pecunium

karl_lembke is trying, again, to mock me. this post where he says my post is wrong because, The sense I get from those who support commutation (and indeed, an outright pardon) is that Libby's crime was prosecutable, but not worthy of prosecution.

I disagree. I disagree because of the difference Karl and I have about the Clinton prosecution, which relies on a fundamental misunderstanding on his part of what happened. Karl sees it like this

In Bob's case, he at least did commit a crime. In Libby's case, there was no underlying crime.

In this comment), I can't resist following up on the parallel with the impeachment of President Clinton. He was not impeached for sex – he was impeached for lying to investigators (obstruction of justice) and perjury (lying under oath – about anything).

Um no, not all lies under oath are perjurious.

Per 18 USC PART I CHAPTER 79

§ 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

So, as Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky wasn't material to the Jones' lawsuit (as proven by the judge throwing it out as immaterial), he didn't commit perjury.

Also, and this is important, Libby was convicted.

The CIA, under Tenet, a Bush appointee, asked for an investigation of the outing of a covert agent.

The DoJ, unde Bush, decided to appoint a prosecutor.

That prosecutor, appointed by Bush began to investigate. Libby lied, so as to obstruct justice (Fitzgerald said he couldn't indict Armitage, nor anyone else, because of what Libby did).

He then presented the case to the Grand Jury, which issued a true bill.

A trial, with a jury of his peers, presided over by a judge Bush appointed to the bench, convicted him.

He was sentenced, in accord with the Sentencing Guidlines the present administration both defended (in a perjury/obstruction of justice case) before the Supreme Court this term, and is trying to make more rigid.

I happen to care about the rule of law. I also happen to have read the law in question (18 USC, etc.)

But he doesn't seem to care about any of that, because he thinks Bush is just ducks, and that Clinton wasn't.

If it weren't the case, he'd be just as pissed off about Libby getting off as he was when Clinton did. But he isn't. Rather he is smugly trying to score points by saying those who saw through the kabuki of the Clinton impeachment and are opposed by the blatant self-serving nature of this one (because the commutation allows for Libby to stand mute in any further attempt to find out who really started this whole thing going).

This case isn't like the Clinton impeachment, because Libby did commit perjury (and Bush, with his commutation admits it).

The commutation isn't like the Clinton pardons either (and the ironic side of me has to point out that the one the DoJ most thoroughly investigated, with the intent of seeing if it was criminal, was the one which Libby was the advocate for); no this is rather more akin to the Christmas Eve Pardons, where Bush pere, on his way out of office, pardoned people who might have been able to implicate him in Iran-Contra.

The apple, it seems, doesn't fall far from the tree.