
With all the talk of pardons for Scooter Irving, I thought the subject deserved more fact-based discussion than all the wild assed speculation going around, and there has not been a piece with authoritative sourcing or citation in any newspapers I've read. I thought that all of you might like some usable, verifiable information about how the pardon process actually works in this great nation of ours.
Pardons and/or clemency are granted by the President pursuant to authority granted to the President under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution which reads in pertinent part:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. [bold and underline mine]
The power to pardon is absolute (well except for that impeachment thingy), but Presidents have consistently recognized that it is not something to be dispensed carelessly, but rather soberly, thoughtfully and with restraint. Therefore, procedures have been put in place to help the President identify worthy recipients of this magnanimous power. Those procedures are carried out in the Office of the Pardon Attorney, a division of the Department of Justice.
The current Pardon Attorney is Roger C. Adams, a Clinton era appointee. The duties of the Pardon Attorney include investigating all applications for pardons or clemency, including requests to commute death penalty sentences.
The Office of the Pardon Attorney, in consultation with the Attorney General or his designee, assists the President in the exercise of executive clemency as authorized under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the President's clemency power extends only to federal criminal offenses. All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Pardon Attorney for investigation and review. The Pardon Attorney prepares the Department's recommendation to the President for final disposition of each application. Executive clemency may take several forms, including pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve.
This has been the work of the Office of the Pardon Attorney for over 100 years.
See Executive Order dated June 16, 1893 (transferring clemency petition processing and advisory functions to the Justice Department), the Rules Governing the Processing of Petitions for Executive Clemency (codified in 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq.), and 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.35 and 0.36 (relating to the authority of the Pardon Attorney)
There are clear and written guidelines for the Pardon Attorney to use in deciding whether or not to recommend to the President that a particular individual be pardoned or given clemency.
And this being the Government, there are forms. (There are always forms to fill out.)
This is a brief — very brief — run through of the guidelines to be used by the Pardon Attorney when determining whether to recommend to the President that a person receive a pardon. They can be found in their fulsome glory here.
1. Post conviction conduct, character and reputation.
I suppose this is where all that "Scooter is such a nice guy, he deserves a pardon" stuff comes into play.
2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.
Under this section, a "very serious" offense is defined as "a violent crime, major drug trafficking, breach of public trust, or white collar fraud involving substantial sums of money." [emphasis mine]
This does NOT look promising for Scooter. It gets worse for him. Under this section the Pardon Attorney is supposed to wait for a "suitable length of time [to] have elapsed in order to avoid denigrating or undermining the deterrent effect of the conviction."
OUCH!
But, in fact, it gets worse for "Cheney’s Cheney." This section also asserts "[i]n the case of a prominent individual or a notorious crime, the likely effect of a pardon on law enforcement interests or upon the general public should be taken into account." This is just a tough, tough section for Libby.
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse and atonement.
Has Libby met any of these requirements? No, no, oh and no.
4. Need for relief.
You know, at first glance, that section looks like a place Libby could gain a little ground, but further reading of this section reveals that it isn’t what Irving wants it to be. It’s not the "I’m an insider with full belief in my own entitlements so I NEED this pardon cause I WANT this pardon."
Sorry, this section relates to those individuals who have been convicted of a felony, paid their debt to society, turned their life around and have lived a blameless existence for years and are merely asking to have the disability of their prior conviction removed so they can once again enjoy full civil rights, such as the right to vote or hold a professional license or similar issues.
5. Official Recommendations and Reports.
This section actually refers back to another part of the pardon guidelines relating to the role played by the guys who prosecuted the felon in the first place. That other part of the guidelines says "[t]he views of the United States Attorney [in this case Fitz] are to be given considerable weight in determining what recommendations to make to the President."
I wonder what those views could be?
Good quote for ya’ll (from the pardon petition information at the DoJ website):
§ 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.
No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.[emphasis mine]
Now that I got your hopes up, here’s the "there is no Santa Claus" quote that takes all that fun stuff away:
§ 1.11 Advisory nature of regulations.The regulations contained in this part are advisory only and for the internal guidance of Department of Justice personnel. They create no enforceable rights in persons applying for executive clemency, nor do they restrict the authority granted to the President under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. [emphasis mine]
This will take you to the Capital Hill testimony of the current Pardon Attorney as he explains to the Senate Judiciary committee just what it is he does. The money quote for me is on a very de minimus standard that we ought to be able to expect in all cases, though I know it was not followed when Ford pardoned Nixon or when Poppy Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger. It is the last paragraph from the Pardon Attorney's testimony.
In any event, we have no knowledge or belief that President Clinton intended to pardon anyone for conduct for which he or she was not at least charged and, in most cases, convicted. Moreover, my office has had no contact of any sort with President Clinton or any of his assistants since the master pardon warrant was signed on January 20th.
The "master pardon warrant" refers to the blanket pardon given to those who went to Canada to avoid the Viet Nam draft. You know the ones who couldn’t get mulitple deferrments like Dick Cheney or serve their duty being AWOL from the National Guard? Kinda gives this whole pardon thing a little perspective.
Bottom line, if the pardon guidelines are applied to Libby, he rots in the housgow. If the Unitary Executive thinks all these awesome Constitutional powers are really just tinker toys he got under the Christmas Tree and he can play with them any way he likes…?



279 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Don Pardo says don’t pardon
And so. The bottom line is that Libby can legally and indirectly, obtain a pardon from his Commander in Chief, Cheney?
Good post, plenty of factual material LHP, but…
I have a different take on this:
A modest proposal for sentencing in the Libby trial.
FITZ!!
JUSTICE!!!!!!!
I often type this to open threads, but it feels strangely different this week……
My Little Pony Express:
all mail delivered to/from Rayne.
[waves hi to Marcy]
If Nixon could get a pardon and Marc Rich could get a pardon, then what prevents Libby from getting one? And if Libby gets pardoned what then does that leave us, citizens, with?
I believe the power to pardon should be removed from the exective branch.
You’re gonna quote the Constitution? Pretty soon you’ll be at the section where Congress is in charge of setting rules for prisoners on land or water. Cough.
And that habeus corpus thingie.
Or that other really obscure one where only Congress can declare war.
Webb is trying to codify that BEFORE Pres. Cheney pre-emptively attacks Iran. They are beginning to feel cornered, no telling what they’ll do.
LHP! As ever, thanks for sharing your scholarship and erudition.
Fitz!
Team Plame!
Sunny Sunday in San Francisco with temps over 70!
Fresh asaparagus and tomatoes in the farmers’ market! Sardines and anchovies from Monterey Bay! Fresh wild steelhead from the northwest!
(time to go make lunch….)
kirk murphy @ 6
I know we change to daylight savings tonight, but how did SF get a full day ahead of Berkeley? :~)
AFAIKS, there are many conflicting impulses within the Great George W. The two that affect Libby are:
1) The absolute love (no doubt stoked by Rove) of putting a stick in the eye of his opponents. Democrats and “liberals” are certainly on his list of opponents, and granting Libby a pardon would be one sharp stick in the eye of both. 100 for Libby.
2) Out of sight, out of the family. Bush tends to be fairly loyal (in the Mafia sense) to people who are actually working for him and building him up at the moment. Once they leave his employ/cannot build him up, not so much. -50 for Libby.
Overall my scorecard says: pardon for Libby. Wildcard: Cheney leaves offices before November 2008. If Rice is appointed VP, -500 for Libby. If a Cheney acolyte, 100. A Poppy retainer, -50.
Cranky
Dear lhp — This is a terific post, chockful of useful legal facts and insight into the pardon process.
It needs to be Spotlighted to this nation’s reporters and political commentators in all of the media.
Bravo.
Am I correct in thinking that if Little Boots pardons Scooty-Scoot, then there is very little standing in the way of subpoenas to get testimony out of him in the civil case?
In other words, the author of pornographic scenes of child rape and bestiality and incest (not that this has anything to do with his current conviction, but still! Let’s remember what kind of “nice guy” we’re talking about) will have less justification to take the fifth if he’s pardoned.
Is that correct? I get confused about the details of jeopardy once the idea of pardon gets tossed into the mix.
punaise @ 8
Ah, Telegraph Ave. on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
Hi, friendly moderators! My comment is stuck in the filter, and I have no idea why.
Thanks in advance!
Hmmm. Maybe getting stuck in moderation is a function of reminding readers about the type of disgusting stuff Scooter’s so-called novel contained.
I love Berkeley. Sometimes I feel so far away from ‘home’.
kirk murphy @
7
Hmmmm, Here’s the view out my window Friday morning,
http://bp3.blogger.com/_ghKS4c…..G_0502.JPG
lhp -
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse and atonement.
…which brings to mind Burdick v. United States, a 1915 United States Supreme Court decision mentioned in previous threads that states in part the following (my emphasis):
MrsK8—
Refresh.
Thanks for the rundown, LHP. Unfortunately, as you’ve observed, our President doesn’t seem to be deterred by rules and regulations. With that in mind, is there any reason to hope that he’ll abide by them here? That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW.
The mini-river icing up. If temps are under 20 degrees F for 72 hours in a row, the ice is safe to walk on. Any time above 20 degrees and the ice is punk. When i got home after work, the river was iced over and the ducks gone. Thawed today.
Berkeley. Am I a beached radical? Mario Savio, where are you?
Berkeley is always a day ahead.
I still would like to understand better, if someone can enlighten me, if a pardon would endanger Libby’s function for the cabal as a firewall. Is he less able (legally) to keep his trap shut with a pardon in his pocket?
wow punaise -
way too much coffee for me today…..
seem to have exceeded relativistic velocities.
rats…temporal paradoxes are so difficult on an empty stomach…
(Sorry, posted this in the previous thread, but perhaps it is more appropriately placed here.)
Framing the issue:
Frame 1: Scooter’s Choice. They are now pushing the “Pardon Poor Scooter” meme. This should be countered by reminding the public that Scooter has it within his ability to avoid prison at any moment. His crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are ongoing. If he were to decide to tell Fitz the truth, even now, there would be no need for jail time or a pardon. So it is his decision to go to jail, at every instant.
Frame 2: Executive accountability. Although the President’s authority to pardon is absolute, this is not a typical pardon such as one given for compassionate reasons, e.g. a murderer with an IQ of 50. In this case there is a conflict of interest, and for the President to issue a pardon would make it impossible for there to be any real investigation of the executive branch in all future administrations. It short circuits the entire rule of law, as subordinates will know they will be able to lie with impunity, and later be pardoned by a corrupt administration. How can the Executive Branch ever be held accountable if this is allowed to take place?
Frame 3: Cover-up. If despite the arguments above the pardon is issued anyway, then we must be prepared to scream “pre-arranged deal” and “cover-up” as loudly as possible and go for the political jugular. You know they would. Best would be to create the thread of some sort of conspiracy, with just enough truth to allow the conspiracy nuts to run with it. And it probably would not be too far from the truth.
Thanks for the great trial coverage.
litespeed
OT: But irresistible! A friend just sent me this youtube link of a ‘93 Guiliani commercial. Watch it and howl!
kirk murphy @ 24
you seem to be suffering from imPeetsment fever
Am off now to do therapy in the pool, but will check back later to see if lhp or other legal lights are able to offer an opinion on my question.
And let me not forget to thank lhp for such a well-written, info-packed posting! This place has the best writers with plenty of expertise!
egregious @ 4
Thank you so much Eg.
I was out in Manhattan today with MArcy abd away from th e’puter. Littleprop joined us for lunch as well
Hello, litespeed – absolutely we should scream – and that’s good stuff to scream!
egregious @ 6
Eg,
Something that worries me a bit is that now Cheney is like a wounded animal, no telling what crazy things could happen
OT Bush approves 4,400 more troops for Iraq.
You know that surge is beginning to look a lot more like a slippery slope, or maybe a blank check. I assume that the Bush-Cheney line on this is that after more than 4 years of lies about Iraq, what’s one more?
These people will not stop their disastrous policies until they are stopped, whether that is defunding, impeachment, or a jail cell. The Democrats need to get off their *sses and just say no, not with the so far convoluted and conditioned approaches but in a simple “We are taking your toys away from you and sending you to bed” kind of way. Congressional Democrats must wake up and realize that the Republicans are not an opposition party but a criminal enterprise and need to be treated as one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..sa_bush_dc
lhp –
I see in your last paragraph you use the term “Unitary Executive.” Did you mean “Unilateral Executive?” I believe it was Christy who wrote a few months ago of the important difference.
As usual Oklahoma kiddoo reveals himself as a troll.
“And so…” meaning “so what”.
I’ll say this to that “so what”…if Bush allows Mr. Cheney to convince him to use the process of a pardon for Mr. Libby…it will be absolutely against the long established policies of pardon and demonstrate that Bush is simply a hypocrite.
What it will show is that, when it comes to crimes by political cronies of the President there are different standards than the ones that he mandates that all others have to face.
Now that might not have any “political cost” in the waning days of his Administration…but it would if it is done before the election…very serious ones. It would become a heated topic of discussion that all the REPUBLICAN Presidential candidates would have to weather…whether they think it’s appropriate for a President to pardon members of their administration who have been convicted of blocking a national security leak investigation?
People then might start asking if they are planning on pardoning Jonathan Pollard, or Aldrich Ames?
They might ask if the President really believes that Perjury and Obstruction laws shouldn’t hold for members of the Executive branch and if he is goiung to ask Congress to pass a law saying such!
I realize that there are some 20% of the population out there who will say “so what” to anything that this President DOES…but such acts do little to increase his support and increasingly suggest to many who view this Administration as simply incompetant, as one that is outright CRIMINAL!
radlib1 @ 10
Thank you that’s very kind. And it’s brava . I’m a girl prop
It’s a massacre, Hugh @ 32.
As a person who read Jesselyn Radacks complete insider’s story in her book The Canary in the CoalMine; Blowing the whistle in the case of John Walker-Lindh, I feel that each and every point you make about what has worked for Presidents for a hundred years or more does not fit the case here and now!
The Justice Dept is broken. The Presidency is broken. Ethics are scrapped and nonpartisans are removed from office as Jessely was. What Jesselyn Radack describes in her book is comparable to the Justice dept. during tricky-dick’s tenure, but who would know this? Our beloved media (sarcasm) sure hasn’t done their job as the 4th estate.
The recent firings of the prosecutors has sturred the pot for sure. But ask Ms. Radack about what happens behind the scenes. Because when push comes to shove, she’s the prime example of how ethics and democracy are not the ‘norm’ in this administration but instead are the rarity. And those still there in the DOJ or other departments have their hands full just trying to stay afloat until sanity can return in 08!
Please go and read the list of ALL the people who received a pardon from Pres. Clinton many who did not meet the “criteria” and then reassert your position.
Mrs. K8 @ 11
He could still assert the fifth for any as yet uncharged crimes (only Scooter and Santa know if he;s been naughty or nice). But if he is pardoned for perjury, he could no longer assert the fifth with repsect to those charges
looseheadprop @ 31
Eg,
Something that worries me a bit is that now Cheney is like a wounded animal, no telling what crazy things could happen
cbl’s wounded coyote concept.
Are you following the controversial kos post which pretty much takes names and kicks butt? So many loose ends all together. Hope it’s enough before they do something truly awful.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 17
Dontcha love Burdick? Cuts right through the spin!
cinnamonape @ 34
SO wrong. OKk is well known to us. You’re on thin ice here buddy.
cinnamonape @ 34
I disagree. perhaps you mistake his sometimes cynical utterances for something else.
lhp -
It might be helpful to see United States v. Wilson, an 1833 United States Supreme Court decision cited in Burdick v. United States. A summary of the Wilson decision follows, quoting from a 2006 Kentucky Supreme Court decision (shotened citation: Fletcher v. Graham) mentioned in a link provided in one of Wednesday’s FDL threads:
lhp—
An extremely conservative friend of mine [why are so many of my female friends conservative??] says she believes he is actually insane. I mean clinically. Based on some people who are observing what’s going on but too frightened to speak.
Cujo359 @ 19
Actually there is a purpose. The only times that presidents have tried to crcumvent the proper work of the pardon attorney IT WAS A VERY BIG DEAL
I have no problem with the blanket pardon for the Viet Nam draft refugees, but it was controversial because it involved deviating from sensible and long respected rules and procedures.
The Nixon pardon was always controversial, though many say they came to see wisdom in it.
But the Weinberger pardon, that’s another kettle of fish. I think it was a major contributing factor to Poppy losing re-election. I also believe it did irreparable harm to the rule of law in this country.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
We can and should push, push, push the idea that the president should follow the Pardon guidlines
Mrs K8 at #11 – He will have Zero ability to take the 5th – the 5th is to avoid self-incrimination by testafying, and the pardon removes all jeopardy – therefore, he must testafy. Question – if he lies under those conditions, is the pardon revoked? or is he tried on another count of lying?
cinnamonape @ 34
cinnamonape, I’ve enjoyed your contributions here…
but on this issue your assertion is incorrect and not factual.
OK kiddo is a valued member of this community.
‘Nuff said.
LHP@29 – Hey LHP, Nice post and if you are hanging around, I have a question. This concerns Christy’s post yesterday discussing Sid Blumenthal’s recent article. As I didn’t read Christy’s post until much later, I sent her an email and I am very interested in your thought as well.
Specifically, my question is in relation to CHS and Sid Blumenthal’s postulating on the possibility that Cheney and Libby may really have been going to testify, but that changed in trial due to the defense becoming aware of Rove as a rebuttal witness. I am intrigued by this theory. I will admit upfront that I never thought that Cheney would testify (unless Fitz subpoened him, and we knew he did not) and thought chances were slim that Libby would take the stand either. Based upon what CHS wrote, and Blumenthal, I am wondering if maybe my bases for my conclusion were full of bologna. In order to figure out whether I was full of it, or if this new hypothesis has to many holes, I have to ask if it is based upon Jencks considerations. It appears that this new theory contemplates that the defense came into the possession of some knowledge during the trial that made them suddenly aware that they could not put on Scooter or Shooter due to impeachment by Rove. But I cannot think of any reason that this would occur other than a Jencks disclosure and I was not aware that any such disclosure was made during the trial; furthermore, with neither Libby, Cheney, nor Rove having testified, there was no reason for such a disclosure in relation to potential Rove testimony. At any rate, is this the basis for this theory, or am I missing something here. For the time being, I am sticking with the position that Libby and Cheney were never going to testify and any inference that they were was a ruse to use as an advantage in voir dire and in pre-trial greymail defense efforts, but I am certainly open for re-education. Thanks for any input.
Mrs. K8 @ 23
I think so
lhp Something that worries me a bit is that now Cheney is like a wounded animal, no telling what crazy things could happen
Which is why it matters what you believe caused the attack in ‘01. They can do it again.
The Bush mouthpieces are all over the airwaves stating over and over again that the President has absolute pardoning authority.
Well, yes he does. But we need to point out right back that the Congress has absolute oversight authority. They can hold hearings on any subject they darn well please, and they can call people to testify, subpoena them if necessary and require them to testify under oath.
It wasn’t that long ago that Congress held extensive hearings on Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, so it’s not as if it’s unprecedented.
So Bush, go ahead. Pardon Libby. And be prepared for every member of the White House staff to be hauled up to Capitol Hill to testify under oath about the circumstances surrounding that pardon.
litespeed @ 25
WHat litespeed said. If a mod would like to add Litespeed’s comment as an update at the bottom of my post, I would be honored to have it there
Oklahoma kiddo @
5
I don’t, simply because I don’t like the idea of tinkering with the Constitution, and also because someday there may be a Democratic President with a real need to pardon someone for good cause, and we would have let Repugnicans take that right away. However, there is still recourse, I think. We have a Democratic Congress, and if they are outraged, can’t they impeach Libby for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury or whatever. We know that Cheney cannot himself issue a pardon but Cheney can be impeached, and we know that the AG can be impeached. I guess my question is, can Libby be impeached, since I don’t think he is a Constitutional Officer or an appointment subject to confirmation by Congress? Also, how or who can cause him to be disbarred? Does someone have to ask the ABA or the local Bar Association that he belongs to?
We need a new Constitutional Amendment
Something along the lines that a president cannot pardon people who acted in his/her chain of command.
This would prevent an administration from pardoning any criminal done by the administration.
The above wording prevents a president from resigning and then being pardoned by the former VP.
What wording and conditions should be in this ammendment?
Woodhall Hollow @ 26
You know the funny thing of it? Rudy reeally was a very involved father considering the kind of monster hours all USA’s have to work.
The sofa in his office always has all thse Fisher Price toys and little cars stuffed underneath (but not really out of site). I always wondered if it undermined his tough guy image when he was dealing with defense lawyers.
Kathyrn in MA
Brrr!
punaise
i’ve been jonesing for my fitz…
hope he’s not come to the dregs of his investigation (defendants notwithstanding)
Yo, OK?
;0)
MonkeyBoy @ 54
I would add the following language: he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment and CYA.
silence is complicity @ 37
What makes me sick is that with the huge flight of talent out of DOJ, it will take years to rebuild it back to a level of competency. I could weep.
CinnamonApe – i agree OKK skates pretty close to the edge but as he says,
‘ gentle people agree to disagree.’
Ain’t there a Gonzales clause in this pardon law, lhp?
I’m sure AbuG can whip something up for his client — er, the President.
Ann in AZ @ 54
Yes, and I can certainly see your points. Perhaps I shall change my view on this. Maybe not. But for now, I feel quite at ease with what you are telling me. ;0)
lhp -
Quoting further from Fletcher v. Graham, the 2006 Kentucky Supreme Court decision I mentioned above:
angie @ 58
;0)…
egregious @ 42
OK kiddo is feel ing a might pessamistic, that does not make him a troll.
In all honesty, I see how hard they are pushing this pardon idea, and I don’t feel too optimistic myself.
The post is meant to cut through the spin and give you all the data to do pushback. I think Lightspeed ( a new name to me, hope to see it more often) really has excellent, excellent talking points there
USE THEM TO PUSH BACK
… and Girl Scout cookies on every corner in the Castro!
lovely organized post lhp
I just have a feeling that after FISA violations, NSL violations, signing statements, kidnap, abuse, torture and very possibly murder of detainees, violation of Geneva Conventions, “lost” billions of OPM, etc. something like pardon guidelines won’t make a huge difference. But who knows?
Hugh @32 – so they plan on having MORE than the 14,000 to 15,000 detainees they already have? Oh. I didn’t realize that “winning hearts and minds” thing was calculated by how many bodies you crammed in a cage. I guess I was thinking more metaphorically.
lhp – maybe at some point you can do a rundown, too, on obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503, 05, 12, whatever) vis a vis the OTHER admin obstruction problem. The USAttys.
By statute, the AG has no say whatsoever over USAttys with respect to removal. The AG has removal powers over Assist. USAttys (28 USC 542) but ONLY the President has removal powers with respect to USAttys (28 USC 541) So DID George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, personally involve himself in the decision to remove these attorneys? What did he know, when and what did he decide, when and how did he communicate it to those USAttys? Bc the AG, whatever his “policies and priorities” can’t do it. Not his COS, not his Deputy or his Deputy’s COS. Only the President.
That said, I don’t think the removal power is unlimited. Not only is there the general “no reason, bad reason, but not illegal reason” limit on discretion, but there is a case (and really Immanentize found this, I’m just thieving from him bc it fit my concept I floated about removal rights not being unlimited), Humphrey’s Executor, involving a removal by Roosevelt. THe Sup Ct said:
We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named
That character was officials whose functions are not purely Executive but involved quasi-legislative and quasi-judiciary functions. The Court goes on to say,
For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will.
Now Congress didn’t wrap bows around the statutory language of ability to remove, but I still think the tenor of the Humphrey’s case and the independence on duties which are non-purely Executive certainly infer that the President’s right to remove is limited by not being able to remove for illegal reasons, for example, to obstruct justice or corrupt the judicial process with partisan poltics.
But that’s jmo.
Personally, I’d still like to see Libby (and up the chain) get charged or brought to account or impeached with respect to the NIE leak and an Indep Pros go down that path. I also believe in whirled peas.
Mary!
So good to hear from you.
Stephen Parish at 44
I may have to do some follow up research on that! Mighty intriguing
egregious @ 45
He who? Bush? Cheney? Scooter?
punaise @ 43
Sometimes cynical? He basically makes statements like this so frequently that it seems to suggest to me that we simply give up and all go home.
After all…as OKid seems to suggest…Bush will simply do what he wants and there is no reason to even try. Or to point out the historical and legal precedents to this regimes corruption.
If that’s not a troll…well it serves the same function.
MonkeyBoy @ 54
I totally agree. That’s a no brainer.
re 39
Let’s say Scooter does get pardoned, is asked to testify, takes the 5th on all things not charged, but as to the two statements/episodes where he was nailed for perjury in front of the GJ – - what is he going to say?
If he says what he said before the GJ – do you think he could be charged AGAIN for perjury, bc it has alreay been found that he lied when he said those things? If he is at risk for a second conviction that would not be blocked by double jeopardy – then why can’t he take the 5th? If is he not at risk for a second conviction, then why say anything different?
I don’t see any testimonial advantage if he has a pardon, but I don’t think like a litigator.
Interesting opinion article in the Washington Post (may need a subscription, but it’s free) by Denis Collins, the former Washington Post reporter who was on the jury for the Libby trial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01891.html
Oklahoma kiddo—
I hope you are feeling the love and support from those of us who are defending you!!!
smooches,
———–egregious
When Bush was governor of Texas and ole Alberto Gonzales was preparing the reports on capital cases for him, how often did he grant clemency?
I think this inconsistency should be brought up in any Libby pardon discussion.
cinnamonape dear, OK Kiddo has been working on behalf of the world in the most earnest way for a very long time.
I was gone from FDL for a couple of months, but have been here for a very long time before and after. OK Kiddo is a most true patriot and humanitarian.
Trust me.
Get to know OK and stick around.
mattsmom
Do I remember correctly that your son is overseas? Sorry if wrong.
punaise @ 1
Thank you, Don Pardo.
but connamonape has a point – being a downer doesn’t help advance the cause, and dishonors the hard work everyone is doing.
lhp
He…Cheney
Jonathan Turley thinks we may have a Torturer in Chief.
-GSD
I’m a little queasy thinking that our American Presidency has been reduced to behaving like a military junta.
kirk murphy @ 48
I won’t pursue it further…but it does seem to me that a person who denigrates a rather lengthy contribution by saying something that’s the equivalent of a Valley Girl going “WHATEVER” is serving much the same dispiriting and non-contributory role as a troll.
And while it’s true that I’ve seen O’kid offer some views that are fairly far left…what’s to say that these weren’t offered as a necessary crypsis for acceptance?
If he really is an honored part of the community maybe he should try to offer some positive contributions regarding the issue rather than incendiery put-downs of those pointing out the historical framework.
Hugh @ 77
BANG-A-FRIGGIN-LANG!
-GSD
They are the Untouchables who only have feelings for those in their inner circle.
cinnamonape @ 71
my operational definition of a troll (from usenet days up to today) is an e-participant whose actions disrupt the community while adding nothing of substance.
I have never found that definition applicable to OK kiddo.
I would like to say I have never found that definition applicable to your participation here – and until today, I have not.
Should you persist in these obdurate slanders, I will not be able to say that.
I would have a great deal else to say…at your expense.
I’d prefer not to have the occasion.
Addendum: this was written before your 83 (I’m a slow typist). Based on your 83, I’ll consider this closed.
egregious @ 76
this is getting corny. Hey, OKK, {{{ ;) }}}
cinnamonape @ 34
Well, it didn’t seem to hurt Daddy Bush nearly enough. He was pardoned people with whom he, himself, was in league to commit crimes in Iran/contra. He should have been charged when he was one of the main ones to approve of the actions taken by the Iran/contra conspirators, wasn’t he?
cinnamonape @ 34
I guess everybody’s entitled to an opinion. Now, who the fuck are you?
egregious @ 76
;0)
Kathryn in MA @ 81
Cinnamonape has already proven a bigger downer than OK Kiddo could even dream of becoming. And I speak as one who often gives OKK’s posts a tolerant miss.
Mary4 but ONLY the President has removal powers with respect to USAttys (28 USC 541) So DID George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, personally involve himself in the decision to remove these attorneys?
This is HUGE. Followup = ??
cinnamonape @ 84
could you please define fairly far left? the lake is pretty wide and deep.
cinnamonape:
OK Kiddo is incendiary and does not offer “positive contributions”?
Really???
LHP@60
“What makes me sick is that with the huge flight of talent out of DOJ, it will take years to rebuild it back to a level of competency. I could weep.”
Yeah, and one can surely say the same about the CIA, CDC, FBI, and at least another dozen important executive agencies. It’s a slow-motion train wreck in progress.
Years??? I would venture that it will take at least a generation to recover these lost assets.
Mrs. K8 @ 11
If Libby is pardoned only for the crimes of which he was convicted, he could probably still take the Fifth in the civil case (or before Congress) on the theory that he could still incriminate himself on charges of which he was not convicted, i.e., violation of the IIPA.
If he gets a BLANKET pardon for any crimes that could have been charged relating to the leak, then he faces no further criminal charges, and he can no longer take the Fifth concerning anything relating to the leak.
GSD @ 83
Welcome to my world. And they wonder why I drink.
So if I understand the pardon power, the president cannot pardon for instance a speeding ticket, or criminal offense at the state or local level.
onre thing’s for sure, we all know where OK stands on the subject of a certain senator from NY… :~)
egregious @ 90
I think the story from the WH is that Bush OK’ed the firings but did not actually initiate them. That supposedly came from the DOJ. The problem is the Arkansas case where the USA was replaced by a Rove crony, indicating more than a little WH involvement.
looseheadprop @
70
I thought it was intriguing. If I’m not mistaken, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Wilson.
While we’re discussing John Marshall’s opinions – and since treason and writs of habeas corpus have been broached frequently in various recent FDL threads – it might be worthwhile to read his comments about treason and writs of habeas corpus in an opinion he wrote in a decision (Ex parte Bollman) handed down by the United States Supreme Court in 1807:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Bollman and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..p;invol=75
egregious at #40 says:
Do you have a link? I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with you guys (I’m a painfully slow reader, and not a good typist either), but I’d be interested in reading it.
Ann—-
Going over to get the link.
I’m congenitally slow myself.
Pls be patient w me :)
Just so we’re clear on the B41 pardon timeline, per wiki:
egregious @ 42
Agreed!!!
bmaz @ 49
I am all over the place on this point.
On the one hand I beleive SOMETHING happened on or about Opening Day to make the defense through out most of their intended game plan. Scooter had really good, experienced lawyers and they put a ton of work into this case. No way in hell lawyers of that calibar could have turned in such a disorganized mess of a case unless something flumoxed tham at the last minute. During the prosecution’s Opening Statemnt I was watching the jury, the defnse table, and the defnse friends and family section of the gallery instead of Pat. Something happened.
You could seeit that “oh crap” look creeping into their game faces. AT the time, I thought it was just because the Openig Statemnt was so damn good (i still have little happy tinges of it bopping around my memory today– I may never forget it)
And Wells did say somethig about getting some last minute Jenks disclosure that I never got the full gist of. Maybe it was realted to something in the Opening that took the wind out of their sails?
Conversly, I don’t doubt that it is entirely possible that never intended to call Libby or Cheney at all and it was all a misdirection to perpetrate the grey mail and to try to stack the jury with kool aide drinkers.
No wisdom to be had from me.
Pectopah @ 96
IANAL but it has to be federal.
punaise @
99
a wee bit to the right of me, which is, nevertheless, fairly far left….
Berkeley in the 1980’s was awesome.
Kos story
Ties it all into a neat little package. And makes you want to throw up, and then makes you want to fight for what’s left of your country.
You’d think this was some scifi movie but what if it’s real. DEAR GOD.
egregious @
97
Pinochet on the Potomac.
-GSD
I love all you guys dearly. And surely do hope you know that. Sometimes, perhaps many times, people don’t agree with what I have to say. But I mean no harm. But perhaps we might want to drop this thing. I will continue to speak out. I do love all you guys. ;0)
kiddo….
notimetowaste @ 109
Berkeley is pretty tame now. Even the signature political correctness is ever so slightly on the wane.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 112
Don’t make me call David Broder in here to moderate.
-GSD
Oklahoma kiddo @ 5
Alright, I went back and read the post and saw that I was mainly reacting to the first portion without seeing the rationale of making those statements…which was removing the power of pardon from the Executive.
It did seem to me to be “don’t even worry about this…Bush will pardon him anyway”.
But I was under the impression that in both those cases there were not really even “pardons” as defined as remissions of criminal convictions.
Nixon was never tried, and no one seemed to be willing to actually pursue prosecution afterwards…not Ford…and no one in Congress, who could have raised the issue WITH FORD as to the illegitimacy of his PARDON.
In the Rich case, was there actually a conviction? Did Rich flee while the case was on appeal? Was he tried in absentia ? Did the Pardon Officer have any role in advancing the pardon? I’m a bit fuzzy about the details.
And I wonder if there are any historical statements back in the 2000 Campaign in which reference to the Rich Pardon was made as something that tainted the Clinton Administration?
Kathryn in MA @ 47
The problem I see here is that he will simply say he knows nothing, he remembers nothing. Fitz pretty much proved he remembered more than he was admitting to and that he made some memories up very conveniently, but he did so in very limited and narrow circumstances. It’s now been years and might be much harder to prove if he gives a blanket “me no can remember.”
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 64
Of course under that analysis certainly the Nixon pardon and possibly the Weinberger pardon could have been found to have been void ab initio if challeneged in court.
Stephen, you are in danger of giving me a night of obsesive Lexis surfing. You just keep throwing temptation in my path. *g*
lhp—
Wait.
You WEREN’T watching Pat?
[whoooosh kaboooooom per litigatormom]
egregious @
110
It IS like Sci-Fi the way Cerberus keeps coming back up in the progressive blogs, but is nowhere to be seen in the MSM. Well, maybe that’s not sci-fi, just EVERY FRIGGING DAY IN THE USA!
I wish somebody like Laura Rozen would be able to write about this for New Yorker or some other high profile weekly where this kind of scandal starts going mainstream.
OK– please don’t go away. Our world needs your voice and I need your wisdom, your honesty, your friendship and your just being here.
So many have been silenced for too long. And I still haven’t caught up on the threads today since Phoenix Woman! Don’t even ask about the ones I have totally missed.
I just jumped into the Lake, again.
Oh, and hi Mary4! (waving)
Mary4 @ 68
Mary so glad you are here. Missed you.
Maybe such a post would make sense AFTER we get some of the joy that is comming our way from next Friday’s hearing?
Again, re pardon timing, per wiki:
Bush41’s Weinberger pardon was not an issue in his re-election; it hadn’t happened. Clinton’s pardon of Rich was not an issue in the 2000 campaign; it hadn’t happened yet.
angie @ 120
angie… ;0)!
Mary4 @ 74
For me the much much bigger fun would be to see if he takes the 5th on anyting else. Scooter knows the law, and he knows what he did. He knows if he commited a crime.
So, a tightly put together set of questions, could yeild some useful info based upon what items he asserts the 5th.
11 out of 12 news pundits said Bush will pardon the Scoots from the Chris Matthews Show..
This is the BushCo MO…. the idea is put out by surrogates then when it occurs, it is NOT news. They fax out their talking points, the talking heads are shouting the meme then it becomes fact.
In Phoenix we hit temps in the 80’s this week and they are saying it will be 90 on Monday BUT we don’t need any stinking daylight saving time here…. doing Happy dance…. everyone else changes but we don’t…. daylight savings time uses more energy here!
LHP@106 – Thanks. So you did witness Wells mention some kind of Jencks disclosure? At what point, i.e. was it proximate to the “oh shit” moment in the openings you described? Jiminy, there is so much about a trial you just can’t tell without being there, and it is driving me nuts to be operating on my heels this way. To your knowledge have there been any PACER entries for Jencks stuff? If you don’t know, I may try to look up later tonight. Your two tidbits on the “oh shit” opening scene and Wells’ mention of last minute Jencks disclosure are huge; thanks.
GSD @ 114
“Don’t make me call…”
I like it. ;0)
Pardons are generally not issued until after the sentence, or a substantial portion of it, have been served.
This would take Libby’s application for a pardon into the early years of the incoming Democratic President.
Bummer for Irving.
Delurking to ask the lawyers this question:
which court decides whether Libby gets to stay out on bail during appeal? Walton’s court or the appeals court?
I think the pardon may be affected by whether or not he goes to jail right after sentencing.
Thanks to LHP and all the experts here– I love you guys and always appreciate the info.
egregious @ 109
Well, this story has everything. Including, I noticed, JOE LIEBERMAN TAKING MONEY FROM STEPHEN FEINBERG.
Please, let me say that again.
JOE LIEBERMAN TAKING MONEY FROM STEPHEN FEINBERG.
Um…don’t know who is Stephen Feinberg?
[hiding head in ignorant shame]
egregious… smiling for you. ;0)
looseheadprop @
121, Mary4 @ 68
Oh CRAP!! I missed all the GOOD stuff because I had to step away to fix dinner!!!
Mary — DING!! I’m RUNNING with that oh-so-lovely bit of goodness you just dropped in here, going to wallpaper a few places with it.
LHP — ;-)
Wooohooooo MY Democratic Congressman did the Dem Radio Address today!!!!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 132
Right back atcha cousin :)
Heidi@129 – The trial court, i.e. Walton.
While the Marc Rich pardon is tantalizing to discuss because of the subsequent controversy and because Scooter was Rich’s attorney, there’s no similarity between it and a potential pardon for Scooter. Unlike Rich — and Nixon, Weinberger, et al. — Scooter has been convicted by a jury.
We need to push the pardon-seekers back into their right-wing law-and-order hutch. Then they’ve no way to justify a Scooter pardon.
katymine—
Juicy details if you please?
egregious @ 130
Neither did I, until I read the link. He’s the guy who runs this Cerberus operation that seems to be at the center of the Walter Reed storm. And the Halliburton/KBR war profiteering storm. And that has profited Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Dan Quayle. It seems that this is the Stephen Feinberg from whom Joe Fucking Lieberman accepted $2000.00 for his ‘04 campaign.
Is Feinberg the guy in LA who organized benefits for Lieberman? Sorry, I don’t have time to google right now, but that name sorta rings a bell.
EvilDrPuma @ 89
I did not object to OK Kiddos comment. I think cinnamon is entitled to hold an opposite opinion, and I think we might all want to gentle it up a teensy bit folks.
Can we not disagree without getting testy?
My post was not very yeah team cheerleaderish on purpose. I didn’t want to give anyone false hope. Both of them are right. Because this is an issue with two sides to the coin.
Welcome to the world of nuance and no easy answers.
Kathryn in MA @ 81
;0) You’re OK.
bmaz- thank you! I looked all over the internet for the answer to that question with no luck.
looseheadprop @
46
Pardon me (cough), but I checked and Poppy issued that pardon on Dec. 24, 1992, a nice little Christmas Eve present for Cappy, well after he had already lost to Clinton. It was one of those Cover Your Ass Before The Door Hits It On The Way Out kind of things.
Which suggests that it might be a good idea for the appropriate House or Senate committee, probably Judiciary, to hold hearings and get an opinion
right now as to what Scooters could be required to testify to post-pardon. Also, perhaps, as to the degree that ex-presidents, no longer protected by office, can be subpoenaed and/or prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. Just to lay the cards on the table.
I think this is data Bush needs to have right now, don’t you?
I think the big reason there won’t be a pardon any time soon is Fitz’s last public statement. Why won’t anyone in the Administration comment on anything? Because there is an “ongoing” investigation. Or an “ongoing” legal proceeding. (I prefer to think of it as an “ongoing” crime, but that’s just me.) Fitz has made it very clear that, unless something weird happens, his investigation is over. If Libby gets a pardon, that means there’s no ongoing investigation and no ongoing legal proceeding. Even a group as clueless as the White House Press Corpse is going to realize that the White House is out of excuses and needs to talk about Rove’s role in all of this. And that just isn’t going to happen.
Freshman Congressman Harry Mitchell did this weeks Dem Radio address per PHX evening news. The little they played, it was about conditions at Walter Reed. (First Dem congressional rep in 9 years) Anyone know what old JD Hayworth is up to these days??/
Been confined to sofa sick all day, watched CSPAN, AG Hearings and the Credit card hearing….
egregious @ 92
Eg, before you gat al lhappy. He can deleagte those powers and the mere fact that the call came from McNulty’s office doesn’t, in and of itself, mean anything.
MAry is saying ( don’t mean to put words in your mouth Mar) that either Bush is the one who should be held publicly taking the rap for this (it would be fun to see someone try to subpeona his ass) or it is further proof that he is not actually in charge and all of these actions are in fact void.
looseheadprop @ 141
“Can we not disagree without getting testy?”
Nice. I like it a lot. ;0)
Nice to see Pluto getting some love after last summer’s demotion.
According to FloridaToday.com, “Top Cheney aide deserves stiff sentence for perjury in outing CIA agent” but the wingnuts are giving ‘em a lot of grief in the comments.
looseheadprop @ 147
Miers, Abu and Rove.
Cerberus. The mythical three-headed guard dog.
I say Libby gets sentenced and goes directly to jail. I can’t see Walton letting him stay out on bail during the appeals. He was obviously guilty, he was convicted, and to add insult to injury, his legal team went out of its way to game the system. The end result was four convictions and a pissed off judge who is already dotting his “i”s and crossing his “t”s in order to avoid being reversed on appeal. That’s not a pretty picture for Scooter to be looking at.
Valley Girl @ 139
I haven’t found anything about benefits, but there’s some more information on Feinberg’s contributions here. It seems he not only gave $2000 to Holy Joe (listing his employer as Cerberus), he also gave $1000 to Kerry (listing his employer as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial). Also a total of $3000 to Orrin Hatch’s exploration and election committees. His 2004 contributions list at least three employers and three residences.
Oddly, his 2006 campaign contributions include $2100 to Joe Wilson’s congressional campaign, for which he did not identify himself with Cerberus.
[Mod Note; for clarification, this comment is referring to the Congressman from SC-2, not the former Ambassador.]
What the guidelines seem to indicate is that there’s a clear process for people trying to go up the system toward the President for a pardon (Libby acting as Rich’s counsel in deliberations with the Pardon Attorney would be an example of that), but there’s nothing preventing the President from acting on his own in pardoning someone of his own choice (and judicial review of those circumstances, while possible, is not normally done with respect to a President’s choice).
This would suggest that going one way, there is some formalism to the process, but not in the other direction (Presidential decision independent of review process). So, in a way, this boils down to whether or not Bush thinks a pardon for Libby is both necessary to protect his own ass or Cheney’s and the political downside is not too steep.
Bush’s dilemma right now is that Libby will begin to serve time (or it appears to Libby that he will) before a pardon is not a political liability, and thus, Libby becomes amenable to testifying for the government on other matters.
What’s been forgotten in all the drama of the trial is that Libby has much, much more guilty knowledge in that pinhead of his. How about OVP interference in Army Corps of Engineers’ contracting processes in order to favor Halliburton in no-bid, cost-plus contracts? Think Cheney called the Corps of Engineers himself?
Delurking, and way late in the thread (have been at work all day) – even I know that OKK is OK, and I haven’t even been around FDL all that long!
EvilDrPuma @ 152
Sorry, wrong Joe Wilson. Repeat, NOT that Joe Wilson. My bad.
((Waives to LoudounLib))
Bush’s sole concern is Bush. If he thinks a pardon will help him in some way, it’ll be done otherwise it’ll be Irving who? At this point my guess he has no way to guess which is best so is biding his time and seeing what Rover and Shooter have to say.
X-factors, or things that could be weighing heavily on Libby’s mind:
1. Cheney is in very poor health. What are Scooter’s chances of getting a pardon if Cheney dies? You know his wife has to be asking him this question.
2. Who told Cheney about Valerie Plame? What happens if this person goes public? I could see it going either way, depending on who this person is and what they have to say. If George Tenet gets up and says, “I told Cheney she was a covert agent,” then there’s no way Libby gets a pardon. If one of Plame’s neighbors comes forward to say Plame told everyone in her book club that she worked at the CIA and that she shipped her husband off to Niger for a week just so she could have some time to herself, and the neighbor then called Cheney to let him know about it, then I think Libby will get an immediate pardon. For the record, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.
3. Who told Armitage about Plame? If he comes forward and gives a tell-all speech, it could really affect the way things go. And with the civil suit hanging out there, he’s got a good reason to do so.
EvilDrPuma @ 153
Thanks for that link to his contributions. Okay, it’s not the same person. The person I was thinking of def. had an LA address, which I saw (back when) I looked at the same source you used. Thanks for sorting that out for me.
Frank Probst @ 152
I am really hoping that Walton does this, as this will really put the Bush admin (and Libby, because early release will be predicated on his willingness to take responsibility for his crimes) up against the wall on the pardon issue.
This whole thing is like one big game of chicken. Who’s going to blink first, BushCo, Matalin-Comstock-Cheney or Libby?
egregious @ 92
The other thing is that I read yesterday, I believe at one of TPM pages, that Clinton actually asked for and took resignations from all of the US Attorneys when he took office and replaced them. That was defended, though, by the very fact that he was not picking and choosing from amongst all, it was a blanket deal. To me it does look way more suspicious when you pick out certain ones to change on very flimsy and constantly changing rationale.
Does anyone else get the feeling that a part of this problem is the fact that most of the top tier of the Executive Branch are not themselves attorneys and don’t have any real understanding of the laws. And the ones that are attorneys are mostly yes men that are sent out to find loopholes to fit the policy, rather than influence the policy to fit the laws. Rove, for instance, has a sweet job for a college dropout. Although, a lot of good a law degree did for Libby! Then again, he fits the bill as one of those yes men.
waves back at petedownunder
LaFourmiRouge @ 95
Amen!!!
Can Libby still be impeached? Or does he still have to be in office to be impeached? Did Nixon avoid impeachment by resigning, or could he have still been impeached?
egregious @ 118
I already knw what he looks like.
Nope, I wanted to see what effect he was having
I like OKK.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 142
Actually, you’re OK
I just finished reading the op-ed piece by juror Denis Collins in the WaPo. He seems to be backing way away from the pardon debate; instead emphasizing that the jury carefully and deliberatively found Libby guilty of 4 of the 5 counts he was charged with.
And the green room meeings between him, Dickerson, Wilson and Cooper are fascinating. Washington really is a small town.
TeddySanFran @ 122
I recall the issue of Bush refusing to say one way or another whether he would pardon anybody being quite an issue.
But maybe it’s because it was the issue I was fixated on
Valley Girl @ 159
Glad it helped. I didn’t even think to look for the LA address. Shows how much experience I actually have in researching political money flows.
looseheadprop @ 165
Yet another reason for lotsa boots on the ground at Prettyman.
Doug Keenan @ 166
Me 2.
group hug at comment #200. :~)
LHP,
I like the Go to Jail card you have up top. I am surprised you didn’t stick a Get out of Jail Free Card at the bottom!
It’s all so abhorrent.
In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right
WASHINGTON, March 10 — In the months before announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts contributed tens of thousands of dollars of his personal fortune to several conservative groups in a position to influence his image on the right.
katymine @ 146
I feel a sick day coming on – might hit about ..mmm….Friday.
What’s up with Ari Fleischer?
Why would he admit to something he did not commit? He claims to have leaked to three reporters. Pincus and Dickerson claim that th is is not true. I am not aware of Gregory supporting or contradicting him. So why lie? Solve this mystery, and you probably solve Libby’s motivation too.
John Deans take on Impeachment
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html
Pectopah @ 177
My guess is misplaced loyalty…er, sorry, patronage.
bmaz @ 126
No, I don’t think it was that day. I think I read about it on the live blogging after I got back home. But it was early on in the trial (where is EW with her photographic memeory when we need her? off headlining at fundraisers!)
But it occured to me, that maybe Pat said something unexpected in the Opening and then turned over somethingthey thought he didn’t have?
Or, the “oh S**t” moment could have been solely related to how fantastic theat opening was.
I just have a feeling SOMETHING caused them to junk most of their planned defense
I just got off the phone with my wingnut mother. Apparently my big-shot hypocritical rethug fundraising cousin in Calif (she was the one who left Katherine Harris in the lurch) has turned down a big fundraising job with the Romney campaign. My mother doesn’t like Romney (I don’t have the nerve to ask who she does like) and thinks it is a “sign” Romney is going nowhere. I think the rethuglians are flailing, bad.
Heidi @ 129
Walton already continued bail pending sentencing, no one has yet made an application(so far as I know) to continue bail past that point
looseheadprop @ 180
Do you think that the way the defense was presented was a kind of hail mary pass, thought up to get the attention of the WH?
punaise @
173
Ms. ET and I headed out the door. Please pass our {{OXO}} on…
katymine @ 178
Elliot Abrahms is the poster child for this, given he is currently running Iran Contra II for OVP.
JoyceH @ 52
In fact Bush retained ONE Special Prosecutor investigating whether there were criminal actions involved in the matter of the Rich pardon.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/A…..earing.03/
And Congress subpoenaed many individuqals about what theiur role was in the pardon. In fact, the Courts rules that there was no Attorney-Client privelege in the discussions between Rich and his lawyers, nor between thge lawyers and the Executive Branch.
It ultimately all fizzled out when it was decided that there was no substantive evidence of a quid pro quo.
But the same would surely be an issue in this case…was Libby’s PARDON the result of a quid pro quo for his silence? Was perjury subourned by the Vice President?
This could open up all the legal discussions between Libby and his lawyers…even though he could not be prosecuted…as such they would not be protected!
And it would look very bad for Bush as he simply wasn’t as generous with pardons as Clinton was…he’s always been a bit of a “Roy Bean”…requiring people to serve their full sentences, and only pardoning them for small crimes and after long periods of lives of moral rectitude.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/A…..index.html
LoudounLib @ 155
Uh uh.
You’ve posted several times before, that makes you NOT A LURKER therefore you canNOT delurk.
Nice try.
You’re one of us now bwahahahahaha
Valley Girl @ 140
What’s the name of the fundraiser in Claifornia who has been given the right to recommend USA candiates to the President?
Pectopah @ 185
I was astonished by the arrogance displayed by his appointment in this admin. I will never forget his snotty snippy tone during the Iran-Contra hearings, which I listened to almost all of (on KPFK in LA).
egregious @ 187
Aaaahhh, ya got me there! ;-)
Ann in AZ @ 161
It’s both the constantly changing rationale and the nature of the USA role that have masked the size and impact of the problem.
By my count — and I’m not done yet — there are at least (23) USA’s whose positions were changed over the last two to three years for reasons that are not at all clear and are not well-explained. The reason so many did not indicate as political monkeyshines is that the legal profession and political careers rely on both a professional code of honor and discretion. One simply does not “badmouth” an attorney, particularly if one is an attorney; it’s defamatory and potentially threatening to future livelihood and income. That goes both ways, since the USA can’t complain if they have an insufficiency of verifiable information to document their claim. As creatures of politics, a USA who entertains any hope at all of being a future Republican appointee or elected official dare not make any waves publicly; Republicans eat their young for less (figuratively speaking).
We on the outside also can’t see any criteria used — or at least they are very opaque. There are likely numerous data points that worked against the different USA’s, but there are some points that were weighted more aggressively than others. Was gambling involved in the district? Check. Were there Native American tribes and lands in the district? Check. Was the district labeled “liberal”? Check. Was there exposure to energy risks of several kinds? Check.
If we thought Miers was bad as we fact-checked her during her nomination for SCOTUS, we can heave a big sigh of relief that she will never make SCOTUS. This episode in history also rings the death knell for Abu G’s chances to make SCOTUS. Absolutely not ever – not going to happen. Small blessings on this rather large pyre.
Woodhall Hollow @ 181
Oh YAY and I’ll add that mrEgr, a republican* :o is becoming less enamored by the day w Romney whom he personally knows fm business. They are the sinking ship. Did I misspell ship?
*Yes it WAS a miracle that I was able to make those donations to actblue. And for the
shoesbook. Even republicans saw that something was terribly wrong last November.But it does explain my being semi anon, yes? But only semi. Wingers, save yr breath. He knows I’ve been involved with the trial and where my loyalties are.
OT…
This is rather depressing:
http://energybulletin.net/23259.html
looseheadprop @ 188
LHP, I have no idea- was that some where on an article at FDL about The Pioneers? I will wait to google, bec. I have a feeling that someone else here will provide answer sans google.
BTW, I loved it that Marcy used “THE TRY” YouTube at the top of her Fitz conversation post. It’s a keeper. One of those YouTubes to watch when ever I need a lift.
Rayne @ 151
Hey Rayne. That’s somehing to follow up (aybe it’s in the Kos post, I did less than skim it. WIll get to it later)
Who? are the 3 heads?
What are they guarding? Or more likely
Who are they protecting? (as in like a firewall)
Hey Rayne. That’s somehing to follow up (aybe it’s in the Kos post, I did less than skim it. WIll get to it later
Hope that WIll isn’t WWIII.
in for the…..
[[[[[[[[[[[[[Group Hug]]]]]]]
left-leaning hug, natch
_________________________________________
addendum:
premature hug….
how embarrassing.
time for an ssri….
{{{{{{{{{moi aussi}}}}}
{{{{{{Me 3!}}}}}
Ed*ard Teller @ 184
duly noted.
Woodhall Hollow @ 189
Think of all the people tangent to that investigation who ended up in this administration–Cheney headed the minority push-back in the House and demanded all sorts of diminution of fact in the final report. Abrams was outright arrogant in the belief that Congress had nothing to say in the matter. Negroponte was made UN ambassador. Armitage. Now, Robert Gates, who figured more prominently in covering up Iran-Contra than many understand.
All those initial appointments were noted, and then forgotten–they should have been kept prominently in mind–because it was a warning of what was to come. *sigh*
Tim Rutten had a column in the Times today – it’s linked in one of the comments on Phoenix Woman’s post – about the subpoenas of journalists by Fitz. Shorter Rutten: He’s agin it.
He’s missing one point of shield laws, which is that reporters aren’t supposed to be hiding crimes, like leaking classified information. And all of the reporters called in Libby’s case were experienced enough that they should have known they were getting classified stuff leaked to them.
I’ll leave the really smart people to figure out the best answer to this one, which feels like an insult to Fitz:
“Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald didn’t build his case against the onetime White House official with one of those meticulous FBI investigations you see in the movies nor on brilliant courtroom interrogation. Instead, he simply dragged the journalists who had written or reported on the Plame affair before a federal grand jury and threatened them with jail unless they revealed their sources of information.”
Woodhall Hollow@183 – I understand your thought, but I don’t think so. As I stated above, I am at a severe disadvantage from LHP, Christy and the others because I saw none of the trial; however, my take is that Wells never really intended to put on Scooter or Cheney. Fitz is very good and would have eaten Either Scooter and/or Cheney alive, not only on subjects they were already in deep shit on, but potentially many more. Cross examination is not limited to the subjects covered in direct examination; it would have been open hunting season. However, I do think that Wells thought he was going to get a lot more use out of the CIA briefers,Addington, Hannah and some documentary exhibits that Walton disallowed (properly in my opinion) on the premise that the memory defense required Scooter to testify and, since Libby wasn’t testifying, that stuff went by the wayside. I think all that goofed up Wells’ schedule and plan; but he should have done a much better job in adapting. My guess is that Libby was also micromanaging his lawyers to death; and to his detriment.
Group hug at 200 plus!!!!!
I like this concept. Let’s do it on every thread.
((FDL))
montag @ 201
Back then, I thought we had come dangerously close to seeing our govt taken over by a clandestine coup d’etat. Little did I dream that it was only a practice run.
lhp -
This is a direct link to the Kentucky Supreme Court decision I mentioned earlier. Its discussion of pardons is on pages 43 through 60:
http://www.bluegrassreport.org…..009_MR.pdf
This is the link to the FDL thread where I saw the PDF file mentioned above: http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-542115
As we peruse the Kentucky Supreme Court’s recounting of the history of pardons in England and the United States, we see that a presidential pardon may not be used to prevent an impeachment. May that constitutional constraint also be used to prevent pardons of criminal penalties arising from offenses committed by a federal official? To the best of my knowledge, that question has never been litigated in a federal court.
((( FDL and all firepups )))
kirk murphy @ 197– no SSRI’s needed, just a nice gentle backstroke in the luxurious lake followed by a warm robe wrapped about you in front of the fire with s’mores.
and a doggie and kitty and family and loved ones.
{{{ fdl }}}
EG for what it’s worth, during that rock concert of a Rebuttal Summation, I never took my eyes off him. It was riveting!
The sad thing is reading the above sections of the Constitution and seeing the genius of writers; and now having it undone by a psychopathic moron. To read the Constitution and to see the ideas condensed into so few words always amazes me.
bmaz @ 203
I agree with everything you say, but in light of that, why the hell did Wells say the things he did, if it wasn’t a message to the WH that you guys better start giving us something to fall back on and pronto!?
Rayne — thank you for silver lining in this USA scandal: no AbuG to SCOTUS. whew.
((((FDL))))
looseheadprop @ 211
Whew. Ok I’m happy now. And I hope someone related to him is reading these comments of praise and adoration. Not that we like LIKE him or anything.
montag @ 201
Exactly what John Dean was pointing out. If we want to stop this occurring in the future we need to clean house TODAY.
egregious @ 192
And why you spend so much time chatting here? ;-) (avoiding what is most on my mind for the sake of peace in the family and all, I know how that goes!)
Pectopah @ 177
WHat if he remebers it as worse than it was b/c he was leaking on purpose? Cause everybody in the West Wing knew that the push was on?
Pectopah @ 164
I beleive that former Officers of the gOvernment can have their “emoulements of office” removed through an impeachment process. This has happened to retired judges who had their retirement benefits taken away for acts subsequently discovered after retiring.
I’m not sure if Libby has a big pension, but I think the effect on Bush…being the first President impeached and convicted (even if it was after the fact) would have some restraining effect on future Presidential malfeasance.At the very least I’d like to see the trial occur with Senator’s having to go on the record saying “It’s time to heal” which would basically mean the charges were valid.
There’s more going on behind the curtain at the White House/OEOB than I can parse. Does anyone here have any insight into whether the pardon push is coming from the VP’s office to pressure Bush, or from the Oval to give him political cover?
I have a hard time seeing Rove willing to let Scooter lose any of his 5th amendment immunity with a pardon. The image of Scoots nailed to a chair in front of a Congressional Committee from now until Inauguration Day is almost as good as the one of him in jail. I also kind of like the idea of Cheney hounding Bush like the devil himself trying to wrangle a pardon. Is Bush still the Decider when Cheney’s in the room?
I just keep smiling.
egregious @ 204
good god, we’ve created a monster. I can just see Jane rolling her eyes… :~)
new hugs upstairs!
Emptywheel undid the “Fitz dragging journalists in and making them reveal their sources” argument really, really well in AoD. She made it clear to me that Fitz got waivers and phone logs, then asked the journos. There was no source revealing required — he knew the sources, just needed to confirm what was said. Completely different.
Guest post from pastordan upstairs
Time to go give him a group hug?
Completely OT- a repost from this a.m. of some new Fitzgerald pics that Gerry Horgan put up this week on his flikr site: Fitzgerald visiting the Old Country @ age 15 & 25.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinglepeninsula/
& w/that I’m done a-lurking. Out to dinner & Spaceland in Silver Lake.
Woodhall Hollow @ 218
egregious @ 192
Woodhall Hollow @ 181
I just got off the phone with my wingnut mother. Apparently my big-shot hypocritical rethug fundraising cousin in Calif (she was the one who left Katherine Harris in the lurch) has turned down a big fundraising job with the Romney campaign. My mother doesn’t like Romney (I don’t have the nerve to ask who she does like) and thinks it is a “sign” Romney is going nowhere. I think the rethuglians are flailing, bad.
Oh YAY and I’ll add that mrEgr, a republican* :o is becoming less enamored by the day w Romney whom he personally knows fm business. They are the sinking ship. Did I misspell ship?
*Yes it WAS a miracle that I was able to make those donations to actblue. And for the
shoesbook. Even republicans saw that something was terribly wrong last November.But it does explain my being semi anon, yes? But only semi. Wingers, save yr breath. He knows I’ve been involved with the trial and where my loyalties are.
And why you spend so much time chatting here?
*******
*******
I am spending my non-russian charity time here [where I am literally saving lives] in order to save what’s left of our country. If I have to burn the candle at both ends and melt it down in the middle to save our country, so be it.
Hope you are not mocking what I am doing.
LHP (231) — phew, then it wasn’t just us in the cheap seats that thought Wells phoned it in during opening.
It stank, meandering all over, did not suck me in and engage me. Kept waiting for that one big thing that never showed up.
Hugs to you all!
Dept. of Labor officials tried to reduce aid to former nuclear workers. Typical Bush Administration BS:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c…..19,00.html
egregious @ 97
More importantly, and they wonder why South Americans riot at the site of the American President! Think they may have had enough of military juntas?
Woodhall Hollow @ 183
I just thought the defense as presented looked like a big disorganized mess stictched together from the shredded remains of whatever they had originally intended to do.
Scooter had really top drawer representation. lawyers of that caliber whith that many resorces do not turn in messes like that
Wow – - according to WaPo reports, there are 22,000 Colombian troops in Bogota to lock down the city for Dear Leader’s arrival. SURGE much?
Rayne @ 191
It’s both the constantly changing rationale and the nature of the USA role that have masked the size and impact of the problem.
By my count — and I’m not done yet — there are at least (23) USA’s whose positions were changed over the last two to three years for reasons that are not at all clear and are not well-explained. The reason so many did not indicate as political monkeyshines is that the legal profession and political careers rely on both a professional code of honor and discretion. One simply does not “badmouth” an attorney, particularly if one is an attorney; it’s defamatory and potentially threatening to future livelihood and income. That goes both ways, since the USA can’t complain if they have an insufficiency of verifiable information to document their claim. As creatures of politics, a USA who entertains any hope at all of being a future Republican appointee or elected official dare not make any waves publicly; Republicans eat their young for less (figuratively speaking).
We on the outside also can’t see any criteria used — or at least they are very opaque. There are likely numerous data points that worked against the different USA’s, but there are some points that were weighted more aggressively than others. Was gambling involved in the district? Check. Were there Native American tribes and lands in the district? Check. Was the district labeled “liberal”? Check. Was there exposure to energy risks of several kinds? Check.
If we thought Miers was bad as we fact-checked her during her nomination for SCOTUS, we can heave a big sigh of relief that she will never make SCOTUS. This episode in history also rings the death knell for Abu G’s chances to make SCOTUS. Absolutely not ever – not going to happen. Small blessings on this rather large pyre.
You ARE doing it. Way to go!
angie @ 209
angie, that sounds lovely…
and much better than ssri’s ;)
Rayne @ 228
According to WaPo today, AbuG made calls to McConnell, Ensign, Lott & Cornyn prior to the FBI story hitting the paper. Odd he didn’t call Spectre.
Woodhall Hollow@213 – Speculating a little more than I normally like to here, but it’s my guess that the bit about being a fall guy for the White House and Rove was a tact that was discussed with the White House abefore trial and was signed off on. They knew Rove was in the clear and were willing to allow a little bad mouthing if it would help Scooter’s reasonable doubt defense ( and we must keep in mind that that line of thought did have some impact on the jurors).
Valley Girl @ 194
VG
The day you first posted that, I passed it on in email. You made more than just me happy that day
Oh Teddy, you just saved my bacon.
I completely jacked up my (228) comment somehow, inserted what should have been (232) in that space. You preserved it by quoting. Thanks!
LHP, if you’re still around, or if there are any other lawyer types still around considering there is a new post up, I asked some questions in my #54 that got overlooked. Since they are not rhetorical, please could I get an answer? Please? I copied them here for you:
However, there is still recourse, I think. We have a Democratic Congress, and if they are outraged, can’t they impeach Libby for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury or whatever. We know that Cheney cannot himself issue a pardon but Cheney can be impeached, and we know that the AG can be impeached. I guess my question is, can Libby be impeached, since I don’t think he is a Constitutional Officer or an appointment subject to confirmation by Congress? Also, how or who can cause him to be disbarred? Does someone have to ask the ABA or the local Bar Association that he belongs to?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! I love that you are here so much and really value what you give, and am just speculating that like me, there might not be so many people in non-virtual space who get it, though they may have other worthy attributes.
{{{{{big hugs for egregious!}}}}}
Woodhall Hollow @ 206
Me too! I used to run around ranting and raving about it to anyne who would listen. I thought they broke the Constitution then, but that it would just take a long time for the effects to show up.
Stll not sure I was wrong
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 207
FOr a CPA, you seem to be an awfully good Constitutional lawyer. *g* I think you have a lot there
Steve @ 212
The Revolution was a perfect storm – the Founding Fathers with their amazing education, the colonialists who were far away from the King and happy with self-rule, and a clueless monarch with big demands and sense of entitlements. The Constitutional Congress – what an amazing meeting of the minds. (Rather like us all on the blogs?)
LHP (241) — Iran-Contra was a proof-of-concept, merely a teething toy for these creatures now roaming the halls of our government.
Speaking of proof-of-concept, did I ever ask you your opinion as to why a case might have been investigated by a state prosecutor instead of a fed? I can’t remember if I asked. (Stephen Parrish: this one is right up your alley, too.)
Rayne @ 228
No,, I meant the 3 heads that name of the company refers to. People usually pick names that MEAN something for their companies.
Rayne @ 151
But…did he delegate? What conversations led to the delegation? What did the order (delegation) say? Were they from conversations stringing back to before O’Neill (Specters Clerk) who secretly entered that provision into the Patriot Act?
Part of an old and premeditated plan folks. Bush should be held accountable as well as the planners and O’Neill and every member of congress who voted for that act. Which is of course why it will never happen.
LHP (245) — oh, I understood what you meant. Been thinking of that silly dog Fluffy in Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone since I read the Levey post at DKos.
But there is a synchronicity to their repeated use of this number.
Like Rendon. Lincoln. SyColeman. Three “info managers”.
Ann in AZ @ 239
I think you have to be in office to be inpeached, but somebody upthread had a bit about how soemthing similar to impeachment can be done to strip you of residual perquisites of office (like stripping away your pension)
About the law license, I believe someone would have to make a complaint to the greiance committee here in NY (IIRC Libby is a NY lawyer)
I believe in Clinton’s case a written complaint was made to force the point about taking his license away
Thanks, LHP!
Rayne @ 244
Any case?
It would depend on whether the case was proscutable under state law rather than federl law. It would also depend on who got an indictable case first.
In NYC there used to be horrible turf wars bettween SDNY , the Manhattan DA’s Office and OCTF (Organized Crime Task Force of the State AG’s Office)
Even turf wars betwween SDNY (Manhattan, Bronx and points north) vs. EDNY (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and points east)
Strangely, bad guys don’t confine their activities only to counties in a single district. It’s SOOO inconsiderate of them
Eureka Springs, AR @ 246
Oh, I sooo agree. And I think that’s what Mary meant
Case No: CV 2005-008698
Cross Reference # SW 2005-001633
Original complaint here [PDF]
Victims’ updates here at AZ-AG
We’re now deep in EPU, feel free to respond by email if you’d rather. Not looking for answers, only opinion, speculation or conjecture.
Ann in AZ @ 249
Read this post by John Dean about impeachment
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html
This is a very informative post in a general way, but I don’t see the point.
None of these rules is binding on the President.
He can do whatever he wants.
These rules may tell the DoJ what cases to recommend to the President for pardons, but Bush and Cheney obviously aren’t going to wait for a green light from the DoJ to pardon Libby if they decide they want to do that.
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, rules are for the little people.
And those little rules that Leona dissed bought her 18 months in prison.
I’d be happy to see the same symmetry apply.
bmaz @ 236
Yes, I see where you are going, in terms of an attempted jury nullification. But there is something in me that still smells that they were not all on the same page. After all, it must’ve been a huge shock for them that the FBI caught Libby and Rove in their lies in the 1st place, and that 2nd, that someone like Fitz was brought in. At that point, it seems to me, that on some level all bets were off and it was each guy for themselves–particularly with Bush hanging out in the background surrounding himself with an impenatrable wall of plausible deniablility. I am thinking mostly of Ari’s appeal for immunity and Roves five GJ appearances. I figure the truth is in the cracks somewhere.
Of course Bush will ignore tradition, the law … anything he needs to do. Will he pardon Libby? I have no clue BUT not doing so because it is illegal, etc. doesn’t even cross his “mind.”
If he ignores Habeus Corpus and the Constitution, you think he cares about this?
looseheadprop @
46
I think any effect was minuscule.
Sure hope you are right.
The damage done by the Weinberger pardon was immense. Without it, the aura of respectability that has allowed Colin Powell to walk on water might have been pierced.
I think a pardon of Scooter Libby will have grave consequences before or after the election.
Much appreciate your scholarly treatise on pardons but the afterthought at the end seems to me all that matters.
Best, Terry
Now as I understand this bush can’t pardone people for crimes that relate to impeachable offenses, more specificly his impeachment. Scooter is guilty about lying to expose Valerie Palme as retalitation for her husbands article in the NYT relating to fake yellowcake rumors. Since we do know those rumors helped make the case for war and helped bush win an election. Then the crime of protecting the yellowcake lie relates to a presidential action WAR and the president winning an ELECTION. In the end by lying to protect the bush presidency Scooter I believe has no chance for a pardon under the consitituion after all if we had known the truth would bush be president
KING: Scott, were you lied to?
MCCLELLAN: Well, Larry, I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..kl.01.html
Pardon? My money is on NOT. Libby protected Cheney and fucked Bush looks like, we’ll see.
Way late, but just want to say that this is a great post, and great comments. Thanks, LHP, and everyone else!
Solution: Impeach Scooter Libby.
and others…
These are the people who, among many many other bad faith acts, drove a truck through the otherwise unnoticed Patriot Act provisions concerning US Attorneys. Of course they’re going to play with their tinkertoys.
Thank goodness blogs are here, meaning us! This time around when Iran Contra-esque pardons happen we will roar!!! (sparking court action if necessary, among other things)
Thank you for this post, LHP.
Terry Hallinan – You are one cynical commenter. (he said with a chuckle)
Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?
I’m still waiting for the post for an answer that said, that [he](who is HE?) looks clinically depressed, and those (who are they?)inside(the WH?) are afraid to speak up.
great info there, on the pardone moi for el senor liiibbeee.
One more thought on this. If Bush were to pardon Libby it would suggest he was complicit. In this one instance I don’t think he was. Bush is all about his legacy at this point and all that, 50 years from now! LOL As such, I can’t see it (a pardon).
looseheadprop @
180
LHP, the only time I remember Wells talking about Jencks material wrt to Libby & Cheney not testifying wasn’t the opening day. It was the day we found out Libby probably wouldn’t be testifying and Wells claimed that he’d originally had every intention of putting Libby on the stand but some Jencks material that they’d gotten “at the last minute” (Dec. 22nd?) changed their defense strategy. Gee, I sure thought the trial started after Christmas… That little “explanation” is almost good as the “you should pardon Scooter because he’s been a loyal servant to the Bush Administration” argument. Of course he’s been a loyal servant, that’s why he obstructed justice in the first place! Are we supposed to believe that it’s okay to be a criminal as long as your criminal acts serve the needs of the Bush White House?
Enter the “Sentence Scooter” Contest:
- Provide the funniest, most fitting sentence for Libby.
- First prize is a $100 Amazon gift certificate.
- Deadline to enter is Sunday night, March 11.
Thanks for the primer on pardons counselor. I heart FDL.
I’m getting back here way late! But still want to be sure to thank the folks who responded to my question about the relationship between a pardon for Libby and any further jeopardy in future testimony:
Special thanks to looseheadprop (and what a fine post and discussion thread you spawned here!), to litigatormom, and to Ann in AZ.
Youse guys (and all the rest of the discussion participants here) are what make the Lake the best place to be!
Cujo359 @ 19
The deal is to do what the Democrats are doing: At every opportunity, bring LHP’s points up in public.
Great information. Thank you. Bottom line, is that Bush does what he wants, and no one stops him. If it is expedient for Bush to pardon Libby tomorrow, Libby will be pardoned. End of story.
However, is it expedient to pardon Libby? I don’t know. I don’t however think it will have any implications at all in upcoming elections. From where I sit, I don’t see the general public caring about this one iota.
Outside the still small (but thankfully growing) blogosphere, noone cares or even “knows” about this except from endless in-one-ear-out-the-other noise of headline news that saturates our populace.
I guarantee I could go around my office, diverse and mostly well-educated, and save for the Legal Dept., and Public Affairs types, most people will say, “Scooter, who?” And the older ones will confuse I. Lewis Libby with G. Gordon Liddy of earlier notoriety. At best they will recognize this as one of those government scandal thingies. The power of the media to play on this, and effectively reduce it to absolute inconsequence is profound.
Hmmm…”soberly, thoughtfully, and with restraint?” Sorry. I can’t get those words to go into any sentence that also includes the words “George W Bu$h.”
Interesting post, but the bottom line is that the President alone has the power to pardon anyone at anytime for any reason, for a federal crime. The Pardon Attorney has no authority in this regard. He can talk until he’s blue in the face, but the Constitution trumps all of it.
Folks, this is exactly why it’s important who we elect as President, contrary to what many Naderites said in 2000.
That “impeachment thingy.” I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that that has ever been tested in court. It clearly means that the President cannot pardon himself out of an impeachment, but does it mean he cannot pardon his co-criminals ? I would argue that it does. So, does a “case” of impeachment mean an actual conviction, or just a trial ?
Or, to put it another way, if the House issues a Bill of Impeachment in December, 2008, does that render ineffective any pardons of the staff in January, 2009 ? I would argue that it does; an excellent reason to go for impeachment IMHO.
On MTP this am, Dana Priest didn’t seem to think that Bush would be deterred by “guidelines”.
Given Dubya’s rejection of his father’s advise and actions, I think that he is unlikely to pardon Libby just because his father did pardon Casper Weinberger.