Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't because presumably you see how idiotic it would have been

People are prosecuted for perjury all the time. I don't see why it would have been so idiotic to charge Clinton with that after his term was up.

So by power of grand jury to investigate for investigation sake (with no crime being charged) do we set the traps for the inevitable slipups of misremembering.

Yeah, right... slipups of misremembering... that's a good one!

Though I guess saying Libby deliberately lied to hide the truth (probably because there was a deal with the admin that he'd get a sentance commuted if he didn't name Cheney) wouldn't sound as good .

[Thue]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So by power of grand jury to investigate for investigation sake (with no crime being charged) do we set the traps for the inevitable slipups of misremembering. Good show, justice served. Stunk to high heaven then and now.

A court of law would not have sentenced him to 30 months in prison for misremembering.

You may think that it is reasonable to base judgment on truthiness, but there is a real system for evaluating guilt.

And the way that system has been negated by Bush in this case is simply wrong.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You didn't because presumably you see how idiotic it would have been

People are prosecuted for perjury all the time. I don't see why it would have been so idiotic to charge Clinton with that after his term was up.

Because its a matter of time to move on. A concept completely foreign to the hacks today. Scratch that, Sandy "Do These Pants Make Me Look Fat" Berger was pretty much given a pass to make the issue go away quietly despite deliberately lying/obstrucitng investigations to hide the truth which wouldn't sound as good .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Thue


A court of law would not have sentenced him to 30 months in prison for misremembering.

You may think that it is reasonable to base judgment on truthiness, but there is a real system for evaluating guilt.

And the way that system has been negated by Bush in this case is simply wrong.

A court of law would have sentenced him for perjury for which he was found guilty not for the crime of leaking a covert agent name which is what the judge essentially did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If he was sentanced for leaking a covert agent's name, the penal penalty would have been more than 30 months.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Though I guess saying Libby deliberately lied to hide the truth (probably because there was a deal with the admin that he'd get a sentance commuted if he didn't name Cheney) wouldn't sound as good .

Pres: Hey Scooter
SL: Mr. President.
Pres: If you tell the truth, a whole lotta of us is in big trouble.
SL: Yessir, but then I don't do to jail.
Pres: Well...How's about I fix that? Hehe
SL: Are you offering me a deal to lie?
Pres: Lie? Well...no....umm...maybe...ummm Dick, am I offering him a deal to lie or just stay out of jail?
Dick: No mention of my name...no jail. Got it Scooter?
SL: Got it Mr. Vice President.
Pres: Now Scooter you will still have to pay the fine! You know I believe in justice!
SL: Yes Mr. President...I know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Key part of my post - Which is what the judge essentially did.

Here's how:

The leak was the key issue for most Americans, the crux of an apparent White House campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, who wrote a 2003 op-ed piece debunking WMD justifications for the Iraq war. But while outing a CIA agent can be illegal, neither Libby nor anyone else was actually charged with doing that to Plame. In fact, pre-trial maneuvering found the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, insisting that this was not a case about a leak and fighting defense requests for documents about whether Plame was ever a covert agent, a status that could have made intentionally leaking her identity a crime.

But when the issue of sentencing came around, Fitzgerald changed his tune, arguing that the underlying (and uncharged) crime was so serious as to warrant a sentence twice as long as what the federal probation office recommended; notably, his brief included the revelation that the CIA did consider Plame's identity classified, at least for 18 months. And Tuesday, Walton apparently bought it, declaring before he announced the sentence that Libby could be considered an accessory to the underlying crime because, at least in part, his obstruction of justice made it all but impossible for the government to make the case for that crime.

So how is it that an offense that may never have happened — and that at one point the prosecutor argued was largely irrelevant to the case — has now increased Libby's criminal sentence?

It's part of the magic of the federal sentencing guidelines, which were mandatory until two years ago. The controversial rules prescribe penalties that can be raised or lowered within a range, depending on various factors. One factor in a perjury case is the severity of the crime originally being investigated. It's part of a general category of things — from particularly depraved conduct to the use of a weapon — that can, depending on the crime, increase a sentence if the judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence (the law's lowest level of proof) that they happened. To get a sense of the absurdity of this, think of someone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest level of proof — of dealing 20 grams of cocaine, and the judge saying, hey, there's evidence that you dealt 10 times that amount, so you get an extra eight years.

Time - Why Libby's Sentence was So Tough

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(probably because there was a deal with the admin that he'd get a sentance commuted if he didn't name Cheney)

Why would the admin conspire to lie to put itself in a bad situation unnecessarily?

[Guynemer]

No surprise here. What did W have to lose with this move? Nothing. He knows he is flatlining in virtually every measure of his presidency: approval rates, legacy, etc. Virtually no one supports him in Washington anymore; GOP candidates for Congress and the White House in '08 aren't going to want to be seen with him. Pay Libby back for being a good soldier, possibly ensuring that he remains a good soldier for the rest of his days? No lose proposition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
Pres: Hey Scooter
SL: Mr. President.
Pres: If you tell the truth, a whole lotta of us is in big trouble.
SL: Yessir, but then I don't do to jail.
Pres: Well...How's about I fix that? Hehe
SL: Are you offering me a deal to lie?
Pres: Lie? Well...no....umm...maybe...ummm Dick, am I offering him a deal to lie or just stay out of jail?
Dick: No mention of my name...no jail. Got it Scooter?
SL: Got it Mr. Vice President.
Pres: Now Scooter you will still have to pay the fine! You know I believe in justice!
SL: Yes Mr. President...I know.

While you may have been playing it up for laughs, I actually think a deal may have been similar to this, but not as explicit.

[q=Ogie]Key part of my post - Which is what the judge essentially did.[/q]

But as the Time article says, he didn't. He merely increased the sentance using the sentancing guidelines based on the potential underlying crime. He wasn't "essentially" found guily of leaking. His sentance was increased because the perjury had to do with a potential leaking. Unless you want to say that every increase in sentancing in perjury cases based on the severity of the potential underlying crime is 'essentially' sentancing the person for the underlying crime.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ogie]Key part of my post - Which is what the judge essentially did.[/q]

But as the Time article says, he didn't. He merely increased the sentance using the sentancing guidelines based on the potential underlying crime. He wasn't "essentially" found guily of leaking. His sentance was increased because the perjury had to do with a potential leaking. Unless you want to say that every increase in sentancing in perjury cases based on the severity of the potential underlying crime is 'essentially' sentancing the person for the underlying crime.

I don't know if I can agree with any kind of criminal sentencing based on "potential" crime.

That just generally sounds like a recipe for abuse...and in this case was a recipe for abuse.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


While you may have been playing it up for laughs, I actually think a deal may have been similar to this, but not as explicit.

So did you like?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
I don't know if I can agree with any kind of criminal sentencing based on "potential" crime.

That just generally sounds like a recipe for abuse...and in this case was a recipe for abuse.

It's amazing how this outrage comes when a prominent Republican is facing jail time.

Wait a second... no, I guess it really isn't.

Though I wish all these folks would come out of the woodwork when ordinary people are giving longer jail sentances because the judges decided that their perjury hurt the prosecution's (or even worse, defense's) case.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It's amazing how this outrage comes when a prominent Republican is facing jail time.

Wait a second... no, I guess it really isn't.

Though I wish all these folks would come out of the woodwork when ordinary people are giving longer jail sentances because the judges decided that their perjury hurt the prosecution's (or even worse, defense's) case.

Hey...This is the first I ever heard of the sentencing guidelines. I think they suck no matter who the defendant is.

It just isn't right to sentence people based upon "potential" crime. That's ridiculous IMHO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the other hand, if your perjury prevents, say a mob boss from going down for murder, isn't that worse than your perjury preventing someone from recovering $100?