Bush commutes Libby's sentence!

[Bolo]

Sauce.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals panel unanimously ruled Monday.

The decision is a major setback for Libby, who is running out of legal options and who probably will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Libby believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. In a two-sentence ruling, the court refused.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the decision.

Libby's supporters, who raised millions of dollars for his defense fund, immediately renewed calls for a pardon.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby's defense fund. "It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

Attorney William Jeffress said only that Libby's defense team was weighing its options.

Those options are dwindling, however. The most likely move is an appeal to Chief Justice John Roberts, but it's unlikely that Roberts would overturn a unanimous ruling to spare Libby prison. Barring such an intervention, it seems only Bush could spare Libby prison time.

Roberts is a Bush appointee but judicial politics haven't helped Libby so far. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced Libby and refused to delay the prison term, was a Bush appointee. Two of the three appellate judges who denied Libby's request Monday were appointed by Republicans.

Last week, the U.S. bureau of Prisons designated Libby as federal inmate No. 28301-016. He soon will receive a time and place to surrender. The agency tries to place inmates close to home, which means candidates include prisons in Cumberland, Md.; Petersburg, Va.; Fairton, N.J.; Fort Dix, N.J. and Schuylkill, Pa.

As a first-time offender, Libby likely would be assigned to a minimum-security prison camp, where inmates sleep in bunks arranged in small cubicles with shared toilets. Whether drug dealers, insider traders, tax cheats or disgraced politicians, all prisoners are ordered to strip and submit to cavity searches on their way through the doors.

Bush and Cheney have said throughout the case that they felt sorry for Libby's wife and children. But Bush has publicly dodged questions about whether he plans to pardon Libby or commute his sentence.

The leak investigation was a political cloud over the Bush administration for years. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed Bush and Cheney and ordered key White House aides to testify before a grand jury.

Nobody was charged with leaking Plame's identity but Libby was convicted of lying about his conversations with reporters regarding the outed operative. Fitzgerald says his investigation is complete.

The appellate judges who turned down Libby's request were: David Tatel, nominated by President Clinton; David Sentelle, selected by President Ronald Reagan; and Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, father of the current president.

Who among us didn't predict this outcome?

My reaction, below:

[Nitroglys]

Wow i never thought bush would have the balls to put himself into further danger but he always seems to have the tendency to surprise. Another point for The robber barons. Final score Barons-1776 average joe-0.

[animehater]

At 7/2/07 07:09 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Another point for The robber barons. Final score Barons-1776 average joe-0.

Alot of bitching coming out of you huh?

[Nitroglys]

At 7/2/07 07:14 PM, animehater wrote:

At 7/2/07 07:09 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Another point for The robber barons. Final score Barons-1776 average joe-0.

Alot of bitching coming out of you huh?

alot of debate coming out of you.

[SmilezRoyale]

It's interesting, you can throw a fishfull of bad words at bush and he pretends he doesn't care, or doesn't hear you.

But Blowing stuff up makes him send THOUSANDS of his marine hordes into the vast lands of the known world and SLAUGHTERING the peasant F00LS who stand in his way.

[Togukawa]

So, what's this separation of powers thing I read about? Must have been fiction.

[JakeHero]

Anyone remember Bill Clinton and Marc Rich? Didn't think so.

[K-RadPie]

But Blowing stuff up makes him send THOUSANDS of his marine hordes into the vast lands of the known world

Have you been playing Starcraft recently?

[HighlyIllogical]

This really pissed me off when I saw it on the BBC. I mean, come ON, George W., Libby is a CRIMINAL, and we all know it!

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 08:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: This really pissed me off when I saw it on the BBC. I mean, come ON, George W., Libby is a CRIMINAL, and we all know it!

So was Nixon. So was Rich. So was Clinton (and the big number of personal friends he pardoned).

C'mon, Bush still left a month in jail. He left the $250,000 fine. He left the 2 years probation. He acknowledged what he did was completely wrong.

But no, let's not say a peep about Clinton, he's our savior!

At 7/2/07 07:50 PM, Togukawa wrote: So, what's this separation of powers thing I read about? Must have been fiction.

Even if it's fiction, it's better than the dellusional world your mind lives in.

[Bolo]

Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.

100 million dollars is exactly 400 times as much money as Scooter Libby is now required to pay under the bargain.

[EvilerBowser1001]

If a CIA agent did this, he would be convicted of treason, which they EXCUTE you for...
They went to damn easy on him, and Bush is being an asshole trying to back up his dickhead friends...

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 09:01 PM, Bolo wrote: Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.

Wasn't the man a billionare?

I highly doubt it would've mattered much.

The point was that all Bush did, was reduce Libby's sentence. That was it, he tampered with absolutely nothing else.

[Bolo]

At 7/2/07 09:13 PM, Memorize wrote: The point was that all Bush did, was reduce Libby's sentence. That was it, he tampered with absolutely nothing else.

The judge at trial was clear that Libby's crime warranted jailtime. I think the judicial branch is more qualified than the executive branch to make decisions according to the rulebook.

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote:

The judge at trial was clear that Libby's crime warranted jailtime.

He's still going to jail for 30 days.

With your logic, every single presidential pardon would be a crime. You're just being whiny because we're talking about Libby.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/2/07 08:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/2/07 08:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: This really pissed me off when I saw it on the BBC. I mean, come ON, George W., Libby is a CRIMINAL, and we all know it!

So was Nixon. So was Rich. So was Clinton (and the big number of personal friends he pardoned).

C'mon, Bush still left a month in jail. He left the $250,000 fine. He left the 2 years probation. He acknowledged what he did was completely wrong.

But no, let's not say a peep about Clinton, he's our savior!

Clinton isn't the topic here. What Bush did was fucked up. What Clinton did was fucked up too, but this is here and now. Why bring up past fucked up shit when we could react to equally fucked up shit in the modern day? And perhaps achieve something from it, though I admit this is not likely given the pattern of this presidency.

[ForkRobotik]

At 7/2/07 09:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote:

The judge at trial was clear that Libby's crime warranted jailtime.

He's still going to jail for 30 days.

With your logic, every single presidential pardon would be a crime. You're just being whiny because we're talking about Libby.

So are you saying that the president should have the right to pardon his friends? Yes or no answer and why, can you atleast give me that?

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 10:31 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Clinton isn't the topic here.

Oh, of course he isn't. Because, you kow, anytime he does something at that moment, we should just forget about it, right? I mean, that was his entire presidency after all. If he did something wrong, people like you would hush it up.

What Bush did was fucked up. What Clinton did was fucked up too, but this is here and now.

Right. You guys say that NOW, AFTER Clinton is out of office.

Figures.

Why bring up past fucked up shit when we could react to equally fucked up shit in the modern day?

The fact that the same lady Libby revieled is the same lady who is threatening to sue the CIA (who "defeneded" her) because they wanted to review her book before she published it.

She's a bitch and doesn't deserve anything.

I praise what Libby did.

And perhaps achieve something from it, though I admit this is not likely given the pattern of this presidency.

Here's the thing. Every president gives pardons and all that. The ONLY thing that makes this case different is because you guys are butt-hurt that a Bush Administration Official isn't going to serve his full 2.5 years.

If we were suppose to act like this, then we'd be complaining about every single pardon the president gives, not just this one incident.

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 10:38 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

So are you saying that the president should have the right to pardon his friends? Yes or no answer and why, can you atleast give me that?

The answer would be "no".

I just find it fascinating how the only reason why there is this much complaint about this one and only case is because it involved a Republican President named Bush and a man named Scooter Libby.

People aren't debating whether it is right or wrong. They are complaining because of the person Bush gave the pass to, and because the person giving the pass is Bush.

[JakeHero]

At 7/2/07 09:01 PM, Bolo wrote: Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.

But he did commit and crime and was pardoned because he was friends with Clinton, correct?

100 million dollars is exactly 400 times as much money as Scooter Libby is now required to pay under the bargain.

How does that Clinton cock taste, Bolo?

[Ravariel]

At 7/2/07 11:53 PM, JakeHero wrote:
How does that Clinton cock taste, Bolo?

Wait, are you guys saying it's cool that Bush commuted Libby's sentence because Clinton did it for Rich? Or are you saying we can't be annoyed with it because a previous pres who shares our party did it?

[SuperDeagle]

At 7/2/07 11:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: Wait, are you guys saying it's cool that Bush commuted Libby's sentence because Clinton did it for Rich? Or are you saying we can't be annoyed with it because a previous pres who shares our party did it?

I think both.
Which would make some since...

Damnit I said 'Some'

[Bolo]

At 7/2/07 11:53 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:01 PM, Bolo wrote: 100 million dollars is exactly 400 times as much money as Scooter Libby is now required to pay under the bargain.

How does that Clinton cock taste, Bolo?

More satisfying than Bush's must taste for you, considering Rich got a more accurate sentence than Libby.

[Memorize]

At 7/3/07 12:34 AM, Bolo wrote:

More satisfying than Bush's must taste for you, considering Rich got a more accurate sentence than Libby.

Of course. Because a multi-billionare having to pay 100 million is SO much more accurate. Poor him. Now instead of having 2.5 billion, he'll now have 2.4 billion.

*cringes*, such... harsh... treatment!

[JakeHero]

At 7/2/07 11:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: Wait, are you guys saying it's cool that Bush commuted Libby's sentence because Clinton did it for Rich? Or are you saying we can't be annoyed with it because a previous pres who shares our party did it?

No, more like "It's fair play since a President has the right to pardon, and you should consider not being so partisan." I haven't said once in this thread I agree with Bush's decision, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.

[Korriken]

presidential pardons are bullshit, plain and simple, ESPECIALLY for political buddies. commuting a death sentence in the face of new evidence that may exonerate the condemned and all appeals have been exhausted is one thing, but to say, "I say this man won't get his full sentence, because he's my buddy pal!" is bullshit.

[Bolo]

Hey, if we're gonna talk old-time presidential pardons, let's talk about Caspar Weinberger, almost a casualty of the Iran-Contra affair, but pardoned in a rather timely manner by another one of the active participants in the affair—Geroge Bush. I guess spur-of-the-moment, unwarranted pardons run in the family.

[ForkRobotik]

It seems to me that this whole thread is full of partisan bullshit. If Clinton was in power now, and was pardoning his buddies, memorize and jakehero would be the first to attack him, but since it's bush they feel some sort of sick twisted need to defend him rather than say yeah it's all fucking bullshit. No one here (well maybe one jackfuck) said that it was okay what clinton did. I think we can pretty much all agree that this presidential pardon bullshit is not only undemocratic but complete and total cumshit.

[Ravariel]

At 7/3/07 01:28 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: I think we can pretty much all agree that this presidential pardon bullshit is not only undemocratic but complete and total cumshit.

Thank you ever so much for that mental image.

that said, you're right.

[Memorize]

At 7/3/07 01:05 AM, Bolo wrote: Hey, if we're gonna talk old-time presidential pardons, let's talk about Caspar Weinberger, almost a casualty of the Iran-Contra affair, but pardoned in a rather timely manner by another one of the active participants in the affair—Geroge Bush. I guess spur-of-the-moment, unwarranted pardons run in the family.

LETZ TAK ABOUTS FORD LOLZ!!!!

Yeah, that statement was about as thoughtful as your topic.

At 7/3/07 01:28 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: It seems to me that this whole thread is full of partisan bullshit. If Clinton was in power now, and was pardoning his buddies, memorize and jakehero would be the first to attack him, but since it's bush they feel some sort of sick twisted need to defend him rather than say yeah it's all fucking bullshit.

Actually no. Although I would not like what either of these 2 presidents did, I wouldn't care as it is legal for them to do so.

I just think it's funny how Bolo loves to stick up for Clinton and attack Bush for doing something Clinton did on a whole new grand scale.

You know, I didn't see much reaction when that Clinton official stole and shredded government documents. Isn't he still running around on the street?