the USA in the minds of everyone else on this planet. Bush lied. He lied to get the US into this war. And there, mon ami, is the difference between Clinton's error and Bush's crime.



By the way . . .
The military needs more soldiers. I've demonstrated my patriotism by volunteering in the USAF.
When are you going to follow my example?
Or are you not as patriotic as I?
Or maybe you support Bush's war, but not so much as to actually be a part of it?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070709/...KmQCRVUmFkM3wV
Army misses recruiting goal again, raises worry

By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, strained by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, missed its recruiting goal for the second straight month in June, indicating a trend that some defense officials on Monday called worrying.

The Army will announce the monthly data on Tuesday. Army spokesmen would not discuss the specific figures.

But some defense officials said the Army significantly missed its June goal of 8,400 recruits. One official placed the shortfall at about 15 percent, a major gap for a typically strong month when recruiters normally find more willing young people fresh from high school graduation.

"We are fighting a war on two fronts," one Pentagon official said. "Parental support has declined. That's a big factor."

Another defense official called the numbers "concerning."

The Army had boasted strong recruiting numbers despite ongoing wars and rising casualty rates. But Pentagon polling data months ago started to show support for recruitment easing among parents and other people the military calls "influencers."

In May, the active-duty Army missed its recruiting goal for the first time this year. It signed up 5,101 new recruits, short of its goal of 5,500 for that month.

Still, Army spokesmen then said the Army was confident it would meet its fiscal 2007 goal of 80,000 new soldiers.

The Army is still exceeding its goals for the year, despite June's miss, defense officials said.

But if recruiting figures continue to decline at current rates, the gains notched earlier this year could disappear by next month, leaving the largest branch of the U.S. military at risk of missing its annual goals.

[Tock]

Looks to me like Bush has something to hide . . .

He doesn't want Congress talking to Libby, and he sure doesn't want them talking to any other Administration aides . . .



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/...KfK08GRMhkM3wV

Bush denies Congress access to aides
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush directed former aides to defy congressional subpoenas on Monday, claiming executive privilege and prodding lawmakers closer to their first contempt citations against administration officials since Ronald Reagan was president.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Bush had cited executive privilege in resisting Congress' investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith in withholding documents and directing the two aides — Fielding's predecessor, Harriet Miers, and Bush's former political director, Sara Taylor — to defy subpoenas ordering them to explain their roles in the firings over the winter.

In the standoff between branches of government, Fielding renewed the White House offer to let Miers, Taylor and other administration officials meet with congressional investigators off the record and with no transcript. He declined to explain anew the legal underpinnings of the privilege claim as the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees had directed.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," Fielding wrote.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House panel, left little doubt where the showdown was headed.

"Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the posturing was a waste of time and money and a distraction from the questions at hand: Who ordered the firings, why, and whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should continue to serve or be fired.

Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Democrats' threat of taking the standoff to court on a contempt citation was spurious because the prosecutor who would consider it is a Bush appointee.

"On a case like this, does anyone believe the U.S. attorney is going to bring a criminal contempt citation against anyone?" Specter said in a telephone interview. "The U.S. attorney works for the president and it's a discretionary matter what the U.S. attorney does."

Historically, such standoffs over executive privilege are resolved before the full House or Senate votes on referring a congressional contempt citation to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But rather than cooling off over the July 4th holiday, Bush and Democrats returned from the weeklong break closer to a legal confrontation.

The last contempt finding Congress sought to prosecute was against former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle in 1983. The Democratic-led House voted 413-0 to cite her for contempt for refusing to appear before a House committee. She was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge but was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Just before Congress left town, Bush invoked executive privilege on subpoenas lawmakers filed for any documents Taylor and Miers received or generated about the firings. On Monday, Bush again invoked privilege on the women's scheduled testimony for this week. Through their attorneys, Bush instructed the pair not to testify on the firings.

Lawmakers said they had plenty of questions to ask the women outside the privilege claim.

Both officials were included on e-mails about the firings released earlier this year by the Justice Department, and Miers at one point suggested the firings of all 93 federal prosecutors. Taylor also could have sent e-mails on a Republican National Committee account outside the White House, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who insisted those communications were not covered by executive privilege.

The dispute squeezes Miers and Taylor between the president's instructions and the possibility of being held in contempt of Congress. Their lawyers did not respond to requests for comment, but Leahy said he expects Taylor to appear before his panel Wednesday, as scheduled. It was unclear if Miers would appear before Conyers' committee the next day.

Fielding invoked executive privilege in dismissing a Monday morning deadline set by Conyers and Leahy for the White House to explain and list which documents it was withholding from their committees.

"We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may `direct' the executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of executive privilege," he wrote.

Bush's counsel, a veteran of executive privilege disputes, cloaked his tough rejoinder to the Democratic committee chairmen in gentlemanly language. But his message was unequivocal: The White House won't back down.

He argued that the committees' "open-ended" investigation into the firings had no constitutional basis, in large part because the president has the right to hire and fire his own political appointees.

Fielding cast the impasse as a natural constitutional tension between branches of government and complained that Leahy, D-Vt., and Conyers had accused the White House of acting in something other than good faith. He called for "a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

Democrats didn't bite.

"The president seems to think that executive privilege is a magic mantra that can hide anything, including wrongdoing," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democrats' 2008 election campaign operation.

[BigLittleTim]

I America, immorality is defined as "discovered sexual infidelity".

It's amazing, in our Puritanical republic, how upset the average citizen becomes over the presidential "cover up" of a blowjob compared to... well, just about everything the Bush administration has done since Day One.
(I'm too tired to type out the laundry list.)

-BigLittleTim

[kfrost06]

Perhaps so.

But then, the Republicans were trolling for something to get Clinton on. After years and years of searching, the best they could find was Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinski. Compare that with what Bush has done -- he's got close to 4000 Americans killed and over 20,000 more maimed in a needless war . . . And it's a war he lied to us Americans to get us to agree to. Ya, the CIA gave Bush all the information they had, and Bush disregarded everything that didn't fit what he wanted, and exaggerated the rest (where are those weapons of mass destruction?) . . .

Yes, when the Republicans were scrutinizing Clinton's sex life, he should have owned up to sex with Lewinski. But then, what kind of low-life investigators would have stooped so low as to waste time on National Enquirer type BS?
Personally, I don't think the investigators should have posed those questions. There wasn't a crime involved.
But on the other hand, Bush lied to the American people, started a war, plunged the US deep into debt, killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Arabs, greatly increased the number of terrorists who hate the US, degraded the image of the USA in the minds of everyone else on this planet. Bush lied. He lied to get the US into this war. And there, mon ami, is the difference between Clinton's error and Bush's crime.



By the way . . .
The military needs more soldiers. I've demonstrated my patriotism by volunteering in the USAF.
When are you going to follow my example?
Or are you not as patriotic as I?
Or maybe you support Bush's war, but not so much as to actually be a part of it?

umm, Tock, I wasn't aware I supported the war maybe you could find the post that gave you this impression. I was simply stating that if one were to support Libby's prison sentence for perjury then they should also support a prison sentence for Clinton for perjury. I don't think either should go to jail for the crime. Newsflash, they are all liars! We both know this.

Yes, the Repbulicans were trolling to get Clinton and the democrats are trolling to get Bush, it's called politics. It's important that it happens so we can embarass are elected officials and use it to rally our parties(political parties). The Democrats should have a head start with all the garbage they have on Bush but they will waste it on the hopeless candidates they have running now.

By the way . . .
The military needs more soldiers. I've demonstrated my patriotism by volunteering in the USAF.
When are you going to follow my example?
Or are you not as patriotic as I?
Or maybe you support Bush's war, but not so much as to actually be a part of it?

I hope to NEVER follow your example, it's turned you in to a very bitter person

Typical Democrat, always accusing the Republicans of not being patriots

[Logan13]

Yes.

Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice. He lied to the FBI.

Seems to me that if they can send Ms. Hilton to jail for drunk driving, then they can send the Vice President's #1 assistant to jail for lying to the FBI in the course of an official investigation. Especially since he's involved with a high and sensitive government position.

Don't you agree? Or do you think that politicians in high places shouldn't ever get jail time for this sort of thing?

Clinton was impeached on the same charges (perjury and obstruction of justice). Were you equally upset that he didn't spend time locked up? After all, as you put it "Or do you think that politicians in high places shouldn't ever get jail time for this sort of thing?" Can't get much higher than the office of the president.
Wikpedia:
Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote).

[Logan13]

January 20, 2001
Web posted at: 12:38 p.m. EST (1738 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Keeping his promise to work until the last hour of the last day of his term in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons -- including one to his own brother -- before preparing to relinquish power to the incoming Republican administration of George W. Bush.
High-profile people who have received presidential pardons include:

-- Roger Clinton, who was convicted of drug-related charges in the 1980s. He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants.

-- Susan McDougal, a former real estate business partner of the Clintons. She was sentenced in 1996 and released from prison in 1998. She was convicted of four felonies related to a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband, James McDougal, never repaid. One tenth of the loan amount was placed briefly in the name of Whitewater Development, the Arkansas real estate venture of the Clintons and the McDougals. Her attorney, Mark Geragos, said he remains hopeful that she would be pardoned, refusing to say whether he has received any indication from the White House that she would be pardoned. She was incarcerated for 21 months.

-- Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development during Clinton's first term in office. He was convicted of making false statements to FBI agents conducting a background investigation of him when he was nominated to the Cabinet post in 1993. They included misleading investigators about cash payments he made to a former mistress.

-- Former CIA Director John Deutch. The one-time spy chief and top Pentagon official was facing criminal charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on a home computer.

-- Patty Hearst, the 19-year-old newspaper heiress who made headlines in 1974 after she was kidnapped by the radical Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). She was later photographed, machine gun in hand, helping the SLA in a bank robbery attempt. Although Hearst would later maintain she was brainwashed, she was convicted and sentenced to seven years in jail for the robbery. President Carter commuted the sentence after she served two years.

-- Former Navaho Nation chief Peter MacDonald. He has been in a Fort Worth, Texas, medical prison as part of a 14-year sentence for inciting a deadly riot. He was convicted of inciting in Window Riot, Arizona in 1989 after he was removed as Navaho chief amid charges of bribery. Two of his supporters were killed.

Notable figures missing from this list include Leonard Peltier, a Native American convicted of killing FBI agents Ron Williams and Jack Koler in June 1975. Also excluded was Michael Milken, who made billions for himself and others in the 1980s junk-bond business. He spent 22 months in prison and paid $1 billion in fines before his release.

Webster Hubbell, a longtime Clinton friend and former Justice Department official who was convicted of fraud for over billing clients and served 18 months behind bars, was also passed over for a pardon.

In addition to the pardons, the president was debating whether to make one last designation of monument status -- this one for parts of Governors Island in New York City. That decision, too, was put off until Saturday morning, according to senior administration aides.


Come on Tock, get over yourself..........

[Tock]

January 20, 2001
Web posted at: 12:38 p.m. EST (1738 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Keeping his promise to work until the last hour of the last day of his term in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons -- including one to his own brother -- before preparing to relinquish power to the incoming Republican administration of George W. Bush.
High-profile people who have received presidential pardons include:

-- Roger Clinton, who was convicted of drug-related charges in the 1980s. He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants.

-- Susan McDougal, a former real estate business partner of the Clintons. She was sentenced in 1996 and released from prison in 1998. She was convicted of four felonies related to a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband, James McDougal, never repaid.

This and other pardons inclines me to think that most presidential pardons shouldn't happen. I'd say that the US Constitution should be amended on this point, so that a simple majority of the US Senate should be required to approve a presidential pardon.

I hope you're happy now.



On the other matter, I think that a stint in the military would do you a world of good. I've demonstrated my willingness to put my patriotism where my mouth was; I enlisted in the USAF. Let's see you do likewise. Whatcha say, big boy?

[Logan13]

This and other pardons inclines me to think that most presidential pardons shouldn't happen. I'd say that the US Constitution should be amended on this point, so that a simple majority of the US Senate should be required to approve a presidential pardon.

I hope you're happy now.



On the other matter, I think that a stint in the military would do you a world of good. I've demonstrated my willingness to put my patriotism where my mouth was; I enlisted in the USAF. Let's see you do likewise. Whatcha say, big boy?

What other matter are you referring to? I say that you get rid of your blind BS political stabs and quit hating on the fact that I got a full-ride to go to college. What do you think about that...........