HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I have a smile on my face that stretches to my ears. HAHA! I Love it!
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.
It is all LIbby will get for now, in part, because it is probably all LIbby wants for now. Bush slapped the judge in his statement, and if LIbby loses on appeal, I would bet he gets a pardon either by Bush before he leaves office, or by Fred when he gets in.
Libby not only represented Rich at the time of his pardon but called Rich from Clinton’s office to tell him he had the pardon which was against the wishes of the DOJ and the former US Attorney on the case was never notified which goes against protocol. Then he goes to work for Cheney?
“Commuted only the sentence not the conviction so he can still pursue his appeal.” That was my first thought, too. Brilliant “strategerie”. Libby won’t do time, but will still have a chance to clear his name.
I’m waiting for your answer.
I already checked over there because I wanted to see the spitter have a mental and physical meltdown....but alas, the spitter is on vacation and the good democrat rev al is sitting in for the spitter. MSNBC really isn’t worth watching for content, but it would have been great to see the spitter in complete meltdown.
ROFLOL!!! He is a smart guy!
Its too bad Chrissy’s rating are going to be higher tonight but it will be fun watching his head explode.
And it doesn’t look like the President will ever pardon Libby. So, the rest remains in place... It’s still a bad deal for Libby!
Still waiting.....
Who needs DU? Just hang out here and you can get the same thing just without the “F” words.
And for those blasting the President for not pardoning Libby get a freakin’ clue and THINK before you start jerking your knees. You don’t really think the President did this without consulting with Libby or his attorneys do ya? Commutation of the sentence keeps him out of jail but allows him to pursue the appeals to overturn the conviction. Besides if the appeals are successful we might yet see Val and Joe under oath.
Respectfully, that is a flawed comparison. Bush had nothing to do with “allowing” Burglar to run around free. Burglar copped a plea because he knew he was guilty. Libby didn’t arrange a plea deal because he didn’t think he was guilty. He took a chance and lost. They are not the same thing. Sheesh!
If Fred Thompson gets elected it would be highly unusual to pardon as soon as he is elected. The normal pattern is to do the pardons as they leave office.
Libby has his defense fund and probably a fair amount of money through it to date. The court shouldn’t be able to resurrect a jail term, so Libby should never be able to go to prison at this point (if my understanding is correct). Bush still looks like he’s following the letter of the law and isn’t playing favorites too much.
This is a win-win for all and the best possible outcome at this moment.
I guess we’ll see in 18 months?
Damn, I read about 10 postings on DU and feel as though I need a shower... real bad.
Are most of those whine-babies 15 years old or younger? If not, someone should slap their mommas/pappas for doing such bad jobs of raising their kid-os.
Hehe. You ARE a positive thinker.
That is true.
Dummies get to make the following nonsensical syllogism:
The President has the Constitutional right to commute and pardon.
He exercised that right.
Therefore, impeach him for violating the Constitution.
AOL liberal MSM poll
(if anyone cares)
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-spares-libby-from-prison-time/20070702175109990001
Hello W
welcome back, welcome home.
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.