home

Squaring These Circular Statements

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:33:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush said yesterday:

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.

(Emphasis supplied.) Tony Snow said today:

"The reason I'm not going to say I'm not going to close a door on a pardon," Snow said, "Scooter Libby may petition for one." "The president thinks that he has dealt with the situation properly," he added. "There is always a possibility or there's an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon."

So the question is how long lasting is "long-lasting" in Bushworld? I predict approximately 18 months.

Update [2007-7-3 14:16:25 by Big Tent Democrat]: From the horse's mouth:

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Thanks squeaky.

< Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Bush | Removal of the President by Impeachment is Not a Choice >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Squaring These Circular Statements | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Future (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    "As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

    MSNBC via Laura Rozen

    Or From Horse's A$$ (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    Here is the video:

    think progress

    Parent

    He looks like a deer caught in headlights now. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:42:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Or A Seven Year Old (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    Mouthing daddy deadeye's words.

    Parent
    A Very Scared Seven Year Old (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    Conciously knowing that he has committed a crime.

    Obstruction of justice, for instance?

    Parent

    Joe Wilson (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    called Bush an "accessory to obstruction of justice" last night, talking to Keith Olbermann, and when asked 'if there was a "quid pro quo" - Libby would remain silent about crucial details of Cheney's role in the case in exchange for a pardon or commutation - Wilson answered, "absolutely."'

    Parent
    John Dean (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    With Olberman on obstruction of justice,  Congress and Fitzgerald's options.

    Youtube

    Parent

    If the Democrats (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:35:30 PM EST
    use their heads this is the beginning of the end of the whole Bush house of cards.

    Parent
    July 4, 2007 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    Bush presidency enters terminal phase


    Parent
    Have been reading around this afternoon (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    is it true that if Libby were pardoned now it could open up doors to further investigation into the pardon being obstruction of justice?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by manys on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    It would mean that Libby was exonerated and would lose his 5th Amendment protections in the Plamecase. An investigation of the commutation (not pardon, but you knew that) being a component of Obstruction of Justice can happen at any time, like any other criminal investigation.

    Parent
    Exoneration is not appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:48:34 PM EST
    Exoneration = vindciation. Pardon - you did it, but you are forgiven- is more accurate.



    Parent

    Thank You (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express either ;)

    Parent
    Snow in July (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Routine

    18 months sounds about right (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    E & P this morning
    Editorials Hit Libby's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
    The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had viewed the case quite differently, each ripped the Bush move.

    From the Times' Tuesday editorial: "Mr. Bush's assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it's committed by common folk ...

    "Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush's contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were 'harsh punishment' enough for Mr. Libby.

    "Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

    Libby knows too much. He'll never have to pay his own fine, imo.

    He'll pay it out of his Swiss account ;) (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:09:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Halliburton owns a bank in Switzerland? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:10:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I swear my tingley funny bone (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    in my elbow already knew that ;)

    Parent
    Does Scoot's wife care about Judith? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    I don't get that stand by yer man thing.  Just ask my husband, I don't care if he is serving the President of the United States....if he makes repeated right turns and dead ends into Judith Miller's private regions he's sitting in the courtroom ALONE with his lawyers holding his hand.

    Parent
    Aspens Have No Morals (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    Cause they are just trees connected by roots, way to busy growing to be concerned by petty things like morals. Obviously you are not an Aspen.

    Parent
    Scoots wife probably cares (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    about what she could spend $250K on.

    Parent
    I'm sure she wants a little extra (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    so she doesn't feel like "f'n em" quite so much, something to distract her itchy loins with ;)  Perhaps Halliburton will help find Scoot a new book deal very soon.

    Parent
    Halliburton has Swiss Accounts (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    they do funny things with.

    Parent
    Petty Cash (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    Must have been something really bad....

     

    Halliburton shares closed up 13 cents to $38.74.

    BTW - Since your link is over three years old, how'd  it turn out???

    Inquiring minds want to know??

    Parent

    The consequences of his felony conviction (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

    If Congress granted him immunity from further prosecution and compelled his testimony against Cheney and Bush.

    Guaranteed he knows enough to put them both in prison.

    If you're right (none / 0) (#19)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    Then the Dems have to subpeona him. If they don't then they are just as complicit...

    Parent
    They are. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    The DLC and the dogs, at least.

    Parent
    He's already committed perjury (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    and was convicted for it.  What on earth makes anyone think he would tell the truth to Congress?  Because he could be prosecuted for ... perjury?  Been there, done that.  

    Parent
    immunity (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38:35 PM EST


    Parent
    He doesn't care about immunity (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    If he cared about immunity he would already have made a deal with Fitzgerald.

    Parent
    Granted - you do have a point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:13:18 PM EST
    Though did Fitz offer it?

    Parent
    It would be a whole new set of crimes ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    ... if he lied to congress.

    Parent
    FALN (none / 0) (#33)
    by jarober on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    I wonder if anyone here recalls Clinton's pardon of the FALN bombers.  Would you consider that as outrageous, more outrageous, or less outrageous?

    Bearing in mind that they committed actual violence.

    Nice Non-Sequitur (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:14:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I am just as outgraged (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    Da*n that Clinton!!!

    Parent
    non sequitor? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jarober on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:34:57 PM EST
    So we can see that in Squeaky's world, the treatment of violent terrorists matters less than perjury.

    Troll (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    Don't like the subject? Change the discussion to Clinton.

    Parent
    It's Sailor's Law (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    Sailor's Law: The index of desperation of the wrongwingers is the square of the number of times they invoke clinton or kennedy.


    Parent
    sqeaky (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    Oh, I see.

    The subject is Bush's pardons...

    Not "Presidental Pardon's..."

    Unless, of course, some one wants to talk about Bush I's pardons...

    There is a word for that... starts with an h... hypo...oh well, it will come to me..

    Parent

    ppj, I owe you an apology. (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    Whatever possessed me to try to convince everyone that you pretend to be intellectually challenged, I have no idea.

    Parent
    yawn (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:53:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Still Trolling (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    Oh, I see.
    The subject is Bush's pardons...

    Try again.


    Parent

    Squaring These Circular Statements | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment