<p>Really to me, it again sends the message that white collar crime pays in America… What’s a fine to somebody who has resources to easily pay it off? What’s a mark on your record? a red badge of courage? Depends on the crowd.</p>
<p>The only deterent to prevent things like this in the future is prison time. That’s the only personal thing you can take from a person that they can’t easily replace. What’s money when you can wipe your backside with it?</p>
<p>We continue to allow the “clean” crimes to go unpunished we will continue to have them occur. Maybe Libby’s sentence was a bit much… had he actually had to serve it, do you think the next guy would be so quick to do the same? </p>
<p>Instead we have reinforced the idea that it is OK to lie to your country, to cover up, deceive and betray americans… American’s…everybody not just your party. Until people from both partys demand that it stops, it will continue and America suffers. </p>
<p>Even the people we disagree with on so many levels are fellow americans. Sad that on independence day, so many find their ememy to be their neighbor.</p>
<p>conyat - refresh my memory here. How much jail time did Marc Rich serve when Bill Clinton pardoned him? How common is it for a president to pardon someone who is actually a fugitive from justice? How much money to Rich’s wife give to the Clinton Library and various Clinto campaigns? How much money did Rich owe in back taxes? What oil for food program that enriched which Iraqi dictator did Rich make his money off of? And exactly how many hours were left in the Clinton presidency when he signed the papers?</p>
<p>And while we are on the subject of Clinton’s what were Hillary’s brothes Hugh and Tony doing vis a vis pardons in the closing weeks of the Clinton presodency?</p>
<p>The Libby case was a political prosecution from the get go and the founding fathers gave the president the pardon authority precisely as a political check on the excesses of other branches of government.</p>
<p>Yup. Political prosecution. That Communist Democratic stooge John Ashcroft really had it in for the Prez. But it is good to see that the executive branch of government still sees it important to act as a check on the executive branch of government.</p>
<p>An independent prosecutor charged with investigating a crime that he determined never occured brought charges against one of the witnesses to the crime that never occured. </p>
<p>Then you have Susan McDougal the non-cooperating Whitewater witness getting a pardon while here husband dies in prison because the guards withhold his heart medication. Hmm… talk about a politicised justice system.</p>
<p>The whole point is that, as he (a Republican political appointee) has repeatedly said, he can’t determine whether a crime actually occurred because the convicted felon perjured himself and obstructed justice.</p>
<p>The fact that you can say this about the prosecution of someone who broke the law in order to obstruct an investigation into what the President himself referred to as an act of treason just illustrates the point I was making. Completely different rulebook for your kind.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that the President DIDN’T pardon Libby, so it wasn’t meant as any check on his being prosecuted, as you’re trying to imply. He even said he respects the verdict. According to him, he just doesn’t respect the judgement of the Republican-appointed judge who sentenced him.</p>
<p>Well, looks like Bush definitely never ran his plans past any attorney familiar with the actual judicial system. I heard on the news today that Bush’s claim that Libby would be still subject to both the fine (which his libby defense fund, paid by others, will take care of) and probation isn’t true. Apparently probatioin only legally begins when the person is released from jail. Since Libby never set foot in jail, the question of probation is legally in dispute!</p>
<p>Hayden - I don’t agree. The more likely reason that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence rather than pardoning him is that, if he pardoned him, Libby could no longer claim the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination if called before a Congressional committee, or if called to testify in a future criminal case against another White House felon. By commuting part of the sentence, his claim of the Fifth Amendment would still apply.</p>
<p>And they’ve made it clear that it’s all about their cronies being able to obstruct justice with impunity.</p>
<p>Not only was Libby’s sentence within guidelines…the Bush administration has argued in favor of the exact amount of jail time Libby got for the exact same felonies Libby committed–just not for Libby.</p>
<p>“The whole point is that, as he (a Republican political appointee) has repeatedly said, he can’t determine whether a crime actually occurred because the convicted felon perjured himself and obstructed justice.”</p>
<p>The prosecutor knew the crime he was charged with investigating did not occur (it is almost impossible to met all the elements of the statute) and he further knew the person who did the leaking was not Libby. Yet he continued the investigation anyway and repeatedly brought people before his grand jury to testify and retestify. Talk about a witch hunt. This whole case is McCarthyism on steroids.</p>
<p>Bush didn’t pardon Libby because the appeals are still going on. I believe this verdict will still be overturned. </p>
<p>Any jury trial for a republican charged with a political crime in the District is tough. The jury pool is about 90%+ Democrat. Conversely it is pretty safe territory for a Democrat charged with a political crime. Pretty much any of the White House folks called during the Whitewater investigations could have wound up like Libby if they had been working for a Republican administration.</p>
<p>Luckily we have appeals courts. I wonder if Marc Rich’s wife would like to make a nice fat contribution to the Scooter Libby defense fund? If not maybe Hillary can check with Hugh Rodham and see if he knows anyone who wants to buy a pardon.</p>
<p>The implication in post #33 that the Libby jurors rendered an unfair verdict because of their political leanings is simply not true. But it’s a fine example of attacking people’s characters instead of addressing the issues.</p>
<p>Many of the jurors say they felt sorry for Libby. One has even called for him to be pardoned. But they found him guilty because the law is the law and he broke it.</p>
<p>They simply did not believe that there was any reasonable doubt on the charges. It defies common sense that a person with a keen grasp of details (as testimony revealed Libby to be) could “forget” something he had been told NINE times, and that he himself had told to another person.</p>
<p>There simply was no room for reasonable doubt. They deliberated on the issues before them; there was no talk of politics or the war, for example. However much some of them regretted having to deliver the verdict, their duty was clear. </p>
<p>Smearing them is not going to convince anyone that Libby didn’t do what he did. Not anyone familiar with the case at least.</p>
<p>“They simply did not believe that there was any reasonable doubt on the charges. It defies common sense that a person with a keen grasp of details (as testimony revealed Libby to be) could “forget” something he had been told by NINE different people”</p>
<p>And how many times did Bill and Hillary use the expression “I have no specific recollection…” when testifying under oath? Oddly a DC gran jury had no problem buying their bad memories.</p>
<p>And why shouldn’t Scotter Libby have a hard time recalling the details of a crime that never occured? He has been convicted of obstructing an investigation into something that never happened! Downright Orwellian ain’t it?</p>
<p>Your post is an excellent example of why our country is in such dire straits.</p>
<p>People who refuse to put the rule of law above their own party’s aspirations.</p>
<p>The only reason no one has been charged with the crime of outing Valerie Plame is that the statute requires that the leaker KNOW they are outing a covert agent. Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice made it impossible to determine whether the leakers KNEW she was covert. </p>
<p>It didn’t suddenly make it legal to out her.</p>
<p>Sure, Armitage leaked Plame’s name. But so did Libby and Rove. The idea that Libby did nothing in spreading Plame’s name has no basis in evidence. Not only was there testimony about this but also documents.</p>
<p>“The prosecutor knew the crime he was charged with investigating did not occur (it is almost impossible to met all the elements of the statute) and he further knew the person who did the leaking was not Libby.”</p>
<p>Evidence, please? Are you calling the Republican-appointed prosecutor a liar?</p>
<p>“And why shouldn’t Scotter Libby have a hard time recalling the details of a crime that never occured?”</p>
<p>Already adjudicated by a unanimous jury of his peers. He’s a White House felon. Or were they lying too? Or simply duped by John Ashcroft’s nefarious appointee? Even the President says the verdict was to be respected. Oh, wait, he wants to make sure Libby can continue to plead the Fifth…</p>