Scooter Libby sentence commuted by the president

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by kestra
As long as the elected official is doing his or her job the way they're supposed to, I don't care what he or she does privately.

On the contrary, it matters a lot what they do in private. If their actions in private completely contradict their public statements (eg the Home Secretary spearheading a massive publicity campaign "Don't Drink And Drive This Christmas", and then being picked up in his own constituency for driving under the influence), it shows that they don't truly believe in what they're saying - thus damaging the value of their words.

I'm not saying that politicians should be denied all privacy. But a crime in his private life should affect his public life. My policy would be "I won't vote for any politician who's unfaithful to his/her spouse", except that Australian law compels me to vote for _someone_ every election.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Rosuav
My policy would be "I won't vote for any politician who's unfaithful to his/her spouse", except that Australian law compels me to vote for _someone_ every election.

Heaps of people vote donkey, Rosuav, you don't need to vote for _someone_.

While it's fine that you don't want to vote for an adulterer, I don't think it's fair to compare someone who commits an act which is against the laws of the country they’re elected to represent to someone who commits a crime against your personal morality. I would also distinguish between (for example) not voting for a person who campaigned against adultery while fucking around, and a person who had nothing to say on the subject, while fucking around. One of those people brought the issue of personal morality up and so it's relevent and demonstrates hypocrisy. The other person didn't and it’s none of my business provided it doesn’t interfere with the job.

[Savaric]

Bush speaks:

"I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand," Bush said after visiting wounded soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe."

The article sheds light on this "severe" sentencing:

Some lawyers said Bush's statement about Libby's harsh sentence showed that the administration was out of touch with today's federal sentencing guidelines. People like Libby — first-time, nonviolent offenders — receive lengthy sentences every day, they said.

"This was a very common sentence, not a startling sentence," said former federal prosecutor Scott L. Fredericksen, who has served under ever president since Ronald Reagan.

Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data. The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts .

I really don't care about the Valerie Plame fiasco. The guy lied to investigators and he lied under oath. He obstructed a federal investigation. This is the same reason Stewart spent 6 months behind bars.

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment," the president added. "I stand by it."

In other words, I don't give a shit what you people think because I'm the president. Whateva! I do what I want! It's not like he's gonna be running for another term anyway (I think even Bush knows this). This may just even have some backlash for the republican party come elections (the big one).

And Kestra the pardon has been around a long time- like the beginning. It's a total crock of shit. I think I remember hearing a valid reason for it. Something to do with leverage and being able to pull favors in exchange for others. It's useful on the state level but for federal crimes it needs to be removed.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Savaric
"I made a judgment, a considered judgment," the president added. "I stand by it."

Made a considered judgement on what grounds? This is akin to the umpire calling "OUT!" and a spectator on the other side of the playing field reckoning he knows better. The only difference is that here, the spectator has some kind of authority with which to back his "considered judgement".

[Dalaena]

"Made considerations" on the ground that his party was putting massive pressure on him. The President is hardly a spectator in this. He's the umpire who let the crowd egg him into changing a call... only he didn't have the balls to go all the way and do it. So, instead of a pardon, he "commuted" the sentence. He should have known he was going to take flak for this anyway and just done the whole deal.

It's funny how many people are treating it like he did pardon the guy. (Just read this thread to see!) The guy's still paying $250,000 in fines. He's still never going to be able to practice his profession ever again because he's been CONVICTED of a felony. So, like I said, since people with political agendas are going to treat it like a pardon anyway, Bush should have let his sack drop and just pardoned the guy if he was going to mess with this situation at all.

[Darion]

So, like I said, since people with political agendas are going to treat it like a pardon anyway, Bush should have let his sack drop and just pardoned the guy if he was going to mess with this situation at all.

+1 for hilarity, even though sacks don't drop.

On topic, I have no stake in the Scooter Libby fiasco. I believe he committed the crime. I believe that you could convict any given politician of a crime if you had an unbiased party investigate and audit them. This is the story that will not die for reasons that no one is sure of, because it certainly is no longer newsworthy.

[Xar]

While I believe that the original sentencing is fair, I'm still all about those that are publically elected to temporary power being allowed to use it every so often, even if it's for something obviously biased etc. If I were the jury or part of the justice system that went through the trouble of sentencing, I'd probably be insulted. But I'm not. Neither are you. I guess I'm not the type of guy to get pissed off when my hot friend gets out of a ticket because she flirted with the police chief. Is it right or just? Nah. Does it really bother me if it's definitely not the norm? Nah. Any realistic person knows this goes on everywhere in every country or organization of more than 10 people.

I *do* find it flattering that half the posts are done by non-Americans. It's so cute!

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Dalaena
It's funny how many people are treating it like he did pardon the guy. (Just read this thread to see!) The guy's still paying $250,000 in fines. He's still never going to be able to practice his profession ever again because he's been CONVICTED of a felony. So, like I said, since people with political agendas are going to treat it like a pardon anyway, Bush should have let his sack drop and just pardoned the guy if he was going to mess with this situation at all.

I wonder what a 250 grand fine will do to this guy. I'm sure he's plenty wealthy and certainly has very wealthy friends. Nothing sends a message better than prison- money is not in short supply for these kinds of people. The probation probably has more effect than that fine.

Yes he still has a felony conviction. But I'm also still waiting to see a full pardon. In fact I'm very confident he'll get one- perhaps soon- perhaps on Bush's last day in office. I believe a full pardon even wipes a conviction from the persons record. He'll be back to normal for taking one for the team.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Xar
I *do* find it flattering that half the posts are done by non-Americans. It's so cute!

See, the thing is, because the Australian government justified its involvement in the Iraq war based partially on the information about Niger, the whole Wilson story IS as relevent to Australians as it is to Americans.

[Xar]

OOooh, for some reason I thought you hated your government too! Despite the reasons, I still think it's neat!