What distinguishes the Libby case that Bush needed to even consider a commutation?

Question

Does the POTUS examine every single criminal sentence in the land and judge it for fairness? What distinguishes this one case?

I have never defended Clinton's pardons and was frankly pretty p1ssed with the ones I read about. But defending Bush's decision by bringing up Clinton's bad acts is almost like admitting that you can't defend it at all.

bully you didn't answer the question which was why Bush even looked at this case to determine if he thought the sentence was fair? What makes this one case worth his consideration?

Answer 1

I think Bush made the wrong decision. I do find it interesting that cons can't seem to be able to support that decision without bringing up Clinton. They're apparently unable to justify the commutation on it's own merits.

Answer 2

It's pretty clear. Remember that this case began as an investigation into who authorized the disclosure of classified information for political purposes. Certainly it didn't begin with Scooter Libby, who has always been just a loyal soldier for Dick Cheney. And Scooter has been a good boy and kept his mouth shut. But how long could they count on that if he goes to jail? The only way to keep him from revealing the truth was to commute his sentence. And notice that they cleverly didn't pardon him. He still has a conviction hanging over his head, with the ongoing threat of jail if he doesn't cooperate.

Answer 3

Libby was railroaded by a partisan prosecutor, who only went after him because of his link to Bush. I think that is a pretty good reason.

Look at the facts of the case. The main case was dropped, and Libby was prosecuted for apparently lying about a conversation he said he didn't remember, in a conversation the other party said they didn't remember either.

Answer 4

It is one of the benefits of being President. He has the authority to intervene in a criminal case.

1st off, this was a serious miscarriage of justice. Scooter Libby was prosecuted for lying to investigators that ultimately detemined that no crime had been committed. Yet he was convicted of lying to them during the process of investigating that case.

Lastly, I am glad you pointed out that this was a commutation, not a pardon. Compared to some of the pardons that previous admistrations have handed down in the darkness of night on the last day of their administrations, this is extraordinarily tame. Let us not forget the unbelievable pardons that Clinton handed down. He actually pardoned people convicted of killing police officers.

Answer 5

That Scotter threatened to sing like a canary about Bushco, off shore bank accounts, illegal spying on Democrats in office, Cheney's OK to allow the 9/11 hijackers plot to continue (SOMEONE ordered our country's air defence to be on "Practice" stand down that day...It wasn't "JUST" a coincidence)

Revealing Bushco's Secret Public Energy Policy
Revealing Bushco's personal profiteering in the Iraq war.

et

et

et

..

I think that was what the differance was.

Answer 6

Irrelevant, the President has the authority to commute whosoever sentence he chooses.

Answer 7

The hand of Cheney, working through Bush....again.

Answer 8

Libby was committing crimes for Bush & Cheney and might have snitched if he'd been forced to actually serve prison time for his crimes.

Thus the Bush Crime Family had to step in.........or Libby might have found himself on Paul Wellstone's plane if it appeared he might rat out the Bush mob.

They didn't trust such a soft person to be able to do the time....they chose to get him off, rather than stick him on Wellstone's plane

Answer 9

What distinguished Clinton's 185 commutations and pardons? Are you willing to look at those or are you only an expert on this one, yourself?

Answer 10

He knows too much to let him pay for his crimes. It's not just in politics that law enforcement differs depending upon who you are. Laws are not intended to be enforced for big business or politicians! (this applies to both parties)