What law did Bush break by commuting Libby"s sentence?

Question

I'm asking this because repeatedly this morning concerning the commute people are accusing Bush of believing he is above the law by doing so.

stay_fan1.... Thanks for the laugh!

Answer 1

Article 4 of the Consitution:
"Everything George Bush does is illegal, immoral, or annoying."

Says so, right on the copy hanging on Nancy Pelosi's wall.

Answer 2

President Bush didnt break any law, he basically has the power in which he executed, by not allowing Libby to spend any time in jail. That was the only thing President Bush did, he did say that Mr Libby was still accountable to pay $250k, spend 2 years on probation and still have the Felony conviction on his record. Even thouhg Libby aint spending anytime in jail, he is basically going to be out of a job period by this since his Legal degree is about to get yanked as well....

Answer 3

None! Every president has the right to commute a sentence! He is not above the law! Every time that Bush does something the liberal cowards don't like, they think he is above the law.

Answer 4

In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...
Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Answer 5

No law was broken, it is just very hypocritical of a president and a party who claims to hold the rule of law in high esteem, and then to overturn that law when it is convenient.

Thus President Bush is placing himself and his followers "above the law".

Answer 6

He is within the law to commute the sentence. But it is an abuse of power to override the properly adjudicated conviction of one of his cronies that committed his crime in service to the administration. Any way you look at it, that is acting above the law with impunity. But in this case it is legal.

Answer 7

Liberals Especially Clinton have no room to talk about law. She is one of the biggest crooks out there and to hear her talk makes me more disgusted by the minute. Bush broke no laws. He could have pardoned Libby, but he didn't.

Answer 8

OMG...excellent question. I have followed the Genarlow Wilson case from the beginning. What is happening to him is a travesty of justice. This young mans life has been taken away...for what??? I'm from Atlanta, Georgia, and the justice system is so messed up

Answer 9

the law of "dignity". Bush promised to bring dignity back to the White House. He has done the opposite.

Answer 10

February 18, 2001
My Reasons for the Pardons
By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
HAPPAQUA, N.Y. ? Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

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.

On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.

The vast majority of my Jan. 20 pardons and reprieves went to people who are not well known. Some had been sentenced pursuant to mandatory-sentencing drug laws, and I felt that they had served long enough, given the particular circumstances of the individual cases. Many of these were first-time nonviolent offenders with no previous criminal records; in some cases, codefendants had received significantly shorter sentences. At the attorney general's request, I commuted one death sentence because the defendant's principal accuser later changed his testimony, casting doubt on the defendant's guilt. In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence. The remainder of the pardons and commutations were granted for a wide variety of fact-based reasons, but the common denominator was that the cases, like that of Patricia Hearst, seemed to me deserving of executive clemency. Overwhelmingly, the pardons went to people who had been convicted and served their time, so the impact of the pardon was principally to restore the person's civil rights.