| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2007/7/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47145 Activity:moderate |
7/2 Prez commutes croney's sentence:
http://csua.org/u/j2k (sfgate.com)
\_ I gotta hand it to "Bush will not pardon Libby" guy, he turned
out to technically be correct. He should have bet me, he would
have made $20. -ausman
\- ausman advisory: this commutation is an exercise of the
pardon power. i.e. the president (or many governors)
can use the POWER OF THE PARDON to change a death sentence
to a life sentence. this is a weird version of that.
See e.g. Shcick v Reed: http://tinyurl.com/3cuec3
\_ Too bad no one took me up on my $1m bet. :-) To the advisor
above: Libby is still a convicted felon with a $250k fine, and
2 years of probation to go along with his destroyed career,
reputation, lost time, stress, and millions of dollars in legal
fees. That is hardly a 'pardon' in any normal sense of the word.
\_ Bush can (and probably will) still pardon Libby, after
he has exhausted the appeals process.
\_ Time will tell. I admit to being surprised Bush did even
this much for him but it does fit the pattern of pissing
everyone off without actually doing the right thing.
\_ Besides the above, don't be too sure Libby's career is
destroyed. It will not be the same as it was but I don't
think he's out on his ass. Millions in legal fees? Reference
please.
\_ GOP fundraisers are already covering his legal costs and
a juicy appointment with the AEI awaits him.
\_ Oh goody, that makes it all ok. Sign me up!
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859840/posts
\_ Praise jesus!
\_ You know, Bush has been hammered by people about Ramos and Compean
(two border guards currently serving a sentence for something I
don't think they're guilty of), and his response when asked for a
pardon/commutation has been that "there's a process to go through"
and he'd look at it after it went through that progress. He seems
to have skipped that process for his pal. I have to wonder why his
approval rating is above 0% at this point for anything other than
the war. -emarkp
\_ not that i have any sympathy for illegal immigrant drug dealers,
but didnt those border guards falsify their reports?
\_ apparently. what about it? should that result in their
lives being destroyed? should that be enough to grant
immunity to a known illegal alien felon to testify against
them? i dont think so. dock their pay? sure. put them
on suspension? sure. send them to some hellish HR inspired
training for a few weeks? sure. demotion? maybe. prison?
for a false report? nuh-uh.
\_ Part of the reason for the relatively stiff (though not,
as Bush claims, beyond the sentencing guidelines) penalty
against Libby was because of the abuse of office. I would
submit that law enforcement personel deserve similarly
stiff sentences for abuses of their offices as well.
\_ They got hammered to 'send a message' to the rest of
the border patrol agents. Abuse of office? Bullshit.
Happens all the time without *any* punishment at all
levels of government much less going to friggin prison.
\_ I don't know the particulars of this case. I was
speaking generally.
\_ Generally, an abuse of power, especially something
as trivial as misfiling a report not only would go
unpunished but unnoticed.
\_ No, they didn't. They were required to submit oral reports to
their supervisors. The supervisors /were present/ at the
scene after the shooting when 9 officers helped collect shell
casings. That's part of the lie that Johnny Sutton (a Bush
buddy) keeps telling. Another of the lies was the claim by
Homeland Security that they said they were "going to shoot
some mexicans", which was only exposed when an HS rep was in
front of Congress under oath for another reason. -emarkp
\_ Just in time for Indepedence Day!
\_ Why does the president have this power, again? Seems pointless.
\_ So he can pardon his predecessor of any crimes committed while
in office. And the circle-jerk goes round and round.
\_ The Founders gave the President this power so he could take
action to right wrongs even though it may be unpopular.
Ultimately this is about having a final say in thwarting mob
rule quality 'justice'. Seems pointed.
\_ There was much debate about the merits of the power even
when the Constitution was written. While it has "a point"
I don't believe the greater good is served by the president
having this power. We have a justice system and a supreme
court. That's not mob rule. Think if the power didn't exist,
what great wrong would not have been righted? Some death
sentences have been commuted but there you have to get into
the whole "should we have the death penalty" issue. Having
the executive leader arbitrarily decide who dies is stupid
and reminiscent of monarchy.
\_ The justice system is all about mob rule. That's what a
jury is. Very few cases are taken up by the USSC. I don't
see it as the executive arbitrarily determining death. We
already have the justice system for that as you said. This
is about having a final way to correct some great wrong.
I looked up Clinton's pardon list. There was a mix of
drug offenses, white collar crime and military crimes he
over turned. Most of them were so old the people had
already served their sentences so what he was really doing
was restoring their right to vote, cleaning their records,
etc so they can live normal lives. Anyway, I don't see
400 or so pardon/commutations out of the zillions convicted
to be that big a deal.
\_ Have you ever gone through the jury selection process
and actually served on a jury? Just curious. I have
a lot more faith in an average jury, than an
average gvt procecutor, say. -- ilyas
\_ I think most juries do their best to get it right
but we know that isn't always true. Thus the
President has the power to pardon as the ultimate
final check on the system. The founders didn't give
him the power to convict, only free. Reagan did just
over 400. Clinton did a few more. Bush1 did under
100. I don't know how many Bush2 has done. These
are very small numbers and I'm a-ok with them even
if some were questionable.
\_ Wait, this is the treason guy, right? -John |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/j2k -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/02/national/w145109D75.DTL Former White House aide I Lewis "Scooter" Libby leaves f.. Bush's move came just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. That meant Libby was likely to have to report soon, and it put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "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." Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," the prosecutor said. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, said in a statement that the Libby family was grateful for Bush's action and continued to believe in his innocence. Bush's decision enraged Democrats and cheered conservatives -- though some of the latter wished Bush had granted a full pardon. "Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unlike a pardon, which would have wiped away Libby's criminal record, Bush's commutation voided only the prison term. The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years' probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy. Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr Libby." Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Arms were secretly sold to Iran to gain freedom for American hostages, with the money funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua in spite of a congressional ban. Bush's father, former President George HW Bush, issued pardons for six former officials shortly before leaving office in 1992. Testimony in the Libby case revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war. "President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this." Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in the 1976 presidential election. White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president. On the other hand, Bush's action could help Republican presidential candidates by letting them off the hook on the question of whether they would pardon Libby. Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free. "The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. 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." A spokeswoman for Cheney said simply, "The vice president supports the president's decision." The White House said Bush came to his decision in the past week or two and made it final Monday because of the ruling of the appeals panel, which meant Libby would be going to prison soon. The president's announcement came just as prison seemed likely for Libby. He recently lost an appeals court fight that was his best chance to put the sentence on hold, and the US Bureau of Prisons had already designated him inmate No. Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby. The president noted Libby supporters' argument that the punishment did not fit the crime for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service." Yet, he added: "Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable." After CIA operative Valerie Plame's name appeared in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles. Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article. Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told. Plame believes Libby and other White House officials conspired to leak her identity to reporters in 2003 as retribution against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who criticized what he said was the administration's misleading use of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. The prison sentence was imminent, but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter." A White House official notified the trial judge, US District Judge Reggie B Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the "overwhelming" evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. |
| tinyurl.com/3cuec3 -> caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=419&page=256 Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts US Supreme Court SCHICK v REED, 419 US 256 (1974) 419 US 256 SCHICK v REED, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. Held: The conditional commutation of petitioner's death sentence was within the President's powers under Art. The executive pardoning power under the Constitution, which has consistently adhered to the English common-law practice, historically included the power to commute sentences on conditions not specifically authorized by statute. Since the pardoning power derives from the Constitution alone, it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by any statute, including Art. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, and Harry R Sachse. MR CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1960, the President, acting under the authority of Art. The petitioner challenges the validity of the condition, and we granted certiorari to determine the enforceability of that commutation as so conditioned. In 1954 petitioner, then a master sergeant in the United States Army stationed in Japan, was tried before a court-martial for the brutal murder of an eight-year-old girl. He admitted the killing, but contended that he was insane at the time that he committed it. Defense experts testified that petitioner could neither distinguish between right and wrong nor adhere to the right when he killed the girl; a board of psychiatrists testifying on behalf of the prosecution concluded that petitioner was suffering from a nonpsychotic behavior disorder and was mentally aware of and able to control his actions. The court-martial rejected petitioner's defense and he was sentenced to death on March 27, 1954, pursuant to Art. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by an Army Board of Review and, following a remand for consideration of additional psychiatric reports, by the Court of Military Appeals. The case was then forwarded to President Eisenhower for final review as required by Art. The action of the President substituted a life sentence for the death sentence imposed in 1954, subject to the conditions described in the commutation. Petitioner was accordingly discharged from the Army and transferred to the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pa. Had he originally received a sentence of life imprisonment he would have been eligible for parole consideration in March 1969; the condition in the President's order of commutation barred parole at any time. In 1971, while appeals challenging the validity of the death penalty were pending in this Court, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require the members of the United States Board of Parole to consider him for parole. Court granted the Board of Parole's motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, unanimously upholding the President's power to commute a sentence upon condition that the prisoner not be paroled. I When the death sentence was imposed in 1954 it was, as petitioner concedes, valid under the Constitution of the United States and subject only to final action by the President. Absent the commutation of March 25, 1960, the sentence could, and in all probability would, have been carried out prior to 1972. Only the President's action in commuting the sentence under his Art. II powers, on the conditions stipulated, prevented execution of the sentence imposed by the court-martial. The essence of petitioner's case is that, in light of this Court's holding in Furman v Georgia, supra, which he could not anticipate, he made a "bad bargain" by accepting a no-parole condition in place of a death sentence. Rather, he argues that the conditions attached to the commutation put him in a worse position than he would have been in had he contested his death sentence - and remained alive - until the Furman case was decided 18 years after that sentence was originally imposed. It is correct that pending death sentences not carried out prior to Furman were thereby set aside without conditions such as were attached to petitioner's commutation. However, petitioner's death sentence was not pending in 1972 because it had long since been commuted. The question here is whether Furman must now be read as nullifying the condition attached to that commutation when it was granted in 1960. Alternatively, petitioner argues that even in 1960 President Eisenhower exceeded his powers under Art. II by imposing a condition not expressly authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In sum, petitioner's claim gives rise to three questions: First, was the conditional commutation of his death sentence lawful in 1960; second, if so, did Furman retroactively void such conditions; and third, does that case apply to death sentences imposed by military courts where the asserted vagaries of juries are not present as in other criminal cases? Our disposition of the case will make it unnecessary to reach the third question. Although the authors of this clause surely did not act thoughtlessly, neither did they devote extended debate to its meaning. This can be explained in large part by the fact that the draftsmen were well acquainted with the English Crown authority to alter and reduce punishments as it existed in 1787. The history of that power, which was centuries old, reveals a gradual contraction to avoid its abuse and misuse. This practice was never questioned despite the fact that British subjects generally could not be forced to leave the realm without an Act of Parliament and banishment was rarely authorized as a punishment for crime. The idea later developed that the subject's consent to transportation was necessary, but in most cases he was simply "agreeing" that his life should be spared. Thus, the requirement of consent was a legal fiction at best; In short, by 1787 the English prerogative to pardon was unfettered except for a few specifically enumerated limitations. The history of our executive pardoning power reveals a consistent pattern of adherence to the English commonlaw practice. The records of the Constitutional Convention, as noted earlier, reveal little discussion or debate on 2, cl. drawn, the conclusion is inescapable that the pardoning power was intended to include the power to commute sentences on conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution, but which are not specifically provided for by statute. The few cases decided in this area are consistent with the view of the power described above. Mr Chief Justice Marshall held for the Court that it must, because that was the English common-law practice: "As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it." President Fillmore granted a pardon "upon condition that he be imprisoned during his natural life; Later, Wells sought release by habeas corpus, contending that the condition annexed to the pardon and accepted by him was illegal. is general, that is, common to the class of pardons, or extending the power to pardon to all kinds of pardons known in the law as such, whatever may be their denomination. "In this view of the constitution, by giving to its words their proper meaning, the power to pardon conditionally is not one of inference at all, but one conferred in terms. he power to offer a condition, without ability to enforce its acceptance, when accepted by the convict, is the substitution, by himself, of a lesser punishment than the law has imposed upon him, and he cannot complain if the law executes the choice he has made. In other words, this Court has long read the Constitution as authorizing the President to deal with individual cases by granting conditional pardons. The very esse... |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859840/posts NormsRevenge WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term on Monday, issuing an order that commutes his sentence. 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 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. 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. 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. Attorney William Jeffress said only that Libby's defense team was weighing its options. 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. US 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 US bureau of Prisons designated Libby as federal inmate No. The agency tries to place inmates close to home, which means candidates include prisons in Cumberland, Md; 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. The appellate judges who turned down Libby's request were: David Tatel, nominated by President Clinton; and Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George HW Bush, father of the current president. threepeat I wonder if folks realize how much a work of love a forum or site like FR is or how much a reflection of its frequenters it is? It is a gathering place of the rainbow of the printed word and expressions of the mind , mouse & pen. It is a constant in a sea of chaos, buffeted by the gales of time and happenings, of controversies and comedic events. It is what its posters and those who lurk here all too much sometimes make of it, for better or worse. It is not immune from the laws of the jungle nor does it seek to go the easy path. It is oft times a target of scorn and ridicule both from without and within. It is an oasis to many and a trash dump to some who know only how to destroy and not to build instead. It is an online archive of ideas, thoughts, conjecture, fantasy, reality, and things in between, of things that no longer are and things to come. View Replies To: NormsRevenge Well, this is good and keeps the man out of jail, but it does not remove the conviction: commutation of sentence: In criminal law, reduction of a sentence for a criminal act by action of the executive head of the government. Like pardon pardon, in law, exemption from punishment for a criminal conviction granted by the grace of the executive of a government. Commutation of sentence is a matter of grace, not of right; it is distinguished from pardon, however, in that the conviction of crime is not nullified. The commutation, hence, may be granted on condition that the criminal observe certain restrictions for the balance of his original sentence. Many states have statutes providing for commutation of sentence as a reward for good conduct during imprisonment. Once earned, the commutation becomes a matter of right and may be enforced by court action. Perhaps this will allow the appeal to go on without jail time. At the end of the appeal process, the President could still pardon him and remove the conviction. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former Chief of Staff to US Vice President Dick Cheney, arrives for his sentencing hearing at US District Court in Washington in this June 5, 2007 file photo. Libby, a former vice presidential aide, on July 2, 2007 lost his bid to delay serving his 2 1/2-year prison sentence while he appeals his conviction in the CIA leak case. Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "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." Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr Libby." Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair. "As Independence Day nears, we're reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle," Sen. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this." A message seeking comment from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office was not immediately returned. Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free. "The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. 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." View Replies To: Jeff Head Perhaps this will allow the appeal to go on without jail time. At the end of the appeal process, the President could still pardon him and remove the conviction. View Replies To: Jeff Head Perhaps this will allow the appeal to go on without jail time. The appeals process will proceed and there is still a possibility of it being reversed, slim though it be. View Replies To: NormsRevenge This is a politically interesting move. I would hope the administration can funnel money to cover his fine and attorney fees so it would make his sentence essentially probation and the loss of his job. But rather than the full pardon Libby probably deserve... |
| sfgate.com Friday, May 14, 2004 Updated: 12:07 AM PDT ' I'm guessing that the best way to hail a cab or a bartender in Athens will not be by waving an American flag." Sorensen Capital group He's already got more money than god, but that isn't stopping Steve Young (above, right) from embarking on a second career in business. Gov's Balancing Act Schwarzenegger unveils revised budget containing spending cuts and (as promised) no new taxes. Wedding Date's Still On Same-sex marriage opponents lose bid to halt gay nuptials, scheduled to begin Monday in Massachusetts. Researchers say they've found evidence of impact greater than the one that probably caused the dinosaurs' extinction. Wars' $50 Bil Price Tag "It's a big bill," says Wolfowitz, who estimates the cost of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. No Plea From Anderson Using a wheelchair, the haggard-looking suspect is arraigned in the murder of Xiana Fairchild. Giants Left Stranded G-men leave 12 men on base, including two in the bottom of the 9th, and drop series to Philly. Sex, Drugs, And Then 5 Deaths Playboy Playmate tells how she got involved with 2 suspects, but left in just the nick of time. Pixar Growth Plan Wins Fans 20-year proposal for Emeryville site gets flak from activists, but city says go for it. |