Precisely what he should have done

[_JS]

Didn't pardon, didn't overturn the conviction, didn't disregard the jury's verdict, simply believed the sentence of prison was greater than someone convicted of lying under oath for a crime that was never committed.  He said he would fire anyone that illegally leaked Plame's name.  Libbey neither leaked it, nor was it even apparently illegal.  Finally, Bush does something right, and it's been a while

No offense Sirs, but this is a pretty blatant version of good ol' boy politics.

If it were any of us being thrown in the big house we sure as hell wouldn't have our sentences commuted.

Kind of flies in the face of all those people who cheered that Paris Hilton was having to serve her time, huh?

[sirs]

No offense Sirs, but this is a pretty blatant version of good ol' boy politics.

Actually, a pardon would have been the pretty blatant version you're grasping at.  This was appropriate as the sentence WAS greater than the supposed crime committed

If it were any of us being thrown in the big house we sure as hell wouldn't have our sentences commuted.

Probably not, since we're not a nationally known, having our names dragged thru the national media.  My guess also is we wouldn't have received nearly as harsh a sentence either, though I concede that's mere speculation at this point.

Kind of flies in the face of all those people who cheered that Paris Hilton was having to serve her time, huh?

Apples/Oranges Js. 

[_JS]

Actually, a pardon would have been the pretty blatant version you're grasping at.  This was appropriate as the sentence WAS greater than the supposed crime committed

No, not really.

Commuting his sentence was a huge favor.

Was the sentence greater than the crime committed? That is an issue for legislators who wrote the law, or judges who hand down the sentencing. Perhaps even an appeal (Domer might be able to enlighten us as to whether sentences can be appealed, I have no idea).

It is not an issue for the President to determine if individual punishments are too great for the crime. Especially from a former governor who oversaw 122 executions. You'll have to put up some convincing evidence for that.

And what is with "supposed?" Was he not found guilty?

[sirs]

Actually, a pardon would have been the pretty blatant version you're grasping at.  This was appropriate as the sentence WAS greater than the supposed crime committed

No, not really.  Commuting his sentence was a huge favor.

Where as a pardon would have been the blatant "good'ol boys politics" favor, vs simply a "huge" favor for not being made to serve any jail time.  The felony conviction still stands though, as does the fine, so I guess our definitions of "favor" are different

Was the sentence greater than the crime committed? That is an issue for legislators who wrote the law, or judges who hand down the sentencing.

While the CONSTITUTION provides for the President the option to do precisly what he did, and doesn't require any follow-up questioning, or require him to even give a reason.  Now obviously that Constitutional option has been grossly abused by many who have held the office, our prior President not excluded.  And it's possible that this President may also undermine legal verdicts & dispositions.  This go around however, I'm confident he spoke to his legal advisors who likely aslo argued for such.  Point being, this was perfectly Constitutional, and appropriate as far as I can see, acknowledging the railroad Fitzgerald was on.  I realize it tweaks alot of folks who don't like the man Bush, and regardless what was or wasn't done, those same folks would find some way to criticise any thing done, or even not done.

And what is with "supposed?" Was he not found guilty?

You want my opinion?  I thought I had already provided that, on the "verdict"

[BT]

 First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600

[Xavier_Onassis]

JUniorbush didn't need to issue a complete pardon. Scooter's case is on appeal, and if his case is reversed on appeal, Juniorbush lovers will be overjoyed, and Republicanoids will say that the case had no merit anyway.

We need not worry about Scooter having to pay that fine or losing his law license, because there is already a Friends of Scooter group collecting money to pay his fines and his defense. Halliburton can easily give him a VPship to work in their legal department, or someone else can give him a cushy job as a lobbyist. Even the disgraced Spiro Agnew and the lying Ron Ziegler got great cushy lobbyist gigs.

Before Juniorbush's time is up, Juniorbush can always pardon him completely.

In the worst of cases, Scoots is a Jew and is guaranteed to turn into an Israeli the moment his Chosen Foot hits the Tarmac at Tel Aviv International, and a nice villa somewhere in the West Bank./

The Scooter rectum is safe from the ravaging pecker of his would-be jailhouse cellmate. And Scooter's memoirs will join the unwritten autobiographies of this rotten administration, along with those of ex-ambassador April Glespe .

[BT]

JUniorbush didn't need to issue a complete pardon.

Probably why he didn't issue a pardon.

[Xavier_Onassis]

JUniorbush didn't need to issue a complete pardon.

Probably why he didn't issue a pardon.
========================================
That is exactly my point. Scooterman stays out of jail, and doesn't have to pay his fine as long as his case is under appeal.
If he doesn't get a reversal by January 2009, Juniorbush will pardon him entirely. In this manner, the backlash of outrage against his springing a felon will be minimized and postponed until after the election.

Any entries yet in when gasoline prices will start to go down to help out the GOP candidates? I am thinking no sooner than September 2008.

[Brassmask]

Funny, he thought 33 months was just right when it wasn't one of his good ole boys going upriver for Obstruction of Justice....Let the hair-splitting begin.

"Why is the President flip-flopping? Why does Scooter Libby get special treatment?"

-- Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), noting that just last year, the Bush administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in an attempt to uphold a lower court's ruling that a 33 month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, was reasonable.

Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence of 30 months for perjery and obstruction of justice yesterday because it was "excessive."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/07/03/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

[BT]

The Rta case in the Supreme Court concerned the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines. Scotus ruled they were.

I don't see this as a flip flop. I see the Admin arguing the merits of a procedure. I see Bush commuting the sentence of a man.

Perhaps it is a nuance thing, which i thought you guys were good at.

[Brassmask]

You're really getting to be a dependable partisan on the order of sirs and RR, there, BT.

You totally ignored the operative word in the comparison which, as you well know, is "extreme".  Bush and his gang didn't consider 33 months for some nobody to them for the SAME crimes extreme in the least when they filed their "friend of the court" but when it is their good ole boy, then the same exact crime garnering 3 fewer months is too excessive.

You know it is a flip flop and hypocritical.

At the very, utmost very least, it is inconsistency.

[BT]

You're really getting to be a dependable partisan on the order of sirs and RR, there, BT.

I guess i could argue the merits of your arguments by attacking you personally.

In this case, the DOJ had one view on the general issues of sentencing guidelines.

Bush took another view on the specific sentencing of Scooter Libby, which is his perogative.

A cursory glance of the Rita case does not show that he was the subject of neither a special prosecutor nor a highly politicized case.

I think Biden has it wrong on this one.

[_JS]

Perhaps it is a nuance thing, which i thought you guys were good at.

No, I think the "nuance" is definitely performed well by the likes of you and Sirs. Though nuance in this sense is more synonymous with "obfuscate."

Listen, I don't care about Scooter Libby and I never really thought he'd serve any time. I'm just amazed at how quickly y'all circle the wagons around your boy. It is rather obvious that this was a favor for one of the gang.

The arguments used here are really pathetic. I mean look at Sirs - it wasn't a pardon so its a good thing - wha??

The New York Times piece is a joke. We all know the President has the power to do this. Of course. Governors do as well. That doesn't mean that Sunshine Ray made great legal precedent with all of his pardons. Nor does it mean that Ford or elder Bush were right to pardon criminals involved in rather nasty criminal conspiracies at the top level of the government. These are hardly comparable to Washington's pardon of the Whiskey rebels (who didn't care at that point anyway) or Carter's pardon of the Vietnam draft dodgers.

And Sirs, per his standard operating procedure, then chalks it all up to people who hate Bush the man (as opposed to Bush the god no doubt). I could care less about Bush the man, legend, or ranch hand. In fact, if his approval rating were high and he thought he was a help to the GOP I'm guessing he may not have done this. Yet, when people can no longer have a lower opinion of you, you might as well give your buddies a get out of jail free card.

[sirs]

Perhaps it is a nuance thing, which i thought you guys were good at.

No, I think the "nuance" is definitely performed well by the likes of you and Sirs. Though nuance in this sense is more synonymous with "obfuscate."  Listen, I don't care about Scooter Libby and I never really thought he'd serve any time. I'm just amazed at how quickly y'all circle the wagons around your boy. It is rather obvious that this was a favor for one of the gang.

The arguments used here are really pathetic. I mean look at Sirs - it wasn't a pardon so its a good thing - wha??

Yea, WHAT??  A FELONY conviction on his recored for the rest of his life is no biggie in your book??  His political life ruined probably for life, is no biggie??  Quarter of a million dollar fine, not overturning the jury's verdict is "circling the wagons"??

What are you smoking, Js?   

[_JS]

Yea, WHAT??  A FELONY conviction on his recored for the rest of his life is no biggie in your book??  His political life ruined probably for life, is no biggie??  Quarter of a million dollar fine, not overturning the jury's verdict is "circling the wagons"??

What are you smoking, Js?   

1. You mean like G. Gordon Liddy's felony conviction? Yeah, it really destroyed his life. He even tells people how he gets weapons over his radio program. He has loyal listeners who think he is some kind of hero. Now pull the other one.

2. What political life? You do realize that a convicted felon can be employed by the government? In some states he can still run for office if that is his goal.

3. $250,000 fine which will be paid through donations to a legal fund. I think you already knew that, right?

4. What else have you got?