Here's a crazy thing: "Scooter" Libby (the guy under Cheney) helped blow the cover of an undercover CIA agent. Then he lied about it and tried to cover it up. He was sentenced to jail, and Bush stepped in and erased the jail sentence.

Looking back, when the story broke Bush said that "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." Hah! I totally misinterpreted what Bush meant. I thought he meant the person would be fired. Libby certainly has been well taken care of ... that is true.

IMO, a president should not be allowed to pardon (or commute) the sentence of a member of his own administration. It means the administration can act above the law.

Leniency for Libby and the '08 presidential race | csmonitor.com

Yeah. That looks really, really bad. The guy got caught, convicted and everything. It's definite political suicide, but it seems like it just plain ought to be illegal. Oh well.

I'm sure their was a reason Bush pardoned him too.

Is that sarcasm, or are you serious? Sorry, I can't tell what tone of voice you wrote it in.

I'm being serious, I think Libby knows something about the Email scandal and pardoned him so Libby wouldn't reveal anything.

Very possible.

For just one second there, I thought you were defending Bush.

I think I would commit suicide if I ever defended Bush.

That's why I got so confused! I thought, "Dear God! What's the world come to if seisen is defending Bush?"

Bush didn't pardon him genius.

After all the spin and sugar coating is gone, here are the facts:

1. No crime was committed by anyone outside the perjury charge.

2. Scooter Libby could have answered the question any other way and no one would have gotten in trouble.

3. He didn't get his entire sentence commuted, just the jail term. He still has to pay fines.

There are reasons the president is given this kind of power. Making sure people don't get railroaded by politically biased and motivated system is probably one of them.

That's all I am going to say!

A complete pardon hasn't been ruled out. Bush may still do this.

False...

What you mean to say is no one was *convicted* of a crime outside of the perjury and obstruction of justice charge.

Outing a CIA agent is a serious crime. However, it was difficult to investigate because the administration systematically obstructed justice. And Libby was convicted of that.

You are trying to invoking Clinton's defense? It doesn't really work in this case.

How so? By telling the truth and cooperating with the investigation?

Keep in mind, his friends raised 5 million for his legal defense. Assuming of course, Bush doesn't pardon him.

Which come to think of it, since Bush probably planned to pardon/commute his sentence the entire time, why didn't he do it sooner? How many millions of dollars in tax dollars was wasted here on the investigation?

I think if Clinton did this, you'd be singing a different tune.

This backs up what you said yaaarrrgg.
Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon - Yahoo! News

so much for republicans being 'tough on crime'--huh!

I thought lying to a grand jury and impeding an investigation was a crime. Oh well, I guess we will get some silly support posts from some silly comservatives if we haven't already.

Here's an idea, if you don't want to go to jail, don't lie. It's pretty simple.

Whether or not there's been a crime commited, which we could argue either way, lying to a grand jury is a crime unto itself, worthy of the punishment he was given. Whether the investigation was biased or politically motivated is irrelavent, IMO. The judge that sentenced Libby was a Bush appointee, so I'd hardly call him biased against the administration.

If I'd done the same thing, I'd be sitting in jail, right now. Allowing Libby to side-step real punishment (go ahead, try to tell me that $250,000 is a lot of money to him, so I can laugh at you), for no reason outside of pure cronyism, undermines the justice system.

I could be wrong, but I think either policy or tradition dictates the recipient of a pardon has to carry out his sentence before being eligible for a pardon. In any case, there has not been a pardon.



Valerie Plame doesn't meet the requirements of a "covert agent" or whatever. The law doesn't apply. Her neighbors all knew she worked at the CIA. No crime was committed when her name was given to Novak.




Fitzgerald knew before he ever questioned Libby who actually gave Plame's name to Novak. He knew it was Armitage for three years. There have been no charges filed against Armitage. Why? Because he committed no crime. This investigation was nothing more than a perjury trap. Libby didn't remember who he first talked to about what differently than a reporter. Had he answered the question "correctly" it would have changed nothing. Remember - while Fitz was questioning Libby in front of a grand jury, he already knew who leaked the name.



Clinton did commit perjury - he said something he knew wasn't true under oath. He was aquitted. You're comparing apples to bowling balls.

All honest points for the most part, but I'll just say I haven't seen anything that makes me believe Libby intentionally produced false information. He's a busy guy and talks to a lot of people. I can't remember where/who I first heard about Valerie Plame either, so if I were asked under oath, I'd probably guess wrong too. Libby should have said "I don't recall."

If he had lied intentionally, and there actually was a crime being covered up, I'd probably have a problem with commuting his sentence. As it is, all that has happened is his sentence has been reduced to the fine. I think that should have been commuted too.

Are you making up evidence to support your claims?

USATODAY.com - A neighbor's view of Valerie Wilson's 'outing'

Media Matters - Defying the facts, Coulter, York, Limbaugh revived Wash. Times ' baseless conclusion that Plame's neighbors knew her covert status

From what I can tell Armitage was just repeating what he saw on an internal memo, where Plame's covert status was (intentionally?) not stated.

You have nerve bringing facts into this, yaaarrrgg. Are you on drugs or something?

Fact: The only crime turned up in the entire investigation was perjury. They know who gave her name to the press, they didn't charge him. That's because its not a crime.

Half-true. Perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is a bit muddled. It's a crime to *knowingly* out a covert agent. Armitage did not know she was a covert agent. Someone passed the information to him, and conveniently omitted that fact in the memo (that she was a covert operative).

Media Matters - Media figures repeat false claim that Armitage role in Plame leak exonerates Libby and Rove