Put aside what you think of the actual commutation of Libby's sentence, because there's something subtler and sleazier going on here. Only yesterday, Commander Crotchbulge defended that commutation thusly (all important bits emphasized):
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
Note well what Bush is saying here -- he can justify the commutation because he is leaving the rest of the sentence in place. Do you understand that? Because if you don't, go back and read it again. That's how Bush is rationalizing what he's just done.
But if that's the case, how does one explain today's position?
White House won't rule out Libby pardon
WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday declined to rule out the possibility of an eventual pardon for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But spokesman Tony Snow said, for now, President Bush is satisfied with his decision to commute Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence.
Now, regardless of what you think of the initial Libby decision, how on earth do you logically defend this latest pronouncement? What does it mean to say one should accept the commutation of the prison sentence because the remainder of the sentence will stay in effect, only to turn around one day later and announce that you might pardon the rest of it after all.
This is not logically defensible. It doesn't matter whether you're elated or outraged at the commutation -- this is simply not defensible. It makes no sense to justify abolishing part of the sentence by saying that you're still leaving the rest in place, then suggesting you might not leave the rest in place in the end.
This is nonsense. Regardless of where you sit on the ideological spectrum, this should piss you off. But I'm guessing the reaction from the dumbshit-o-sphere is going to be predictable.
And it's not going to involve logic.
IT'S ALL CLEAR TO ME NOW: Once again, TPM's Josh Marshall teases out the obvious explanation:
There's only one argument that makes sense of this decision: no jail time. That's the argument. Scooter's price. Otherwise, he might have been tempted to go the Fitzgerald route to reduce his sentence.
And that's the only explanation that makes sense -- Scooter was willing to take the fall for Dick Cheney as long as he knew ahead of time that he'd never have to spend a day in jail. This has all been one long charade, where Libby has known the whole time how it was going to end.
6 comments:
"Now, regardless of what you think of the initial Libby decision, how on earth do you logically defend this latest pronouncement?"
I thought the initial decision was harsh, but I cannot defend in any way shape or form the latest pronouncement. This is wrong.
I thought the initial decision was harsh, but I cannot defend in any way shape or form the latest pronouncement. This is wrong.
By Wayne,
- - - - -
Your oppinion is your own and I respect that but I don't agree.
What's harsh is ruining a woman's career to discredit her husband who is bringing in evidence that a war that's killed hundreds of thousands is based on lies and deceit so you can continue to push your ( meaning Bush's ) distraction agenda.
What's harsh is Scooter then lying to stall the investigation to prevent appointed investigators to defend the original conspirators.
What's harsh is expecting the American people to just swallow hook line and sinker that it is ok to impeach a President for lying but not a pissant aid for no more reason than the fact that said pissant aid is covering up for his criminal bosses.
Scooter could have avoided all this 'embarrassment and suffering for his family' if he just told the damned truth to start with. But he didn't. I don't give a damn how well he 'served' his country, or how good a person he was, or how faithful to his wife, or how nice to his dog he was. He committed a crime and deserved to be punished.
The solution to all this is simple. Don't lie. Don't obstruct. Don't destroy documents. Don't delete emails. I have no sympathy for Libby at all. He could have cooperated but he decided he wanted to take the fall. So he got what he deserved.
He committed a crime and deserved to be punished.
Punishment? That's only for poor people and blacks.
Um ... E? Wayne was actually agreeing with my position in this post so, regardless of what you think of his initial position on the subject, he deserves credit for recognizing the fundamental inconsistency in this latest development.
he deserves credit for recognizing the fundamental inconsistency in this latest development.
- -- - -
I wasn't disagreeing with that. I was disagreeing with his sentiment that the original punishment was too harsh. Sorry, I thought I made that clear.
I agree with the assessment that the commutation is bullshit and yes he does get credit for that. I'm glad people besides me, even if they disagree on certain points, see that this is effectively a big ol' FU to the rule of law.
CC:
"There's only one argument that makes sense of this decision: no jail time. That's the argument. Scooter's price. Otherwise, he might have been tempted to go the Fitzgerald route to reduce his sentence."
Agreed! There is no other viable explanation at this point given all that is in the public record thanks to the Libby trial and the way Bush has avoided commenting at all on this case "because the legal process was ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment (one would also presume then acting would be even more so) before the legal process was finished" to mere hours after when it became inevitable Libby would face at least a few weeks in jail (since the last two courts he could appeal to stay out while appealing his convictions were not going to sit again until Sept and he had to report by the beginning of Aug) commuting Libby's jail time before he spent one second in jail.
The rationales he has been providing are as logically incoherent and impossible to reconcile with his prior positions on sentencing guidelines as they are in this particular example CC provides in this post. This is so obviously acting as an accomplice after the fact (at the very minimum) by Bush into helping cover-up (aka obstructing justice) the original leaker of Plame's CIA identity to those not cleared and with the appropriate need to know to have it, who it is almost a certainty is Dick Cheney. Pure and simple.
Post a Comment