President Bush singlehandedly dropped a lit grenade right in the laps of the Presidential candidates who didn’t support him during his push for shamnesty.
Yesterday, he granted clemency to Scooter Libby. He dropped the 30 month prison sentence and left him to handle the probation and $250,000 fine. After arriving at his conclusion, the President made the following statement:
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.
The President’s logic is so undeniably offensive that it makes me want to vomit.
Firstly, does anyone think this wasn’t the plan all along? A pardon / clemency for anyone that was made to take the fall? It’s bad enough that Libby was only half of the equation and Richard Armitage is walking around like nothing happened, but when everyone was calling the Libby punishment a slap on the wrists and saying that ultimately it didn’t matter, Republicans bristled at the accusations saying the jury had spoken.
Well, what happened? Did they speak and he just not like what they said?
Secondly, think of the ripple this creates for the Republican presidential candidates. All the ones who were opposed to his shamnesty bill are now faced with having to explain how they won’t turn the government into a tool for croneyism and such. Payback certainly is a bitch, huh?
The President has flagrantly demonstrated his contempt for the law here. I’ve noticed a serious number of sycophants looking for reasons to excuse such behavior, and that’s all well and good, but frankly, I’m not going to sit down and be quiet about it.
It’s wrong.
Period.
The argument that Sandy Berger wasn’t punished more severely when he stole documents from the National Archives and destroyed them holds no water for me. Nor does the fact that Bill Clinton had a rash of pardons for lots of scummy people including his brother on his last day in office.
If you want to prove that you’re better than the other guy, you don’t do the same thing as your opponent and then justify it by saying they did it.
