Had Libby presented the CIPA evidence, this problem with the CIPA authority might be grounds for overturning his conviction.

However, Libby DECLINED to present that evidence, so whether or not Fitzgerald had the authority to do the filings for a process that was mandated by Libby’s insistence that the evidence was crucial to Libby’s defense is kind of irrelevant.

Libby can’t possibly make the argument that an improper process for evidence he declined to present had any bearing on whether or not he had a fair trial.

But I suspect he will make it. Maybe he will claim before the Appeals Court that he couldn’t present his case because the evidence was somehow tainted by the handling of a prosecutor who wasn’t properly appointed to handle it.

Sentelle, Silberman and Rogers might decide “hey, we’ll buy that! Conviction overturned!”

In that case, I’m glad Walton decided to send the ratbastard to the slammer while he waits for an appeals hearing. If the best we can get is to lock him up for a year or so, then so be it. Maybe that will be long enough to crack him, and get the rest of the crooks into court.

LS @ 103

Woodhall 102,

I believe it is 10 days, which would make it today.

Ha! Man, oh man, these people are so desperate to get their way, they don’t even have the subtly to even try to look like they are gaming their little systems.

So, I guess, congress will once again have to pass this bill….and given all the blockages and whatnot that has been going on on the rethug side of the aisle, it looks like they might get to keep this little provision intact for awhile.

They will not have to repass the bill…they have to overturn the veto. But I think that, given the politicization of the AUSA firings and appointments of those who were intent on blocking voting rights…it would be a bit problematical for the Republicans to vote against DiFi’s bill.

In the meantime, he might prepare himself for life on the inside, which is why I suggest he think about getting some TATTOOS…so he’ll fit in.

Suggestions for a Libby jail-house tattoo?

How about one honoring the person most responsible for his getting sent up, the person Libby has been protecting by perjuring himself and lying to federal prosecutors?

A tattoo on Libby’s chest, maybe, of a heart with the words “I LOVE DICK_cheney” or just a basic tattoo stating “I”D DO ANYTHING FOR DICK_cheney,” including going to jail with these tattoos on oneself.

Aw, c’mon, Scooter. You’ll need tattoos where you’re going, just to identify to which gang you belong. In your case, the DICK_cheney gang…which probably will be kind of lonely…unless more of your crony pals in the White House end up behind bars with you.

If I am Team Libby, I hope there is no argument to be made that this should have been resolved on an interlocutory basis, rather than going through the trial, and then springing it at a bail hearing.

Of course, I’m not Team Libby and I hope the sob serves every day.

How do you think Cheney feels right now?

Maybe he is thinking back about 35 years and wondering if Walton has a John Sirica streak

My 2c; I don’t want him to go to jail…at least, not in ‘murka…

I was thinkin’ Club Gitmo. :o)

Once impeached, impeached officals are removed from office and barred from future office.

Correct, although some try to stretch an argument and claim that out of office officers cannot be impeached, that is not the most accepted view.

In addition, the President cannot pardon an impeached officer,

Incorrect – the President cannot pardon impeachment. You never offer any support for the concept that an impeached officer becomes ineligible for a pardon.

The effect of the impeachment following the criminal conviction is the former officer is barred from future federal office.

Yes

In theory, since the officer is Impeached and criminal convicted of the same impeachable offense, then the pardon power regarding the impeachment and criminal conviction is barred.

This is where you make a leap I think no court would make. You are saying that the “except in Cases of Impeachment” means that there are no pardons available for the criminal penalties and offenses when there has been impeachment, instead of giving this the commonly accepted meaning that pardons aren’t available an impeachment conviction.

It’s a matter of construction and I don’t think that lawyers or judges would accept that construction (that the Constitution meant the President couldn’t pardon from criminal sentences as in addition to not being able to pardon from the sentence of impeachment when it says, “except in Cases of Impeachment.”

2) If Congress impeaches Libby after Bush pardons him…Libby is off the hook for his criminal conviction but is barred from future federal office per the impeachment conviction.

LIBBY CAN BE IMPEACHED
The Constitution explictly provides that an impeachment conviction has no immediate effect other than to remove the officer from office AND TO DISQUALIFY HIM FROM HOLDER ANY OTHER FEDERAL OFFICE – Art I Section 3, Clause 7.

LIBBY CAN BE CRIMINAL CONVICTED AFTER IMPEACHED
The same clause provides that “the party convicted shall nevertheless, be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”

That means an officer may be impeached when in office or after having resigned, then maybe convicted criminally for the same offense and the criminal conviction in this situation DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

IF IMPEACHED BEFORE PARDONED
The effect of the impeaching an officer not in office is that he is barred from future federal office and the President cannot pardon the impeached officer’s impeachment conviction.

IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED BEFORE PARDON
The effect of criminally convicting an impeached officer for the same offense is that he remains barred from future office, he remains criminally liable, and the president cannot pardon Libby for either Impeachment or criminal conviction- b/c a criminal conviction following impeachment cannot be avoided by use of the pardon power.

CONVICTED, THEN IMPEACHED BEFORE PARDON
Libby was criminally convicted of an impeachable offense while in office, if he were to be impeached for that same offense, then Bush could not pardon Libby’s impeachment conviction in the Senate.

If Libby was also convicted of the same offense criminally following impeachment, Bush cannot pardon that criminal conviction.

Here Libby was criminal convicted first. If he were now impeached for the same offense, his criminal conviction and impeachment for the same offense would bar a pardon of either conviction b/c a criminal conviction following an impeachment cannot be avoided by use of the pardon power.

But if there is a criminal conviction then an impeachment for the same offense, allowing a pardon for the criminal offense allows the criminal conviction to be avoided by use of the pardon power.

In short, it would defeat the intent of the pardon power limitation -cannot aviod criminal conviction by use of the pardon power.

Congress can prevent a pardon.

No, it can’t.

Yes it can.

What you are trying to say is that if Congress impeaches Libby, it can impose certain sanctions, such as barring him from holding office for life.

Yes.

That’s probably true, although right wingnuts will point out that no executive aide like Libby has ever been impeached.

So what. The Constitution trumps what “right wingnuts” say, right? An aide is a constitutional officer subject to the SAME rules of the Constition regarding removal of Constitutional officers.

Article II Section 4, says “the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Libby, an aide, was a civil officer. Libby was not a priciple officer because he is not cabinet member (department head) which must be confirmed by the Senate. Libby was inferior officer under Article II section 2.

The president can’t use his pardon power to relieve Libby of the consequences of impeachment,

Who said he could? That is the point. Congress can impeach a Civil officer that has previously resigned and or been pardoned. The difference is after a person has already left office, impeachment has the effect of barring that person from all future federal office.

Futhermore, Bush can not use his Pardon power to relieve Libby of the consequences of his criminal conviction if Libby is impeached before he is pardoned. A criminal conviction following an impeachment cannot be avoided by use of the pardon power – Article 2, section 2, Clause 1.

but whether or not Libby is impeached doesn’t affect the criminal conviction, which is subject to the pardon power.

Yes it does. If Bush cannot Pardon Libby, then Libby must serve out his sentence/conviction.

Bush cannot pardon Libby’s criminal perjury conviction if Congress Impeaches Libby (impeachment perjury conviction ) BEFORE Bush pardons him on the criminal conviction because the pardon power is barred regarding impeachment convictions after an official is impeached and barred regarding criminal convictions following the impeachment conviction on the same offense.

Congress has the power to impeach civil officers that have resigned – ie no longer in office.

The sanction in an impeachment conviction is the removal and bar from future federal office. If an offical is not in office when impeached, the effect is the same – being barred from future federal office.

So impeachment would “affect” the criminal conviction IF LIBBY IS IMPEACHED BEFORE BUSH PARDONS HIM.

The Constitution explictly provides that an impeachment conviction has no immediate effect other than to remove the officer from office AND TO DISQUALIFY HIM FROM HOLDER ANY OTHER FEDERAL OFFICE – Art I Section 3, Clause 7.

The same clause provides that “the party convicted shall nevertheless, be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”

That means an officer may be impeached then convicted criminally for the same offense and the criminal conviction in this situation DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

But if an officer resigns is criminally convicted for an impeachable offense in office, then that officer can be impeached even though not in office.

The effect of the impeachment following the criminal conviction is the former officer is barred from future federal office.

In theory, since the officer is Impeached and criminal convicted of the same impeachable offense, then the pardon power regarding the impeachment and criminal conviction is barred.

Quick Summary:
Libby is criminally convicted of perjury.

Congress can Impeach Libby (impeachment conviction) for the same offense of perjury Libby was criminally convicted of.

If Congress does this BEFORE Bush pardons Libby, Bush can not Pardon Libby for either his Impeachment Conviction OR Criminal Conviction.

WHY?
Officers in office are officers that have resigned may be impeached.

Once impeached, impeached officals are removed from office and barred from future office. In addition, the President cannot pardon an impeached officer, nor can the president pardon the officer in a subsequent criminal conviction based on the same offense/facts as the impeachment conviction.

Short version:

President cannot pardon an impeached officer.

President cannot pardon an impeached officer criminal of criminal liability when he is convicted immediately following the impeachment conviction.

Yes, Bush can pardon Libby now and Libby escapes criminal liability in his perjury conviction.

But Congress can impeach Libby after this because a pardon does not bar use of subsequent impeachment proceeding against him.

WHY do this?
As stated in the other post, it bars Libby from future federal office and relaunches the CIA Leak investigation, the investigation into the investigation, and would produce testimony before the Senate from officals that Fitz could not prosecute due to Libby’s perjury/obstruction of justice.