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.
Bump that, thanks.
Yes 99% 4663
No 1% 56
Total Votes: 4719
Yea, that’s great!!!
I hate NPR but they have a decent chronology of events. Unfortunately when you google “libby chronology” there are no conservative more honest links...they are all left wing sites.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764919
A full pardon still may happen. Don’t get hung up on how Bush does it.
Ha! Keep dreaming...
Thank you very much for providing those interesting links.
By the way, just what was Libby convicted of exactly?
Doesn’t Libby still maintain his innocence?
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?
JANUARY 14, 2000 : (SENIOR US DISTRICT JUDGE SPORKIN RETIRES; WAS FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE CIA & ALSO ENFORCEMENT CHIEF OF THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION — See CISNEROS) Senior U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin is retiring today after 14 years on the federal bench, ending a judicial career in which he won respect from area lawyers, not only for his legal opinions but for the colorful remarks he made in court. Sporkin, 67, was appointed to a federal judgeship in Washington by President Ronald Reagan after working as general counsel to the Central Intelligence Agency and as enforcement chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He heard dozens of high-profile matters, including an independent counsel’s case against former housing secretary Henry G. Cisneros, who pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI.
Sporkin said he planned to continue working in private practice, adding that he will begin exploring career options. Fellow judges, court employees and attorneys crowded into his courtroom yesterday and gave him a standing ovation as he completed his last scheduled proceedings. Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson praised him in court as an exceptional model of judicial independence, fairness, courage and compassion. - “Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin Retires,” Washington Post Metro Section, page B03, on Friday, Jan. 14, 2000, Metro in Brief :
I seldom get “hung up” on anything.
I had previously speculated that Bush would pardon him after the November 08 election. Based on statements he’s made yesterday, I’d say that option is still on the table.
A full pardon would have drove the lefties into a frenzy which is always fun to watch, but as other posters have indicated, a full exoneration via appeals would be the best outcome for all concerned.
A full pardon would be nice.
“Innocent on appeal” is really a misnomer. One is presumed “guilty” or he would never have been arrested. Even GWB gave him a tongue-lashing as he commuted the sentence. That’s GWB, trying to take action without angering his opponents.
I am too. I thought it was the best way to handle it.
Comute now, pardon later.
So is the media responsibly reminding the public that Libby was NOT convicted in kangaroo court for "outting" Valerie Plame after she outted herself to her hubby, who outted her to everyone living within a hundred miles of DC, but for a trumped up and unrelated charge?
I thought not.
“By the way, just what was Libby convicted of exactly?
Doesn’t Libby still maintain his innocence?
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?”
Telling the truth.
Yes.
Yes.
By the way, just what was Libby convicted of exactly?>>>>
He also was fined $250,000. Libby was convicted March 6 of four counts in a five-count indictment alleging perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI investigators.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/cia.leak.trial/index.html
Doesn’t Libby still maintain his innocence?>>>>>
No, his sentence was commuted; he was not pardoned. This means he doesn’t have to serve time in jail but still has to pay fines and still has a conviction on his record.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA.bUy89_1hk&refer=home
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?>>>>
I don’t know for sure. It seemed to me that this was a process crime. That is, the point of the investigation was to determine who leaked Plame’s name and was this illegal. Those things were not pursued. We know who leaked. We never found out if this was even illegal. It seems to me that Libby had one version of events and other folks has a couple of other version of events. He said/she said and it seemed that it was reasonable to make an error in memory of specific days or hours of what was said based on what I remember. Whatever the case, it didn’t have anything to do with the intent of the investigation because the prosecutor already knew who leaked and it wasn’t Libby.
The jury chose to believe that Libby was lying and the other’s that had differing stories must have made an honest mistake in their memory (which is all we can assume because Fitzgerald didn’t go after them). I obviously wasn’t on the jury but I certainly have my doubts about his guilt based I what I have seen. Regardless, it seemed like a B.S. charge to begin with and an even more B.S. sentence.
Thank you....
“FReepers don’t write history, liberals do.”
Only the current crop of historians are liberal. They generally have been fairly conservative in the past and it will show up when the current crop of goofballs retire.
The current crop has added very little to the knowledge of history because they are more concerned with the post-colonial analyses and agendas. Once they pass on or move over for some more responsible people, we will again see some accurate analyses, not the current twaddle.
I dropped a major is history due to the left wing cant to which I was subjected. One of my best papers was one that actually analysed a section of history in terms of the Marxist dialectic. The professor gave me an A+ and told me that he had never had a student actually pull that one off. I replied that it was total bull sh!t and he agreed.
Best selling historical authors are all conservative and the post colonialists are on the remainder shelves inside of weeks. Boorstine comes immediately to mind.
In terms of Presidential history, Clinton is a big fat zero. Even Millard Fillmore had accomplishments that were far better than Clinton. The scandals and miscues are not of interest to historians and quite frankly it is nearly impossible to write a Phd thesis or a book detailing what was not done as opposed to what should have been done. It would be simply boring speculation.
Clinton will disappear quickly into the mists of history because there is nothing to analyse. He authored nothing, his speeches are nothing more than long laundry lists of programs that never happened. His public scandals will not be exciting because “you had to be there” in order to feel the excitement.
Again, Clinton is a zero and will be treated as such.
“Oh and the one page with WJC will have one photo = of a blue dress.”
And, of course, a big ole stogie.
Not unless more conservatives go into journalism in college and so far I have not seen evidence of such a trend. So your statements sound more like wishful thinking. But I certainly hope you are right.
History and journalism are unrelated. Newspapers from all ages have been distorted, expecially in the US and Britain and are never used as primary sources because they are written by (and have been for many, many years) people who understand nothing more than writing English well, a skill that has become far less valuable in the age of the Internet.
If you are alluding to the oft quoted phrase “the newspaper is the first draft of history” or some such nugget, that is nothing more than the fevered delusions of hack writers who couldn’t research their way out of a paper bag.
There are conservative historians coming up and I will be glad to read them.
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.