Libby Loses On Appeal

Scooter Libby lost his appeal to remain free on bail pending review of his conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice. He can try for a stay from the Supreme Court, but the opinion from the three-judge panel indicates he won’t have much success (via Memeorandum):

A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby “has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question” that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

Since this court will hear the Libby appeal on the merits of the case, it sends a grim message to Libby’s supporters. They may find themselves disappointed in the weight of the legal arguments for reversal, such as the provenance of Patrick Fitzgerald’s appointment and the exclusion of certain testimony. The appellate court obviously did not find those arguments compelling enough to conclude that Libby has a good chance of succeeding on his appeal; otherwise, they would have granted bail.
Undoubtedly, this creates a big problem for George Bush. The President would prefer not to address the Libby conviction until after the November 2008 election, and it is customary to have the judicial process play all the way out before issuing pardons. He could commute the sentence, leaving the convictions in place (and the fines) while keeping Libby out of prison. That would allow Libby to continue appeals to get his conviction reversed through the courts — but a commutation would still create political problems for both Bush and the Republicans running to replace him.
If Libby can’t get a stay on the start of his imprisonment, Bush will have a tough decision to make in just a few days.
UPDATE: Former Ambassador Richard Carlson makes an interesting point:

“I hope it puts pressure on the president. He’s a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby,” said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby’s defense fund. “It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything.”

The politics of this moment seem rather delicious. The President just enraged his base by attempting to push a deeply unpopular immigration bill through the Senate. He could regain a lot of that ground with a commutation of Libby’s sentence, or an outright pardon. Will he take advantage of the opportunity?

50 thoughts on “Libby Loses On Appeal”

  1. He could regain a lot of that ground with a commutation of Libby’s sentence, or an outright pardon. Will he take advantage of the opportunity?
    I don’t see how giving Libby a pardon gets Bush many points outside the Beltway, and as you say it will make it a legitimate question to ask of all the 2008 Republican presidential candidates. I doubt they’d feel very thankful for it.

  2. Wow. What a mess for our judiciary. But putting Libby in jail is probably an easier decision for the nincompoop, Tatel, than anything else. They feel their oats, sans a penis pump.
    Yes, I hope that Bush finally comes out and blows away the jail sentence, NOW, letting this political contraption then sail onto the Supreme’s. Where the court’s divided, STILL. And, still producing clashing wallpapers, instead of decisions that can be followed without forks and tests.
    How did our court system get this bad?
    Well, what’s a judge, now, anyway, except a political hack?
    If we ever try to figure out “why?” … I think it will come down to affirmative action; and blowing away any real skills, necessary.
    The other thing, here? This was supposed to be a RANDOM panel. WASN’T!
    But now it’s up to Boooosh. Hardly likely that he’ll do the right thing. Ya know why? Paul O’Neill noticed it, when he wrote his book THE PRICE OF LOYALTY. Bush thinks he’s as important as the pope, and you kiss his ring. His ears are closed to arguments. He’s about the worst piece of crap, actually growing shorter in office! He didn’t even make one step UP on the scale of fitting into doing a good job.
    Sad. If you don’t get fair treatment in front of a judge … as now many people who’ve gone there for their divorces can attest … there’s no hope.
    That’s why Martha Stewart was smart. She took the jail sentence. Got over it. And, went back to business. When she snapped her purse shut, though; all those salivating lawyers who wanted to “take her up on Appeals,” lost millions.
    That’s about the best outcome.

  3. Somebody is going to point out the obvious here: the fundraising numbers for the GOP would be a lot better if the base wasn’t so angry at the President.
    At this point there’s only downside to Scooter going to jail for what was largely an abuse of power by Patrick Fitzgerald. Bush needs to strongly consider the reasons why Scooter’s in jail in the first place, and the reasons why he shouldn’t be.

  4. Libby was convicted, sentenced, and lost his appeals. Why should he not serve his sentence? Because some people feel it was unfair? The jury and two judges – which is to say the system of laws – says it was fair. Unless there is compelling new evidence that says he did not break the laws he was convicted of breaking, he should go to jail.
    That said, it should stand as a compelling precedent for the use – or non-use – of pardons in general.

  5. Glenmore, you need to read beyond the headlines. Libby has not lost his appeal on his conviction, but rather a special appeal on staying free on bail during the appeal, something which is rather common. Although I agree with Ed that this decision does not bode well for Libby in the regular appeal with the D.C. Circuit, that is not a certainty. And the Supreme Court might rule differently in the bail appeal and/or the regular appeal. I would like to see the President use his respite power, to suspend both the incarceration and the fine until after his appeals are exhausted. That is different than a pardon or a commutation of a sentence.

  6. Why should the President step in at all?
    A jury of Libby’s peers spoke.
    The President interfering with a judgment of one of his own employees bodes ill for the rule of law, especially when the conviction casts a dark shadow upon both the VP’s and his own office.

  7. I am sure the President will pardon him, but I bet they were not banking on having to do it so soon! But what difference does it make, Bush by pardoning Libby will appease the 25% who still find him successful as holding the office of Presidency. The rest of us who see him for what he is could care less and he could slip no lower than he already has. Pardon away Mr President. Worst President Ever.

  8. The President’s power to pardon or commute is CLEARLY within the law! It is part of the description of his office and clearly intended to limit the power of the other co-equal branches. Neither Courts nor Congresses nor Presidents are beyond reproach by the other branches, or in the final extremity the people themselves.
    Why does everybody seem to think that the decision of a court is the final word on everything? Just because a court declares it has authority, doesn’t mean it has any such thing. Unless, of course, everyone in the room just habitually bows and scrapes and slinks away as soon as some buffoon in a black robe pontificates on some obscure point or other.
    If we as a people want to keep our freedom, we’re going to have to fight for it and one of the facts we are going to have to fight is our own knee jerk obeisance to anything that a court utters. Come on people, we haven’t deteriorated that far, have we?

  9. Respite can easily be politically justifed, and has all the annoy-the-frothing benefits as commutation or pardon, while not foreclosing either.

  10. “Just because the court declares it has the authority, doesn’t mean it has any such thing.” WHAT!
    Which Constitution are YOU living under?
    Oh, yeah, the Loyal Bushie Constitution that says “The President makes up the law as he goes along to suit himself.”
    28% of you still worship The Worst President EVER. Unbelievable!

  11. oh my Lew … me thinks that you believe that lieing to Congress, lieing to federal agents, being tried in a court by your peers and being convicted by such is all of a sudden a slap on the face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution … the only reason you are pouting over this convicted felon is because he has an (R) after his name, not because of some violation of the court!
    But your last sentence makes sense, luckily we have not deteriorated to a point where convicts should go free just because of their political party and who happens to be in the white house at the time.

  12. So, TyCaptains, is your ” jury…spoke” point that the Constitutional pardon power is properly invoked solely in cases of bench trials?
    Incidentally, speaking of jurors speaking, are you including Ann Redington (aka Juror No. 10) and Denis Collins?

  13. Lew, don’t you think reproach could possibly be in the form of elections? Buffoon in a black robe? Are you or have you ever been elected or appointed to a Federal office position? So Nixon and Clinton were not reproached by Congress during impeachment?

  14. Regarding a “respite” for Libby from President Bush, it’s basically a pardon because the fine legal distinction between a respite and a pardon will be lost on the electorate. Libby may have his loyal supporters inside the Beltway, but I suspect House and Senate Republicans running in 2008 want nothing about Libby sticking to them next year. When it comes down to it, if Karl Rove gives the thumbs down on Libby to give GOP candidates a break, Libby’s going to jail.

  15. Jan
    Woe is she, enraged in anger that she can no longer suck out babies brains.

  16. Bring The Harmonica – Libby’s Bail Denied

    The Associated Press is reporting that Lewis Libby, federal inmate no. 28301-016, must begin his prison sentence pending his appeal.
    Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak ca…

  17. TyCaptains wrote:
    “A jury of Libby’s peers spoke.”
    LOL! A jury of one’s “peers” has become a bit of an anachronism given the wacky demographics in DC. Former Federal Prosecutor Robert Smith had this to say:
    “This jury is kind of unique in that if you look at the demographics of D.C., this jury doesn’t necessarily reflect the demographics of this community. But it’s a very educated jury.”
    And the star jury member, Denis Collins, worked as a reportert for the anti-Bush Washington Post, as well as being a neighbor of one of the main prosecution witnesses in the case, Timmy Russert.
    Collins’ most interesting point was his suggestion in his first interview after the verdict that in reaching its verdict the jury had made some “assumptions.” Was that proper?

  18. Dude et al.
    What makes you think that anybody will care about Libby pardoned or not next year. Bush is not running for re-election and if anything the immigration issue will dominate the agenda. Reid and Pelosi have just mismanaged that one big time. Both the Opposition and Support for the bill was bi-partisan but the defeat of a very bad and unpopular bill was led and managed by the Republicans.
    So you keep dreaming that the 2008 election will be decided on the Libby pardon.

  19. He could regain a lot of that ground with a commutation of Libby’s sentence, or an outright pardon. Will he take advantage of the opportunity?
    No way. I agree with Starfleet. Nobody cares about this outside the Beltway. However, he COULD regain ground if he pardoned the two border patrol agents in prison for shooting the Mexican drug dealer or even commuting the sentences of some of our fighting men unjustly accused of wrongdoing in Iraq. I’m not saying the guilty shouldn’t be punished. But some of the details regarding these cases have been an outrage.
    And I’ll tell you something else: He better pardon them before he pardons Libby or that will enrage the base even more, skipper.

  20. ” (A) jury of his peers”??? Was the trial held in Great Britain? A jury that was supposed to be a “fair and impartial” jury here showed that they were nothing of the sort. The three jurors that spoke to the press regurgitated the MSM meme of “Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and W , secret agents and a grand conspiracy”–garbage that was never presented at trial. That alone should warrant a new trial–or a pardon. PRESENT THE REAL STORY TO THE PUBLIC….There was no crime to begin with and the rest was just a farce. . .Want the public t get on your side? Tell them if this stands, it can happen to THEM. The police can investigate YOU for something that you know nothing about. Then convict you for getting trivial details wrong when you answered questions. “Where were you at 10AM on February 3, 2005???” You said “At work”when you were at a meeting at a client’s office…LIAR!
    NO ORIGINAL CRIME=NO CHARGES=THE AMERICAN WAY
    Why didn’t his legal team go for a bench trial? Any reasonable person should have known that you couldn’t find a jury who hadn’t heard the MSM fictional account of the story. Incompetent legal representation? Grounds for a retrial, isn’t it?

  21. ” (A) jury of his peers”??? Was the trial held in Great Britain? A jury that was supposed to be a “fair and impartial” jury here showed that they were nothing of the sort. The three jurors that spoke to the press regurgitated the MSM meme of “Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and W , secret agents and a grand conspiracy”–garbage that was never presented at trial. That alone should warrant a new trial–or a pardon. PRESENT THE REAL STORY TO THE PUBLIC….There was no crime to begin with and the rest was just a farce. . .Want the public to get on your side? Tell them if this stands, it can happen to THEM. The police can investigate YOU for something that you know nothing about. Then convict you for getting trivial details wrong when you answered questions. “Where were you at 10AM on February 3, 2005???” You said “At work” when you were at a meeting at a client’s office…LIAR!
    NO ORIGINAL CRIME=NO CHARGES=THE AMERICAN WAY
    Why didn’t his legal team go for a bench trial? Any reasonable person should have known that you couldn’t find a jury who hadn’t heard the MSM fictional account of the story. Incompetent legal representation? Grounds for a retrial, isn’t it?

  22. Del Dolemonte, when even Senator Dick Lugar has found Bush’s “surge” wanting, the issue in 2008 is going to be Iraq. The immigration issue cuts the Democrats way anyway, as it pisses away the share of the Latino vote the GOP was getting to a far greater extent than it attracts white nativist votes. The Republicans can’t beat the issue to death either, given how President Bush himself wanted the bill that was killed in the Senate, which you can be sure Democrats will note.
    A Libby pardon won’t be the deciding issue, but you can be sure that none of the 2008 GOP candidates for President would like to deal with the subject.

  23. Jan, I live under the same Constitution you do only I’ve actually read it! In what kind of insane world are you that one co-equal branch of government has the power to define its own powers and limits AND those of the other two “co-equals” as well? Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that such power is conferred upon the Supreme Court – NOWHERE! John Marshall arbitrarily and unilaterally claimed that power for the court in 1803 (Marbury v Madison) and since the ruling he wrapped his opinion in was congenial to the other two branches at the time, they let it slide.
    In addition, the Constitution that I live under also says that Congress shall have the power to define the jurisdiction of the court (Article III, Sect 2.) and it also grants not only the power of impeachment but also the power to “ordain and establish” courts. And if that doesn’t tighten the bundle your shorts are already in, our history is replete with instances where the President, with the acquiescence of Congress, has from time to time told the Supreme Court to take their writ and stuff it.
    Monkei, I am arguing no such thing! I am as plainly as I can stating that the President has the power to pardon this person IRREGARDLESS of the facts of the case or the opinion of the court or anyone else for that matter. Whether or not there is wisdom or justice in the exercise is not my issue. The President HAS the power and he need not ask anyone’s permission or agreement – period! Are you saying only Democrats have the right to exercise that power or that Democrats are the rightful arbiters of how and when the power can be exercised?
    Fly-man, reproach can come in any number of ways between co-equal branches. First of all, the Congress is perfectly within its rightful power to limit the Court’s jurisdiction in certain cases. Secondly, the President and Congress can agree to completely ignore or defy the court if they so choose. If you don’t think so, I would recommend for your edification and amusement a review of the Jackson or Lincoln or Roosevelt administrations. Thirdly, I don’t think it beyond the realm of possibility that one of these days the Congress and the President will collaborate on a “Resolution of Interpretation” that will directly challenge the Court’s usurpation of the sole right to interpret the Constitution. They have the power to do it, and they have the power to make it stick!
    We defer to the Court because we choose to, NOT because we must. And every once in a great while I think it might be helpful if the Court were reminded of that fact – bluntly!

  24. While I think that most of Pres. Bush’s former base would like to see Libby pardoned or commuted, I don’t think Bush can repair relations with his base in this manner or any other….too much bad blood at this point. The divorce was finalized a few weeks ago.

  25. Unfortunately, because of the current unpredictable climate of our world – Anything much more dramatic could happen between now and November.
    The Libby matter – whatever the outcome – could dwindle in comparison and just may be forgotten if resolved immediately – in the sphere of much more immediate concerns that voters may feel affect them personally..

  26. Libby’s incarceration can be delayed without presidential pardon or commutation. As President Bush controls the executive branch – including the prisons – Libby’s surrender date can be put off for the convenience of the prison system.
    chsw

  27. Cap’n Ed wrote:
    The President just enraged his base by attempting to push a deeply unpopular immigration bill through the Senate. He could regain a lot of that ground with a commutation of Libby’s sentence, or an outright pardon. Will he take advantage of the opportunity?
    Sigh… There’s something wrong with the idea that the president can appease his justifiably angry base by pardoning a convicted criminal. I know that I am in the minority here, but I have to go with the rule of law: a jury found Libby guilty. Another court has found that there are insufficient grounds to let him stay out of prison pending his appeal. To prison with him, I say, unless and until an appeals court rules that Fitz ran a truly shoddy prosecution and that the jury was tainted.
    That the president has the power to commute Libby’s sentence or grant an outright pardon is, in my view, undisputable. However, he should not abuse his power by using it in such a case.
    As far the argument about the coequal branches of government, the problem really lies in the boobs we’ve been putting on the bench since the 1950s. I don’t know when law schools starting teaching that there were “penumbras” in the Constitution that essentially allow a judge to make up the law as he personally sees fit, but it was a dark day when it happened. What we really need is a president and a Congress with the sense to ask judicial nominees, “Does the Constitution or does it not mean what it plainly says?”
    And screw stare decisis.

  28. Ragingly personal opinion (isn’t everything?):
    Were in Bush’s shoes, I’d have had the press conference scheduled for the evening the verdict was handed down. I wouldn’t have let the verdict stand a day.
    I’d have stood up on national television and said that it was a tragedy that ‘special prosecutors’ had turned into headhunters, that however significant his malfeasance it was a tragedy that such a headhunter had been allowed to pursue President Clinton’s scalp in a manner that hardened feelings on both sides of the political divide, and that it was a tragedy that the same had been done to Scooter Libby, at which point I’d have pardoned both of ’em and immediately pushed for a retrenchment of the special prosecutor statute.

  29. starfleet_dude sez:
    “Del Dolemonte, when even Senator Dick Lugar has found Bush’s “surge” wanting, the issue in 2008 is going to be Iraq. ”
    LOL! “Even” Senator Dick Lugar, he says. I’m sure you have absolutely no use for Lugar other than when he says something you agree with,
    Translation: “Del nailed it on the head proving the Libby jury wasn’t a jury of his peers. Therefore, I will try and change the subject to Iraq, something which Del never even mentioned in his post.”
    Getting back to Lugar, you were on the dark side of the moon last week, so you obviously missed what he said two days after his “surge is failing” comment:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/27/lugar-iraq-timetable/
    …on June 27, 2007, Lugar said that Congressional measures aimed at curtailing U.S. military involvement in Iraq, including “so-called timetables, benchmarks,” have “no particular legal consequence,” are “very partisan,” and “will not work.”
    This is despite the fact that Lugar in 1993 called for cutting funds and a schedule for US troop redeployment out of Somalia.

  30. On FNC…Bush will commute Libby’s sentence. I wonder how long it will take for some on the right to start complaining that Bush didn’t pardon the two Border Patrol agents.

  31. FOX is reporting that Bush has commuted Libby’s sentence, calling it “excessive”.
    Why not a full pardon, one must ask.

  32. “Why not a full pardon, one must ask”
    Because if Libby dosen’t go through the appeals process, fitzfong and his puppet judge, will get away with their circus, without being found out! Also, this will give Libby a chance to eventually clear his name through the court system and not allow the dems and libs to get any more satisfaction!.

  33. One need not view Walton, J. as a puppet to see this as a shrewd move for the reasons Cliff notes. And failing a successful appeal, I believe a pardon remains a viable ultimate option.

  34. I can see where most of this gang is demmi to a fault. Gaaag!
    I have been sending in 5 or 10 dollars when asked to by Mary Matalin. – and I’m no where near the BeltLine! In other words I’m a conservative but do not hate Bush.
    Not been happy with all his decisions but as far as being the Worst President – Not by a Long
    Shot! So, you’all can just go to hell.

  35. Commuted sentence … that MUST mean that Bush agreed with the conviction, just not the sentence. Back up the Brinks trucks, the Wilson’s now will go to civil court against a convicted man!
    The incredible thing here is that Bush might be able to get back some of his base … of course what the base still does not realize is that it is all about Iraq dummy … not how many illegals come across the border! That may be the case for the Bush base who want Iraq to disappear, but the real issue come 2008 will be Iraq.

  36. Posted by: Barnestormer at July 2, 2007 2:00 PM
    So, TyCaptains, is your ” jury…spoke” point that the Constitutional pardon power is properly invoked solely in cases of bench trials?
    Hmm, can you point out where I questioned the President’s ability to pardon? As far as I’m aware of, I didn’t.
    Incidentally, speaking of jurors speaking, are you including Ann Redington (aka Juror No. 10) and Denis Collins?
    If they were part of the jury, then can you tell me if they voted to convict?

  37. This is great news . . . . for the Democrats.
    Bush may have won back some of his conservative base with a commutation,
    but
    the President alienates much of the middle of this country.
    Bush couldn’t have provided a better contrast.
    Paris Hilton does her time, but the Scooter gets a “pass”.
    Thanks, Geroge. Once again, you have set the stage for a Dem blowout in 2008.

  38. What does it say to those of us who think that being a convicted felon who lied to Congress and lied to Federal Agents will serve LESS time that Paris Hilton in jail.
    Incredible.
    Justice has been served … GOP style.

  39. What does it say to those of us who note that a convicted felon who lied to Congress and lied to Federal Agents will serve LESS time that Paris Hilton in jail.
    Incredible.
    Justice has been served … GOP style.

  40. Continuum,
    You honestly think that any American in that ” middle of this country ” you mention would now, because of this pardon, switch their vote from Republican to Democrat? I think not.
    I say that the only chance the Right has in the 2008 elections (both Congress and Pres) is for the Democratic Congress to continue to fail and look horribly inept to the American people. And that means derailing the Dems at every opportunity – pardon Libby and take away the press shots of Dem leaders celebrating Libby’s walk into prison, keep AG Gonzalez right where he is, fight every subpoena, scorch every new “Bring the Troops Home” bill, and so forth.
    The Republicans have a little over a year to help manipulate this Democratic Congress into the worst performance in American history – it will be our only chance in 2008.

  41. Monkei,
    Wasn’t it you I heard screaming a number of years ago that lying , whether it be in court or to the American people, wasn’t worthy of a……lemme see….what was the word you used……oh yes….Impeachment ?!
    You called out against justice then, I guess it came back to bite ya in the monkey behind, eh? : )

  42. Libby effectively gets to serve the same time that Sandy Berger is serving– none.

  43. “I predict.” Not just a statement made by Carnac; anyone can play.
    And, what the Prez just did was toss the “hot potato” in the air; Libby doesn’t go to jail, now. No matter what. While the appeals’ paperwork toodles through the seated wonders at a “higher level” on the judicial branch tree. Better than robes, these turkeys would be better off with tails. And, longer toes, so they can swing better, as they dance around the branches.
    While, at the same time, this “issue” remains HOT and alive! You thought there was only Fitzmas’ past? Nope. Da dope leaves enough banana skins around that foot traffic will still be looking at the carcass of this case. And, studying it, like what was only once done to Dred Scott. It’s got legs, and the current status is no-winnah.
    I can’t imagine Rudy or Fred having problems voicing opinions that will resonate with voters.
    I’m not saying that there’s anything to the statement “it’s in the stars.” But over in Israel? They, too, are trying to digest a prosecutor gone wild, accusing an old man of raping someone on his staff; who nine years, ago, when it happened filed no charges at all.
    But it’s just amazing about judges. Most of them sit on their brains. Some day? Instead of having gavels, they have frozen mackarel to bang around, when they yell out “order in the courtroom.” Ya don’t need “order” to know most of them are just a bunch of dunces with good political connections.
    As to the claim “well, Paris did her time,” she only got to the hoosegow because Sauer wanted the publicity. While the DA? His wife was found to be driving on a suspended license. As was one sheriff’s deputy, as well.
    “Going to jail,” because you worked for a republican. Or you are a Jew. Or Fitz has an axe to grind. While Armitage isn’t even close to going to prison. Is one of those ripoffs done to our system, that stains the whole appartus. Not that I expect much from the crap in DC.
    But I’ll tell ya. Chief Justice Haney got it wrong. And, now they hide his portrait, nowhere to be found along the hallways of the Supreme-O’s. Life would’a treated a mafia fella, better.
    Sometimes, getting justice to put her clothes on to get out of bed, is harder than waking a teenager.

  44. I reckon we’ll see a bump in the President’s poll numbers from 28% to 29%, at least for the next week . . . . maybe.
    But, the fact that Libby didn’t do his jail time, will come back to haunt other Republicans in 2008.
    While the neocon hardcore rejoice, the majority of Americans will view this commutation as yet another example of a rich Republican escaping justice.
    George Walker Bush, the gift that keeps on giving.

  45. TyCaptains:
    Why would I point out something I didn’t do (question an assertion you didn’t make). What I questioned was the relevance to the presidential pardon power of, “A jury of Libby’s peers spoke.” Well of course. Thank you for the observation that acquittals generate little enthusiasm for pardons analysis. Your logic can be reduced to “Libby was convicted so he shouldn’t be pardoned.”
    And yes, obviously Redington and Collins must have voted to convict. But following the verdict, Redington advocated a pardon and Collins said a pardon wouldn’t upset him.

  46. Barnstomer,
    You seem to be conflating two different sentences into one as if one is necessarily related to the other.
    Why not just answer the first question, why should the President intercede?
    Was it because the sentence was “excessive” according to him? If so, then you’ll be shocked to learn that he time meted down was well within sentencing guidelines.
    Re: those two jurors. And yet in the end, both voted to convict knowing full well what that meant, Libby = convicted felon. Maybe they had buyer’s remorse? Sympathy? Who knows? What stands is the court record, “guilty, so say we all”.

  47. I love how people extrapolate from the President’s commutation of Libby that this will somehow appease the base, give me a break. This President was ready to throw this United States under the bus with AMNESTY to 12-20 million people plus their children and spouses which would have made another 36-45 million, the taxes that would have been raised on us locally and federally for schools, roads, hospitals etc. would have wiped out any tax cuts we had gotten in the last 6 years. The fact that there was no sunset provision to the Z Visa ever mean’t that we would have defacto open borders like we do now and this President could have cared less he wanted what he wanted when he wanted it and the hell with the “base” he has no base anymore. There is not one damn thing he can do besides retire in 2 years that would every bring this conservative back.

Comments are closed.