Libby Commutation: Where Do You Stand, John Sununu?

And will the Senator (0.00 / 0)

stand up for a US Attorney who has been praised by all sides for his fairness and dedication to justice?  Fitzgerald's statement:

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as "excessive." The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President?s decision eliminates Mr. Libby?s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

Or will he side, as he does so often, with the King?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 19:54:06 PM CDT

Equality (0.00 / 0)

Well. that's the thing they're working against, isn't it?  There have to be some people who are demonstrably superior.

In this instance, however, I would argue that the commutation was fair.  After all, Libby was just taking the fall for his bosses, who aren't being held to account at all.  Not to mention that they wouldn't want to run the risk that he'd spill the beans in his dreams.

Even if Libby kept mum, it's common knowledge that jail house snitches can come up with convenient stories to earn themselves a get out of jail free card.

Bush/Cheney are simply in their preemptive mode.  Maybe this time they're actually preventing something that might actually happen.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:04:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So much (0.00 / 0)

for activist judges.... Just when you think he can't get any worse! We need a Bush Count down timer...

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 831,000 for bush countdown clock.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 20:53:16 PM CDT

tick tock (4.00 / 3)

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 21:18:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK folks, I'll ask it again.... (4.00 / 2)

ARE WE READY NOW FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO IMPEACHMENT?

The answer is a resounding: YES!

If this Daily Kos diary, doesn't convince you, then I don't know what will.

But the time is right, the time is now, and our Founding Forefathers are URGING us to join the fight before it's too latr=e!

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:15:07 AM CDT

Yes, but---- (0.00 / 0)

the data on which the charges will be based is still being collected.  Since it can't be pried from Cheney's dead cold hands, it will require a bit more finesse.

One might expect the Patricks to put their heads together--Leahy and Fitzgerald, that is.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:21:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

There is no benefit to impeachment.  We're not going to nail both Bush and Cheney in the next 18 months -- 60 votes is an unreachable standard -- so at least one of them will be around on January 20, 2009, regardless of the damage they do to our country. 

Bottom line:  This is an exercise in futility, one that (a) will not be successful, (b) will occupy Congress and take attention away from progressive policymaking, and (c) runs the risk of a 1998-style backlash (especially for Dems in red states).  Better to let this President and Vice President stew in their own juices.

Impeachment is an indulgence, on that we simply can't afford right now.  We need to focus on electing a Democratic President -- and retaining a Democratic Congress.  THAT'S how nail Bush's ass to the wall.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:40:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Baloney. (0.00 / 0)

Impeachment is not an "indulgence."

Bush has just announced to his entire Administration, "If you get caught breaking the law on our behalf, I'll make sure you stay out of jail." That has never happened before. Presidents have never crossed that line -- pardoning or commuting people in cases tied to the White House in the middle of the term. Not Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Liddy; not Weinberger or Abrams; not Susan McDougal.

This destroys the rule of law. It demands impeachment.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:45:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, emptywheel, (0.00 / 0)

for mentioning on Hardball what I haven't yet seen in the MSM yet, that the President, by giving a Get Out of Jail Free pass to Scoots, is actively obstructing justice:

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:54:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And, um, wow. (0.00 / 0)

My lord, how the shrill blogger on the phone sounded one hundred times more intelligent and reporter-ly than Craig Crawford in that clip.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:57:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I share your frustration, but. . . . (4.00 / 1)

This is not about our anger re: this Administration's corruption and incompetence.  That is beyond dispute.  It's about the value of impeachment as a solution.  I respect your review, but would encourage you to answer the following questions:

How do you really think this will play out?  Do you really believe that there's ANY chance that we will get 60 votes in the Senate, and that Bush and/or Cheney will be removed?  I certainly don't.

So what does that mean?  Do we want to tie up Congress in impeachment for the next year, removing media and public attention from this Administration's "progress" re: Iraq, homeland security, environmental protection, health care, etc.?  How will this help to advance our progressive agenda?

Even if we are successful, would a single child receive health care as a result?  Would it have any impact on Iraq?  Wouldn't we be better off with a Democratic Congress that concentrates on these issues rather than impeachment?  I think so.

And what will be the impact of this?  How will the country respond?  Can we predict this with certainty?  Is there a chance that there could be a backlash against Democrats for trying to remove a President months before his retirement?  How will this affect newly elected Democrats in historic Republican districts (i.e. Shuler, Carney, McInerney, etc.)?  Do we want to risk their seats to make a statement that will have no tangible impact on public policy?

Bottom line:  Our moral outrage leads us to impeachment, but we need to think with our heads and not our emotions.  The issues at stake are too damn important.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:29:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My mistake (0.00 / 0)

67 votes are required in the Senate -- more evidence of the futility of this course. . . .

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:51:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

impeachment (0.00 / 0)

It is not about winning on impeachment it is about showing the American public and future administrations that know one is above the law. If we do nothing what is to stop every Administration to follow this path of corruption if they only have to look at the votes in the Senate.  I never agreed with the Clinton impeachment, it was a farce, but they proceeded knowing they did not have the votes.  It wasted a lot of time and money over, what, sex. This time impeachment will be over a real Constitutional crisis.  I do not care if we do not have the votes.  Lets get all the information out there for all to see.

Imagine

---

by: BryanF @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:54:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or. . . (4.00 / 1)

Bryan, I respect your principled view.  I just ask that you recognize that there are major costs and risks associated with an impeachment attempt, and that such an effort threatens our ability to set forth a progressive (and popular) Democratic agenda to the American people. 

Take a close look at the questions I listed above.  If you still feel that a failed impeachment will provide the best value for the American people, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hope you have a Happy Fourth.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 13:30:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would find that line of thinking (0.00 / 0)

more convincing if I were seeing real progress on a progressive agenda, absent impeachment.

We had to tie the minimum wage increase to Iraq War funding to get it through.

It is already clear that McConnell intends to spend this Congress obstructing as much as possible.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 17:30:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with Dartmouth Dem (0.00 / 0)

From what I'm hearing, commutation is a far cry from a pardon: Scooter is still guilty, still has to pay his fine, still may be disbarred. All Bush did was keep him out of jail.

So, if he's in jail, we don't impeach, but if we walks, we do?

I share everyone's frustration, but I think the best way to restore the rule of law, to paraphase John Roberts, is to restore the rule of law. Namely, take back the White House.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 13:42:10 PM CDT

Nice point, but I respectfully disagree (4.00 / 1)

JimC,

Here's my take on why elections aren't the answer:

The authors of our Constitution established the schedule for elections, but  what I learned from people like Dave Lindorff, John Nichols, and David Swanson is that our Founding Fathers ALSO devoted a lot more attention to the mechanism of impeachment as a check on elected despotism in between elections. They had recently thrown off a king and had no interest in electing temporary kings every four years. Neither should we.

Bush and Cheney can still do a great deal of damage before the end of their term. People are dying every day as a result of their policies. There is an urgent need to remove them from office in order to end the brutal occupation of Iraq and prevent an attack on Iran.

But we would need to impeach them were this January 2009 or had they already left office. The purpose of impeachment, again, is to set standards for future administrations. We cannot give the powers assumed by this administration (to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements) to future presidents and vice presidents without expecting similar or worse abuses.

If you are concerned about the 2008 election a Pelosi, Emanuel, Schumer "do nothing response" will get the Dems nowhere in '08. All the more reason to support investigations into impeachment.

When you get a chance, check out this MyDD diary, Elections Will Not Cure the Cancer in the Executive Branch. It was an eye-opener for me. Maybe it will help, maybe it won't, but I do believe elections are not the solution, IMHO of course!

Not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just trying to explain a different perspective on all this. Thanks for all your insights and observations.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 20:36:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not ignoring you (0.00 / 0)

I just feel like we've been over this. I love your conviction. Rock on.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 08:47:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]