Home > In sparing Libby, Pres. Bush built an IED that blew up the judicial system

In sparing Libby, Pres. Bush built an IED that blew up the judicial system

by Open-Publishing - Thursday 5 July 2007

Edito Justice Governments USA Mary MacElveen

By Mary MacElveen

A few years ago, I remember seeing a commercial to help stop drunk driving which said, “Friends do not let friends drive drunk” and the act of a good friend would have been to take away the keys to the car so that no one would get hurt. Most likely that commercial did save countless lives.

So when I read this statement coming from Senator Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon in which he said of President Bush, "President Bush is my friend, and I don’t always agree with my friends," perhaps a little intervention on behalf of the American people should be done by Republican lawmakers as they see their president riding rough-shod over the United States Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights.

With the commutation of Scooter Libby, these so called friends of the president and even the vice president should demand for the greater good that both resign immediately. After all, they were elected to serve a far greater good than protecting said friend(s). Would they rise to such an occasion showing bravery like our founding fathers? That is for them to answer. Our reality states they do not have that sense of courage and bravery.

Like a friend who abuses alcohol, decides to drive and then gets behind the wheel of a car, and whose judgment has been impaired the same can be said of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Like the drunk driver, their addiction is to power and even with the power they now have it is not enough. In AA, there is a saying when it comes to drinking, “One is too many and a hundred is not enough”

Like the drunk driver who kills innocent victims while behind the wheel, both Bush and Cheney have killed close to 4,000 soldiers’, killed hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqis and displaced millions more Iraqis. While the addiction is different the behavior is the same. Lying a country into a war shows an inability to tell the truth and those are the tell-tale signs of a substance abuser.

Yes, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the both of you are addicts and someone needs to take away the keys from the both of you. We as a country can no longer afford you driving her. The both of you have all but disgraced this country and if you do not see that, then the both of you are in denial. Again, denial is another trait of a substance abuser.

Senator Smith’s friendship with the president also reminds me of that saying, “With friends like that, who needs enemies” Also by not demanding for his friend’s resignation, Smith has become an enabler to his friend’s disease of substance abuse. Not only to castigate Smith; but when are the rest of these Republicans going to demand the resignation or even back an impeachment process of these two power-mongers? It worked with the late President Richard Nixon and one has to wonder; why not this president and vice president? What greater good for all of us are Bush and Cheney accomplishing? Who will be the next victim to die with these men behind the wheel?

Senator Gordon Smith said that in relation to the war in Iraq as well as the defeat of the ‘Grand Compromise’ bill on immigration which he said, "And on the issues of Iraq and immigration, I simply disagree with his approach." That is like saying, I do not agree with his abuse of drugs and alcohol.

In a previous column, I quoted Senator Smith when he openly spoke out against this war in Iraq which was harsher than his quote above. At that time, he said, “the current U.S. war effort is "absurd" and "may even be criminal." He then went onto say, "I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day.” I would like to ask the senator; who placed you on the end of that rope? It was after all, President George W. Bush, your friend. No friend of mine would ever dream of putting me in that position.

In that same outspokenness concerning Bush’s handling of Iraq, Senator Gordon Smith even stated, it was a "dereliction of duty,” If he fully believed that; wasn’t it up to Senator Smith to grab hold of other senate Republicans and perform an intervention on behalf of the American people and more importantly our soldiers who have been sent to their deaths? It burns me to know how so many came home in coffins and yet these Republicans refuse to hold both of these men accountable. Whose side are they on?

Not to pick on the senator solely, one quote caught my eye which came from GOP pollster Linda DiVall in which she said of congresses low-ranking in the polls, "The voters voted for change and they expected change, and they see an institution still incapable of getting anything done," Not so fast, Ms. DiVall. When the Democratic majority placed within the past war supplemental bill a time line in which we would start to draw down forces in Iraq that is precisely what the American voters wanted as they went to the polls last Election Day.

Did the Republicans hear the cries of these Americans and enjoin with Democrats to fulfill this change in direction? My guess is that Republicans were stone-cold-deaf when it came to our cries. The Republican minority could have enjoined with senate Democrats to send to the president’s desk a veto-proof bill. That was their failure and not the failure of senate Democrats.

By pointing blame at the Democratic majority, Ms. DiVall, three are pointing right back at you and your party.

As many clamor for both Bush’s and Cheney’s impeachment, and while I agree in totality with those sentiments since it would be for the greater good, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said of any impeachment process would “be off the table” While that statement in itself angers me, both the senate and house Republicans would refuse to impeach one or two of their own. To that I would add; where are their morals and love of country? They have none.

Getting back to Scooter Libby’s conviction by a jury of his peers, jury notices go out to many Americans on a daily basis. While some do anything to get out of serving on any jury, there are many that rise to the occasion to serve their country in which they partake in the judicial process. Through this commutation which a full pardon has not been ruled out by President Bush, what he did was spit in the face of that jury and juries across this nation hearing other cases. He (Bush) once again, subverted the rule of law. He might as well have built an IED and blew up the judicial system.

As Americans celebrated Independence Day in which our founding fathers gave us the gift of democracy, this president along with his vice president spat upon their graves. By subverting the rule of law and over-riding a jury’s decision, if President Bush were alive at the time of our country’s birth would have sided with the British. He thinks he is king and most certainly acts like one who is impervious to the rule of law and thinks that it does not apply to him and any associated with him.

With another Independence Day celebrated from coast-to-coast, I am often reminded as I have been throughout these past six going on seven years the words of Thomas Jefferson in which he said, "When the people are afraid of the government, that’s tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people that’s liberty." There are many times I wish that Americans would take back this country from those that look to subvert it and call out from each and every corner of it for both Bush and Cheney’s removal from office. Instead of Boston Tea Party which our ancestors protested against the taxes imposed on them by the British, we would do so in protest of men who think they are above the law.

President Bush subverted the rule of law by nullifying a jury’s decision. He also subverted the rule of law over-riding a judge’s sentence. It is my belief that Lady Liberty is indeed crying. Without the rule of law, there can be no liberty.

Author’s email address is xmjmac@optonline.net

Please visit my web site at http://www.marymacelveen.com

Forum posts

  • In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:

    shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.

    The president did nothing violative of the law in commuting Libby’s sentence.

    • All the more reason for theU.S. to return the lands to its original inhabitants!

    • Ironically, the smirking simpleton is using the constitution to commute Libby. You know, the same exact constitution that was regarded as "just a piece of paper" not too long ago.

  • The SEC handles about 220 complaints against brokerage houses and similar financial institutions a day, but the output of these complaints in civil filings against these institutions are only one, two or three a day. I complained against TD Ameritrade after they sold the stock that I had purchased and then pretended that the stock certificate was in the hands of the transfer agent when I asked why the stock certficate had not been delivered. Eleven weeks later, I still had not received a stock certificate. "These things take time."—TD Ameritrade. I complainted to the SEC and the SEC forwarded the complaint to TD Ameritrade and TD Ameritrade purchased the stock in the open market after making over $100,000 from inside information that the stock would go in the future stock market. To this day, I have not heard a word from the SEC in writing. This is financial institution fraud: 15-25 years in prison. I call the SEC up, and I was told that it was not a criminal matter. "I thought that it was a criminal matter," Merrily Katz told me, "I should complain to the Justice Department."

    I emailed the Justice Department with my criminal complaint, and the email phone line went dead. I emailed them again, again, and again.

    Finally, I told them that if the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution was dead or a piece of aristocratic political toilet paper, that where was not enough fertilizer in the state of Kansas to keep me from blowing up their Confederacy high enough.

    The email phone line is still dead at the Justice Department.

    By simply having a dead phone line, the Justice Department is able to pardon all the TD Ameritrade executives who have insider political knowledge that they won’t go to jail if they commit felonies against their clients.

  • Fred Thompson: the 9/11 Conspiracy, not, candidate for President in 2008 reponds to Libby’s Presidential Pardon, not.

    The sentencing of Scooter Libby was the last in a series of acts that has resulted in a shocking injustice – one created by and enabled by federal officials. As I’ve been saying for many months, this is a “he said-she said” case about political infighting that would have never been brought in any other prosecutor’s office in America.

    The CIA started the ball rolling by sending the Democratic partisan husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. Knowing an opportunity when he saw one, he returned and blasted the Bush Administration (the fact that he blatantly falsified a few important things along the way is another story). It should not have been a shock to CIA officials when people then asked, “Who is this guy and why was he sent to Niger?” The only mystery in Washington is why the CIA employee-wife’s name, Valerie Plame, took as long as it did to leak.

    Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, second from left, accompanied by his attorney Theodore Wells, left, walk towards their car outside federal court in Washington, Tuesday, June 5, 2007, after Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

    Nevertheless, the CIA demanded that the Department of Justice investigate the leak of her name (not surprisingly, the fact that the CIA was making such a request was leaked). This put pressure on the DOJ. The DOJ, in turn, promptly caved to the media and Congressional pressure to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Plame leak. However, there were two glaring problems for anyone with a sense of justice, or who may have gone to law school for one semester.

    The Justice Department and the new Special Counsel knew that: 1.) The leaking of Valerie Plame’s name did not constitute a crime because she was not a “covered person” under the relative criminal statue and, 2.) They already knew the name of the leaker: State Department official Richard Armitage.

    Yet small matters such as these do not matter much to Justice Department officials trying to cover their own fanny, or to a newly minted Special Prosecutor with a reputation to make and members of the media to satisfy.

    Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded to make public statements and employ tactics that would have brought condemnation in any other setting. He moved heaven and earth for a year and a half in order to come up with some sort of “process” crime against a high-level Administration official — so that he could try them in one of the most anti-Bush Administration places in America, Washington DC.

    The best he could come up with was a man who was not well known to the public, but who was basically working two full-time jobs after 9/11 — trying to prevent such a thing from happening again. The White House physician says that, “Mr. Libby worked himself to exhaustion day after day reviewing national intelligence estimates.” Of course, he had to make time for hours of testimony before Fitzgerald’s grand jury and Fitzgerald found inconsistencies. At trial, practically every government witness not only was inconsistent with other government witnesses, but was inconsistent with regard to their own prior testimony.

    During his closing arguments, Fitzgerald did what has caused many a prosecutor to get a mistrial: He asked the jury to consider “facts” that had not been placed into evidence or proven in any way. It was so egregious it was even too much for the judge, who admonished him.

    Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury and false statements. For sentencing, the federal probation office filed a statement that the applicable federal guidelines called for a sentence of from 15 to 21 months. He also identified several grounds for what is known in the law as a “downward departure” from that range. In this case, Mr. Libby had led an exemplary life, and had sacrificed in order to serve his country and will presumably lose his law license. In other words, under the law, the judge would have had ample reason for giving Mr. Libby less than 15 months, including probation.

    Fitzgerald, seeing this probation report and reverting to form as someone without professional judgment or scruples when it comes to landing his prey, weighed in. Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald insisted that Valerie Plame’s status was irrelevant and that the defense could not use her status in any way. But now that it came time for sentencing, Fitzgerald insisted that her status be considered, and that Mr. Libby be treated as if he’d violated the law he’d never even been charged with.

    Proving once again that Fitzgerald can get away with practically anything in Washington, the judge apparently accepted Fitzgerald’s argument, contrary to all notions of basic fairness. The judge rejected his own probation office’s recommendation, not only doubling the 15-month minimum to 30 months, but also fining Mr. Libby $250,000 and giving him 400 hours of public service. Apparently, the judge is going to make Mr. Libby start serving his sentence in the near future, before he can get his appeal heard.

    Unfortunately, this is an example of what Washington is all about these days. All too often the intersection of politics, law and the media results in a lack of responsibility by practitioners in all three areas. Having all this crashing down on the head of one man and his family, in a time when national security leaks are published regularly on the front pages of the newspapers without consequence, will justifiably add to the cynicism and outrage on the part of all observers.

    For the preamble to our Constitution, our founders stated explicitly the purposes for our Constitution. Listed even before providing for domestic tranquility or for the common defense was the establishment of justice. Official behavior, with regard to matters like the Scooter Libby case, are not what our framers had in mind. Now this excessive sentence, given by the Federal District Judge is just another in a long line of reasons why Mr. Libby should be pardoned.

  • http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf

    The above website gives gives you some insight into the politics of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory President for 2008. Currently, there are no American candidates who are running under this banner, but think of all the people who would not get pardoned, or partially pardoned, for commiting acts of treason against their country if a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory candidate did win office in 2008. This would be another French revolution, where the political aristocrats would all be jailed waiting for their heads to be rolled down the street by the unruly mobs. The political aristocrats like pardons. They want someone in high political office who stand by their fellow felons in a pinch or a crisis. They want stability; they want to sweep the truth under the rug, and they want to get away with it. The big lie, the big deception must be held up at all costs: Steal John F Kennedy’s brain, forensic shot-angle evidence of another shooter.

    If there are no 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Presidential candidates in 2008, who are the Pardon the Conspirators Presidential Candidates in 2008.

    Who yelled the lowest when Libby did not receive a full pardon?

    Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who had his command center floor of Building Seven in the World Trade Center Complex armor plated before the building was detonated and demolished by explosives on September 11, 2007.

    Fred Thompson, who lives in McLean, Virginia. In the television series, Law and Order, Thompson played the Republican District Attorney of NYC.

    They say that serial killers like to have their Presidents to stay close to their crimes so that they don’t forget who put them in office and for what reasons:

    To give them all pardons if they they get caught with a Presidential brain in their freezers.

  • Why is the United States giving money to support an athiest cause in Tibet?

    Have you accepted the Panchen Lama as your son of heaven savior?

    In October 1998, The Dalai Lama’s administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the U.S. Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA).[21] When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organization did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country’s affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."[22]

    British journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing attack on the Dalai Lama in 1998, which questioned his alleged support for India’s nuclear weapons testing, his statements about sexual misconduct, his suppression of Shugden worship, as well as his meeting Shoko Asahara, whose cult released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system.[23][24] Brian Given published a detailed reply to these criticisms in World Tibet Network News.[25]

    There has also been criticism that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as the Dalai Lama had portrayed. Critics have suggested that in addition to serfdom there were conditions that effectively constituted slavery.[26] Also the penal code included forms of corporal punishment, in addition to capital punishment.[19] In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned some of ancient Tibet’s feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded. However, historian Michael Parenti believes there was a connection between Dalai Lama’s 1959 fleeing Tibet and the then PRC Central Government’s decision to gradually phase out serfdom in Tibet.[26]