Is the GOP deciding to overturn the Libby conviction?

Question

I keep reading 'libby was guilty of nothing' etc...

a pardon does NOT overturn a conviction, it forgives it. I am speaking of those who aregue he did nothing wrong. And a pardon still isn;t out of the question, according to the WH today.

yep, fourthy, I did. Hitler led his admin to kill millions of people. WHo else could do that? And you forgot the most improtant part of what I wrote...that blind followers are the problem, not one crazy man. Read it ALL, and don;t take crap out of context. Next time, answer my question

Answer 1

What do ya wanna bet that - after this calms down, there will be a quiet pardoning of Mr Scooter. Just like an out of session appointment - billions for Iraq, millions for the flood victims, and oh yeah, pardon my ol buddy the 'scootster'

Answer 2

By its nature, a pardon or commutation of sentence implicity recognizes that a criminal conviction exists. And there is caselaw indicating that acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt. In fact, at least one of the people Clinton pardooned refused to accept it, and stayed in jail!

Bush has the power to do this, but the public also has the right to register its disapproval - which many have. Bush gets his way, but has to pay the consequences.

I'm not outraged by it. Let me explain why.

First, I was not in the courtroom. The jury was. So I give their judgment great weight.

But the immediate issue, it seems, was that Libby's appeal has not yet been heard, and the judge did not allow Libby to stay out on bail pending the appeal. I don't know the standards in this situation, but I do believe that is very much out of the norm for this kind of case. (Didn't Martha Stewart just give up on her appeals and start her jail term early?) Bush could have just allowed Libby to stay out pending appeal, but that would have been interference too. And a heavy sentence (assuming this was) in and of itself usually doesn't merit this attention. But the jail pending appeal seems fishy to me.

We can spin all day long, but one accurate way to characterize Libby's conviction is for lying about a conversation. (Again, the jury decided, but I don't believe there was unequivocal evidence that he lied - just enough to convince the jury of gulit beyond a reasonable doubt. We have his recollections, and those of others, which the jury believed. And I assume that certain of the judge's evidentiary rulings, among other things, will be considered on appeal - what was allowed in and what was kept out. One could argue that the judge's rulings were in error, and the jury didn't consider the proper "universe" of evidence. There are issues regarding the power of the special prosecutor also. The law authorizing Ken Starr, among others, was allowed to expire before this investigation began. Again, all for appeal. I will make a guess that the conviction will stand.) Maybe if Libby had been allowed to stay out pending appeal, this would never have happened. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it seemed that this factor was not mentioned in many posts.

But I do have other, perhaps more substantive concerns about the case as well. It seems the issue of the investigation into the "leak" became conflated in some (many) people's minds with this case. Even some jurors, given what they said after the verdict! Certainly the case was very politicized. I do very much think that there was somewhat of a "witchhunt" atmosphere. And DC is not a friendly jurisdiction for Republicans to be tried in. But again there's an appeal, which can still go on notwithstanding the commutation. But I think this was a factor too.

That's the basic legal/political picture. As for the pundits, the debate can rage on as long as people want it to. Libby will carry the stain on his reputation for life, absent a reversal on appeal or a new trial at which he's acquitted. And even then, there will be the damage to reputation. And with many, negatives will attach to Bush too.

The comparisons to the Clinton case are obvious also, which could be (and undoubtedly has been) the fodder for numerous questions and answers here. One could argue that it's easier to "misremember" a conversation than to forget receiving oral sex. One could also argue that an investigation of the leaking of a CIA operative's identity is more important than a sexual harrassment case (although I'd hate to say the latter is NOT important).

Again, we all basically decide, I fear, based on the political party involved. But I do try to check myself now and again, and ask "would I feel the same if the situation were reversed."

As an atttorney, I can't just say "Libby did nothing wrong." It's VERY serious to lie to a court. As of now, he's got a $250,000 fine, millions in attorneys fees, a probable disbarment, and a destroyed reputation. It's hard to think he is a total "victim" here. He's an attorney himself - actually he was the attorney for Mark Rich, whose pardon by Clinton was so controversial! (Do these folks all know each other or something? DC is a pretty small city, at least compared to NY.)

But the whole atmosphere alleging that Libby is covering up for some grandiose plot, etc. is just disgusting to me. If people are concerned about liars, Joe Wilson is a prime suspect. It reminds me of a lynch mob, or the circumstances of the Scottsboro Boys case. It must sound snobbish, but people of ALL stripes who just don't understand the legal system really get to me. A belief formed through ignorance and a large population of adherents is a rotten mix, always. I think there's a fair amount of it in this case.

To me, every allegation that somehow he's "covering up" some awful crime for Rove, Cheney and/or Bush is, in and of itself, and argument for revisiting the sentence. I see these preposterous claims as a CAUSE for concern and the commutation, not a result.

It will be interesting to see how the appeals work out. The commutation shouldn't factor into it, but maybe if a judge is on the fence he or she will say that Libby already caught a break and will let the conviction stand. Justice has progressed a great deal from "trial by combat," etc., but it's still not perfect. No human endeavor is.

Maybe Bush shouldn't have interfered. Maybe the whole trial was unfair. Maybe the end result will be "just about right." I dunno.

As an attorney, I have an issue with Libby's conduct - big issues. But also problems with the legal process in this case as well. I see no totally unclean hands here.

Boom! I pretty much answered all the questions on this at once, although I didn't really go back through the Wilson/Plame aspect in detail.

All the best.

Answer 3

did you ACTUALLY write what I saw you write in the other question???

you wrote: "seriously though, Hitler WAS a better leader. No other person could do what he did. The problem isn't bad leadership, it is blind sheep."

Uneffingbelievable.

Answer 4

He is essentially guilty of nothing, but the fact is that he did trip up in front of a grand jury and for that he will be on probation for 2 years and has to pay a $250,000 fine. He did not out any covert operative. In fact the guy who did it was known to the prosecutors and they did not prosecute him because he was not in this administration.

Answer 5

No. Bush commuted his sentence but the conviction stands.

Answer 6

I beleive as it stands he is guilty but escapes punishment from the the King of the USA , GWB

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Answer 7

Apparently not, as he only received a commuted sentence not a pardon.

No, I think he did something wrong.

Answer 8

He didn't actually DO anything. He wasn't the one who leaked the name. The man was only guilty of having a bad memory and keeping sloppy records of his meetings. Are we going to throw 80 percent of corporate America in jail too? Why is it that no one is griping about the fact that Armitage is still running free? After all, he was the one who actually leaked the name.

Answer 9

Libby is a CONVICTED FELON.

That will always be on his record. The little liar is a criminal, period.