Tweet
When Scooter got his commutation from the President, he kept his appeal going — which effectively gave him the right to take the fifth if Congress asked him to testify. But it looks like Scooter is giving up that ghost:
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is dropping his appeal in the CIA leak case, his attorney said Monday.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about his conversations with reporters about outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.
"We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby’s innocence," attorney Theodore Wells said. "However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear."
[]
Wells said he has not discussed a possible pardon with the president and does not know what Bush will do.
Which means if Congress decided to start poking around the obstruction and perjury issues, Scooter can now be a lot more chatty (though looseheadprop says he could still take the 5th with regard to the underlying leak).
Is he running out of money?
"The appeal would lead only to a retrial," Wells said, "a process that would last even beyond the two years of supervised release, cost millions of dollars more than the fine he has already paid, and entail many more hundreds of hours preparing for an all-consuming appeal and retrial."
Looks like Scooter might be angling for something more than one of Mel Sembler’s used penis pumps. Is he trying to send a signal to the White House that a full pardon would be a lovely holiday gift?
Calling Henry Waxman…
(h/t twolf)
179 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Jane!
Yes, Jane: That’s exactly what he’s doing.
Question for Dana Peroxide this morn:
Reporter: We understand that Libby has dropped his appeal, will
the President pardon Libby? If so, when… if so, can Bush be
tried as a co-consprator in obstructing justice?
I’ll take the answer off the air
What has changed, though? It’s still January 2009, right (the issuance of the pardon)? Scooter ain’t goin’ to jail in the wake of dropping his appeal.
Is he running out of money?
Are the aspens turning yet?
He has spent enough time with his family?
I’d love to hear DAD Dana’s answer to that.
More likely his family has spent enough time with him.
Good Morning, Jane –
A full pardon? Is he now totally immune from any further investigations regardless of new evidence? What if a memo happens to poke its head out of the bottom drawer and the cleaning woman finds it and turns it over to authorities in the next administration? Does Shrub’s pardon protect him forever and ever, Amen?
BobbyG @ 4:
You’re right. His sentence was commuted, period. I suppose the appeal was to clear his record if it succeeded. But a pardon will wipe all that out, and he can get his law license back.
Bu’ush can pardon him for crimes not yet charged.
I suppose if he is pardoned, the best we can hope for is for the truth to come out by some other avenue, and for him to lose all public credibility to the extent that he would be introduced as “pardoned traitor Lewis “Scooter” Libby”.
Wow! What a deal! Barry Bonds needs to suck up to Shrub.
Wells said he has not discussed a possible pardon with the president and does not know what Bush will do.
Wells then continued, “Bwaaahaahaahaaa, I had ya goin’ for a second there didn’t I? You know what would really be a crime? For anyone is this town to stop f*cking with you all. It’s soooo easy, and a great stress reliever. Hey, come back next week, ok?”
And a rightwing lawyer with no ethics will always be in demand. Just like mob lawyers.
Just remember: by dropping his appeal now, he gets to carry around the titles “Convicted Perjurer”, “Felon”, “Convicted Liar”, and just plain “Liar” around for the rest of his life.
And that’s regardless of any putative pardon – unlike a reversal of the conviction on appeal (e.g. Ollie North) that only takes away the effects of the conviction, but not the historical fact of it.
He could probably pardon him of future crimes…
They hired Wolfie back, maybe Cheney has an opening?
Well, while there’s case law upholding the president’s plenary pardon power that extends all the way to crimes not yet charged (see the Gerald Ford / Nixon case), there is also case law upholding the denial of the re-issuance of a law license subsequent to a pardon. I can’t recall to cite the specific case at the moment. The gist was that bar associations are not required to close their eyes to the revealed facts of a conviction, pardon notwithstanding.
Scooter dropped his appeal when he recognized that Congress is too busy keeping impeachment off the table to bother with him.
That is unclear, but probably so (pardon in advance of the future commission of a crime).
Isn’t a rightwing lawyer with ethics an oxymoron?
Gotta disagree there. There are conservative lawyers who are ethical.
When he gives him his pardon, he can also pen a “signing document”
to absolve him of future sins
right after they restore the ancient writ of habeas corpus, rescind the AUMF, de-fund Bush’s war crimes, and move for impeachment!
a bitter ha ha, this is a complicit (D) Congress we are talking about, and even if Waxman was motivated enough, the Leadership will call him off if he uncovers anything inconvenient.
He could probably pardon him of future crimes…
Nope. Can’t pardon for crimes not yet committed. He *could*, however, pardon for acts already committed which have not been reduced to criminal charges as of that date.
BobbyG @ 18:
Re: law license:
I’m positive you know more than I about this one. My legal knowledge is close to zero…
The constitutional language is vague, it only speaks to the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Doesn’t say only past crimes, charged/tried/convicted or not. This president , no doubt, likely thinks he can put someone utterly beyond the reach of the law, constitutionally.
Conservative and Rightwing are different. To conserve is often wise.
Right. And also when he saw that Fitz was being prevented from producing documents to Waxman which he was willing to produce. And the media didn’t give a shit.
I recall reading the case, but I forget where I saw it. It was back when I ran across the Ford/Nixon precedent.
I think his law license is history. He would never have needed it anway.
Big day for Fitzy… doesn’t that Black fella get sentenced today..
Calling Fitzy’s press guy… does this mean that his tenure as
Special Prosecutor ends?
Scooter’s got a job lined up as a ride operator at the Bush Presidential Amusement Park/Library.
Libby can always get a job with AEI and Manhattan Institute. Cato may also accept him.
This just reminds me how disgusting what they did actually was.
That’s quite a likeness of Scooter up by the post, BTW.
Good idea, but where does it say that? (Ever since John Dean wrote that a president can pardon himself/herself, I’m hard pressed to believe anything is impossible.)
I love that Libby graphic, it so suits the story
Well, he’s trying to do that for telecoms. Why not other folks? The possibilities with this administration and the lapdog Congress are just endless.
jinx Biodun
Now you know that we’ve covered this before and I don’t need to address it again. Next….
I guess Bush could commute Conrad Black’s sentence
It does not say that. The only restraint is political, not constitutional (e.g., threat of impeachment). It remains untested, to my knowledge.
DAD will say “The President has already indicated his belief that it’s time to move on. Next.”
I really have a hard time believing that Bush would give Scooter a pardon prior to immediately before the end of his term. It’s the only guarantee he has that Libby will maintain his silence until Bush is out of office. A few well placed words from Libby’s mouth could put the last few nails in Bush’s coffin, so he won’t use his trump card until the stakes have lessened, I don’t think.
Like his entire administration?
And we know how impeachable offenses are handled by today’s Democrats.
BayStateLibrul:
He can’t. Black is Canadian. He’s not American.
There ARE no impeachable offenses anymore.
Doesn’t say squat about nationality, only “crimes against the United States.”
After the PARDON Ghulli,,, will pick him for VPOtUS Completing the chain .. seem kerick busey with the MOB.
I take it back ….. is there a blue dress involved? Anyone unzip?
Scooter Pop-up:
Scooter (and Wolfie, and Abram Shulsky, etc. etc.) was a disciple of Leo Strauss, who was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics.
Well the soon to be ex-Governor of Kentucky (leaves office tomorrow) did that. He issued a blanket pardon of everyone in his administration, except for himself, for any and all crimes arising from the then investigation into corrupt hiring and violations of the state “Merit” system (Kentucky version of Civil Service). And that was a prime factor in his losing re-election.
Yep. The Noble Lies of the Great Man.
Actually Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to accept a British peerage IIRC.
Yep. He’s a on a pardon fest.
I wrote nancy here’s what i got
Thank you for contacting my office.
Congressional courtesy prevents me from replying to emails if I cannot
determine that you are a constituent of mine.
If you are not a resident of California’s 8th Congressional District and
are contacting me in regard to my role as Speaker, please email me at
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov.
If you are a resident of the 8th District of California, please contact my
office in Washington, DC at (202) 225-4965 to be added to our database.
—–Original Message—–
From: “Robert” Sent: 12/10/2007 11:12:19 AM
To: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Cc:
Subject: Torture
Dear Leader of the House of Congress
The News today does not look good.
Any chance you will explain ?
Please reply
Robert (BLOGGER)
http://firedoglake.com
I weep for poor Scooter and his family. Someone should remind him of what happened to Robert Hanssen…
Libby is too busy hanging out at the Mansion of lobbyist Ed Rogers in McLean Virginia and dining on quail eggs and pheasant under glass with Richard Perle and Tony Snow as they make oil deals with the Kurds. Time is money and well, why be bothered with another trial when you have Cheney and Bush in your pocket and a safety deposit box filled with classified documents.
Kurdish Ministers Woo U.S. Oil Firms
On Monday night, Omer Fattah Hussain was the toast of a dinner held at the 10,000-square-foot McLean mansion of Ed Rogers, a Reagan White House political director and current chairman of the lobbying firm Barbour Griffith & Rogers. In an opulent living room just off an art-filled entryway with a curved double stairway, the deputy prime minister of the Iraqi Kurds’ autonomous region mingled with such luminaries as former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former White House press secretary Tony Snow….
Welcome to McLean, Home of America’s Ruling Class
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/21680
maybe they could all now testify against him
I am off to work. Yes, really. See y’all tonight.
Wait a sec. Are there any lawyers here? I’m not sure Libby can invoke his fifth amendment rights. Aren’t there rules about having to cooperate with law enforcement when you’re out on parole?
I tend to think Ann in Az understands how these people spin their charm… extortion, blackmail, threats, humiliation, fear and other known mafia techniques.
It works for/on everyone and keeps them in line, D’s R’s and the press or others with no special affinity.
People in business use the same ethics… winning is what counts and the gloves are off… anything goes.
The Kurdish prime minister ought to be at home dealing the increasing cholera problem there.
I never heard that before
bye TexB
That doesn’t seem right to me. I would think that it happened in an american court rather his citizenship that mattered.
Actually Bobby, those most recent pardons are fairly defensible. The ones I’m talking about occurred a couple of years ago in the middle of the investigation into his admin by the state AG, after there had already been a half dozen indictments but prior to any trials. And it pretty much stopped the investigation in its tracks.
What if the president essentially proactively immunizes you from the consequences of henceforth lying under oath and from the prior requirements for cooperating with your PO?
Well the canadians have no compunction about convicting him on their own soil. So far Harper hasn’t moved to commute whatever sentence is coming his way. I’m still watching Harper warily, he is Bush-lite after all.
BobbyG @ 50:
The president of one country can pardon the crimes of someone from another>/em> country? That’s a new one on me…
(BTW, the HTML tags in the Comment box aren’t working for me at the moment. I’m typing everything in myself.)
Yeah. Maybe we should all have a bogus address in every jurisdiction, to use when communicating with the congresscritters.
I keep getting these damn database connection error messages.
Leo is the father of NeoConservatism out of the University of Chicago who influenced a lot of young minds in the mid20th century. Twisted minds attract twisted minds.
I’m guessing that Bush could pardon Black for crimes Black committed in the US, regardless of what citizenship Black holds. I doubt if BobbyG is talking about Bush attempting to pardon Black for any crimes he may have committed in Canada.
We need to end this bullshit business of prophylactic pardons. Pardoners should be required to specify exactly what crime they are pardoning. Also, there is case law that allows a pardonee to reject a pardon (so that they can still plead the fifth). Similarly, they should be required to officially accept the pardon and be given a time limit. This business of issuing get-out-of-jail cards, as Ford did for Nixon, is a perversion of justice.
Use the address across the street from the critter’s local office.
Look, IANAL, but the language of the constitution is silent on the issue. You have to look to case law. Pardoning a foreign national may not have ever been done, or if it has, has not yet been challenged. I don’t know. But, again, this president otherwise see his powers as unlimited.
Wait a sec. Are there any lawyers here? I’m not sure Libby can invoke his fifth amendment rights. Aren’t there rules about having to cooperate with law enforcement when you’re out on parole?
Interesting question. I would imagine that there is little, if any, case law addressing a situation where this would be addressed. Theoretically, the 5th would trump, I’d think, as it was enacted in order to protect individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves to – law enforcement officers.
And, (I can’t remember) is Libby on parole? Was that part of the deal – I honestly can’t recall…
“…offenses committed against the United States…” That’s what I cited at the outset.
There are no nail’s in his coffin. He has gotten and continues to get what he wants. This Congress is not going to impeach him, so why think they will have the guts or interest to charge him with anything once he’s out of office. Heads he wins, tails we lose.
The next democratic admin. aught to keep these neocons, but, start them off, again, at lowly staff positions! We all know they are criminals, but, they are our criminals! We can now take responsibility for their massive.
fuckups.It’s what jeebus would do!?
BobbyG @ 78:
I guess I’ll have to agree with you here…
Yep. And Shadia Drury, in her books on him, takes him apart piece by piece, leaving only a blob of jellied pulp. An online interview with her on Strauss…
http://www.informationclearing…..le5010.htm
Agreed, and there is a process. But, presidents ignore the process at their whim. And, the Ford/Nixon precedent upheld presidential authority to confer blanket pardons for crimes not yet uncovered or charged. Whether that could be construed as extending to “future crimes” is another matter, one, so far as I know, as yet untested. But someday it may get tested. Sooner rather than later, with Bu’ush in office.
kinda shock ,myself. I guess she only cares about her district
And I thought she was Speaker Of The House .
I only remember a controversy over whether you can be on parole if you haven’t even served one day!
Per Jane post:
LOL
Give some warning next time, willya?
Whether that could be construed as extending to “future crimes” is another matter, one, so far as I know, as yet untested. But someday it may get tested. Sooner rather than later, with Bu’ush in office.
Bush, I still contend (no authority I’m aware of other than common law) cannot pardon for acts yet to be committed. To do so would open him to possible criminal liability as an accomplice, co-conspirator, or accessory to the as-yet uncommitted crime/acts.
Pardoning for acts already committed, even though not charged, can indeed, as you cite, be pardoned. I’d look for a blanket pardon of the employees of the entire executive branch for any act which was performed at the behest of the president between the dates of November, 2000, and January, 2009.
Note that the Ford/Nixon precedent was never tested in court.
Lawyers love to argue about all of this shit. I knew a lawyer who sued for “foster parent custody” of a frozen embryo.
What, you think he hasn’t paid in respect, popularity, credibility, and political capital?
FWIW, I believe you show that she did offer an email addy for you to use if you were contacting her in her role as Speaker…
heh,heh
Don’t forget, there is the Heritage Foundation or even Brookings(I don’t believe that place is the liberal think tank, it’s just for Joe Klein like posers).
Show me the case law. There isn’t any. The restraint thus far is only political. All I’m saying is that, at root, it looks like it remains an open question.
Okay. If he can’t pardon future offenses, Bush could promise his henchmen general pardons for any and all past offenses, and update those pardons daily. ;-)
Sounds like Snow is really spending a lot of time with his family. Uncle Rupert didn’t want him back?
The Brookings Institution contains the Saban Center on Mideast Policy which has:
– Director Martin Indyk
– Research Director Kenneth Pollack
– Affiliate member Michael O’Hanlon.
Some people consider them liberals, but on foreign policy they walk and talk like neocons. And they’re listed as foreign-policy advisors to Hillary.
Hi folks….
Why do I get the feeling this is just some preplanned dance between Libby and the Bush administration regarding to this whole affair?…
If I had some kind of crystal ball I would definitely say a “Pardon” is in Libby’s near future….
Pre-planning is the only kind of planning there is.
Nonsense.
It’s almost linear. From Strauss to The Neocons to Bush to death and destruction. Perpetual war — taught by Strauss, as an end in itself — for glory, honor, prestige and to give the nation a “noble” sense of purpose.
Does she have a separate fax for that? Should we address a fax differently if we’re contacting her in her capacity as Speaker? Because I’ve come to the conclusion that faxes are better than phone calls except for if there are time constraints that require a phone call in preference. My rationale is that a phone call can be misquoted or forgotten about, whereas a fax is a permanent record of exactly what I said that can be directly conveyed to the Rep or Senator in a verbatim form. Phone calls end up with underlings and you are dependent on their memories to make your point. Phone calls are fine if you’re trying to influence the aide, but not that effective if you’re trying to influence the Congressperson. Letters thru snail mail are too slow, but a fax as a delivery system is both speedy and accurately portrays your message FWIW.
Of course there’s no case law. A pardon of an act which has not happened is a nullity. It’s a cipher – moot.
And I think it would quite possibly be subject to prosecution, as an attempted instigation of a crime. That’s more than just political, that’s pure foolishness. In fact, as a constitutional officer, I would think that the prez, like lawyers, have an affirmative duty to report to the proper authorities any personal knowledge of a crime about to be committed.
Definitions of planning on the Web:
* an act of formulating a program for a definite course of action; “the planning was more fun than the trip itself”
* the act or process of drawing up plans or layouts for some project or enterprise
* the cognitive process of thinking about what you will do in the event of something happening; “his planning for retirement was hindered by several uncertainties”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Planning is the (psycholgical) process of thinking about the activities required to create a desired future on some scale. This thought process is essential to the creation and refinement of a plan, or integration of it with other plans. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning
Libby would also drop his appeal to save his money, if he is anticipating being indicted on another charge.
Okay. If he can’t pardon future offenses, Bush could promise his henchmen general pardons for any and all past offenses, and update those pardons daily. ;-)
Agreed – though it would be more efficient for Boosh to simply wait until the morning of January 20, 2009.
And Strauss wasn’t even a utopian. Didn’t care for world domination — just find a “foe” someone unlike ouselves — and wage war against it, buttressed by lies. Forever war = forever happiness for at least the elite; and the elite’s happiness was all that really mattered.
Raven, you got rid of your “1″! How’d you do that?!! Why’d you do that? Did you want everyone to recognize you?
Why are you shouting?
O’Hanlon definitely considers himself a liberal. The Dem establishment also considers him a liberal.
I agree with most of your observations. I just disagree that
If anyone would have the “foolishness” to try and test it, it’s Bu’ush. The constitution is silent on the issue (future crimes pardon). Now all of us normal Great Unwashed citizens look at it in terms of “common sense” — “no one who be so stupid as to think that.”
Nothing surprises me at this stage in life, though.
Well a Libby asking for a retrial reminds me of this guy someone told me about. He started arguing with a cashier because he thought the crabs medication was on sale. By the end of it the whole store knew what his *cough* ailment was.
so where is Scootie doing his 400 hours of community service?
At the Elliot Abrams Rehab Center?
The elite are happy when all they have to do all day is relax and “contemplate” philosophy or other matters they happen to like. The wars they wage and the “glory” and “prestige” they say will accompany them are onluy “noble lies” for the masses — and to help (along with religion) keep the masses occupied and docile — easier to rule and manage.
It was a facebook thing. I figure it’s best to be straight up when causing problems! :)
Probalby at the American Enterprise Institute.
Price check on the A200 please.
How’d O’Hanlon come up? Will he be off on another Excellent Adventure soon?
Glenzilla has some spew-inducing updates this morning: http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
Preplanning; I believe that is what you do when you make arrangements for your own funeral, to preplan is simply to plan in advance, it is a valid word….
Remember, he would also need a specific pardon of the VP, since the VP has asserted he is not a member of the executive branch.
Huh?
Sounds like marketing to me.
TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!!
What if Mukasey notified the WH that he is going to give Waxman the notes/ 302’s/ transcripts from the Bush and Cheney interviews with PatFitz?
What if he knows that those intervirews sink him? What if the WH let him know that the jig is up?
Why now instead of closer to Jan 2009? What’s changed recently? Waxman’s letter to Mukasey letting the world know that a) Waxman already has all the non GJ stuff, and b) that he wants Mukasey to make good on providing the Bush Cheney interviews.
“preplan” would be a textbook definition of a redundancy. You do not plan after the fact.
You have to say that louder cause I can’t hear you. What happened in the Aspens exactly?!?
You’re right but I believe the VP’s assertion regarding membership of the executive branch is on shifting ground determined on whatever is convenient at the time…..
That is so Past History.
;)
Could…but the simpler approach would be do a final day “General Pardon”. I’d also point out that the only case I’m familiar with where this was done was Ford’s pardon of Nixon. I’d like to see any other case where a Governor or President issued such a General Pardon “for all crimes that may have been committed”. ASFAIK it’s never been judicially tested…and one incident that has no judicial history doesn’t constitute a “precedent”.
Similarly, pardons for future crimes could also be attempted by a President. In fact, a President could waive any legal offenses at the beginning of his administration for him or his aides by offering everyone “preemptive pardons”. Again, it’s never been done…and just because it has not been judicially tested doesn’t mean it is legal.
Same with a President offering himself a pardon.
I would suspect that any reasonable Court would hold that a pardon must be for a tangible and defined offense awaiting a judicial ruling, or a conviction. After all, they have ruled that an individual that accepts a pardon accepts guilt in the charged criminal act. It’s hard to think how anyone could “accept guilt” for charges that haven’t even been discovered (or performed) as yet.
BTW I think that Congress could actually pass a law that would require the President to define specifically which crimes have been pardoned or commuted. It would in no way interfere with a Presidents ability to GRANT pardons or commutations…and would have the benefit of informing Congress and the Judiciary of actions in which a reprieved individual might be subject to subpoena before Congress (without risk to prosecution for criminal acts), and the calling of testimony in criminal trials.
Even though you may look at it that way it is still a valid word…
Peace…
Not if you are in the funeral buz! It’s like that jive-ass tv commercial where the woman says. “this plan pays for final, and any other expenses”. WTF is that supposed to mean!
ticktock, I agree that the VP will claim whatever he wants, whenever he wants. I was just being snarky.
Constitution only speaks to “offenses committed against the United States…” Doesn’t have any other limiting language, beyond no pardons for impeachment offenses.
Maybe it means your credit card balances :)
OT – Just wondering if preview is working yet.
edit to add – And it is! Thank you so much Jaime & Siun.
BTW I think that Congress could actually pass a law that would require the President to define specifically which crimes have been pardoned or commuted. It would in no way interfere with a Presidents ability to GRANT pardons or commutations…and would have the benefit of informing Congress and the Judiciary of actions in which a reprieved individual might be subject to subpoena before Congress (without risk to prosecution for criminal acts), and the calling of testimony in criminal trials.
I like that idea – a lot. But do ya suppose that the D’s, anticipating that *they* will be in power shortly, have sufficient motivation to go after it?
oops – I was trying to see if preview was working for *me* yet. I know it was working for lots of other people.
edit to add – And it is! Thank you so much Jaime & Siun.
Excuse me, did you just say that the “Edit” function is working for you?
Likely itself be held unconstitutional by this Court.
I did some reading on pardons a few months ago. Per my faulty memory:
– The Ford/Nixon pardon has never been tested.
– The prevailing opinion is that future pardons wouldn’t work but I don’t recall any mention of precedents.
– Blanket pardons of an entire (unenumerated) group have precedent.
– Blanket pardons for unspecified offenses have been upheld.
– Self-pardons have not been tried, but according to John Dean at FindLaw, they were discussed at Watergate time and the prevailing opinion of the scholars was that they would work.
gotta run – thanks for the interesting conversation, all.
bbl.
Why pre? Why not just plan your funeral?
Sounds like the funeral biz is another one of those using a marketing phrase to attempt to reinvent perfectly good English
As usual, I’m sorry I said anything.
Geesh, I love you guys but you’re so picky….
Who cares preplan, plan, reinvent, or just plan screw the general public…
How about that?….
Wrong.
On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he may have committed against the United States while President…
Tested and upheld:
You people are awesome, and I am thus in awe of you. Momentarily delurking to say:
Pre-planning=Department of Redundancy Department, IMO.
When I lived in Knoxville, our CBS affiliate Weather Entertainer Margie Ison would always say stupid shit like (not exaggerating) “Currently, at this present time, we now have shower activity in our viewing area.”
Raven, you bring elements of clarity and common sense to these threads, and I hope you continue to do so. Quality of thought is related to quality of language.
Hey folks…
Please be aware to “preplan” your response in the new thread…..
Arrgh, it was just a lousy word….
Does it have to be this way?….
Spew! LOL
Fair enough.
Okay, time to go play upstairs—new thread….
Blue Texan upstairs!
Yes- but she did give her address if we are writing her as Speaker – which I didn’t know.
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
G Marx
1,691 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
ENOUGH!! All the scholastic arguments about the nuances and minutia of constitutional law and procedure are nuthin’ but a huge faggot hassle since we haven’t had constitutional government for some time in this country and even if we did, the Democratic leadership upon whom the responsibility for constitutional action resides has long since been compromised into the fuckin’ dustbin of God damned history!!
Forget about how much Nancy knew and when she knew it (remember when she put Jane Harmon out of the intelligence Committee leadership and installed Reyes who hadn’t been seen or heard from since Jesus was a PFC?)…the whole game is bein’ officiated in the boardrooms of the corporate oligarchy by the godfathers of the crime families that have been runnin’ this country for over 50 years. There must be a complete turnover of leadership in the Democratic Party in order for there to be an end to this national nightmare…forget about impeachment, we have a perfectly good legal and procedural structure in place to deal with this crisis all we need are the leaders with the courage and integrity to use it! So, until we get some REAL democratic pressure on the bastards from the street and in their offices and on their front porches and in their living rooms, we will continue to have corporate fascism define our moment in history.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION …THE BASTARDS AREN’T GOIN’ ANYWHERE UNLESS WE DRAG ‘EM THERE!!
Now, of course IANAL, but here’s a hypothetical. Suppose Libby gets a pardon, but has already conspired to do something awful, involving hurt to the country or even to the Bush family. Say he has set this act up, paid for it, set the go-time to January 21, and then cut off all contact with those commissioned to do whatever act it might be, before the pardon. If it is proven that he was the instigator, can he still play Hans Brinker and skate away? Now I never took conspiracy theory in college or graduate physics, so I am inexperienced in wacko scenarios, but this strikes me as something that ought to have an answer.
Why Ted Wells would be discussing a pardon with Dover Coffin Bush is beyond me. There is a theoretical pardon process for mere mortals that obviously hasn’t applied to Homeboys of the Pres.
It’s hard to figure how Scootie is running out of money when all Wells’ and his army of attorneys bills were paid by Tucker Carlson’s daddy Richard, and the rest of the Wingnuts in the group that raised all the money for his defense costs. Scottie’s daddy left him a ton of money, and none of that has been tapped. Scootie will always have “jobs” whether he does meaningful work or not.
As for Waxman’s Committee or Senate Judiciary anyone else asking Scootie questions, I’d refer you to the track record of getting former Bush employees to testify. Anytime Waxman’s committee convenes, you have any meaninful oversight drowned out by the Screeching Chihuahua Ranking Minority member, Tom Davis.
Can anyone see Miers’ big butt in a witness seat yet? Didn’t think so. I don’t see Congress having the endocrine organs to get Miers, Cheney, Bolton, Libby or anyone else Bush connected to testify about anything. And even when they show up they don’t say a damn thing. Check the track record of former DOJ employees as to meaningful testimony including Gonzales, Monica Twitt and the rest of the DOJ Resign Train.
There are two great ideas for Bushie–he’s acting as if these have already been judicially tested and as if he could care less if they had.
“Committed” sounds as if it would be “past tense”. In addition it might raise the question if the pardon must specify which “offenses” occurred or related to the pardon.
Could a President say “I pardon Jack Bauer for all crimes he may ever have committed, and all crimes that he may commit in the future”?
Constitution makes reference or no allusion as to when offenses were (or will be) committed.
I hate not having “edit” function any more.
Constitution makes no reference or allusion as to when offenses were (or will be) committed.
Remember George Carlin’s quip about pre-boarding an airplane??
My mother was an English teacher and librarian and there are/were teachers heavily represented on both sides of my family so it’s a habit hard to break.
“Committed” sounds as if it would be “past tense”. In addition it might raise the question if the pardon must specify which “offenses” occurred or related to the pardon.
Nope. See my 149.
Specificity not required.
Who the hell knows unitl it is judicially tested. But I think an excellent argument could be made that the pardon, like a legal action is required to invovle and actuall case in controverys.
(yeah, I know about Ford’s pardon of Nixon, but an agrument could be made there that since the Articles of Impeachment were already drawn up, we KNOW what the pardon was for)
Also, in law you can gove someone what is called a “general Release” for any claim you may have agaist them from any time from the beginning of the world until the time of signing the release.
What courts contstrue musch more narrowly, if they allow them at all,are releases for things htat haven’t happened yet. The usually require some threshold degree of certainty about the claim being released (as opposed ot a general relase going into the future)
dead-final expenses
deader-other expenses
1,691 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen BobbyG:
The grammar of the language in the constitution make all statements in the present or past tense…no future tense or conditional or subjunctive. In addition, the logical assumptions of law which carry and give meaning to the 18th century language of the Consitution exclude any prospective action…the enlightenment thinkers who put the Constitution together structured the mechanism of constitutional law to deal with actions in real time, the Constitution was to be self contained and self correcting through politics and was not designed to anticipate ANYthin’.
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T LET THE BASTARDS SET ANY FUCKIN’ PRECEDENTS!!
The precedent, though, implies otherwise. Specificity not required. But, again, the challenge could be re-visited, since Murphy v Ford did not rise to the level of final federal Case Law.
Hey Norske,
Luvya, but just a heads up that even though Terry Southern may have used the phrase doesn’t mean others won’t misunderstand how you intend it to be used.
The Constitution means what the Supremes say it “means.” And the case law record is replete with examples of contradictions and illogic.
Dakine, you do realize that you’re talking to a Professor of Philosophy whose book
according to his Wiki entry, don’t you?
Nope, did not know that but would not have changed any of my replies had I known it before hand.
“If the President does it, it’s legal. He’s the Decider.”
I’m looking forward to New Year’s Eve this year, when all the banks, financial houses, and corpses must balance their books to the satisfaction of now legally sanctioned auditors.
Bada Bing!
I thought the pardon rules required the recipient to accept full responsibility for his crime. Is this another rule the Regime will be changing?