Bush is commuting 'Scooter' Libby's prison sentence [Archive]

Woolen Horde

07-02-2007, 03:56 PM

I believe it's intended as a check on judicial power from the executive branch, although for that to be applicable you need an executive branch that respects the judiciary the rest of the time.

Yeah, it was a controversial thing to put in the Constitution, but it was felt that there needed to be some balance against the court's ability to basically put someone away for life. But as Shrub has shown plenty of times before, he really doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution, except for the parts he can use to bail his weaselly ass out of shit.

Anders Hallin

07-02-2007, 04:12 PM

It plays well for his base.

Calistas

07-02-2007, 04:16 PM

Amazing. Really amazing. Just put a crown on the guy, make any kids he has popped out Royal, and be done with it. He's the second in the start of a dynasty after all.

Now I understand why you lot have the right to bear arms!

Aleck

07-02-2007, 04:26 PM

Errr... Are folks actually surprised by this?

I mean, I could possibly see him letting Libby go to jail -- but only if he wasn't ballsy enough to pardon him. This half-assed compromise seems absurd, but it's not at all surprising (at least, not to me).

Did you people really think he was going to let Libby go to jail? Or that Libby would have to pay this fine (which undoubtedly is going to be end up being paid by some conservative think tank/slush fund)?

SlyFrog

07-02-2007, 05:02 PM

I'm doing some in depth research on how Scooter Libby is related to Denise Rich. Right now, I've got a possible lead that says he is a 2nd cousin. I'll get back to you when I have more.

Once again, all scum, both parties, don't act surprised.

Glenn

07-02-2007, 05:02 PM

Scooter just misremembered some phone call with Russert from years ago. Unless Russert was the one who misremembered. Either way, not a crime.

Dirt

07-02-2007, 05:03 PM

Midnight Son

07-02-2007, 05:15 PM

Scooter just misremembered some phone call with Russert from years ago. Unless Russert was the one who misremembered. Either way, not a crime.

I don't want to seem like I'm questioning you.... but he did get convicted of something, right?

Menzo

07-02-2007, 05:26 PM

He'll certainly get the full pardon on Bush's last day in office.

russellmz00

07-02-2007, 05:35 PM

I don't want to seem like I'm questioning you.... but he did get convicted of something, right?

glenn is an awesomely hilarious baiter. or needs a prozac the size of a handball. one of those. check out his thread where he mentions how long bush's summer reading list is.

jfletch

07-02-2007, 06:38 PM

I am going with Josh Marshall's argument here. This is worse than a pardon:

As you've no doubt already heard shouted from near every rooftop, President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Specifically, the conviction stands -- the fine and probation stand. Libby just doesn't have to spend a day in prison.

Now, here's the key to this.

There is a conceivable argument --- a very poor one but a conceivable one --- for pardoning Scooter Libby, presumably on the argument that the entire prosecution was political and thus illegitimate. But what conceivable argument does the president have for micromanaging the sentence? To decide that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate --- just no prison sentence.

This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don't cut it.

The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president's friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.

No powerful Republicans serve jail time. That's for the little people. There is no doubt the AEI or PNAC will pick up the fine. I can see Cheney standing outside of jail, telling him he did it right, he told them nothing.... what a bunch of crooks.

Jasper

07-02-2007, 06:58 PM

Did Bush really have any choice but to pardon Libby? I'd bet Libby was assured he'd be pardoned early on in the trial, to stave off any chance that he might roll over and become a prosecution witness.

Not canceling the whole thing is a combination of display of power/authority, and smoke screen (What are the odds Libby pays out of pocket? Or that his "probation" means anything at all?).

drewl

07-02-2007, 07:41 PM

Libby paying "out of pocket" is like you or I paying a speeding ticket.

Calistas

07-02-2007, 08:04 PM

Weirdly, I sort of respect Paris Hilton more now for doing her time. DAMN YOU BUSH! LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?!

Unicorn McGriddle

07-02-2007, 08:38 PM

glenn is an awesomely hilarious baiter.

Oh yeah. A master.

DragonPup

07-02-2007, 08:58 PM

I wonder if Dubya had anything to say regarding lying under oath during the Clinton years.

ElGuapo

07-02-2007, 09:06 PM

Saddened. This is typical, expected, and par for the course.

If he gets a 0% approval rating is there some auto-impeach clause?

Unicorn McGriddle

07-02-2007, 09:17 PM

If he gets a 0% approval rating is there some auto-impeach clause?

Don't worry, there will always be Bush approval. That old 27% estimate seems to be holding up fairly well.

Andrew Mayer

07-02-2007, 09:30 PM

Don't worry, there will always be Bush approval. That old 27% estimate seems to be holding up fairly well.

I believe in Bush! I believe he can go below 20! Godspeed Mr. President! Godspeed!

Jason Becker

07-02-2007, 09:42 PM

It plays well for his base.

Looking at his current approval ratings the hardcore base is about all he has left.

Alan Au

07-02-2007, 10:12 PM

Wasn't Libby just a fall guy anyway?

- Alan

Woolen Horde

07-02-2007, 10:23 PM

Wasn't Libby just a fall guy anyway?

- Alan

He was, but he was also Cheney's right hand man, which means he knows where all the bodies are buried.

delirium

07-02-2007, 10:50 PM

I just think it's hilarious that Bush has the audacity to override a court ruling while he's being accused of manipulating the justice system and abusing his powers for the attorney firings.

VegasRobb

07-02-2007, 10:58 PM

On we go. I was surprised that he was convicted in the first place.

Lum

07-02-2007, 11:15 PM

Bush's approval ratings could get worse. In Israel, Ehud Olmert has sunk below 10% approval. That means *most* of his family approves of how he's handling things.

Jasper

07-03-2007, 01:55 AM

Wasn't Libby just a fall guy anyway?
Exactly. Taking the Fall was his reason for existence. It'd have been better if there were some way to make his trial linger on into the next presidency, so that his feet could have been really held to the fire.

As it is, of course he lied and held the court in complete contempt -- he knew that nothing could happen to him. Hell, this trial may even make him rich, as his fees will be paid by others, and all he need do is write a carefully censored biography.

bago

07-03-2007, 02:32 AM

He obstructs justice, so that the investigation comes to a halt and all Fitzgerald can prosecute is the obstruction. Then the talking heads say there was no underlying crime as a reason to pardon him for obstructing the investigation of the underlying crime.

Calistas

07-03-2007, 05:03 AM

Wasn't Libby just a fall guy anyway?

- Alan

I thought fall guys had to, you know, fall. This is more of a bounce guy I think.

Ben

07-03-2007, 06:06 AM

The Democrats should really nail Bush to a wall on this. The Republican "no underlying crime" talking point(beyond it's iffy nature) is way too complex for Joe Public. "One of Cheney's friends was gonna do two years and Bush pardoned him!!!1" is easy enough for anyone to grasp what is wrong.

Drastic

07-03-2007, 06:54 AM

Shamelessness (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/07/l33t-justice.html) is our system's exploit, goes the latest theory from the fellow who popularized the idea of the hard 27% approval rating floor. Also worth it for the secondhand quote by way of Greenwald. To pull a Rucker here:

The Libby prosecution clearly was the dirty work of the leftist anti-war movement in this country, just as Cohen describes. After all, the reason Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate this matter was because a left-wing government agency (known as the "Central Intelligence Agency") filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department, as the MoveOn-sympathizer CIA officials were apparently unhappy about the public unmasking of one of their covert agents.

In response, Bush's left-wing anti-war Attorney General, John Ashcroft, judged the matter serious enough to recuse himself, leading Bush's left-wing anti-war Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, to conclude that a Special Prosecutor was needed. In turn, Comey appointed Fitzgerald, the left-wing anti-war Republican Prosecutor and Bush appointee, who secured a conviction of Libby, in response to which left-wing anti-war Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton imposed Libby's sentence.

triggercut

07-03-2007, 07:36 AM

BTW--with pieces of Libby's sentence left intact, it allows his appeal to continue while he remains out of prison. That means that Scooter can't answer questions on his case posed by the media...

....and when that appeal drags into it's 16th month, the remaining sentence can then be pardoned after the 2008 elections.

Dirt

07-03-2007, 07:54 AM

Bringing dignity back to the White House, indeed.

Matthew Gallant

07-03-2007, 08:20 AM

"Tony [Snow], won't this encourage other members of the administration to obstruct justice?"

"No."

Glenn

07-03-2007, 09:28 AM

Bush has a couple of pardons, but I really can't find any other examples of him saving someone from jailtime. You could make a nice little press release by compiling a list of some similar clemency requests he rejected; I'm sure there are quite a few.

Woolen Horde

07-03-2007, 10:19 AM

Wow, Shrub just keeps digging his hole deeper. Now the admin is saying it won't rule out the possibility of a parole for Libby. So much for respecting the judgment of the jury.

Mark Crump

07-03-2007, 10:40 AM

Well this is the quote of Bush's speech

But Bush said the $250,000 fine and two years' probation assessed Libby in the CIA leak case should stand.

"I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand. I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand. But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe.

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment, and I believe it's the right decision to make in this case. I stand by it," Bush said.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," Bush said as he left a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center.

Jason McCullough

07-03-2007, 10:51 AM

Considering the way the US political system works, this is probably the best we can hope for if Libby won't flip and incriminate Cheney. The President has to cover it up through an unpopular pardon (otherwise, Libby might get, you know, antsy), then he and his party have to suck up massive damage for it.

Dirt

07-03-2007, 10:52 AM

If Libby get's a pardon, will he still have to pay the $250,000?

Andrew Mayer

07-03-2007, 11:07 AM

Dirt

07-03-2007, 11:09 AM

Once Libby is fully pardoned he can no longer claim the fifth.
By then, Congress will have forgotten all about Plamegate.

Andrew Mayer

07-03-2007, 11:10 AM

By then, Congress will have forgotten all about Plamegate.

That's what they're banking on, and why they didn't pardon him now.

SlyFrog

07-03-2007, 11:23 AM

That's what they're banking on, and why they didn't pardon him now.

Does pardoning someone mean they no longer have the right to contest the original conviction?

I am not sure that pardoning means someone is no longer able to plead the fifth. What source is that coming from?

Prosecutors will often give someone a plea or waive charges in order to get them to testify, but that is different than freely giving someone pardon without that condition and saying they must testify afterward I would think.

Anyone have a good source for the answer on this?

Dirt

07-03-2007, 11:27 AM

I am not sure that pardoning means someone is no longer able to plead the fifth. What source is that coming from?
Double Jeopardy.

Ryan Markel

07-03-2007, 11:46 AM

Double Jeopardy.

Where the scores can really change.

Andrew Mayer

07-03-2007, 11:50 AM

Basically he can't claim that it will incriminate him in a crime he's already been pardoned for.

Rainier Wolfcastle

07-03-2007, 01:53 PM

Worst. President. Ever.

SlyFrog

07-03-2007, 02:28 PM

Basically he can't claim that it will incriminate him in a crime he's already been pardoned for.

That might or might not work. It all depends on what one means by incrimination, etc.

Here is a good start (suggests your line of reasoning is correct under legal precedent):

Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896) . The majority reasoned that one was excused from testifying only if there could be legal detriment flowing from his act of testifying. If a statute of limitations had run or if a pardon had been issued with regard to a particular offense, a witness could not claim the privilege and refuse to testify, no matter how much other detriment, such as loss of reputation, would attach to his admissions. Therefore, since the statute acted as a pardon or amnesty and relieved the witness of all legal detriment, he must testify. The four dissenters contended essentially that the privilege protected against being compelled to incriminate oneself regardless of any subsequent prosecutorial effort, id. at 610, and that a witness was protected against infamy and disparagement as much as prosecution. Id. at 628.

This is kind of interesting. I'm going to have to dig around a bit more when I get back.

forgeforsaken

07-03-2007, 06:16 PM

Olberman's special comment was good tonight.
Then I watched 5 minutes of Hannity talking about the Libby case (just "but Clinton" stuff of course) and I had to walk out of the room in disgust.

Calistas

07-03-2007, 08:21 PM

I notice they did this in the week that Daily Show and Colbert Report are on Holiday ;)

Andrew Mayer

07-03-2007, 09:17 PM

I wonder if this isn't going to be a turning point. There's something about him doing it just before July 4th that has the ring of a historical blunder about it.

charmtrap

07-03-2007, 10:01 PM

Interesting article in the NYT about the (maybe) unintended consequences of the commutation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commutecnd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.

“The president of the United States has come in on his own and said, ‘30 months is not reasonable in this case,’ ” said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other charges.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside of Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it.

Talisker

07-03-2007, 10:23 PM

This all pisses me off enough I just emailed my representative a frustrated (but polite) "enough, impeach the bastard already" email.

... which is essentially an empty gesture, as I'm in Pete Hoekstra's district. Should be fun to see what he (er, his staff) sends back in response, though.

Unicorn McGriddle

07-03-2007, 11:03 PM

Should be fun to see what he (er, his staff) sends back in response, though.

Fun for whom? (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/11/26)

arctangent

07-04-2007, 06:51 AM

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/libby_3583.pdf

The footnote is priceless.

JeffL

07-04-2007, 07:13 AM

I wonder if this isn't going to be a turning point. There's something about him doing it just before July 4th that has the ring of a historical blunder about it.

But you know what will get sold to the average American, that will make this blow over: "Well, Carter pardoned xx hundred people, Bush 1 pardoned xx hundred people, Clinton pardoned xx hundred people, etc."

Having said that - this is a classic Bush miscalculation. In one fell swoop, he has pissed off both the left AND the right. Even the Wall St. Journal, a traditionally conservative editorial page, went after him on this one.

Hey - maybe he WANTS to get thrown out? "Ya know, Laura, eh, um, I just don't know what else to do about this darned Iraq thing, and this job just isn't fun anymore, I wish there was some way I could just leave and go back to the ranch and collect my pension..."

Unicorn McGriddle

07-04-2007, 07:53 AM

Hey - maybe he WANTS to get thrown out? "Ya know, Laura, eh, um, I just don't know what else to do about this darned Iraq thing, and this job just isn't fun anymore, I wish there was some way I could just leave and go back to the ranch and collect my pension..."

Yeah, there is a way to do that -- finish his term. With only six months left, he could spend every day of it on vacation down at the ranch, chopping cotton or whatever it is he does there.

JeffL

07-04-2007, 09:45 AM

What's so sad is that I actually like a President that doesn't let polls and popularity dictate what he does - a president that does what he considers the right thing to do even if it means the press or polls won't like it.

Unfortunately, that only works when you have a very intelligent president.

Talisker

07-04-2007, 10:22 AM

Unfortunately, that only works when you have a very intelligent and moral president.
Fixed.

noun

07-04-2007, 10:32 AM

This all pisses me off enough I just emailed my representative a frustrated (but polite) "enough, impeach the bastard already" email.

Same. I don't want to hear any more excuses about why they can't impeach him. They're clearly not interested in working on any of the other stuff they were supposed to, so they can take this cause up instead.

dannimal

07-04-2007, 10:39 AM

Yeah, there is a way to do that -- finish his term. With only six months left, he could spend every day of it on vacation down at the ranch, chopping cotton or whatever it is he does there.

You might want to re-check your calendar.

Unicorn McGriddle

07-04-2007, 11:08 AM

Don't spoil it for me.

Nathan Phoenix

07-04-2007, 11:11 AM

bago

07-04-2007, 11:59 AM

Walton is hilarious. A Bush run CIA starts an investigation with a bush apointed investigator before a republican judge, and gets called on just one act of malfeasance. His response skips the DOJ, goes totally against character and is exposed as a shameless ploy to keep libby quiet.

They truly believe they have nothing to lose, except jail time.

Mark Asher

07-04-2007, 12:38 PM

It will be interesting to see who Bush pardons on his last day. I could see him issuing pardons in advance to lots of staff.

I can't believe Gore almost got in in 2000. I'm sure Gore would have had his own problems, but I'd have to think he would have been better than Bush.

Talisker

07-04-2007, 12:42 PM

I can't believe Gore almost got in in 2000. I'm sure Gore would have had his own problems, but I'd have to think he would have been better than Bush.
Shit, Ted Nugent would be better than Bush.

Andrew Mayer

07-04-2007, 12:48 PM

But you know what will get sold to the average American, that will make this blow over: "Well, Carter pardoned xx hundred people, Bush 1 pardoned xx hundred people, Clinton pardoned xx hundred people, etc."

The difference is, the didn't pardon people who worked for them.

I think that message may get through.

JeffL

07-04-2007, 01:27 PM

The difference is, the didn't pardon people who worked for them.

I think that message may get through.

Oh, there are some shaky ones in there, without trying to minimize this one. Ford pardoning Nixon is one that will always stand out. For fun, go back to, oh, LBJ, and look up all the pardons and commutations, it's actually pretty interesting.

drewl

07-04-2007, 03:33 PM

Yeah, wel Clinton got a hummer...
...and MARK RICH...and, and, and....
Fox news said Scootie pie didn't do anything wrong so of course Glorious Leader had to step in and do what was right!

Calistas

07-04-2007, 06:51 PM

^ Yeah, those courts of law and their damn opinions! ;)

JeffL

07-04-2007, 07:04 PM

Take any president and you get the political pardons. Ford was Nixon, Clinton was arguably Rich and some others like Cisneros and Susan McDougal, Bush 1 had his list including Casper Weinberger, and on and on. If you go to the US DOJ site you can see the complete lists. It would be interesting to know the story of a lot of those.

Jeremy Johnsen

07-04-2007, 08:04 PM

Mike O'Malley

07-04-2007, 08:09 PM

That would be great, a get out of jail free card.

Lum

07-04-2007, 08:17 PM

You can pardon people before they've even been convicted of something?

Pretty sure you can, since if I'm not mistaken that's the sort of pardon Ford gave Nixon.

Mister Widget

07-04-2007, 09:29 PM

Same. I don't want to hear any more excuses about why they can't impeach him. They're clearly not interested in working on any of the other stuff they were supposed to, so they can take this cause up instead.
True. Their agenda is DOA as long as Bush remains in office, since he will veto anything other than war funding or immigration bills. Since they're not going to get anything else done, why not spend their time working to impeach the guy who's busy pissing all over the Constitution?

Just a thought.

Walter Yarbrough

07-05-2007, 06:36 AM

Shamelessness (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/07/l33t-justice.html)

I would just like to note that this link has some of the best prose describing the administration I have ever read.

Thank you.

Mark Asher

07-05-2007, 06:48 AM

Pretty sure you can, since if I'm not mistaken that's the sort of pardon Ford gave Nixon.

Yeah, that's what he did, and I think Bush Sr. did it also to some of his cronies.

Ben Sones

07-05-2007, 07:06 AM

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Bush certainly has taken care of Scooter.

He could hardly find better care if he spent a week at a high-class spa. He even gets his fine paid by the legal defense trust set up by his GOP chums. Like others, I'm not really surprised by this (aside from being a little surprised that Bush didn't just pardon him), but at least it lets us all know how the rule of law swings in America these days: people that Bush doesn't like don't get trials, and people that Bush does like don't get sentences. Welcome to our little banana republic!

SlyFrog

07-05-2007, 08:45 AM

You can pardon people before they've even been convicted of something?

Yes, in fact, I have a free drifter killing coming my way from a lucky scratch-off ticket I bought at 7-11.

SlyFrog

07-05-2007, 08:57 AM

And for something topical, Clinton weighs in:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.libby/index.html

It does not change the fact that Bush is a moron, but I think Clinton should be shutting his pie hole regarding the pardons issue. Let someone who didn't sell them for cash cast stones.

Glenn

07-05-2007, 09:34 AM

I think Clinton should be shutting his pie hole regarding the pardons issue. Let someone who didn't sell them for cash cast stones.Hugh Rodham said something?

Bill Clinton makes more money than that telling anecdotes for thirty minutes; even if you think he's the most corrupt politician since Tammany Hall, you'd have to be an idiot to think he was personally motivated by the money.

bdfinally

07-05-2007, 09:46 AM

SlyFrog

07-05-2007, 09:47 AM

Hugh Rodham said something?

Bill Clinton makes more money than that telling anecdotes for thirty minutes; even if you think he's the most corrupt politician since Tammany Hall, you'd have to be an idiot to think he was personally motivated by the money.

No, I'm sure he pardoned Rich out of the goodness of his heart and a firm belief that he had been wronged. He wasn't begging people for money to help with his attorneys fees during his presidency either.

bigdruid

07-05-2007, 10:02 AM

I'll say one thing for Bush - that son of a bitch is loyal to his guys.

After this and his refusal to call for Gonzales' resignation, I'm surprised Rumsfeld isn't still working for him.

Woolen Horde

07-05-2007, 10:09 AM

I'll say one thing for Bush - that son of a bitch is loyal to his guys.

After this and his refusal to call for Gonzales' resignation, I'm surprised Rumsfeld isn't still working for him.

Dude, Bush' nickname for Gonzo is "Fredo". As in The Godfather's Fredo. He won't pop Fredo unless he absolutely has to.

Glenn

07-05-2007, 10:52 AM

No, I'm sure he pardoned Rich out of the goodness of his heart and a firm belief that he had been wronged.So, rather than Clinton making a foolish yet legitimate mistake, your alternative theory is that he was conspiring to openly accept bribes three months before he could have easily made far more money legally?

Cue the "Fascinating" Spock pic.

He wasn't begging people for money to help with his attorneys fees during his presidency either.That's kinda my point. If he can gather up that much money without the quid pro quo, why would he fuck himself over pocket change? If Clinton really, really needed a million dollars right that very instant, he could have gone to George Soros for a zero interest loan.

Jason McCullough

07-06-2007, 10:30 PM

Impeach the motherfuckers already (http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/impeachment_fever_americas_got.html).

* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose. * 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

FIDGAF

07-07-2007, 06:12 AM

That would require that our Representatives grow a set of balls.

Ben

07-07-2007, 06:15 AM

So, rather than Clinton making a foolish yet legitimate mistake,

So it was a typo? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, but God I can't stand how Democrats get all embroiled in defending Clinton. The Rich pardon was terrible. Not as bad as Libby, but terrible. The Rich pardon doesn't need to be justifiable(honest mistake??? That's just an incredible line of argument) for the Libby pardon to be worthy of outrage. Christ.

Glenn

07-07-2007, 10:00 AM

So it was a typo? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, but God I can't stand how Democrats get all embroiled in defending Clinton. The Rich pardon was terrible. Not as bad as Libby, but terrible.You've got the wrong dance partner, because I agree.

The Rich pardon doesn't need to be justifiable (honest mistake??? That's just an incredible line of argument) for the Libby pardon to be worthy of outrage. Christ.Honest as in lacking in deceit or fraud, nothing more. Clinton's pardons were a trainwreck, and he should be ashamed that that's what he did with his last hours in office, but they weren't "pardons for cash." For Clinton, anyway, the Rodham boys are obviously another matter.

Andrew Mayer

07-07-2007, 10:58 AM

So it was a typo? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, but God I can't stand how Democrats get all embroiled in defending Clinton. The Rich pardon was terrible. Not as bad as Libby, but terrible. The Rich pardon doesn't need to be justifiable(honest mistake??? That's just an incredible line of argument) for the Libby pardon to be worthy of outrage. Christ.

Did you know that Libby was Rich's lawyer at the time he was pardoned?

Ben

07-07-2007, 01:00 PM

And the US attorney who originally indicted Rich was Giulani. Small, small world.

Rich was pardoned in part because his wife was a benefactor of the DNC and Clinton's library. It wasn't that Clinton sold a pardon, but he rewarded a crony. That's base corruption of the system.

Bush pardoned Libby as(presumably) a quid pro quo for obstructing justice. That should be illegal.

SlyFrog

07-07-2007, 02:02 PM

It wasn't that Clinton sold a pardon. . . .

It also emerged that Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, had donated (according to The Washington Post) "more than $1 million to the Democratic Party and its candidates, $450,000 to Clinton's library fund, $100,000 to a fund to help Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, $10,000 to the President's defense fund, and $7,375 worth of furniture to the Clintons."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34572.html

Also http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=103416.

Whether you want to call it "selling" or just happening to give a pardon to someone who just happened to donate a lot of cash, some of it pretty directly to the Clintons, is some hairsplitting that you can feel free to engage in.

Ben

07-07-2007, 02:13 PM

Hilarious quote from the Reason article:
On the other hand, it would be perverse to demand that he or any President consider pardons only for people who were not supporters and never gave money, and inhuman to expect him to not be influenced by friendship.

There's something about defending prominent political figures that make people retarded.

And I agree that it's hairsplitting, but selling a pardon is not as bad as pardoning someone in your own administration who was convicted of obstruction of justice regarding an investigation into your own administration's wrong-doing.

Talisker

07-07-2007, 02:20 PM

And I agree that it's hairsplitting, but selling a pardon is not as bad as pardoning someone in your own administration who was convicted of obstruction of justice regarding an investigation into your own administration's wrong-doing.
I dunno. Those are both pretty fucking bad.

Jasper

07-07-2007, 07:00 PM

Glenn

07-07-2007, 09:25 PM

Whether you want to call it "selling" or just happening to give a pardon to someone who just happened to donate a lot of cash, some of it pretty directly to the Clintons, is some hairsplitting that you can feel free to engage in.Guilt vs. the appearance of guilt is not hairsplitting.

*The money. The bribery theory seems far-fetched, if only because it is so entirely unnecessary to explain what happened. Did Denise Rich donate in exchange for a pardon--a federal crime, as she and Clinton would have known? Or did she get access to Clinton in exchange for her generosity? The latter, almost certainly. That is sleazy, but it is also routine in Washington, as well as being legal and inevitable.That about sums it up. What Clinton did was bad enough, but do you seriously believe that a guy who probably makes ten million dollars a year occasionally giving speeches is going to openly commit a federal crime for less than two million? Really?

SlyFrog

07-07-2007, 09:50 PM

Guilt vs. the appearance of guilt is not hairsplitting.

It's funny that you can assume guilt but not admit or recognize that you are doing it when it is not your guy (why, he's just guilty, I'm not assuming anything), but give every benefit of the doubt when it is your guy.

Funnier still that "guilt" has nothing to do with "sold" but that is just one of the common juvenile tricks in this forum. Just make up shit that the other guy didn't say if you can not stand against what they did say. Topic shifting without admitting you did it, it works so well. I've always wondered whether people really do believe they are cleverly winning something when they do it, or if they recognize the logical fallacy but just throw it out there in the hopes that no one notices.

I mean, even though I believe Bush is guilty as hell in this, I love how this thread has turned from everyone believing he is guilty to it being proven (as if there is a clear and certain "crime" to prove here in the first place) in Bush's case, but not in Clinton's.

I mean, it really is sophistry to be admired. Just start chanting loudly enough that the other guy is "guilty" and he is (why, we know that there was a secret deal cut with Scooter, and blah blah blah, even though we don't). But then protest strongly that your personal chosen horse has not been shown to have done wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt under the most defendant friendly justice system that could possibly be devised.

I think Ben said it best; it is amazing how some have to desperately defend everything about their guy.

Jason McCullough

07-08-2007, 12:08 AM

Is there anything resembling a plausible explanation of why Libby lied? Other than the obvious one than he's trying to cover up a higher level crime, that is.

MatthewF

07-08-2007, 12:24 AM

Off-topic a little, but the best political video cut I've ever seen is Alberto Gonzales saying "I do not recall" over 70 times in his congressional testimony. By about #50 or so, I wanted to throw my hands up in the air and yell "FOR FUCK'S SAKE, GIVE US SOMETHING," but alas, he was loyal until the very end. And he still has his job.

I love America, but sometimes I hate it.

Hawkeye Fierce

07-08-2007, 05:15 AM

I think Ben said it best; it is amazing how some have to desperately defend everything about their guy.

I think it's equally amazing how often the "Clinton did it too" argument gets brought up, because it's a patently ridiculous argument on its face. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And if the intent is to show that the people who are criticizing Bush for something defended Clinton for the same thing, that's a double edged sword, since the flip side is that the people who criticized Clinton for it are now defending Bush. That's without even getting into the details of whether the comparison is actually valid, or simply a smokescreen.

Ben Sones

07-08-2007, 06:38 AM

Is there anything resembling a plausible explanation of why Libby lied? Other than the obvious one than he's trying to cover up a higher level crime, that is.

No. Which is why all of the apologists spouting the whole "There was no real crime here, it's all just partisan politics" soundbyte need to shut the fuck up. It's pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ of, say, seven or higher that it's astronomically unlikely that Libby would have perjured himself for no reason. That crowd is now using the rhetoric that "the real trial was supposed to be about outing CIA operatives... what happened to that?!" Scooter Libby happened to that, dumbfucks. It's kind of hard hard to pursue a case when the court has no power to compell the key defendant/witness to testify.

SlyFrog

07-08-2007, 07:43 AM

I think it's equally amazing how often the "Clinton did it too" argument gets brought up, because it's a patently ridiculous argument on its face. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And if the intent is to show that the people who are criticizing Bush for something defended Clinton for the same thing, that's a double edged sword, since the flip side is that the people who criticized Clinton for it are now defending Bush. That's without even getting into the details of whether the comparison is actually valid, or simply a smokescreen.

Clinton did it too is not intended by anyone with a half a brain to suggest that two wrongs make a right. It is intended to cut into the holier than thou hypocrisy of people like Clinton and the others who supported him.

It again is the reason why some point out that there are those who will defend to the last absolutely inexcusable behavior by their own, but then have the hypocrisy to point it out on the other side.

Both are scum. I agree that Bush's behavior is worse here. Clinton and his cronies, however, should just shut the fuck up about this issue. If Obama, Pelosi and others want to blast Bush without defending Clinton, more power to them.

Glenn

07-08-2007, 10:00 AM

It's funny that you can assume guilt but not admit or recognize that you are doing it when it is not your guy (why, he's just guilty, I'm not assuming anything), but give every benefit of the doubt when it is your guy.Where exactly did I say that, retard? I think Libby's pardon was a travesty, but I don't think Bush is guilty of anything other than the same awful judgement he's always displayed. Yeah, darn. Swing and a miss on your part, huh?

Funnier still that "guilt" has nothing to do with "sold" but that is just one of the common juvenile tricks in this forum.Guilt has nothing to do with whether a crime occurred? Also, good job putting "sold" in quotes like someone other than you said it.

Just make up shit that the other guy didn't say if you can not stand against what they did say. Topic shifting without admitting you did it, it works so well.What do you think you were doing when you casually accused Clinton of accepting bribes when no one else had even mentioned his name, you silly little mongoloid?

I've always wondered whether people really do believe they are cleverly winning something when they do it, or if they recognize the logical fallacy but just throw it out there in the hopes that no one notices.I don't know, I'm not an expert on retard psychology. Why don't you save us all the effort and just tell us what's going on in your head right now?

I mean, even though I believe Bush is guilty as hell in this, I love how this thread has turned from everyone believing he is guilty to it being proven (as if there is a clear and certain "crime" to prove here in the first place) in Bush's case, but not in Clinton's. I mean, it really is sophistry to be admired. Just start chanting loudly enough that the other guy is "guilty" and he is (why, we know that there was a secret deal cut with Scooter, and blah blah blah, even though we don't).THESE ARE MORE THINGS THAT WOULD SHOCK AND OFFEND ME IF YOU HAD SAID THEM, WHICH I'M SURE YOU MUST HAVE.

But then protest strongly that your personal chosen horse has not been shown to have done wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt under the most defendant friendly justice system that could possibly be devised.I disagreed because you stated Clinton's guilt as fact. A position which you've completely abandoned in this post. I guess I'll accept your apology.

I think Ben said it best; it is amazing how some have to desperately defend everything about their guy.Yeah, I'm typing through a river of tears right now.

Glenn

07-08-2007, 10:24 AM

Clinton did it too is not intended by anyone with a half a brain to suggest that two wrongs make a right.Which tells us nothing about what you intended, AMIRITE?

It is intended to cut into the holier than thou hypocrisy of people like Clinton and the others who supported him.I'm a lot of things, but I don't think I have ever, once, been holier than thou. I rolled a 2 on my piety attribute.

It again is the reason why some point out that there are those who will defend to the last absolutely inexcusable behavior by their own, but then have the hypocrisy to point it out on the other side.You hurt me real bad just now, fattie. Not least of all because I didn't sign up for the Doomed Clintonistas League, and even if they tried to draft me, I'd dodge it.

Both are scum. I agree that Bush's behavior is worse here. Clinton and his cronies, however, should just shut the fuck up about this issue. If Obama, Pelosi and others want to blast Bush without defending Clinton, more power to them.The fact that Clinton is guilty of things (hell, lots of things) doesn't give you carte blanche to make spurious charges. If you want to act like that without getting called on it, you can go hang out at Freerepublic or Huffingtonpost or any of the other thousand partisan blog comments sections where people are given free reign to pull shit like that.

Grifman

07-08-2007, 10:58 AM

Pardoning someone to cover your ass essentially means the executive branch is entirely unaccountable, and that you de facto have tyranny. Impeachment was expressly setup to handle such abuse of power.

You don't use hyperbole much, do you? Just because there's not much that can be done about this pardon doesn't mean that Bush is "entirely unaccountable"? I mean, he can't go out and shoot someone tomorrow and get away with it. And I really don't think that Libby's pardon means we have Emperor Bush ruling the country yet. Besides, you contradict yourself - how can he be unaccountable yet subject to impeachment?

Don't get me wrong, I think the pardon was wrong, but I don't think it means what you say it does by a long shot.

noun

07-08-2007, 11:02 AM

I mean, he can't go out and shoot someone tomorrow and get away with it.

You mean like Cheney did?

Andrew Mayer

07-08-2007, 11:08 AM

So once the "Clinton pardoned too!" stuff clears can we discuss how this is still about obstruction of justice when Clinton's pardon was not.

Bonus points for the fact that a big part of the "why did Scooter lie" question can be answered by the fact that he was given the promise of a "get out of jail free" card before he did the crime.

bago

07-09-2007, 07:22 PM

Great summation:

1787: All are equal under law except the blacks who are 3/5ths equal

1865: Scratch that, they're equal.

1964: Okay, we're serious this time, all are equal.

2007: All are equal except prominent Republican White Men (who help us kill non-white men), who are 7/5ths of a normal man.

noun

07-11-2007, 06:47 PM

Speaking of obstruction of justice, Bush just ordered Harriet Miers to defy a Congressional supoena and not testify (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QAIVO80&show_article=1&catnum=-1). Is there a precedent for this? If the President basically says "blow me" to Congress, do they have a legal recourse to make him comply?

jeffd

07-12-2007, 11:00 AM

Yes, it's called impeachment.

He's playing chicken with Congress, assuming (probably correctly) that they won't dare impeach him.

Talisker

07-12-2007, 11:04 AM

Followup question: if Bush orders a former staffer to defy a congressional subpoena, and they testify anyway, can he do anything about it?

MikeSofaer

07-12-2007, 11:10 AM

Followup question: if Bush orders a former staffer to defy a congressional subpoena, and they testify anyway, can he do anything about it?
Probably. Gonzales can bring an indictment for whatever he wants. It's good to be the king.

Talisker

07-12-2007, 11:12 AM

Well, presumably Gonzales needs to state which law is being broken in the indictment. Is Executive Privilege actually codified?

MikeSofaer

07-12-2007, 11:21 AM

Well, presumably Gonzales needs to state which law is being broken in the indictment. Is Executive Privilege actually codified?
I'm not clear on exactly what sort of "order" he issued. If it was an executive order concerning information the President considers secret, issued to a person with a security clearance, there is a lot there to manufacture an indictment out of.

Talisker

07-12-2007, 12:00 PM

Gotcha -- so the president can stamp anything "Secret" that he wants to, such that you're violating your security clearance to discuss it, even if one of the other branches demands it.

I can see why Sara Taylor made sure she has a good lawyer.

Stroker Ace

07-12-2007, 02:37 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference. Big brass balls!

Glenn

07-12-2007, 02:50 PM

I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person. I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.'I saw this press conference this morning whilst eating my oatmeal. Not exactly the same as an acknowledgement. The second sentence is especially ridiculous considering CHENEY ORDERED HIM TO DO IT THAT's NOT EVEN A POINT OF CONTENTION YOU FUCK.

MikeSofaer

07-12-2007, 03:28 PM

CHENEY ORDERED HIM TO DO IT THAT's NOT EVEN A POINT OF CONTENTION YOU FUCK.
I keep hearing it put forward that Armitage acted alone. Libby was just panicking, there was no actual crime to cover up.

Glenn

07-12-2007, 04:17 PM

I keep hearing it put forward that Armitage acted alone. Libby was just panicking, there was no actual crime to cover up.Unless you're suggesting that Bush was hinting at some crazy epistemological quandary, neither of those arguments actually dispute Cheney's role, they simply argue that what Libby did on his behalf wasn't illegal. In both Fitzgerald and Libby's accounts, Cheney is supervising Libby's actions, and there are plenty of documents corroborating that.

MikeSofaer

07-12-2007, 05:12 PM

Unless you're suggesting that Bush was hinting at some crazy epistemological quandary, neither of those arguments actually dispute Cheney's role, they simply argue that what Libby did on his behalf wasn't illegal. In both Fitzgerald and Libby's accounts, Cheney is supervising Libby's actions, and there are plenty of documents corroborating that.
So once is becomes clear that Cheney's office hasn't committed a crime, continuing to ask Libby questions can have no purpose in the investigation, it's a brazen attempt to make him feel he has to lie to protect his boss. It's practically entrapment!

Glenn

07-12-2007, 06:50 PM

So once is becomes clear that Cheney's office hasn't committed a crime, continuing to ask Libby questions can have no purpose in the investigation, it's a brazen attempt to make him feel he has to lie to protect his boss. It's practically entrapment!Stop apologizing for Clinton. You're better than that.

Talisker

07-17-2007, 04:26 PM

Heard back from Pete Hoekstra (or more likely, one of his drones) today:

Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue.

I disagree with the President's decision to commute the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Pursuant to the Constitution, the President does possess broad authority to grant pardons and reprieves for offenses against the United States, however, in this instance I do not agree with his use of that authority.

Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice, and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release and a fine of $250,000. I believe the integrity of the justice system relies on people telling the truth, and individuals must be held accountable for failing to do.

Although the President did not pardon Mr. Libby entirely, and he will therefore be responsible for a significant fine and probation, I believe the sentence passed down by the justice system should have stood.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Pete
Interesting, given that this was the only thing I could find that he said on the issue publicly:
"I think we'll put up the record of the president versus the record of Bill Clinton, and the president will come out relatively good on that," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Way to take a stand, Pete.