"Scooter" Libby skates

[marcus]

You need a reality check, and a lesson on the rule of law...crime is crime. There's a penalty....regardless.

Your selective morality is nauseating in the very real sense of the word. The extent of the crime matters not...the law is the LAW. At least here in the US....This isn't Russia is it?

Don't like it?

Go live in Canada or Mexico, or anywhere in Europe...they could care less about laws or morality....and far less about what is right or wrong in the world.

Wake up dude.

In this country, I was under the impression that we only punished people who have been convicted of crimes. Like it or not, your assertion that Clinton commited crimes does not clear this bar. Please name one crime Bill Clinton was convicted of.

Scooter, on the other hand, has been convicted of a very serious crime. I don't see the equivalence between the two at all.

[marcus]

Give a hand to Carter for the whole Islamic mess starting on his watch (Iranian hostage crisis anyone?)

This crisis may have happened under Carter, but it was clearly a response to long simmering anger over the CIA removing the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953, under Eisenhower.

[fett]

Well, I am more than glad that we don't do "Political" or "Controversial" Threads anymore. All this time, I was afraid of starting something after I had a "Stickey" named after me. Actually, I'm glad to see this. Just be nice to each other.

[Bert]

apropos:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FU7dY1CXRPk

[marcus]

It was intended, at least in part, for situations precisely like the Libby case where politics enters into the process and seeks, essentially, to punish someone for their political affiliation.

I don't know how you can say this. This investigation was started under John Ashcroft at the Dept. of Justice when he was attorney general. Fitzgerald took over only after Ashcroft recused himself for conflicts of interest. Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush in 2001. And by now we all know that the federal attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president", and that this particular president (or at least his administration ) has no problem with firing these guys.

If this was really a partisan witch hunt, then why did none of these Republicans stop the investigation? Ashcroft was clearly in a position to do this. Or to keep investigating and find nothing. Or perhaps you think of Ashcroft and Fitzgerald as democratic toadies? Perhaps Bush too, he seems to think that Scooter is guilty of something, check out his press conference on the subject.

[YetAnotherOne]

Man, you guys will defend anything, do a 180 degree turn so fast, knee jerking so hard that it jams into your faces.

Before we become too breathless about the propriety of the pardon power it's worth reviewing a Constitutional law scholar's thoughts:

QUESTION A PRESIDENT'S PARDONS, BUT NOT THE PARDON POWER

William G. Ross
Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
JURIST Contributing Editor
[i]The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
– Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Expressing frustration over the limitations of presidential power, Lyndon Johnson reportedly once said “the only real power I have is nuclear and I can’t use that.” Johnson’s lament overlooked his pardon power. Commencement of military action and the granting of pardons are virtually the only powers that the President can exercise without any countervailing congressional or judicial checks. As the Supreme Court explained in an 1866 decision, the President’s pardon power “is not subject to any legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.” Although pardons are less destructive than war, a furor over their plenary character flares up whenever the President makes unpopular pardons.

President Clinton’s controversial last-minute pardons have renewed the controversy about the role of pardons, an issue that last attracted widespread attention when President George Bush outraged many Americans by pardoning leading figures in the Iran-Contra scandal during his final month in office. Controversies over high-profile pardons are inevitable since the very nature of a presidential pardon permits the President to exercise a high degree of discretion about a subject about which reasonable persons might differ.

But while the pardon power is perennially controversial, it is quite durable. Elimination of the pardon power clearly would require a constitutional amendment. Although legislation or judicial action theoretically might remove the President’s power to pardon persons who have not been convicted of a crime, the established line of judicial authority in support of this power indicates that its elimination likewise would require an amendment.

Tampering with the pardon power would be unwise because pardons serve several useful purposes.

First, pardons help to ameliorate the harshness of the justice system by recognizing mitigating factors of which judges may not take cognizance. In the words of Alexander Hamilton in Number 74 of The Federalist, they prevent justice from wearing “a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in an 1833 Supreme Court decision, a presidential pardon “is an act of grace.” While this discretion may seem like an anachronistic vestige of monarchical arbitrariness, the pardon power permits the President to temper justice with mercy, a quality that should not be wholly absent even in a system that is governed by laws rather than men.

The pardon power likewise acts as a constitutional safety valve to prevent miscarriages of justice that might occur in the judicial system, notwithstanding procedural safeguards. Although some critics of the pardon power have argued that it unduly interferes with a criminal justice system that theoretically accords due process to all citizens and that judges are more qualified than is the President to assess criminal penalties, the addition of an extra layer of review of such penalties helps to enhance the due process rights of all citizens.

Moreover, pardons can help to promote national reconciliation in the wake of wrenching political division. As Hamilton suggested, they may “restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.” The chief examples of such use of pardons are George Washington’s pardon of participants in the Whiskey Rebellion; Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson’s pardon of numerous former Confederates; Warren G. Harding’s pardon of Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned for criticizing U.S. participation in the First World War; Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for any crimes committed in connection with the Watergate scandals; and Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War-era draft resisters. Even if some or all of these pardons unjustly relieved criminals of just punishment, the pardons arguably produced a greater good by helping to heal the nation.

Contrary to the contention of some critics of the pardon power that its plenary nature frustrates the Constitution’s system of checks and balances of powers among the President, Congress, and courts, the pardon power actually complements the principle of division of power by providing a check on exercises of the judicial power that are unjust and unwise, and by balancing justice with the national interest.

Although periodic controversies over particular exercises of the pardon power have produced calls for its curtailment or elimination, Congress would be unwise to permit any transient discontent with an isolated abuse of the pardon power to result in any tampering with the power itself.

In the wake of the firestorm over President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974, Congress prudently ignored proposals to curtail the pardon power, permitting time to cool passions. In particular, Congress failed to act on Senator Walter Mondale’s proposed constitutional amendment to permit Congress to nullify a pardon by a two-thirds vote within 120 days after its issuance and Senator William Proxmire’s proposal for an amendment to limit pardons to persons already convicted of crimes. Although the Nixon pardon remains controversial, the present verdict of history is generally much kinder to Ford than was public opinion a quarter of a century ago. Even if Ford used the pardon power unwisely, his misuse of it would not have justified the curtailment of a power that generally had been used with prudence for nearly two centuries.

Although the widespread public outrage over some of Clinton’s pardons has not produced any movement to amend the Constitution, both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committee have scheduled hearings on Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich.

Since Congress has no power to revoke Clinton’s pardons or to discipline Clinton for them, a congressional investigation of Clinton’s use of the pardon power is not likely to have any immediate practical impact. Moreover, since the decision about whether to grant a pardon is inherently subjective and plausible arguments are being advanced in favor of even Clinton’s most controversial pardons, Congress cannot prove that any pardon was necessarily “improper,” except in the unlikely event that an investigation produced evidence of actual corruption.

An investigation nevertheless could have a number of salutary effects. It could provide more a more accurate understanding of the pardons. It might also give support to the widespread contention that the arguments against at least some of the pardons outweighed those in their favor and that the dangers created by possible appearances of presidential impropriety exceeded any justifications for one or more of the pardons. An investigation that produced either conclusion would warn future Presidents that any imprudent use or abuse of the pardon power could result in congressional scrutiny that would embarrass the President during or after his term and diminish his stature in the eyes of both his contemporaries and history. Similarly, congressional disapproval of any unpopular pardon would help to assure the American people that the President cannot escape official opprobrium for unwise pardons, even though Congress can neither undo the pardon nor sanction the President.

[YetAnotherOne]

continued:

If, however, the investigations bolstered the arguments in favor of the pardons, the investigations would likewise perform a public service by helping to restore public respect for the pardon process and the presidency.

More broadly, a congressional investigation also could assess the proper procedures and criteria for pardons, offering guidance for President Bush and future Chief Executives. Some critics of the pardon power have expressed concern that the decreased use of pardons for low-profile criminals since the Reagan Administration has resulted in an excessive atrophy of the pardon power as a means of mitigating harshness in the justice system. Indeed, the firestorm over Clinton’s pardons is ironic because Clinton used his power more sparingly than did most of his predecessors -- his issuance of 395 pardons in eight years compares with an average of more than one hundred pardons per year during most presidencies before Reagan’s. After its investigation, Congress could consider whether to advise President Bush to return to return to the pre-Reagan practice of issuing substantial numbers of pardons for ordinary crimes, or to continue to maintain tight limits on the exercise of the pardon power.

A congressional investigation likewise could help to improve the process by which pardons are granted by studying this procedure and making recommendations for improvements. Margaret Colgate Love, who served as Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1997, has urged that the Attorney General become more personally involved in the pardon process. She contends that the Attorney General’s increased delegation of clemency-related responsibilities during the past twenty years has deprived the President of the advice of a major Cabinet official in pardon decisions and has left the President bereft of someone with whom to share political responsibility for unpopular pardons. Likewise, critics of recent pardon procedures have suggested that the Clinton Administration’s alleged tendency to bypass the Justice Department in the pardons process has raised questions about the availability of pardons for “ordinary” criminals and may have disturbed the proper balance between the political and quasi-judicial uses of the pardon power.

Although some opponents of a congressional investigation argue that Clinton would demean the Presidency by submitting to questioning about his exercise of a plenary power, there is a significant precedent for such testimony – President Ford’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on criminal justice during the autumn of 1974 to testify about his pardon of Nixon. Far from debasing the presidency or eroding the principle of separation of powers, Ford’s willingness to answer congressional questions provided a graphic contrast with Nixon’s refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations of Watergate and helped to restore respect for the presidency by giving substance to Ford’s repeated assurances that he understood that the President was not above the law. The dramatic exchange between Ford and Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, the only subcommittee member who had the guts to ask Ford tough questions and to point out that many Americans suspected that Ford had made a deal with Nixon, breathed life into cliches about “democracy in action.”

An appearance of a President or former President before a congressional committee to explain a pardon also provides a rare opportunity for direct dialogue between the President and Congress on a question of constitutional significance and therefore helps to inform thinking about the appropriate criteria for pardons and their role in American law. A courtyard at the law school where I teach has a large and striking statue of an winged angel whispering into the ear of a blindfolded woman who holds the scales of justice. “Seek wisdom to temper justice with compassion,” the statue’s motto, was composed by the late Lucille Stewart Beeson, an attorney and philanthropist, as a guiding principle for lawyers and judges. Under the Constitution’s pardon clause, the President likewise may temper justice with compassion. We should hope that President Bush and future Presidents will exercise this power with the wisdom that earlier presidents generally have displayed in granting pardons. Although Congress should not try to limit the pardon power, Congress never should hesitate to question its use when significant numbers of Americans believe that a President has exercised it without wisdom.

I certainly don't agree with each and every historic use of the pardon power but neither am I foolish enough to believe that we must necessarily weaken the inherent checks and balances within our system of government merely because we occasionally disagree with the things government does. "Short-sighted" would be far too kind a description for that sort of thing.

And you do, of course, realize that Bush partially commuted Libby's sentence so that Libby could preserve his ability to have his conviction overturned on appeal, right? The case is still alive and on appeal, a complete pardon today would prevent Libby ever being exonerated while a partial commutation of his sentence merely ensures that he won't be hauled off to prison while his appeal is pending (or later). It's entirely likely that Bush would have allowed the entire appellate process to play out had a federal judge not ordered that Libby be imprisoned immediately, prior to his exhausting his appeals. In that light and considering the politically motivated nature of the Valerie Plame affair and the lack of any finding of actual wrongdoing by anyone in the administration in the alleged leaking of her identity the use of the pardon here should appear as proper as it ever is to all but the most politically biased observers.

[YetAnotherOne]

If this was really a partisan witch hunt, then why did none of these Republicans stop the investigation? Ashcroft was clearly in a position to do this. Or to keep investigating and find nothing. Or perhaps you think of Ashcroft and Fitzgerald as democratic toadies? Perhaps Bush too, he seems to think that Scooter is guilty of something, check out his press conference on the subject.

Simple answer: politics. The left demanded a witch hunt and the right complied on the belief that no impropriety would be found. None was found but the cries for someone's head continued until Libby's future was nailed to the procedural cross. While it's true in a literal sense that the administration could have scuttled the investigation, in a practical sense they could not due to the fickle nature of public opinion on which the careers of all politicians rest. An administration with more public confidence at the time the matter rose could have easily buried it and far more serious matters have been buried in the past by both sides. This administration however was simply not in a position to do it this time.

[Twisteramps]

Name one thing you requre that is only made in China.

My Randall amps are made in China.

Aren't most logic boards made in China also? Celestion speakers? The list goes on...

Pete

[danastas]

Simple answer: politics. The left demanded a witch hunt and the right complied on the belief that no impropriety would be found. None was found but the cries for someone's head continued until Libby's future was nailed to the procedural cross. While it's true in a literal sense that the administration could have scuttled the investigation, in a practical sense they could not due to the fickle nature of public opinion on which the careers of all politicians rest. An administration with more public confidence at the time the matter rose could have easily buried it and far more serious matters have been buried in the past by both sides. This administration however was simply not in a position to do it this time.

You can basically say this about any criminal trial and prosecution. One glance at the courts will tell you that a con gets a free pass if the fickle prosecutor got laid that morning. And if the Duke Lacrosse players were white trash, that scumbag prosecutor could have railroaded them.

Ultimately, that's what a judge and jury is for. The judiciary is the third branch of government, so if the congress and the pres. are playing politics, the udiciary sets things straight. If you don't believe that (and I don't blame you if you don't, given the recent evidence) then we don't have a democracy anymore, or at least the one based on the US Constitution.

[danastas]

Before we become too breathless about the propriety of the pardon power it's worth reviewing a Constitutional law scholar's thoughts:

Two things: one, he says "except in cases of impeachment." Does that mean before or after a case of impeachment? After all, James Madison and George Mason agreed that if a president pardons someone who has been convicted of a crime in the executive branch, then that president is subject to impeachment for that act.

If the court in 1866 completely ignored George Mason and Madison when they were actually designing the pardon power, then what can you say?

I can't believe this constitutional scholar from Samford(?) would ignore the probability of a quid pro quo when the executive branch is being executive. "Just lie and obstruct, and if they get ya for it, I'll pardon you."

[danastas]

Getting a little excited eh? I think you missed your intended target Danastas, I haven't stated an opinion on Scooter.

Well, your post was about the Libby thing being a political witchunt, and also about the pardon power being a way to balance power between the branches of gov't. So, it seems my post directly addressed that. Maybe it didn't, but I have no idea how. I was taught in civics class that the buck stops with the Supreme court, ultimately, and that in the end, it all rests on our judiciary system. We found this out for real in 2000.

[danastas]

continued:




I certainly don't agree with each and every historic use of the pardon power but neither am I foolish enough to believe that we must necessarily weaken the inherent checks and balances within our system of government merely because we occasionally disagree with the things government does. "Short-sighted" would be far too kind a description for that sort of thing.

And you do, of course, realize that Bush partially commuted Libby's sentence so that Libby could preserve his ability to have his conviction overturned on appeal, right? The case is still alive and on appeal, a complete pardon today would prevent Libby ever being exonerated while a partial commutation of his sentence merely ensures that he won't be hauled off to prison while his appeal is pending (or later). It's entirely likely that Bush would have allowed the entire appellate process to play out had a federal judge not ordered that Libby be imprisoned immediately, prior to his exhausting his appeals. In that light and considering the politically motivated nature of the Valerie Plame affair and the lack of any finding of actual wrongdoing by anyone in the administration in the alleged leaking of her identity the use of the pardon here should appear as proper as it ever is to all but the most politically biased observers.

I don't look at it that way. If Libby truly ever feared going to prison, then he may have sung like a bird. Someone leaked the CIA secret info. It's been proven in court that the reporters--specifically Russert--did not get wind of it first. Libby, by lying and obstructing, seems to have been covering something up. If he had been telling the truth, there would have been no inconsistency in his story.

That's the problem right there. If we truly believe in our judicial process, then stuff like this completely subverts it. Someone did something wrong. That we know, even if we don't know the criminal himself. After all, secret info was revealed.

As far as the nature of the actual commutation, Bush made sure to highlight that he agrees with the Judge's ruling but not the punishment, and that Libby would be punished enough by probation (ha, ha).

(By the way, I didn't know your post had continued so I only responded to the top part that I read).

[danastas]

By the way, you wrote that Bush didn't pardon Libby, he commuted the sentence which allows Libby to appeal.

I posted a court document by the judge today who seeks clarification into Bush's commutation, because the actual commuting doesn't accord with federal law on commuted sentences. Bush specifically said that Libby is still subject to supervised release. Under federal law, supervised release allows the judge to send you to prison for smaller units of time. The White House has to clarify what they meant. Do they want to subject Libby to prison under supervised release? Do they want to pardon him altogether.

If Bush sticks to the original claim that Libby deserves a form of punishment, but that this one was too excessive, he could be subjecting Libby to jail time. Bush may be forced to pardon Libby altogether right away, depending on how much the judge wants to push it. Also--some commentators seem to think that after a full pardon Libby would be compelled somehow to testify again. I've just heard this last part mentioned and I'm not sure what it means.

[xenophobe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19583008/

Un-freakin-real. If this doesn't prove that he was really acting under Cheney's orders, nothing else will.

Do you remember what I told you in a PM a year and a half ago?

No?

That's exactly what he's guilty of. Not remembering.