Comments: HMM

Sometimes I wonder if people realize that Bill Clinton has not been President for close to 8 years and comparison buys us nothing at this point.

But ignoring that, frankly, if the author really believes that verdicts handed down by DC juries are worthless, if he has that little faith in our system, then I have a hard time giving much credence to what he has to say.

I think the President got it wrong. Especially since by doing a commutation instead of a pardon, he's set a very interesting precedent.

Posted by Non-Essential Equipment at July 6, 2007 01:51 AM

let's see - perjury about an act of treason (outing a serving CIA operative IS an act of treason, last time I looked) or perjury about sex... which is worse??? Oh, I dunno. One is a stupid thing to do, one may have had unknown repercussions to her contacts in foreign countries.

LAW

Posted by liberal army wife at July 6, 2007 06:52 AM

LAW -- He didn't out Plame; Richard Armitage did. The prosecution already knew this before the trial.

Non-E -- Yeah, Clinton's no longer president, but what he did affects his wife's campaign. And her comments seem especially gross, considering her own husband committed perjury and pardoned folks for money.

Posted by Sarah at July 6, 2007 09:03 AM

I find comparisons with Sandy Berger more compelling. The democratic senator talks about cronyism, but I think cronyism is better defined as never being charged, never serving time in jail and getting a slap on the wrist for something he clearly knew was illegal - stealing and destroying classified documents.

Here, I think the justice system completely railroaded Libby because they couldn't get to Bush. That much time was obscene for the 'crime' committed. I like that Bush left the verdict in place, but overturned the part directed at him - the harsh unwarranted sentence to one of the few Republicans they could even get past a grand jury. Unlike the Clinton administration.

Posted by Oda Mae at July 6, 2007 03:37 PM

No one is saying that Hillary has a leg to stand on. At least I'm not -- don't want to speak for LAW.

But frankly, Jack Kelly's comments seem just as misplaced.

Posted by Non-Essential Equipment at July 6, 2007 03:37 PM

Oda Mae,

Out of curiosity, when federal judges start receiving the "Scooter" brief, arguing that federal sentencing has been too strict for those who have committed similar crimes, what then? Should they get the same treatment even if they are not friends of the President?

NEE

Posted by Non-Essential Equipment at July 6, 2007 03:42 PM