Free Scooter Libby

The President has done the right thing:

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html)

No suprise here.

The President has done the right thing:

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html)
please explain to me why this is the right thing. especially for all the republicans that wanted Bill Clinton's head for lying under oath

please explain to me why this is the right thing. especially for all the republicans that wanted Bill Clinton's head for lying under oath

Because Libby did not do ANYTHING wrong. Not even one little bit. He got run up the pole by a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself. By a prosecutor who knew within in days, DAYS, of the beginning of his investigation that nothing illegal had happened. By a prosecutor who knew who the real "leak" was and it wasn't Libby. Libby got prosecuted for having a different recollection of one, ONE, converstaion, from over a year ago. Justice here had been utterly misserved.

Because Libby did not do ANYTHING wrong. Not even one little bit. He got run up the pole by a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself. By a prosecutor who knew within in days, DAYS, of the beginning of his investigation that nothing illegal had happened. By a prosecutor who knew who the real "leak" was and it wasn't Libby. Libby got prosecuted for having a different recollection of one, ONE, converstaion, from over a year ago. Justice here had been utterly misserved.

He didn't do anything wrong? Not even a little bit? What! Obstruction of Justice is a crime. Period. There's no debating that. Had he not done anything wrong, Bush would have given him a full pardon - without question. Instead, he communted his sentence; Which in my mind was was for a lot of reasons, but I won't go there right now.

Bush simply thought the sentence was excessive, which it wasn't, that's why he communted the sentence. Not because he thought Libby was innocent. Big difference.

FRPLG, out of curiosity, if Libby was really guilty of the crime he was convicted of - in other words if he really did lie rather then misremember events - would you still support Bush's decision to commute his sentence?

FRPLG, out of curiosity, if Libby was really guilty of the crime he was convicted of - in other words if he really did lie rather then misremember events - would you still support Bush's decision to commute his sentence?
If he was really guilty then no. I do not know what a standard sentencing would have been but I would have been in favor of a standard sentence.

He didn't do anything wrong? Not even a little bit? What! Obstruction of Justice is a crime. Period. There's no debating that. Had he not done anything wrong, Bush would have given him a full pardon - without question. Instead, he communted his sentence; Which in my mind was was for a lot of reasons, but I won't go there right now.

Bush simply thought the sentence was excessive, which it wasn't, that's why he communted the sentence. Not because he thought Libby was innocent. Big difference.

What did he obstruct? He was asked to describe a conversation with Tim Russert, which had happened over a year before the investigation and had been based on entirely different issues, and his description was different than Russert's. That's it. Nothing else. Is it possible for even a minute that maybe, just maybe, Russert was the one who was wrong? Russert admittedly did not have notes on the conversation so it came down to he said/he said. Oh and the converstaion was not about anything illegal. Why would he have obstructed justice when there was nothing illegal to hide in the first place? The entire thing has been a trumped up BS kanagaroo court advanced and pushed forward for poltical gain by democrats. That's it. You don't find it odd that within days of the beginning of the investigation the prosecutor knew who the "leak" was, knew that no crime was commited, and knew that neither the Vice President or President had anything to do with it, yet he continued invetsigating for months costing tax payer money all the while essentially trying to catch people in "lies".

The reason Bush did not pardon him was for similar BS poltical reasons. Instead on inflaming the worthless negative-nellie democrats in Washington he simply compromised. Now they can all spend a couple days spewing their sanctimonious crap and the story will die. Until his conviction gets overturned on appeals that is.

What did he obstruct? He was asked to describe a conversation with Tim Russert, which had happened over a year before the investigation and had been based on entirely different issues, and his description was different than Russert's. That's it. Nothing else. Is it possible for even a minute that maybe, just maybe, Russert was the one who was wrong? Russert admittedly did not have notes on the conversation so it came down to he said/he said. Oh and the converstaion was not about anything illegal. Why would he have obstructed justice when there was nothing illegal to hide in the first place? The entire thing has been a trumped up BS kanagaroo court advanced and pushed forward for poltical gain by democrats. That's it. You don't find it odd that within days of the beginning of the investigation the prosecutor knew who the "leak" was, knew that no crime was commited, and knew that neither the Vice President or President had anything to do with it, yet he continued invetsigating for months costing tax payer money all the while essentially trying to catch people in "lies".

The reason Bush did not pardon him was for similar BS poltical reasons. Instead on inflaming the worthless negative-nellie democrats in Washington he simply compromised. Now they can all spend a couple days spewing their sanctimonious crap and the story will die. Until his conviction gets overturned on appeals that is.


Well, he was convicted of perjury, making false statements...and obstruction of justice. I find it hard to believe and very unlikely that a jury erred on all three counts after much deliberating and looking at all the evidence. Furthermore, the main players putting Libby on trial and handing down the sentencing were by and large Republicans. So one would, at least I would think, have to remove any political motivation for convicting him.

Additionally, Bush out of his own mouth said several months ago if anyone - anyone- is convicted in this case he would personally fire them. So what does he do, commute the dudes sentence instead.

For the record, it's the President's prerogative to excerise Executive Privilege, as far as I'm concerned. Every administration has had their share of questionable pardons or what have you. But the fact that this involved national security, there was evidence of White House involvement, and yet no one goes to jail, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Libby was found GUILTY by a jury of his peers on 2 counts, one of perjury, the other on obstruction of justice. the judge had nothing to do with that. i don't remember isn't a defense. as 12th remembered, Mr Bush SAID he would fire ANYONE that is convicted of this, no matter who it was. the president has the power to make this go away, but why all the back tracking?