A Criminal Enterprise
Posted by
Kevin
Bush commuted Libby’s sentence. This means that Libby is still free to appeal his sentence and thus can still take the fifth in front of Congress. Bush’s actions can only be seen as an attempt to further the cover up of who ordered the outing of an undercover CIA agent working on anti-proliferation issues. Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation into the matter, and now Bush has ensured that Libby can take the fifth without consequence and that he will not be tempted to flip in order to avoid jail time. Bush has made it almost impossible to continue the investigation into a breach of national security.
It is so good to have the party of personal responsibility and law and order back in power, isn’t it? Can anyone point me to a Republican who didn;t leanr his trade form either Al Capone or Trotsky?
UPDATE: Cowards to boot.
My only problem with this is that Bush should have given Libby a full and unconditional pardon, not a commutation.
Comment 7/2/2007
Of course you do, Fred — but we knew that you were a terrible person, a serf most interested din protecting your glorious leader no matter the damage to the country you profess to love.
Comment 7/2/2007
That’s the most breathtakingly cynical thing Bush has done since . . . the last one. And he did it within hours of the denial of Libby’s appeal, showing that the fix was in from the start - Libby was never subject to any penalty for criminal obstruction, Bush was simply hoping the court would keep him from having to acknowledge he was intervening to obstruct justice in his own right. The moment the court declined to give him an out, he pulled the string.
Other than the fact that Libby’s never going to be nominated to the Supreme Court, how is this at all less ominous than Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre?
Comment 7/2/2007
“we knew that you were a terrible person”
Oh, no. How can I keep from letting such harsh words by raving lunatic liberals depress me? Wait a second….I’m over it now.
Comment 7/2/2007
[…] Kevin over at Lean Left on the implications of the commuting of Scooter Libby’s sentence: Bush commuted Libby’s sentence. This means that Libby is still free to appeal his sentence and thus can still take the fifth in front of Congress. Bush’s actions can only be seen as an attempt to further the cover up of who ordered the outing of an undercover CIA agent working on anti-proliferation issues. Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation into the matter, and now Bush has ensured that Libby can take the fifth without consequence and that he will not be tempted to flip in order to avoid jail time. Bush has made it almost impossible to continue the investigation into a breach of national security. […]
Pingback 7/3/2007
I have no use for commutations such as this as they are clearly political moves.
However, it may be wise to look at history and realize Bush is not alone in things like this. Seems he has a ways to go to match up with the Democrats hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
Comment 7/3/2007
Big U,
Even accepting the worst interpretations of all of those items, they amount to corruption and bribery. Isn’t there a little difference between that and Bush covering up for himself over a matter of national security?
Comment 7/4/2007
“Seems he has a ways to go to match up with the Democrats hero.”
Bush has had 6 commutations. Clinton had 61.
Comment 7/4/2007
Dan M. Says:
July 4th, 2007
“Big U,
Even accepting the worst interpretations of all of those items, they amount to corruption and bribery. Isn’t there a little difference between that and Bush covering up for himself over a matter of national security?”
Didn’t you say that you comment only on religous matters?
Comment 7/4/2007
Nope. That was the other Dan. Sorry.
Comment 7/4/2007
Yes I did Big U. Is it going to be a problem now if I comment on anything else?
Perhaps I should have been more precise: I have only substantially commented when the topic is religion. Althought, apparently all my posts have been infected with bigotry and hate even though Fred is inclined to agree with me.
Comment 7/5/2007
Dan G. > I think your response was meant for Fred wasn’t it?
Comment 7/5/2007