Bush spares Libby from jail term

[islamirama]

Bush spares Libby from jail term

US President George W Bush has intervened to prevent Lewis Libby, a convicted former vice-presidential aide, from serving a prison term.

President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.

A leading Democratic politician said Mr Bush's decision was "disgraceful".
History will judge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6263616.stm


I knew from day one that Bushy would step in and free his servant from doing a good job of spilling the ID the secret agent cause the spouse didn't spoken out against Bush and his dictatorship regime. There's no democracy in the west, it's all on paper. They commit war crimes and crimes within their nation and then get away with out. It helps when your mob boss is the president and all the crooks in offices.

 

[Keltoi]

Most presidents would have pardoned Libby, but Bush simply negated the prison term. The verdict still stands. Personally, I thought the sentence was excessive as well, as the case was rather iffy in the first place.

 

[Cognescenti]

I knew from day one that Bushy would step in and free his servant from doing a good job of spilling the ID the secret agent cause the spouse didn't spoken out against Bush and his dictatorship regime. There's no democracy in the west, it's all on paper. They commit war crimes and crimes within their nation and then get away with out. It helps when your mob boss is the president and all the crooks in offices.

Ummmm...you do realize Libby was not the one who first released the name of the not-really-secret secret agent and that the prosecutor knew who really released the name but decided not to prosecute that individual (Armitage) because it was not a crime to release her name if the "leaker" was unaware of her alleged undercover status? Were your also aware the investigation was purely politically-driven and that Libby was not convicted of relasing the name but, rather for perjury over the investigation of a non-crime? Other than that, you got it exactly right.

BTW...the likely reason why the sentence was commuted rather than Libby being pardoned is so he can appeal and possibly overturn his conviction.

 

[Zman]

Bush spares Libby from jail term

US President George W Bush has intervened to prevent Lewis Libby, a convicted former vice-presidential aide, from serving a prison term.

President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.

A leading Democratic politician said Mr Bush's decision was "disgraceful".
History will judge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6263616.stm


I knew from day one that Bushy would step in and free his servant from doing a good job of spilling the ID the secret agent cause the spouse didn't spoken out against Bush and his dictatorship regime. There's no democracy in the west, it's all on paper. They commit war crimes and crimes within their nation and then get away with out. It helps when your mob boss is the president and all the crooks in offices.

I guess that can be considered "honor" amongst those lying-thieving-neoNazi-goons.

The whole top-tier members of that illegal neo-Nazi regime, should be sent to Gitmo!

What a crock of hypocrisy!

 

[smile]

unfair!

 

[Cognescenti]

I guess that can be considered "honor" amongst those lying-thieving-neoNazi-goons.

The whole top-tier members of that illegal neo-Nazi regime, should be sent to Gitmo!

What a crock of hypocrisy!

Just a friendly suggestion. You might want to cut out that 2nd shot of espresso.

I do have a question though. How could neo-Nazis conduct a war on Islam? After all, the Nazis were allied with several Arab leaders.

Just for perspective. There are only 2 Presidents who have pardoned fewer than Bush after 1 term...George Washington and John Adams

 

[MTAFFI]

Dont get me wrong on this, I personally am in favor of Scooter at least serving some time behind bars (maybe not 2 1/2 yrs) just because I believe in the justice system and if someone is sentenced then he should have to serve his sentence, no matter who he knows or where he works, and he has the right to an appeal and may very well win it. But just to put things into perspective for those who have tunnel vision, here is something to look at

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

 

[wilberhum]

I guess that can be considered "honor" amongst those lying-thieving-neoNazi-goons.

The whole top-tier members of that illegal neo-Nazi regime, should be sent to Gitmo!

What a crock of hypocrisy!

Is this part of your new "Bridge Building" Campain? :skeleton:

 

[tomtomsmom]

My problem with this is.........if it was Joe Blow from down the street that was convicted of purgery and obstruction of justice his butt would be sitting in prison!!!!!

 

[Keltoi]

My problem with this is.........if it was Joe Blow from down the street that was convicted of purgery and obstruction of justice his butt would be sitting in prison!!!!!

True, but presidents have been handing out pardons(which this wasn't), since the time of Thomas Jefferson. Seems a little odd to be up in arms over this incident as compared to others. Take a look at Clinton's list of pardons if you want to be outraged by something.

 

[tomtomsmom]

Yes, Clinton has a long list of pardons. But if you look closely the majority are from crimes that people were sentenced to before 1990! One would assume that they had served some time for these already. This is a matter that is happening now. I agree, 30 months is a bit extreme. But he wouldn't serve that much. Most people get out early on good behaviour. He should have to serve the same amount of time as a regular person who isn't buddies with the VP. It is strange. Tomorrow we celebrate our independence day. This is supposed to be a country where everyone is equal. I guess that is just on paper though.

 

[Keltoi]

Yes, Clinton has a long list of pardons. But if you look closely the majority are from crimes that people were sentenced to before 1990! One would assume that they had served some time for these already. This is a matter that is happening now. I agree, 30 months is a bit extreme. But he wouldn't serve that much. Most people get out early on good behaviour. He should have to serve the same amount of time as a regular person who isn't buddies with the VP. It is strange. Tomorrow we celebrate our independence day. This is supposed to be a country where everyone is equal. I guess that is just on paper though.

I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps something should be done to limit the power of the president in terms of handing out pardons. Initially it started as a way for a president who is on the way out to show mercy and spread some good will. Now it is mainly a way to protect friends.

 

[tomtomsmom]

The presidency used to be different in many ways.

We have a judicial system for a reason. Though it may not work as well as we would like at times, there is still a **** good reason for having it. It is a checks and balances system. If the president is going to over ride that system, then what is the point of having it at all???

 

[Keltoi]

It would probably take an amendment, which is notoriously hard to pass. Perhaps the next president will start a precedent by not giving any pardons.

 

[Cognescenti]

My problem with this is.........if it was Joe Blow from down the street that was convicted of purgery and obstruction of justice his butt would be sitting in prison!!!!!

Joe Blow down the street doesnt get convicted of obstruction of justice because he is not part of enterprise that has any incentive or even a capability to obstruct justice. If he works for the Mafia or a criminal gang or perhaps is CFO of Enron...then the prosecutors use that lever on him.

 

[Cognescenti]

The presidency used to be different in many ways.

We have a judicial system for a reason. Though it may not work as well as we would like at times, there is still a **** good reason for having it. It is a checks and balances system. If the president is going to over ride that system, then what is the point of having it at all???

It is an Executive Branch brake on the Judicial Branch. At least that was its original intent. It would take an Amendment to the Constitution to change. That is a big deal.

 

[Zman]

/Peace To All

Keith Olbermann's closing Special Comment on his show Countdown from July 3rd, 2007. This is after Bush commutes "Scooter" Libby's jail term in spite of public opinion and outrage and possibly in an attempt to keep certain unknown things secret in a cover up. His final remarks call for the President and the Vice President to resign.

It's quite scathing, and quite frankly, I agree with every bit.

I wish more commentators/hosts were as bold.

ps. The last few seconds cut off, sorry but I won't be able to upload a better video. If you wanna hear it, go to MSNBC.com and look for it there...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRf6goZef3w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpropagandamatrix%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Fjuly2007%2F040707Olbermann%2Ehtm[/media]

Olbermann for Prez :thumbs_up

A very befitting reminder on this 4th of July! :thumbs_up

 

[Cognescenti]

If Keith Olberman got within 15 feet of Bush, the Secret Service would be obliged to shoot him out of caution. The might be able to taze him depending on how much spittle was coming out of his mouth.

BTW...Given that the US is the nidus of evil in the world, why would anyone want to celebrate the 4th of July?

 

[Zman]

If Keith Olberman got within 15 feet of Bush, the Secret Service would be obliged to shoot him out of caution. The might be able to taze him depending on how much spittle was coming out of his mouth.

So much for free speech & democracy.

If he doesn't exhibit any signs of physical hostility, why not let him or others say their peace?

The government Just doesn't want an opposing view in the same room. A view that will expose their lies & deceptions.

Anyway, Bush wouldn't stand a chance with Olbermann or anyone else who are good at public speaking.

They'd mop the auditorium with Bush...

 

[Keltoi]

So much for free speech & democracy.

If he doesn't exhibit any signs of physical hostility, why not let him or others say their peace?

The government Just doesn't want an opposing view in the same room. A view that will expose their lies & deceptions.

Anyway, Bush wouldn't stand a chance with Olbermann or anyone else who are good at public speaking.

They'd mop the auditorium with Bush...

Being a good speaker doesn't mean you are in the right or have a better point than the opposition. It is a test of ideals, not long-winded speeches. Olbermann is a liberal, of course he isn't going to praise President Bush. Olbermann has his platform, and Sean Hannity(for example) has his. Free-speech is alive and well.