Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher and writer
Posted: October 27, 2009 06:34 PM
For Roman Polanksi
Time is passing. And Roman Polanski is still in prison, goes to bed and wakes up in prison, sees his wife one hour a week in the visiting room of a prison -- all while his 11 and 16-year-old children, when they have the courage to go to school, have to confront the gaze of friends who have heard at home that the dad of the little Polanskis, the man everyone fluttered around vicariously via their children, the parent of a student that they were exhilarated to recognize on TV the night of the Césars, was ultimately a criminal, a rapist, a sodomite, a pedophile.
Since we're at this point, since time is passing and everyone seems to find nothing wrong with the situation, since Roman Polanski's supporters are losing faith and, sometimes, are even starting to doubt, since the pack of gossipers have even succeeded, it seems, in convincing the French minister of culture that he spoke too hastily, and under the influence of emotion, though he only did his duty, I want to say again, once more, why this affair is shameful.
It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex -- the only crime charged, today like at the time of the incident, by California justice -- committed 32 years ago.
It is shameful that, in countries where, like in Europe, you can bump off an old lady, torture your fellow man, mutilate him, and know that your crime, like all violent crimes, will be commuted after 10 or 15 years, everybody acts as if Polanski's crime should be immune to any possibility of commutation.
It is shameful to see the regulars of the global Café du Commerce, whose Pavlovian anti-Americanism never leaves them at a loss for words when lambasting America on any and everything, are suddenly silent, become gentle as lambs and, when it comes to Polanski, just repeat: "Ah, that's America... better not mess with American law... dura lex sed lex [the law is harsh, but it is the law]..."
It is shameful to hear a militant for human rights who, like the French activist Gisèle Halimi, has spent her life securing the release of people for more serious crimes than that for which we reproach the author of The Pianist, howl with the wolves: "A crime was committed; justice is the same for everyone; Polanski must be judged."
It is shameful to see the intellectuals, whose role should be to calm the frenzy and cool popular anger, ratchet up, like Michel Onfray in Libération, the moment when "the worst are full of passionate intensity" (Yeats) and to indulge, in the name of abused childhood, in the most obnoxious amalgams (why don't we hear these intellectuals denounce with equal ardor, the limitless outrage that is the martyrdom of child soldiers in Africa, or child slaves in Asia, or the hundreds of millions of children dead of hunger, according to the estimates of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for the last...32 years?)
It is shameful to see Luc Besson rush to television, cloaked in ingenuous probity, inveigh against Polanski, like in the worst era of the McCarthyist witch hunts, and denounce his friend.
It is shameful to keep repeating, like some are doing, that justice should be "equal for all" while, if there is indeed an "inequality," if there is a double standard, it is to the detriment, not to the advantage, of Polanski. I've tested it. Last October 2, on the NPR show On the Point, I confronted Geraldine Ferraro's refrain, which she repeated ad nauseum: "Polanski has had a lovely life; now, he has to pay." I sent out a challenge to listeners: "Show me a case, a single one, of an anonymous person, guilty of the same crime, who was tracked down thirty years after the fact." To this day, no one has found a single one. And no one has found one precisely because you had to be Polanski, you had to be an artist renown over the globe for an elected prosecutor, soon to embark on an electoral campaign and starved for publicity, to resurrect the case from oblivion, to which, even in the United States, popular wisdom relegates the very old case files of non-recidivist delinquents.
It is strange -- shameful, and strange -- to see how the same people who, intoxicated by suspicion and seeing conspiracies everywhere, spend their time investigating the secret agendas of the States, but do not seem at all bothered by the timing that is, undoubtedly, extremely bizarre: a man who has a house in Switzerland; who has gone there for years now, every school break with his family; and who, all of a sudden, without any new element, returns to the nightmare that has been his lot in life.
Because it is shameful, finally, that we can't, when we talk about his life, evoke his childhood in the ghetto, the death of his mother in Auschwitz, the murder of his young spouse, eviscerated along with the young child she was carrying, without the prayers of the new popular justice crying, "Blackmail!': even for the most abominable serial killer, the prevailing "culture of excuse" jumps to scrutinize the difficult childhood , the broken family, the traumas -- but Roman Polanski would be the only person in the world under judicial jurisdiction not to have the right to any kind of attenuating circumstance...
It is the entirety of the affair, in truth, that is shameful.
It is the debate that is nauseating and from which we must abstain.
I hardly know Roman Polanski. But I know that all those who, from close and from afar, join in this lynching will soon wake up, horrified by what they have done, ashamed.
Translated from French by Sara Phenix.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri...i_b_336126.html
Full Version: Free Roman Polanski-Bernard Henri Levy
Enjoy this refreshing holiday treat. Better yet - enjoy it all year long. As you apparently do.
Polanski is Jewish?
I really like the guy that wrote the editorial piece above. I've seen him speak and he's very smart.
I really like the guy that wrote the editorial piece above. I've seen him speak and he's very smart.
I've read the piece. He does not understand the actual situation.
1 - Polansky is being prosecuted for skipping out of his sentencing. He went to trial, skipped town before he got his sentence. In that sense he never served.
2 - Any other pedophile/rapist who was caught was prosecuted then and there. This guy left, and skipped town. Name any other pedophile/rapist who has the same sort of resources to do something like he did? Ok, ok, Rob Lowe went through the process when he got caught, so did Twinkle toes Errol Flynn also caught and had their hands slapped, but they still went through the process.
3 - He was given the chance to show up again in court to have his suit re-examined and over with. He did not show up. That was his fault.
Fact is, the reason there are no other examples of this is because any one else would have already answered to their crime. To cite that as a justification is idiotic and morally bankrupt.
So I was right in my post about this guy before and asked you... "What is so special about this guy? Is it because he's jewish?" That is just fubared. I don't care that he is Jewish, he committed a crime and made a mockery of the system.
I don't understand how you could condone someone who raped a child and lambast someone having consensual yet philandering sex.
"It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex -- the only crime charged, today like at the time of the incident, by California justice -- committed 32 years ago.
It is shameful that, in countries where, like in Europe, you can bump off an old lady, torture your fellow man, mutilate him, and know that your crime, like all violent crimes, will be commuted after 10 or 15 years, everybody acts as if Polanski's crime should be immune to any possibility of commutation."
The crime was committed in American soil. He skipped out on his punishment and did not serve a day of his sentence, are we now supposed to reward someone who broke the law? I may agree that the judgement should be "Term Served" but the fact that he doesn't want to face the music and deal with the proccess keeps him stuck in limbo.
Besides, his other justification is bullsh1t as we all know any one tried for war crimes will be tried regardless of how long it has been. Not only that, who said there was no commutation of the sentence? The judge that asked for him to come back here was going to commute his sentence, it is his own fault for not coming and dealing with the proccess.
1 - Polansky is being prosecuted for skipping out of his sentencing. He went to trial, skipped town before he got his sentence. In that sense he never served.
2 - Any other pedophile/rapist who was caught was prosecuted then and there. This guy left, and skipped town. Name any other pedophile/rapist who has the same sort of resources to do something like he did? Ok, ok, Rob Lowe went through the process when he got caught, so did Twinkle toes Errol Flynn also caught and had their hands slapped, but they still went through the process.
3 - He was given the chance to show up again in court to have his suit re-examined and over with. He did not show up. That was his fault.
Fact is, the reason there are no other examples of this is because any one else would have already answered to their crime. To cite that as a justification is idiotic and morally bankrupt.
So I was right in my post about this guy before and asked you... "What is so special about this guy? Is it because he's jewish?" That is just fubared. I don't care that he is Jewish, he committed a crime and made a mockery of the system.
I don't understand how you could condone someone who raped a child and lambast someone having consensual yet philandering sex.
"It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex -- the only crime charged, today like at the time of the incident, by California justice -- committed 32 years ago.
It is shameful that, in countries where, like in Europe, you can bump off an old lady, torture your fellow man, mutilate him, and know that your crime, like all violent crimes, will be commuted after 10 or 15 years, everybody acts as if Polanski's crime should be immune to any possibility of commutation."
The crime was committed in American soil. He skipped out on his punishment and did not serve a day of his sentence, are we now supposed to reward someone who broke the law? I may agree that the judgement should be "Term Served" but the fact that he doesn't want to face the music and deal with the proccess keeps him stuck in limbo.
Besides, his other justification is bullsh1t as we all know any one tried for war crimes will be tried regardless of how long it has been. Not only that, who said there was no commutation of the sentence? The judge that asked for him to come back here was going to commute his sentence, it is his own fault for not coming and dealing with the proccess.
yep.
He served the time the judge originally said.
He did not skip out until he relealized he was being railroaded by a corrupt judge who was going to renege on a deal
Had he stayed it would have been a travesty
He served 42 days in a mental institution
He is not a pedeophile as there is NO evidence whatsoever he ever did this before or after NOR IS HE CHARGED AS BEING ONE
You can NOT invent new charges
and, its was a different era, so you cannot put 2009 conservatism charges on a 1970s trial
Besides, the girls mother wanted her to be a star, the girl got hundreds of thousands of free publicity and the mom is the one who is a pig, not
Mr. Polanski.
Free him, this is a travesty of justice.
And is a waste
BY THE WAY-
THAT DESPICABLE PHILIP VAN ATTER was the arresting cop
Where were they to stop the slaughter of Mr. Polanski's wife and unborn baby?
He did not skip out until he relealized he was being railroaded by a corrupt judge who was going to renege on a deal
Had he stayed it would have been a travesty
He served 42 days in a mental institution
He is not a pedeophile as there is NO evidence whatsoever he ever did this before or after NOR IS HE CHARGED AS BEING ONE
You can NOT invent new charges
and, its was a different era, so you cannot put 2009 conservatism charges on a 1970s trial
Besides, the girls mother wanted her to be a star, the girl got hundreds of thousands of free publicity and the mom is the one who is a pig, not
Mr. Polanski.
Free him, this is a travesty of justice.
And is a waste
BY THE WAY-
THAT DESPICABLE PHILIP VAN ATTER was the arresting cop
Where were they to stop the slaughter of Mr. Polanski's wife and unborn baby?
Arnold the Guv. should pardon him the day Polanski comes back to time served.
Same as Libby was pardoned by W.
Who is a treasonous criminal? Scooter Libby
Why should Mr. Polanski, a private citizen get more time that Scooter Libby who committed crimes against this country?
Same as Libby was pardoned by W.
Who is a treasonous criminal? Scooter Libby
Why should Mr. Polanski, a private citizen get more time that Scooter Libby who committed crimes against this country?
Well, the times changed a lot. When the crime was committed, the sentence would have been minimal. He's not, to anyone's knowledge, a pedophile - he was simply surrounded by teenage girls who were groupies. I can remember those times, and I think if Polanski is guilty of something there are a whole bunch of men who were flagrantly guilty of the same thing (in those days when the age of consent was 13...even to get married I think it was that in South Carolina). My uncle was 25 and he married a 15 year old girl in South Carolina. I guess he could have been prosecuted, but no one ever thought to do that sort of thing back then.
So, yeah, I can see what you are saying about the skipping out, but I think so much time has passed that "time served" should be enough.
It's not at all because he's Jewish....if anything....the author of this piece would be more concerned that the man was adopted as French. The French are even more protective of their "own" than Jewish people are....really....just don't let DWB see this because if you said anything remotely derogatory about the French, she would pay her subscription fee just to defend her "people" who are all French!
So, yeah, I can see what you are saying about the skipping out, but I think so much time has passed that "time served" should be enough.
It's not at all because he's Jewish....if anything....the author of this piece would be more concerned that the man was adopted as French. The French are even more protective of their "own" than Jewish people are....really....just don't let DWB see this because if you said anything remotely derogatory about the French, she would pay her subscription fee just to defend her "people" who are all French!
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 28 2009, 04:34 PM) 
Well, the times changed a lot. When the crime was committed, the sentence would have been minimal. He's not, to anyone's knowledge, a pedophile - he was simply surrounded by teenage girls who were groupies. I can remember those times, and I think if Polanski is guilty of something there are a whole bunch of men who were flagrantly guilty of the same thing (in those days when the age of consent was 13...even to get married I think it was that in South Carolina). My uncle was 25 and he married a 15 year old girl in South Carolina. I guess he could have been prosecuted, but no one ever thought to do that sort of thing back then.
So, yeah, I can see what you are saying about the skipping out, but I think so much time has passed that "time served" should be enough.
It's not at all because he's Jewish....if anything....the author of this piece would be more concerned that the man was adopted as French. The French are even more protective of their "own" than Jewish people are....really....just don't let DWB see this because if you said anything remotely derogatory about the French, she would pay her subscription fee just to defend her "people" who are all French!
So, yeah, I can see what you are saying about the skipping out, but I think so much time has passed that "time served" should be enough.
It's not at all because he's Jewish....if anything....the author of this piece would be more concerned that the man was adopted as French. The French are even more protective of their "own" than Jewish people are....really....just don't let DWB see this because if you said anything remotely derogatory about the French, she would pay her subscription fee just to defend her "people" who are all French!
I agree that it should be time served, and I agree that the times were different then, and that other Hollywood types are or were probably guilty of the same sorts of things.
Justice is supposed to be swift, not drawn out like this. However, I do think he should come back to the United States and go through the process of a plea deal and sentencing.
I think Polanski was probably an egotistical jerk, and I'm not excusing his behavior. There is no excuse for something like that - even if the girl was flirtatious. I do think that Hollywood directors are seduced frequently by young women who hope to get into films. Many directors are sticking up for Polanski. Maybe that indicates something.
Did you read the girl's grand jury testimony though? It's pretty devastating.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...1polanski1.html
My contradictory statements in this post reveal my mixed feelings about the matter, I think.
Yeah, Beamer, I understand your mixed feelings. I have some of the same mixed feelings, but all I can hear in my head sometimes over these issues is the voice of Nancy Grace, and that's enough to sway my vote to "time served, now get thyself back to France" 
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
Bill Clitnon did this and no one cared
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 28 2009, 05:05 PM)
Yeah, Beamer, I understand your mixed feelings. I have some of the same mixed feelings, but all I can hear in my head sometimes over these issues is the voice of Nancy Grace, and that's enough to sway my vote to "time served, now get thyself back to France"
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
I told you that DefeatBush was over there, didn't I? I haven't heard from him since he left though.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Oct 28 2009, 05:10 PM)
Bill Clitnon did this and no one cared
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
Bill Clinton DID NOT do this. Read the girl's (13 years old) grand jury testimony. You might sing a different tune.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Oct 28 2009, 08:20 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 28 2009, 05:05 PM)
Yeah, Beamer, I understand your mixed feelings. I have some of the same mixed feelings, but all I can hear in my head sometimes over these issues is the voice of Nancy Grace, and that's enough to sway my vote to "time served, now get thyself back to France"
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
Maybe we ought to use the "exile" solution for many things instead of housing these people in jail.
BTW: Does anyone accept defectors from the US? If these people get any crazier, Russia may not be a half bad solution at this point. Sheesh, I can't take much more of this government/corporation crap!
I told you that DefeatBush was over there, didn't I? I haven't heard from him since he left though.
this has nothing to do with this thread.
just goes to show.
Yep, and I have friends in Croatia that say that the Russian economy is great. Who knew? Maybe it isn't anymore, I'm not sure.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Oct 28 2009, 08:20 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Oct 28 2009, 05:10 PM)
Bill Clitnon did this and no one cared
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
if only Bill resigned or was forced out
if only Jerry Brown won in 1992 (before the Clinton's smeared him big time)
Reelect Jerry Brown as Gov. 2010
Arnold should do the right thing and give a pardon, or whatever the word is
Bush gave Scooter
Bill Clinton DID NOT do this. Read the girl's (13 years old) grand jury testimony. You might sing a different tune.
her age is not important.She was no virgin.
Read JUANITA BRODDRICK's story on Dateline NBC
That was REAL rape and then she got audited too
Heart - "Time Served" would have been the new judge's decision to be given to him had he come back when the current subpeona came in.
The arrest is also only done now because it is only now that Polansky messed up with his travel plans that the government got a warrant for him. At this time, the one prolonging his time in jail is himself. I believe this is due to the resistance on extradition keeping him in this limbo.
Problem is, because of all this, they might decide that he did have "Time Served" in regards to his prior crime, but resisting arrest would be what they will get him for.
The arrest is also only done now because it is only now that Polansky messed up with his travel plans that the government got a warrant for him. At this time, the one prolonging his time in jail is himself. I believe this is due to the resistance on extradition keeping him in this limbo.
Problem is, because of all this, they might decide that he did have "Time Served" in regards to his prior crime, but resisting arrest would be what they will get him for.
QUOTE(xyzse @ Oct 29 2009, 10:32 AM)
Heart - "Time Served" would have been the new judge's decision to be given to him had he come back when the current subpeona came in.
The arrest is also only done now because it is only now that Polansky messed up with his travel plans that the government got a warrant for him. At this time, the one prolonging his time in jail is himself. I believe this is due to the resistance on extradition keeping him in this limbo.
Problem is, because of all this, they might decide that he did have "Time Served" in regards to his prior crime, but resisting arrest would be what they will get him for.
The arrest is also only done now because it is only now that Polansky messed up with his travel plans that the government got a warrant for him. At this time, the one prolonging his time in jail is himself. I believe this is due to the resistance on extradition keeping him in this limbo.
Problem is, because of all this, they might decide that he did have "Time Served" in regards to his prior crime, but resisting arrest would be what they will get him for.
as long as that is a MINIMAL sentence (say 10 days), that would be fine
As he has now been in jail for more than a month, add those days to time already served
at the end, these days in jail are going to be longer than any sentence, so there should now be no delay, but I bet they make him wait til the new year.
Well, that is possible. American Justice system is not the fastest thing in the world.
To me, he just still has to go through the proccess even if it is now perhaps just a formality. I find what he did sick and disgusting. His skipping out of the sentencing morally bankrupt. In terms of laws, I agree that the judgement would be "time served", however, personally I'd like him to spend a year or two in a correctional facility.
To me, he just still has to go through the proccess even if it is now perhaps just a formality. I find what he did sick and disgusting. His skipping out of the sentencing morally bankrupt. In terms of laws, I agree that the judgement would be "time served", however, personally I'd like him to spend a year or two in a correctional facility.
QUOTE(xyzse @ Oct 29 2009, 11:47 AM)
Well, that is possible. American Justice system is not the fastest thing in the world.
To me, he just still has to go through the proccess even if it is now perhaps just a formality. I find what he did sick and disgusting. His skipping out of the sentencing morally bankrupt. In terms of laws, I agree that the judgement would be "time served", however, personally I'd like him to spend a year or two in a correctional facility.
To me, he just still has to go through the proccess even if it is now perhaps just a formality. I find what he did sick and disgusting. His skipping out of the sentencing morally bankrupt. In terms of laws, I agree that the judgement would be "time served", however, personally I'd like him to spend a year or two in a correctional facility.
but that is not what the judge had been going to do
and he had already served the time prior to his leaving in the mental facility
to add time now amounts to double jeopardy or two trials
(however, it has been done recently, to both OJ and the Skenkel kid who was tried under 1990 rules instead of 1960s rules)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Oct 29 2009, 11:54 AM)
but that is not what the judge had been going to do
and he had already served the time prior to his leaving in the mental facility
to add time now amounts to double jeopardy or two trials
(however, it has been done recently, to both OJ and the Skenkel kid who was tried under 1990 rules instead of 1960s rules)
You're talking about the 70s trial. I am talking about the re-examination trial by a new judge who agreed that this case should just be thrown out or done and over with. All he needed to do was to show up.and he had already served the time prior to his leaving in the mental facility
to add time now amounts to double jeopardy or two trials
(however, it has been done recently, to both OJ and the Skenkel kid who was tried under 1990 rules instead of 1960s rules)
He didn't.
Either way, I still feel he should at least serve a bit more time in the correctional facilities.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-po...0,5115267.story
To scrub this thing up just because of who this guy was is despicable. Sure, time served already but I don't see how any one could justify what he did.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Oct 28 2009, 07:09 PM)
Arnold the Guv. should pardon him the day Polanski comes back to time served.
Same as Libby was pardoned by W.
Who is a treasonous criminal? Scooter Libby
Why should Mr. Polanski, a private citizen get more time that Scooter Libby who committed crimes against this country?
.
Same as Libby was pardoned by W.
Who is a treasonous criminal? Scooter Libby
Why should Mr. Polanski, a private citizen get more time that Scooter Libby who committed crimes against this country?
.
Schwartzenneger won't and Bush didn't. You misspoke.
QUOTE
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180448
No Pardon For Libby
January 19, 2009
In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday...
But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby's allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush's foreign policy during the president's first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby's pardon.
"I'm flabbergasted," said one influential Republican activist, who had raised the issue with White House aides, but who asked not to be identified criticizing the president. Ambassador Richard Carlson, the vice chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank, added that he too was "shocked" at Bush's denial of a pardon for Libby.
"George Bush has always prided himself on doing the right thing regardless of the polls or the pundits," Carlson said. "Now he is leaving office with a shameful cloud over his head." Carlson, who was among those who recently weighed in on behalf of Libby with the White House and previously raised money for his legal defense fund, said that Libby had taken a "knife in the heart" from critics of the president and deserved to have his conviction erased.
Libby was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice two years ago in a case that grew out of a Justice Department investigation into the July, 2003 leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Libby was never charged with actually divulging Plame's identity to reporters—an act that was widely seen as an attempt by administration officials to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for his criticism of the Iraq war. But Libby was charged, and convicted, of lying about his own knowledge of Plame; trial evidence established that Libby first had learned about her work for the CIA from his boss, the vice president, and later passed along information about Plame to a New York Times reporter in an off-the-record meeting that had been specifically approved by Cheney. In his closing argument to the jury, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald strongly suggested that Libby had lied to the grand jury in order to shield the truth about Cheney's role. "There is a cloud on the vice president…, Fitzgerald said. "That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice." Cheney's office has consistently refused to comment on the case.
Fratto offered no explanation for why Bush chose not to grant a pardon for Libby. But some lawyers following the case pointed to Bush's July, 2007 statement when he commuted Libby's prison sentence of two and a half years—a statement that left it especially hard for the president to justify a full pardon. Just as Libby was about to go to jail that summer, Bush intervened to spare him from incarceration. At the time, he said that the White House had reviewed the case; while "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said, he had concluded that the prison sentence was excessive. Bush's statement also noted that those who defended the prosecution of Libby "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."
The rejection of Libby's bid is consistent with Bush's overall stingy record when it comes to using presidential pardon powers. In part as a reaction to Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon spree, including the especially controversial one granted to fugitive financier Marc Rich, Bush has issued far fewer pardons than any president in modern history, according to clemency scholars...
.
No Pardon For Libby
January 19, 2009
In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday...
But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby's allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush's foreign policy during the president's first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby's pardon.
"I'm flabbergasted," said one influential Republican activist, who had raised the issue with White House aides, but who asked not to be identified criticizing the president. Ambassador Richard Carlson, the vice chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank, added that he too was "shocked" at Bush's denial of a pardon for Libby.
"George Bush has always prided himself on doing the right thing regardless of the polls or the pundits," Carlson said. "Now he is leaving office with a shameful cloud over his head." Carlson, who was among those who recently weighed in on behalf of Libby with the White House and previously raised money for his legal defense fund, said that Libby had taken a "knife in the heart" from critics of the president and deserved to have his conviction erased.
Libby was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice two years ago in a case that grew out of a Justice Department investigation into the July, 2003 leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Libby was never charged with actually divulging Plame's identity to reporters—an act that was widely seen as an attempt by administration officials to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for his criticism of the Iraq war. But Libby was charged, and convicted, of lying about his own knowledge of Plame; trial evidence established that Libby first had learned about her work for the CIA from his boss, the vice president, and later passed along information about Plame to a New York Times reporter in an off-the-record meeting that had been specifically approved by Cheney. In his closing argument to the jury, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald strongly suggested that Libby had lied to the grand jury in order to shield the truth about Cheney's role. "There is a cloud on the vice president…, Fitzgerald said. "That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice." Cheney's office has consistently refused to comment on the case.
Fratto offered no explanation for why Bush chose not to grant a pardon for Libby. But some lawyers following the case pointed to Bush's July, 2007 statement when he commuted Libby's prison sentence of two and a half years—a statement that left it especially hard for the president to justify a full pardon. Just as Libby was about to go to jail that summer, Bush intervened to spare him from incarceration. At the time, he said that the White House had reviewed the case; while "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said, he had concluded that the prison sentence was excessive. Bush's statement also noted that those who defended the prosecution of Libby "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."
The rejection of Libby's bid is consistent with Bush's overall stingy record when it comes to using presidential pardon powers. In part as a reaction to Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon spree, including the especially controversial one granted to fugitive financier Marc Rich, Bush has issued far fewer pardons than any president in modern history, according to clemency scholars...
.
I said, whatever the word was
Bush did
Libby served NO time and most assuredly under the table is making millions from Cheney and friends
Bush did
Libby served NO time and most assuredly under the table is making millions from Cheney and friends
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.