DU Reaction LIVE!!!
Posted on 07/02/2007 2:45:21 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 07/02/2007 3:05:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Foxnews alert.. libby sentence commuted
*********
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.
After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.
This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.
Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.
Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.
Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.
And totally unacceptable. Pardon him or not, but don't pull this garbage.
I believe in theory it may be OK but I believe that a lot of kids are simply passed thru the system under this act without earning it and that can’t be good for them..C+ is a little better so I’ll go along with you.Thanks for the reply..
DU Reaction LIVE!!!
President Bush does what he thinks is right no matter who thinks it is wrong.
Potatohead should be in jail for Perjury not Libby. This was one of the worst injustices in DC ever.
Pray for W and Our Troops
And what about the PBA ban and ban on fed funds for embryonic stem cell research? B+ at least!
Well Bush did it again.....took a pretty good move and screwed it up with a squishy statement praising the juries decision and closing the door on what I would have predicted was a likely pardon as he was leaving office.
He still hasn’t learned after 6 years that you can’t please the left with compromise. He would have been better off pardoning him now, at least he would have gotten kudos from the right. As it stands now nobody is going to be happy.
PS I like Bush but when he acts like this it drives me crazy.
Bass ackwards, isn't it? :)
Yes.
I am glad that President Bush did at least commute the sentence, but I have to say that I don't particularly care for this paragraph in the announcement. It sounds to me (and maybe I am misreading it) that the President is saying that this amount of punishment is sufficient, thus granting some legitimacy to the conviction and some portion of the sentence.
I recognize this partial commutation gives Mr. Libby the opportunity to appeal without having to worry about spending time in prison; however, he has already spent a great deal of his time on this Earth and much money on this frivolous prosecution. I would have at least preferred to see a complete commutation of his sentence, and for the announcement to have not included the paragraph that I quoted.
bray, why didn’t President Bush pardon him instead? I don’t get it.
A pardon makes an appeal moot. Libby would like a chance to clear his name on appeal.
But since Nifong, I am no longer willing to humanize Dims as just plain political enemies, they are truly out for our blood.
Yet another reason for a ruthless SOB Republican for Pres in 08.
Well, not this woman.
You are reading it wrong. This was a better move by Bush.
I think you’re right, Clinton commuted numerous sentences only to pardon as he walked out the door and I think Bush will do the same.
I don’t know which ones were originally commuted but here’s all of Clinton’s Pardons.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Fear not, Fred's on the way!!
Good news!
This also gives Libby the chance to get Fitzmas disbarred after the appeal.
Pray for W and Our Troops
“You are reading it wrong. This was a better move by Bush.”
Please explain. After that statement he can’t possibly pardon him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.