President Bush has commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence.  Instead of thirty months in jail, Libby will just be on probation for two years and pay a $250,000 fine.

Wow...what a HUGE shock.  ::)

I know the President can grant a full pardon, but does he have the Constitutional right to change the terms of a sentence?
This doesn't seem right.

I know the President can grant a full pardon, but does he have the Constitutional right to change the terms of a sentence?
This doesn't seem right.


He can do whatever the hell he wants.

He's the "Decider."  ::)

I'd like to know what is more frustrating to all of those against this president.

The fact that his administartion has done, and will continue to do pretty much whatever they want without any repercussions. Without any fear of the law. Without having to answer to ANYONE.

OR

Watching the party in opposition bark, scream, yell, puff out their chests and talk big, but in the end do absolutely NOTHING to stop this.

OR

Knowing that tomorrows headlines will probably have more to say about Paris Hilton than this subject.

President Bush has commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence.  Instead of thirty months in jail, Libby will just be on probation for two years and pay a $250,000 fine.


and hence the reason Scooter never squealed on his neocon buddies.  Where's the enticement for these goons to rat out the true masterminds, when they know "the decider" will just let them go free when convicted.

This is why Alberto "can't remember" something that happened only two months prior to his testimony.  This is why he's happy to coach his underlings on what to say (VERY illegal).  He knows even if he gets caught, he still won't do any time for it.

The only real surprise is that he did it on a Monday.  Bad news on a Monday is such a no-no for this administration.  Scooter must have been scared to death they'd arraign him before Friday.

Not a surprise, nothing is surprising anymore with this guy.

Watching the party in opposition bark, scream, yell, puff out their chests and talk big, but in the end do absolutely NOTHING to stop this.


and they can do what exactly?  Overturn a pardon?  Convict another criminal and watch Bush grant a pardon?  There's 20 signatures on the bill to begin impeachment of Cheney.  I hope today they can muster a few dozen more.

I'd like to know what is more frustrating to all of those against this president.

The fact that his administartion has done, and will continue to do pretty much whatever they want without any repercussions. Without any fear of the law. Without having to answer to ANYONE.

OR

Watching the party in opposition bark, scream, yell, puff out their chests and talk big, but in the end do absolutely NOTHING to stop this.

OR

Knowing that tomorrows headlines will probably have more to say about Paris Hilton than this subject.


You are so right on all 3 and I don't know which one makes me the most angry.


Cat

Watching the party in opposition bark, scream, yell, puff out their chests and talk big, but in the end do absolutely NOTHING to stop this.


There lies the problem with the Democrat party, they are a bunch of gutless whiners that are too afraid to do anything.

and they can do what exactly?  Overturn a pardon?  Convict another criminal and watch Bush grant a pardon?  There's 20 signatures on the bill to begin impeachment of Cheney.  I hope today they can muster a few dozen more.



Can you give me a link that gives the stats on that bill?

I really hope that it happens. If Cheney and/or Bush gets impeached, party at my house!!!



Cat

WTF?  This is bullcrap.  >:(

Scooter deserved to serve out his entire sentence, with cellmates Bubba and Shady.

Major F-up by Bush, in my opinion.

Unless Scooter has some incriminating pics of the twins and a couple a german shephards.  ;D ;D

President Bush has commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence.  Instead of thirty months in jail, Libby will just be on probation for two years and pay a $250,000 fine.


"Hey Dubya, you think you could spot me 250 G's?"

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/10/22/PH2005102201442.jpg

WTF?  This is bullcrap.  >:(

Scooter deserved to serve out his entire sentence, with cellmates Bubba and Shady.

Major F-up by Bush, in my opinion.

Unless Scooter has some incriminating pics of the twins and a couple a german shephards.   ;D ;D

E-nuff!

Send in Serpico! I'd like to see it go down something like:

Special Prosecuter Serpico: Where's Libby?

Fitzgerald: Rove took him upstairs.

Serpico: Hey, you.
Libby: Hey, who?

Serpico: You. Get over here and empty your pockets.

Libby: I don't do that.
Serpico: You're my prisoner. Do what I say.  Get over here!

Rove: He's gonna get nasty about it.

Serpico: You're f***ing right!

Cheney: Hey, Frank, cool it, huh?

Serpico: Lean, motherf***!

Rove: Frank. Hey, Frank, Libby's on, he's good people.

Serpico: Stay the f*** outta this!

Libby: You f***!

Serpico: Get in! Get in! (throws Libby into the cage)

If only!  Serpico for President!

WTF?  This is bullcrap.  >:(

Scooter deserved to serve out his entire sentence, with cellmates Bubba and Shady.

Major F-up by Bush, in my opinion.

Unless Scooter has some incriminating pics of the twins and a couple a german shephards.   ;D ;D

Shame on those German Shepherds!  Shame!  Bad dogs!
:P

We all know even if Scooter had to go, he wouldn't see the likes of Bubba and Shady.
It would be: "Welcome abord, Scoot!  Now remember, if a golf ball goes over that white line you can't go after it."
::)

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
- George W. Bush, September 2003

It's constitutional ("...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States...), and it's also one of the decade's only examples of a politician speaking the absolute unvarnished truth:  our Prez definitely took care of his loyal fall-guy today.

The President has the Constitutional power commute Scooter's sentence.  The consensus among commentators is the way he is exercising his power is, however, abusive and sends a terrible signal. 

This Administration has been strident about "the rule of law" and judges following "sentencing guidelines."  Well, the court in this case found that Libby broke the law and the judge issues a sentence well within sentencing guidelines.

Now it's, "Yeah, but he's our buddy and he's not goin' to prison, (bleep) the judge."

And if you think that joke of $250,000 fine is going to make a dent in Scooter's bank account, you got another thing coming!  They'll pass the hat for Scooter.  Cheney and Rove are gonna take real good care of him.  He won't be missing an meals, that's for sure!

If this was some 17-year-old punk who robbed a grocery store, then the rule of law and sentencing guidline strictures would apply!
::)

I am shocked I tell you, absolutely shocked  ::)  I would bet that the fine will stand, and that Scooter will very quietly get a tax payer financed "consultant" position for say $250,000(after taxes).  That sounds about right.

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
- George W. Bush, September 2003

ISTM that he was "taken care of", though not in the way that one would expect from the context...

I was wondering... seeing the parallels with Paris Hilton getting locked up, then let out, then the judge saying "NO! She must serve her sentence" - I guess the last bit ain't gonna happen to Scooter, is it?  Could the judge tell the President that Libby must serve his time (and threaten contempt of court action against Bush?)

  Scooter's sentence was commuted, right?  He wasn't pardoned..?

  In a sense, commuting Libby instead of pardoning him serves to protect his administration.  If Libby was pardoned, he could not claim the right to remain silent, since he could no longer be incriminated.  As it is, he can still claim the 5th...

   Scooter's sentence was commuted, right?  He wasn't pardoned..?

   In a sense, commuting Libby instead of pardoning him serves to protect his administration.  If Libby was pardoned, he could not claim the right to remain silent, since he could no longer be incriminated.  As it is, he can still claim the 5th...


If Libby was pardoned, he wouldn't have to worry about any further charges unless they were for a completely separate crime.

A full pardon* makes the crime "like it never happened."  Since a pardon is an extra-judicial discretion, those vested with the power to grant pardons have a moral and ethical duty to grant pardons only to wrongdoers who have:

A.  Demonstrated they have fulfilled their debt to society.
B.  Demonstrated they committed offenses under duress or without consent of their will.
C.  Been charged ex post facto or in some other unconstitutional manner (speaking of U.S. here).
D. Themselves demonstrated or have had demonstrated by others on their behalf that they could not understand the offense.

The president, governor, or other official may also grant pardons to those determined to be altogether innocent of the offenses for which they were convicted. 

^THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS IN PRACTICE^

In the scummy world of politics as-is heads of state often abuse pardoning to appease the guilty and to eschew exposure of worse crimes of state (eg. Ford pardoning Nixon), or as quid pro quo for political favors or cash (eg. Clinton pardoning Mark Rich). 

On the other hand, a scummy pardon might backfire because of the immunity it grants.  If Bush pardoned Libby, the scootmeister would be free to take a $3 million dollar advance for a tell-all story that would incriminate Cheney, Rove, and Bush.  They say Scooter is loyal, but everyone has his price.

*There are conditional pardons (as opposed to full pardons) which I suppose Bush could have granted.  Perhaps they though it was smarter to keep the P word out of it and go with commutation of jailtime.  They still have some leverage and it still looks like Scooter is getting punished.  Unfortunately, nobody's buying it and the commutation subtracts even more from this administration's dwindling store of credibility. 

BTW, FOX News is still defending the Bush Administration in this matter.  They immediately brought in Dick Morris to squeal about how Clinton did this and Clinton did that.  Yeah, as if this was about Bill Clinton!  This would be FNC's chance to show conservatives are all about honest dealings and the rule of law.  Here they could show how they hold their own up to higher standards than liberals and don't engage in that moral relativism.  Instead, they prove yet again they are the propaganda channel for the Bushies!
::)

Shrub hasn't ruled out a pardon.  Yes, I heard it from Fox News. :P

Shrub hasn't ruled out a pardon.  Yes, I heard it from Fox News. :P

Uh-oh! Maybe they've figured out they've hit their public approval nadir and now they've got nothing to lose!  You know what they say about people with nothing to lose!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smhair1.gif

I still say it's a dumb idea for the reasons I stated above.  I wouldn't trust Scewis Looter Libby any farther than I could throw him and a cast iron stove!

Uh-oh! Maybe they've figured out they've hit their public approval nadir and now they've got nothing to lose!  You know what they say about people with nothing to lose!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smhair1.gif

I still say it's a dumb idea for the reasons I stated above.  I wouldn't trust Scewis Looter Libby any farther than I could throw him and a cast iron stove!



First of all let me state for the record I was over at my parents house . . . therefore I had no control of the remote.

They were saying how Paris Hilton was punish more for a misdemeanor than Scooter would do for a felony.  Well duh.

Meh, Cheney was just scare of what they might do to him in prison. ::)

First of all let me state for the record I was over at my parents house . . . therefore I had no control of the remote.

They were saying how Paris Hilton was punish more for a misdemeanor than Scooter would do for a felony.  Well duh.

Meh, Cheney was just scare of what they might do to him in prison. ::)

Imagine having Cheney as your cellmate?

They'd hafta put him in one of those plexiglass things like Hannibal Lector!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vampanim.gif

Imagine having Cheney as your cellmate?

They'd hafta put him in one of those plexiglass things like Hannibal Lector!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vampanim.gif


Anything less than that would be a disregard for the prison populations safety.

Uh-oh! Maybe they've figured out they've hit their public approval nadir and now they've got nothing to lose!  You know what they say about people with nothing to lose!


But let's leave Janis Joplin out of it.  "She and Dubya, G..." :)

But let's leave Janis Joplin out of it.  "She and Dubya, G..." :)


Good e-nuff for me and my Scooter Libb-ee!

I think there's a song parody in here, but I ain't the man for the job!
;D

Not suprised by this, after all he is a friend of George's.  ::)

Not suprised by this, after all he is a friend of George's.  ::)

Another friend of George W.
;)

I know the President can grant a full pardon, but does he have the Constitutional right to change the terms of a sentence?
This doesn't seem right.


It's called a "Commutation of Sentence".  And for a Federal crime, the President is the only person that can do it.  Just as in a state case, it can only be done by the Governor.

However, it is a far cry from a pardon.  It is very conditional, and is more along the lines of a probation.  The sentence still stands, and in this case, the only thing commuted was the prison time.

But he should not have been convicted in the first place.  After all, were we not told a few years ago that it was not a big deal to lie, even under oath?  We had another government official several years ago who lied not to an FBI Officer, but to a Grand Jury.  And nothing has ever been done to him.

It's called a "Commutation of Sentence".  And for a Federal crime, the President is the only person that can do it.  Just as in a state case, it can only be done by the Governor.

However, it is a far cry from a pardon.  It is very conditional, and is more along the lines of a probation.  The sentence still stands, and in this case, the only thing commuted was the prison time.

But he should not have been convicted in the first place.  After all, were we not told a few years ago that it was not a big deal to lie, even under oath?  We had another government official several years ago who lied not to an FBI Officer, but to a Grand Jury.  And nothing has ever been done to him.


William Jefferson Clinton was only one of two presidents in history to be impeached.  Clinton was impeached.  I would not call that "nothing."  Once the House drew up articles of impeachment, it was not up to the executive branch to decide.  Clinton would have been removed from office if the Senate had voted to do so with a 2/3 majority.  They did not get their 2/3 majority. 
Clinton also lost his license to practice law for five years.

We have a remarkable portion of the rancorous Right who would not have been pleased unless both Bill and Hillary were dragged through the streets of DC and then riddled with bullets like Ceausescu and wife...and they still feel this way. 

I don't see your reasoning for saying Libby should not have been convicted because the senate did not remove President Clinton from office.  It's a nonsequitur.
::)

I don't see your reasoning for saying Libby should not have been convicted because the senate did not remove President Clinton from office.  It's a nonsequitur.


I am simply repeating something that was said repeatedly about 8 years ago.  There were a lot of "Talking Head Liberals" that claimed that purjery was not a crime, and to prosecute somebody over it when it had nothing to do with the original investigation was rediculous.

After all, the talking heads said that Bill was innocent of mollesting women.  And Scooter was innocent of being the leak in the first place (the actual evidence points to Richard Armitage).

Personally, I think he was being shafted, since he was charged with lying to an FBI agent.  And as far as I know, that is not against the law.  After all, he was not under oath.  As far as I know, this is the only case where a person was not involved in the crime, yet was prosecuted for lying to a law enforcement officer.

What next, somebody goes to jail for lying to his wife?  Or lying to his boss?  If he had lied when he was under oath, then he (and anybody else) should be slammed.  And even as "Law & Order" as I am, I simply can't see charging somebody with lying to law enforcement.  Even if they are guilty of what they are being investigated for.

I am simply repeating something that was said repeatedly about 8 years ago.  There were a lot of "Talking Head Liberals" that claimed that purjery was not a crime, and to prosecute somebody over it when it had nothing to do with the original investigation was rediculous.
I was not one of them and I don't recall anybody saying perjury was not a crime.  Whoever did is an ignoramous.  A lot of Clinton-defenders still say he was backed into a corner and did what any guy would do in the same situation.  I don't buy that either.  Clinton was a sex addict who did not take responsibility for his problem.  Even if the addiction compelled him, he willfully engaged in extramarital sexual relations when he knew the wolves of the Right were clawing for any possible way to destroy his presidency.  I don't think his dalliances rose to "high crimes and misdemeanors," and neither did the majority of the U.S. Senate, however the Republicans got their way in gumming up Clinton's presidency, and if he hadn't fooled around, they would not have been able to catch him fooling around. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif
After all, the talking heads said that Bill was innocent of mollesting women.  And Scooter was innocent of being the leak in the first place (the actual evidence points to Richard Armitage).
I think he's not only guilty, but he's also the fall guy for Cheney and Rove, both of whom should be locked up for the common good.  However, there are a minority of commentators and bloggers who agree with you.  The jury and the judge did not conclude Scooter was innocent, so I think he should have been able to appeal the sentence, but instead he got off scot free!
>:(

I am simply repeating something that was said repeatedly about 8 years ago.  There were a lot of "Talking Head Liberals" that claimed that purjery was not a crime, and to prosecute somebody over it when it had nothing to do with the original investigation was rediculous.

After all, the talking heads said that Bill was innocent of mollesting women.  And Scooter was innocent of being the leak in the first place (the actual evidence points to Richard Armitage).

Personally, I think he was being shafted, since he was charged with lying to an FBI agent.  And as far as I know, that is not against the law.  After all, he was not under oath.  As far as I know, this is the only case where a person was not involved in the crime, yet was prosecuted for lying to a law enforcement officer.

What next, somebody goes to jail for lying to his wife?  Or lying to his boss?  If he had lied when he was under oath, then he (and anybody else) should be slammed.  And even as "Law & Order" as I am, I simply can't see charging somebody with lying to law enforcement.  Even if they are guilty of what they are being investigated for.


Can you be charged with obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI?

... I think he should have been able to appeal the sentence, but instead he got off scot free!
>:(


"Scott free"????

Maxwell, he still has a $250k fine, 400 hours of community service, 2 years of supervised release, 5 years of probation, and a felony hung around his neck.  I would not call that "scott free" in any sense.  He was not pardoned.  The rest of his sentence still stands.


Can you be charged with obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI?


Apparently you can, because that is what he was convicted of.  The actual charge was "making false statements to federal investigators", all of the others stem from that charge.

And as far as I know, this is the first time somebody was charged with perjury for making statements that were not sworn statements.  That is a crime that is normally reserved for somebody who knowingly lies on the witness stand (or in front of a Grand Jury).  It is not a charge that is used when somebody is simply making statements to law enforcement.

In fact, the actual statement is that he told investigators that he first heard about Valerie Plame from reporter Tim Russert.  In fact, he had heard of her before that.  So not only is he convicted of lying to the FBI, he was also convicted of lying to a reporter (he told Mr. Russert that he had never heard of Valerie Plame before).

"Scott free"????

Maxwell, he still has a $250k fine, 400 hours of community service, 2 years of supervised release, 5 years of probation, and a felony hung around his neck.  I would not call that "scott free" in any sense.  He was not pardoned.  The rest of his sentence still stands.

Apparently you can, because that is what he was convicted of.  The actual charge was "making false statements to federal investigators", all of the others stem from that charge.

And as far as I know, this is the first time somebody was charged with perjury for making statements that were not sworn statements.  That is a crime that is normally reserved for somebody who knowingly lies on the witness stand (or in front of a Grand Jury).  It is not a charge that is used when somebody is simply making statements to law enforcement.

In fact, the actual statement is that he told investigators that he first heard about Valerie Plame from reporter Tim Russert.  In fact, he had heard of her before that.  So not only is he convicted of lying to the FBI, he was also convicted of lying to a reporter (he told Mr. Russert that he had never heard of Valerie Plame before).


He made false statements to a grand jury.  He made false statements to an FBI agent.  Those are crimes.  The first is most definitely perjury.  The later is obstruction of justice.  You can't lie to a cop, you can't lie to a federal agent.  No idea why that's a tough concept for anyone to grasp.  He wasn't convicted of lying to a reporter.  He was convicted for lying to a federal agent about what he told a reporter.

$250,000 might be a lot for someone working a minimum wage job, but I doubt Scooter will be begging for nickels in the subway anytime soon.  The criminals that put the Bush administration in power are quite adept at rewarding their pawns with high paying jobs at "think tanks".

Letting Scooter avoid jail allows Scooter to continue to lie, and shows anyone else involved that Bush will happily protect them if they join in on the lie.

"Scott free"????

Maxwell, he still has a $250k fine, 400 hours of community service, 2 years of supervised release, 5 years of probation, and a felony hung around his neck.  I would not call that "scott free" in any sense.  He was not pardoned.  The rest of his sentence still stands.


Who in the name of Sam Hill is Scott Free?  One of Scooter's lawyers?  Oh, wait a minute, he wrote the "Star Spangled Banner," Francis Scott Free!
:D

Scoot is already a multimillionaire, and when you have friends like Dick Cheney, you can come up with $250 clams as easy as amusement park tokens!  If he isn't pardoned outright, after the uproar dies down, they'll quietly expunge his record.  If there's one thing this administration makes perfectly clear, it is opacity.  They don't have tell us nothin' and they tell us so every day!
::)

There lies the problem with the Democrat party, they are a bunch of gutless whiners that are too afraid to do anything.
As Chucky pointed out, what CAN they do? 

AFA the comparison to the Clinton scandal, it's apples and oranges....unless someone can convince me that getting some nooky on the side is a threat to national security ???

As Chucky pointed out, what CAN they do? 

AFA the comparison to the Clinton scandal, it's apples and oranges....unless someone can convince me that getting some nooky on the side is a threat to national security ???


She coulda sucked the nuclear codes out of him.

Of course, there is always Sandy Berger.  Fined $23k for conflict of interest as a Clinton official for conflict of interest, after failing to sell off his shares of Amoco (which he said he was going to do, but forgot".

Then a few years later, he is involved in the Chinese Nuclear Secrets scandal.  Seems thet he knew about the illegal transfer of information, but forgot to tell the President for over a year.

Then fast forward to 2004, where he is caught stealing classified materials from the US Archives.  Some of these he hid under a trailer, others he snuck out in his clothing.  A lot of materials were destroyed, and were original documents.  His fine?  $50k, and 100 hours community service.

If you ask me, this is a much more serious crime.  But he was only convicted of a misdemeanor!

The reality is that every administration has things like this going on.  But some people are willing to ignore some issues, and make a huge stink of others.  But if you ask me, stealing classified documents is a much worse crime then lying to an FBI agent about when you heard of somebody.  In most instances, what Mr. Berger did falls under the heading of "Treason".


AFA the comparison to the Clinton scandal, it's apples and oranges....


Perjury is perjury.  Plain and simple.  I simply can't understand how one person can be prosecuted, while another is ignored.  And President Clinton was also charged with "Obstruction of Justice", but nothing ever really came of it.  You do not see me complaining about the sentence of Mr. Libby, simply the fact that some people are charged with similar (or worse) crimes, and get a slap on the wrist at most.  

The reality is that every administration has things like this going on.  But some people are willing to ignore some issues, and make a huge stink of others.  But if you ask me, stealing classified documents is a much worse crime then lying to an FBI agent about when you heard of somebody.  In most instances, what Mr. Berger did falls under the heading of "Treason".

I would call that treason as well and it is a shame he didn't get more than what he did. 

However, releasing a name of a CIA agent is not serious?  In the Cold War, agents were killed because they were exposed by people within our country.  This could have had the same implications.  Sure scooter didn't do it, but he is covering for someone that did the crime.  He lied for someone else.  He is committing a crime because he is obstructing justice, just like ChuckyG said. 

The problem isn't just this Scooter libby incident.  Its the fact that nothing will ever be done for all the other scandals that have taken place during this administration.  And if someone can go down the list and compare scandals from the Clinton Administration and now, be my guest, I dont have the time.  Fact is, you cant go back in time but you can try and change bullcrap that is going on now.  Has nothing to do with party sides.  I could really care less.  What I dont like is to see all this stuff going on and nothing being done about it.   

Perjury is perjury.  Plain and simple.  I simply can't understand how one person can be prosecuted, while another is ignored.
But you are implying Scooter should receive punishment commensurate with Clinton's punishment, which, at the same time, you are implying was too light a sentence in the first place.

I reiterate, if the Senate had voted to convict with 2/3 majority, Clinton would have been drummed out of office.

I'm in favor of impeaching both Bush and Cheney, but I know they certainly would not get that same 2/3 majority if the impeachments ever got as far as the Senate.
::)

But you are implying Scooter should receive punishment commensurate with Clinton's punishment, which, at the same time, you are implying was too light a sentence in the first place.


No, this has nothing to do with the sentence.  I has everything to do with how people are behaving about it.

Look, I have said it before and will say it again.  Perjury is a crime, and should be punished.  Period.  I do not care if the person is Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, or Mark Fuhrman.  And rightfully, it is and should be a Felony.

What I find stupid is people who 8 years ago were going around saying it was "no big deal", and are now going around saying it should almost be a capitol offense.  And while they complain that one person got off easily, the same crime on somebody else does not even qualify as a "High crime or misdomener".

Mostly it is the same thing I often bitch about, double standards.  "Oh, go easy on this person, because we like him.  But go ahead and slam this person, because we hate him."  That is what I have been bitching about.

But you are implying Scooter should receive punishment commensurate with Clinton's punishment, which, at the same time, you are implying was too light a sentence in the first place.

I reiterate, if the Senate had voted to convict with 2/3 majority, Clinton would have been drummed out of office.


But Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for his crime.  Never.

Remember, Impeachment is an Administrative Action.  The most that they could have done was remove him from office.  It was not a judicial action.  Congress could not have sentenced him to jail, and such a conviction has no meaning.

For those of us who served in the military, Impeachment has as much legal bearing as an Article 15 hearing.  It is not a Judicial Process, it is an administrative one.  And once you step out of the military, it no longer has any affect on you.

But Bill is safe, since the Statute of Limitations have expired on his perjury.  And an Impreachment is not the same as a Criminal Trial.