Good. It was the right and honorable thing for President Bush to do:
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.â€
Make sure you read the entire statement by President Bush.
Of course the Left is Freaking.The.Fuck.Out right now. The same people who applauded President Clinton’s long list of pardons, including several for convicted drug dealers, are now going to turn on their selective-amnesia and attack President Bush.
The same people who thought that Paris Hilton shouldn’t have served any jail time think that Scooter Libby should be locked up for 30 months.
I see that a lot of folks in the blathering Left-o-sphere keep using the word “pardon”. I think it’s important to note that Libby was not pardoned. He is still on probation, and is still paying a $250K fine. Only his prison time was commuted.
_________
OTHERS:
The Baseball Crank:
“I don’t underrate the seriousness of perjury, but in sentencing, or using the pardon power, you consider mitigating factors. Unlike the Paula Jones case, no individual litigant was harmed by obstruction of the discovery process. And unlike the Sandy Berger case, there was no successful coverup.â€
If anybody needs to be in prison, it’s Sandy Berger.
Macsmind notes:
This was a good move. While not a pardon – Libby will bear the conviction and fine – but it’s spare this honorable servant who was charged on a lesser crime than that of a certain ex-president.
What a joke. Though it’s been clear for some time that Bush does not recognize that actions have consequences.
Well just another Republican misstep to hang on their nominee in 2008…
I do think the ruling was excessive, but one fact remains.
He broke the law. The verdict was handed down by jury. And Bush quite obviously DOES not respect that jury or he wouldn’t have essentially said “fuck you” by commuting the sentence.
As for Clinton, I was against all those pardons as well. Justice doesn’t have party affiliations.
Why don’t we just get mad when ANY President takes the law into their own hands, instead of just a Republican one (or a Democratic one)?
Although let me point out that the reason the left (and myself) is so angry about Libby is because this pardon is only the latest in a long line of nose-thumbings made by Bush to the United States Justice System.
So fuck him.
Readers please take a look at http://febone1960.net/febone_blog/. The blog seems to suggest that President Bush does not have the authority to commute Libby’s sentence. The blogger’s reasoning makes sense to me. What are your thoughts?
He’s wrong. Black’s Law Dictionary is fine for laypeople and students. However, it is not the authority on which to base any argument in any court of law.
In response to KMA, I find your response to be without merit. Not only is Black’s Law Dictionary a legal authority which a legal advocate may use in a legal argument in a court of law, but it is also a legal authority utilized by our U.S. Supreme Court.
Let me direct your attention to Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001). The opinion was written and delivered by the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. The matter pertained to the payment of attorney fees to a prevailing party. The Supreme Court had not previously ruled on the precise definition to be accorded the term “prevailing party.”
To ascertain the meaning of this legal term of art, the Supreme Court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary.
The Court stated that its prior decisions were consistent with the dictionary’s definition. As a result it was adopted as the Court’s precise defintion to be accorded to the term “prevailing party”.
It appears that Black’s Law Dictionary is fine for the U.S. Supreme Court too. The above case was just one of numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases using Black’s Law Dictionary as a legal definition authority.
As a result, I agree with T.D’s assessment. The blogger’s reasoning does make sense.