[galaktiusman]

POTUS statement

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT



The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.



I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.



From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.



After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.



This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.



Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.



Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.



Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.



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.



The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

[gdjfhdf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A. Where did I ever say Clinton shouldn't have been held to account for perjury? You didn't because presumably you see how idiotic it would have been
B. Clinton was never charged with the crime for whatever reason. See A above as pretty much everyone realized how idiotic it was. Unlike the case today where a little guy needs to be sacrificed to the gods of partisan hatred.

C. Why does the right always have to say "CLINTON DID IT?" to everything rather than actually answer the question? Because it highlights how unhinged people have become. Even in the throws of Clinton hatred did people understand that the Starr investigation was a trumped up POS investigation. The gotcha game was a means to embarass Clinton but yet everyone realized that there was no way no how the president was going to do time.

So by power of grand jury to investigate for investigation sake (with no crime being charged) do we set the traps for the inevitable slipups of misremembering. Good show, justice served. Stunk to high heaven then and now.

[Evoncalabbalo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You didn't because presumably you see how idiotic it would have been

People are prosecuted for perjury all the time. I don't see why it would have been so idiotic to charge Clinton with that after his term was up. Because its a matter of time to move on. A concept completely foreign to the hacks today. Scratch that, Sandy "Do These Pants Make Me Look Fat" Berger was pretty much given a pass to make the issue go away quietly despite deliberately lying/obstrucitng investigations to hide the truth which wouldn't sound as good .

[Pjayjukr]

If he was sentanced for leaking a covert agent's name, the penal penalty would have been more than 30 months.

[ulw7A8Po]

Key part of my post - Which is what the judge essentially did.

Here's how:

The leak was the key issue for most Americans, the crux of an apparent White House campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, who wrote a 2003 op-ed piece debunking WMD justifications for the Iraq war. But while outing a CIA agent can be illegal, neither Libby nor anyone else was actually charged with doing that to Plame. In fact, pre-trial maneuvering found the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, insisting that this was not a case about a leak and fighting defense requests for documents about whether Plame was ever a covert agent, a status that could have made intentionally leaking her identity a crime.

But when the issue of sentencing came around, Fitzgerald changed his tune, arguing that the underlying (and uncharged) crime was so serious as to warrant a sentence twice as long as what the federal probation office recommended; notably, his brief included the revelation that the CIA did consider Plame's identity classified, at least for 18 months. And Tuesday, Walton apparently bought it, declaring before he announced the sentence that Libby could be considered an accessory to the underlying crime because, at least in part, his obstruction of justice made it all but impossible for the government to make the case for that crime.

So how is it that an offense that may never have happened — and that at one point the prosecutor argued was largely irrelevant to the case — has now increased Libby's criminal sentence?

It's part of the magic of the federal sentencing guidelines, which were mandatory until two years ago. The controversial rules prescribe penalties that can be raised or lowered within a range, depending on various factors. One factor in a perjury case is the severity of the crime originally being investigated. It's part of a general category of things — from particularly depraved conduct to the use of a weapon — that can, depending on the crime, increase a sentence if the judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence (the law's lowest level of proof) that they happened. To get a sense of the absurdity of this, think of someone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest level of proof — of dealing 20 grams of cocaine, and the judge saying, hey, there's evidence that you dealt 10 times that amount, so you get an extra eight years. Time - Why Libby's Sentence was So Tough

[plogypeskelry]

No surprise here. What did W have to lose with this move? Nothing. He knows he is flatlining in virtually every measure of his presidency: approval rates, legacy, etc. Virtually no one supports him in Washington anymore; GOP candidates for Congress and the White House in '08 aren't going to want to be seen with him. Pay Libby back for being a good soldier, possibly ensuring that he remains a good soldier for the rest of his days? No lose proposition.

[Navzrrqt]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ogie]Key part of my post - Which is what the judge essentially did.[/q]

But as the Time article says, he didn't. He merely increased the sentance using the sentancing guidelines based on the potential underlying crime. He wasn't "essentially" found guily of leaking. His sentance was increased because the perjury had to do with a potential leaking. Unless you want to say that every increase in sentancing in perjury cases based on the severity of the potential underlying crime is 'essentially' sentancing the person for the underlying crime. I don't know if I can agree with any kind of criminal sentencing based on "potential" crime.

That just generally sounds like a recipe for abuse...and in this case was a recipe for abuse.

[Nafheense]

Originally posted by PLATO
I don't know if I can agree with any kind of criminal sentencing based on "potential" crime.

That just generally sounds like a recipe for abuse...and in this case was a recipe for abuse. It's amazing how this outrage comes when a prominent Republican is facing jail time.

Wait a second... no, I guess it really isn't.

Though I wish all these folks would come out of the woodwork when ordinary people are giving longer jail sentances because the judges decided that their perjury hurt the prosecution's (or even worse, defense's) case.

[Doctorpills]

On the other hand, if your perjury prevents, say a mob boss from going down for murder, isn't that worse than your perjury preventing someone from recovering $100?

[ggdfgtdfffhfyj]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because he commited perjury? A felony. For someone who is "tough on crime", it's a complete joke.

[seooptiman]

This entire issue is a complete joke.

[Narcodran]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

Why tell the truth in such cases? has it been proven that the individual who in fact leaked, got off due to Libbys perjury? Who is that individual? What are the details of their case?

[nvmrfgopyy]

Originally posted by PLATO


Perjury is still a crime, is it not?

Set appropriate penalties for perjury. Don't base sentences on any other "potential" crime.

If you can do the time for the perjury, then I guess you have that free license.

Now...I need to understand how proving that some one perjured themselves (blatant lie) necessarily leads to the conclusion that a conviction would have been obtained?

If they knew the "hidden truth" then they should proceed upon the grounds of that knowledge.

My point is, that they are speculating on what the truth is...and IMO, we do not sentence people to jail on "speculation" So we should set the penalty for perjury high, at life imprisonment, because otherwise people will just perjure themselves and allow murders and the like to get off free.

This is one way to do it, but we would have a lot of people in jail for no good reason.

JM

[Jeffery]

As I said you would need to set the penalty for perjury very high then, otherwise certain types of serious crimes (murders/etc) would never get a conviction.

JM

[kuklame]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

Why tell the truth in such cases? The better question is why investigate when you decide no underlying crime was committed. Or do we truly expect Armitage ever to face charges?

[art_fan_12]

How did his perjury make the actual case any less likely to succeed?

They know who made the leak, can prove it, yet nobody is charged.