Is the President right in wiping away Liddys sentence?

Question

Should he do the same for the arrested border control agents?

WASHINGTON - Just when things looked darkest for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, when prison seemed all but certain, President Bush wiped away the former White House aide's 2 1/2-year sentence in the CIA leak case.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

Answer 1

Yes. The man never ripped off the American people, nor did he commit murder, as many of the people Clinton pardoned before leaving office. Libby's crime is minimal to those Clinton has pardoned, most of them committing acts against the people of America.
Marc Rich S. D. N. Y. 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Below is a complete list of the criminals Clinton pardoned before leaving office. Not much to respect there, I say. Even the pardon of his own brother, Roger Clinton, who was selling cocaine to his so-called fellow Americans. Not very much to be proud of, is it?

PS Indeed Bush should pardon the Border Patrol Agents, if he does not, in my mind, that is a crime in itself. Mr. Bush has confused me of late. He appears to want to appease the Mexicans, and seems to want them here. The American people don't. This may be a reason he has not pardoned them already, and I'm really pissed about that!

Answer 2

"First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation."

William Jefferson Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600

Answer 3

I don't think it was ethical. He has the authority, but I believe it was an abuse of power...not to mention a serious conflict of interest. It only reaffirms the belief of most Americans that there are two systems of justice....one for them and one for the rest of us. I think the border patrol agents are in the same system as the rest of us. However, i'm not sure which border patrol agents you are refferring to....

I believe anyone who is found guilty of a crime, should be held responsible, and should suffer the consequences. Pardon authority should only be used in the most extenuating of circumstances where the president feels that the justice system has failed and a potentially INNOCENT person will suffer as a result of the failure. This is clearly not the case with Scooter Libby. He lied and was caught lying, he was found guilty by an impartial jury in trial...a trial that was more fair than what you or I would recieve, with the best lawyers available. Bush and the entire republican party will take heat on this one for sure...but what else is new ?!

Another day, another scandal, another coverup...all in a days work for GWB.

Answer 4

Yep, I think the sentence was far too great for the 'crime' committed.

And, with what knowledge I have of the Border Patrol Agents, I would think that they are equally deserving of relief.

Answer 5

Well, Bush wants a legacy and the only one that he sees as possible is to have the lowest approval numbers in the history of the United States. Given the partisan nature of the populous, he has quite a challenge ahead of him. The immigration bill did help him alienate some of his base but he needs more boneheaded moves to get into single digits. This is just another step in his quest to be the "Worst President EVAR!"

Now sure, he could take the easy way out by going on national tv, pledging his allegiance to Satan while abusing a puppy, but that's too obvious and easy. The single digit approval ratings must come through poor decision that everyone believes that he thinks are good.

Answer 6

I think Libby should have served some time. The article you cited states "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."
There are going to be many who disagree with Fitzgerald but I think he is right on.

Answer 7

Yes, I think it was correct. I see this as an "equality of sentencing" question.

Libby was convicted of perjury -- lying while under oath in Grand Jury testimony. The commutation of the 30-month prison time still leaves a quarter-mil fine and a felony conviction on his record. Goodbye law license, working in government, etc.

Another high-ranking administration official to be accused of lying under oath to a grand jury was Bill Clinton. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury (similar to a grand jury indictment, I believe). Instead of being taken to Federal court, however, President Clinton's status as president required a trial in the Senate -- not exactly an impartial jury. Predictably, votes were cast along party lines. A 2/3rds majority was needed. It was not received.

A few months later, a federal judge cited him for contempt of court for his "willful failure" to testify truthfully. She stated that, "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

He received a $90k fine and lost his law license for 5 years.

Neither was ever charged with an "underlying" crime -- they both lied to avoid embarrassment, not prosecution.

Answer 8

He's just as right as was Clinton who pardoned over 300 criminals. Personally I don't think it's right but they do have the right to do so.

Answer 9

Scandals and acting above the law helped bring Bush into power after Clinton....how ironic is it that the same types of behavior could bring Clinton into power after Bush?

Answer 10

I think he was right because there were lots of other people in higher places than Libby who didnt even get arrested for this same crime. He was just the one who got caught not the one who was responsible for it.