“Management” here…

Please email me at my firstname . lastname at deafdc.com so we can work to address this problem.

PS - DeafDC.com management, I tried to post on my Sidekick but couldn’t due to an error saying that the administrator hadn’t enabled threaded comments, even though I commented at the very bottom, not bothering to respond in a nested thread. I’m now online via my PowerBook just to post a couple of comments.
PPS - By the way, why can’t we nest comments when commenting from a Sidekick? It’s very frustrating and annoying.
PPPS - Thanks for your time, Management. :)

The reason none of them have reached the President’s desk is because of the slim Democratic majority in the Senate, and the fact that this present administration is a Republican one.

Coincidentally, this issue may be used by a Hamas suspect’s lawyer. See here:

http://www.nysun.com/article/57843

Spending time on this and other similar cases will be headaches for prosecuting attorneys.

As for Clinton, he deserved to be rebuked for his lie. However, lying about having an affair and lying about a matter of treason aren’t directly comparable. They’re both lies, and should not have been told, but I’d rank treason and the blocking of any investigation into treasonous conduct a lot higher than I would getting a blowjob. Clinton was never convicted of perjury (he was cleared of all charges). Clinton’s deposition was in a civil trial; Libby’s case was a criminal one about potential treason. A big difference, don’t you think? Morally, both men are/were wrong.

As for Ford, I commented on that above. It was the wrong thing to do (Nixon should have been tried for his crimes).

[Editor: thanks! I happen to like the name “David,” although “Jared” is a nice name too. *grin*]

I don’t see you arguing against the essence of what I had to say– I take it that means you agree with me that lying and obstruction of justice are offenses that should be punished? As an attorney, you had to take the MPRE, and I’m sure Libby had the opportunity in his career to take (or be made aware of) ethics and current obligations to the profession.

What you’re dangling here is somewhat of a red herring– the Rich case has nothing to do with the present situation. Marc Rich’s pardon didn’t directly benefit the President or Vice-President, or shield either of them from awkward questions. That said, I was completely disgusted with the Rich pardon, and Bill Clinton has a bit of chutzpah, given the Rich pardon, to criticize the current commutation. I think Hillary Clinton is walking a very thin tightrope because of what her husband did, and her statements thus far show it.

Marc Rich cheated the IRS, and in turn the federal government; Libby obstructed a federal criminal investigation where the underlying issue was the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity to the world, which constitutes treason. Both are serious offenses, and both should be punished. Unfortunately, Marc Rich walked, and Libby’s walking…

The Rita case is pertinent because aside from the matter that Rita was being tried for, he was otherwise an “exemplary citizen.” His attorneys argued that his overall contribution to society and his overall character mitigated whatever punishment he was given. The government, Bush’s OWN government, argued that sentencing guidelines had to apply no matter what; Rita was given 33 months (a similar sentence to Libby’s). Bush is now arguing that the commutation he granted was based on similar merits in Libby’s case. He didn’t really even “commute” the sentence (again, Libby has not served a DAY in a jail or prison), he threw all of it out. This totally contradicts the government’s own arguments, and I suspect this self-serving act of commutation will come back and bite Bush and the government in the ass.

Interestingly enough, Libby promptly paid his fine the same day Bush awarded him the commutation:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.....ibby1.html

This reinforces my suspicion his defense fund is paying the cost of the fine. Add to that the fact that Judge Walton is now unsure if “supervised release” can even be applied, and Libby gets to walk for lying and obstruction of justice.

What really bothers me (aside from Bush’s actions, the Plame case, the underlying rationale for Iraq), is that a President is supposed to set an example for the nation. Mind you, I was disgusted by Clinton’s philandering. I think Nixon deserved what he got, and more. The example Bush is setting here is inappropriate– he is in essence condoning lying and obstruction of justice. If he were now to claim that it’s only in these circumstances, that makes him even more of a hypocrite.

I agree with your final comment– I think there need to be some limits on when commutations and pardons are granted. The fact that Bush completely ignored the guidelines/rules/laws of the Pardon Attorney’s office is also very disturbing.

At the very least, it’s a double standard– lots of sentences are “excessive”– look at the “Three Strikes” law here in California. To use a well-known example, there’s that one guy that stole pizza; he received 25 years to life because it was his “third strike.” I think it’s excessive, and a lot of others agree.

Also, pardons and commutations should be used in cases where people have served part or all of their sentence, shown remorse (something Libby has yet to do), and the pardon/commutation will not only benefit the individual it’s being granted to, but society as well.

I believe none of them have reached the President’s desk.

And there’s that pesky issue of earmark reform. I believe Pelosi has totally contradicted herself and gave up on transparency.

To me, it’s a whole lot of promises and nothing.

And, Noelle, it’s kind of childish to use disparaging names. I’m not saying you have to like the Republicans, but it’s not cool to say ‘crap’ or whatever. But if that’s who you are, then I guess there’s nothing I can do.