AP has reported the following:
“President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.”
Watch the Republican Prez candidates back away even further from the Bush Administration.
PAD
UPDATED 7-3: THIS JUST IN…It has been announced that Scooter Libby will indeed go to jail since, as it turned out, Bush commuted the sentence in error: He thought he was guaranteeing no jail time for Phil Rizzuto.
UPDATED 7-4: Well, I have to admit, I underestimated the GOP candidates. Thus far, to my knowledge, they’ve lined up behind Bush. In fact, amazingly, they’re even managing to blame Bill Clinton. “Hey, Clinton pardoned people who the public thought shouldn’t have been, so why shouldn’t Bush?” The obvious answer is that because Bush set himself up as being morally superior to Clinton.
It seems that the GOP candidates are simply without shame. Or perhaps they want to preserve the option of extending clemency to their own people when they commit crimes.
PAD
• 
Just a few comments/thoughts:
To keep the conversation clear…this was not a pardon.
Good point, sure. This isn’t a full pardon where the conviction is entirely overturned as if it never happened. But the commutation of a sentence is one of the manifestations of presidential authority to issue pardons and reprieves, and does get rightly get wrapped up in such conversations.
As I understand it, the President can pardon anyone involved in a Federal crime (except impeachment–that’s a specific exception in the Constitution). They don’t even have to have been convicted yet. And I don’t know if there’s anything the other branches can do about it, short of impeachment.
Historians may find it interesting that there was discussion during the Constitutional Convention that executive pardons should be approved by the Senate, but that measure was defeated. Also, there was apparently indeed controversy about investing clemency powers with a single individual (the president); one persuasive argument in favor of that came from Alexander Hamilton in the 74th Federalist Paper, asserting that a single arbiter for clemency “would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance” whereas a group “might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency.”
It would take on more learned than I to speak on the history of executive clemency (be it in the United States or prior nations,) but make of those rationales what you will, when applied to modern days.
Aside from disliking [Fred Thompson] as a politician due to his positions and the way he conducts himself, it’s also hard for me to watch Fred Thompson in anything because not only is he a hateful right-wing jërkøff in real life, but he also usually plays one on TV and in movies.
I would hope that it is indeed Thompson’s positions & public persona that make you dislike him as a candidate more than it is your reaction to the characters he’s played. Otherwise, we might as well ask Vince Edwards and Hugh Laurie for medical advice, and put William Shatner and Edward James Olmos in charge of NASA…
…
Congressional investigations are enforced by subpoena. Maybe Bush has already decided he’s going to preemptively pardon the hëll out of his staff for bucking their subpoenas, so why risk pìššìņg øff Libby by delaying his sentence commutation.
“The penalty was excessive”
This from the guy who approved of every death penalty in Texas.
Congressional investigations are enforced by subpoena. Maybe Bush has already decided he’s going to preemptively pardon the hëll out of his staff for bucking their subpoenas, so why risk pìššìņg øff Libby by delaying his sentence commutation.
If Bush does that, it’s a clear case of obstruction of justice that’s impeachable.
Better to reward silence on the way “out the door” then critize the outraged for not embracing a cooperative spirit of bipartisanship with a new presidency.
>They truly believe they are UNTOUCHABLE.
John W. Campbell, the late editor of ANALOG once wrote that it wasn’t ‘power’ that corrupts, but ‘immunity’. The amount of power one has isn’t as important as the feeling that no one can reach out and nail them. And politicians are about as ‘immune’ as it comes. Look at just one example: one of our unlamented Members of Parliament famously stated “but that was ‘just’ an election promise” as an excuse for getting out of it. No, that’s tatamount to a verbal contract and if anyone else had done this, they’d be open to lawsuits at the very least. Anyone, that is, except politicians.
Hmmm. The problem with nailing the President with impeachment is that by the time you go through the process of setting up the hearings, it will be next year. Congress will be too busy campaigning for reelection by then.
Hmmm. The problem with nailing the President with impeachment is that by the time you go through the process of setting up the hearings, it will be next year. Congress will be too busy campaigning for reelection by then.
Unless you manage to make the reelection narrative one that supports those who support impeachment.
My guess is that this won’t happen making impeachment the campaign issue. Not that I agree, but I bet that the democrats will remember the hit that the GOP took in the off-year election following Clinton’s impeachment.
Now, I know that there is a major difference-Clinton was wildly popular and only the clinical insane still believe in Bush, but my guess is that the Democrats in Congress will not want to take the chance.
What you say seems reasonable, but how does invoking an unqualified privilege specifically constitute an impeachable transgression?
Re – the drug dealer having a hard time in jail.
A fictional character, but I wouldn’t lose much sleep over it either way. Given the damage to society dealers, some of their clients, and the failed ‘drug war’ have caused, they lost any hope of sympathy I might have had for them a long time since.
Since Bill Milligan brought it up, I’ve been wondering about something….
Was Clinton ever convicted of lying under oath? I’m not trying to start a fight here, but I honestly don’t recall that he was. (Even though everyone acknowledges that he did.)
It probably doesn’t even make a difference, but I was curious.
If Bush does that, it’s a clear case of obstruction of justice that’s impeachable.
What you say seems reasonable, but how does invoking an unqualified privilege specifically constitute an impeachable transgression?
Article 1, paragraph nine, of the Articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July, 1974:
Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
“This from the guy who approved of every death penalty in Texas.”
Yep, including two of the murderers of James Byrd, Jr. The third received life without parole.
Of course, that didn’t stop the NAACP from calling Bush a racist for not supporting unneeded hate crime legislation.
Posted by Rob Brown
My own expectation was that Libby had already *made* his deal – with Bush – and that he’d get pardoned about two minutes before the Democratic President was inaugurated. I still figure that was likely the deal – till the Court messed it up by refusing to let poor ol’ Scooter go free “pending the result of appeals” until then.
Posted by Steve Campbell
I believe that he admitted it (without specifically pleading guilty in court) and that was the basis of his contempt of court citation.
Funniest thing I’ve heard today:
“Bush can’t complete a full sentence, so why should ‘Scooter’ Libby?”
Funniest thing I’ve heard today:
“Bush can’t complete a full sentence, so why should ‘Scooter’ Libby?”
If this didn’t stop Bush from springing Libby, why would this stop him from springing his next staffer? His whole administration?
Time is NOT of the essence here. It makes no difference how long the proceedings take, and how long until he leaves office. For the sake of the REPUBLIC, this criminal must be impeached.
Hardcore law-and-order types are always screaming about the MESSAGE that is sent. Well, impeaching Bush would send the message that you can’t spend two terms committing crimes and leave office unscathed. How can we halt future presidents from repeating his behavior, if they can say that it’s okay because Bush never got impeached for it.
Article 1, paragraph nine, of the Articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July, 1974:
Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
If this didn’t stop Bush from springing Libby, why would this stop him from springing his next staffer? His whole administration?
I believe the Special Prosecuter has said that no further investigation is being done and no further indictments are being considered. Under that situation it would seem that a president is safe in going ahead with a pardon without a likely conflict of interest.
It doesn’t make it the right thing to do but it probably eliminates the risk of triggering Article 1, paragraph nine.
I would hope that it is indeed Thompson’s positions & public persona that make you dislike him as a candidate more than it is your reaction to the characters he’s played. Otherwise, we might as well ask Vince Edwards and Hugh Laurie for medical advice, and put William Shatner and Edward James Olmos in charge of NASA…
Oh god yes.
For one thing, though I can’t find it right now, I recall him being quoted as saying before the invasion of Iraq something to the effect of “it’s about time we had a kick-ášš President like this.”
Then there’s his positions on gay rights. He doesn’t think they should be protected by hate crime laws, if you go by his Senate vote. He thinks it should be acceptable to fire somebody based on their sexual orientation, again going by his vote. He was also for the D.O.M.A.
He doesn’t believe in global warming caused by human activity, but that might just be stupidity.
He wanted to drill in ANWR.
You see, I’ve been trying to find the quotes from the guy I’ve heard that convinced me in the first place what an ášš he was, but I’m not having much luck. The only one I’ve been able to find thus far is this response to Michael Moore after Moore challenged Thompson to a public debate on health care:
“You know, I’ve been looking at my schedule, Michael, and I don’t think I have time for you. But I may be the least of your problems. You know, the next time you’re down in Cuba visiting your buddy Castro, you might ask him about another documentary filmmaker. His name is Nicolas Guillen. He did something Castro didn’t like and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatment. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about.”
Just trust me on this. He’s a prìçk.
(Oh yes, I almost forgot. I’ve mentioned before how I totally lost respect for everybody who took an active role in the Republic National Convention in 2004 and helped Bush get re-elected, except for John McCain whom I lost all respect for a couple years later. Thompson was the guy who narrated a short propaganda film preceding Bush’s appearance onstage, making him out to be a great leader.)
Posted by: The StarWolf at July 3, 2007 04:41 PM
Re – the drug dealer having a hard time in jail.
A fictional character, but I wouldn’t lose much sleep over it either way. Given the damage to society dealers, some of their clients, and the failed ‘drug war’ have caused, they lost any hope of sympathy I might have had for them a long time since.
I could perhaps agree with you, were it ever established what exactly he’d been guilty of dealing. Pot? Ecstasy? Coke? Acid? Crack? Heroin? It makes all the difference, friend. Some are much more addictive and harmful than others, yet you can go to prison for any of them.
The story also didn’t specify how long he’d been at it. Plus, something tells me that drug dealers don’t say to themselves “This year my goal is going to be to cause the deaths of as many people as I can,” because it’s bad business to, you know, kill your customers.
Was Clinton ever convicted of lying under oath? I’m not trying to start a fight here, but I honestly don’t recall that he was. (Even though everyone acknowledges that he did.)
************
SER: Clinton was never convicted of a crime. He was impeached, which was the first step toward removing him from office but it didn’t get past the Senate. However, impeachment has no legal bearing other than allowing the president to be put on trial for a crime.
Oh dear God, I can’t believe Clinton was impeached and Bush hasn’t been. I mean, why isn’t a special prosecutor digging into Bush’s actions?
The sad truth is that in a horrible way this might not be about Republicans or Democrats but that Clinton’s shenanigans made good tabloid fodder whereas people don’t seem that interested in how Bush is destroying this country.
I will give Bush this: It’s pretty impressive to ruin *two* countries during your time in office.
“Hardcore law-and-order types are always screaming about the MESSAGE that is sent. Well, impeaching Bush would send the message that you can’t spend two terms committing crimes and leave office unscathed. How can we halt future presidents from repeating his behavior, if they can say that it’s okay because Bush never got impeached for it.”
Actually, at this point impeaching Bush would send the wrong message and be worse for the Democrats than for the Republicans.
Think about it this way. Those 20 something percent that still support the President in the polls? They’re not abandoning him no matter what, so there’s no way things could get worse for the Republicans. However, an impeachment would allow Bush to play the victim. Republicans could go crazy telling everyone that the Dems are wasting everyone’s time when we’re at war.
Would it be honest? Not remotely. But it would work. They’d get some sympathy for the Republicans, and it would help them in the next election.
There won’t be an impeachment because the Democrats want to do anything to make things harder on themselves. The phrase “President Hillary” is still something that a lot of people never want to hear. The Democrats aren’t even close to having a lock on the White House in the next election.
…
When people refer to challenges for the democrats in taking the white house in 2008, I don’t know what they’re referring to.
Of what’s conventionally understood as the first tier of democratic candidates, analysis has portrayed Clinton as leading in preparation, Edwards as leading in being associated with an agenda, and Obama as leading in being seen as an agent of change: they are all already in a stronger position to take the white house than John Kerry was, and, after the person he lost to, John Kerry received the largest number of votes ever in a presidential election.
Now, in the new Michael Moore movie, he spends about 5 minutes on Hillary Clinton and her attempt to reform healthcare at the beginning of her husband’s administration, with the pay-off being that she’s now the second highest recipient of healthcare lobbying dollars. Right now, I don’t think Clinton has much shelter from being portrayed as an opportunistic carpetbagger, but I think if she has the sense to focus on some kind of agenda to reform the system that allows insurance companies and HMOs to increase their profits by denying care to their subscribers, she’ll combine her “Lisa Simpson” quality with an agenda most people seem to be in agreement on and the public already significantly associates her with. If she does that, I think the white house is hers to take in 2008.
I’ve been sayiong for some time that Hillary has a virtual lock on the nomination and will be tough to beat in 2008. Most of my Democratic friends thought I was either joking or deliberately trying to get them to nominate her so the Republicans could beat her in a landslide (Yeah, as though I have that power!). People are starting to come around.
Yeah, Obama raised more money. He won’t know what hit him when the gloves come off and besides, if Hillary needs money she can raise it. And her husband can raise more. This is going to be a money filled election the likes of which have never been imagined and I don’t think she’s the type to, as Kerry inexplicably did, not see to it that every cent is spent where it will do the most good.
Scooter was convicted of lying before a grand jury? Kermit the Frog must be very disappointed in his former assistant.
Also, do you lily-livered liberals have any idea what they’d do in prison to a guy named “Scooter?” Bush was probably trying to save the guy’s life!!!
😉
“They truly believe they are UNTOUCHABLE.”
And they are until we find someone with enough stomach to actually touch them. Why shouldn’t they believe that they will get away with it? They’ve gotten away with everything else with little more than a whimper from the People and a lot of empty hand wringing from our representatives.
Let’s try and pass a few more nonbinding resolutions. Or point our finger,waggle it meaningfully and tsk. That’ll show them.
Business as usual.
Well, of preparation, agenda, and innovation, I still consider agenda to be first, and see preparation as the weakest position to occupy from an overall perspective. She may still be carpetbagger enough to abide by the healthcare industry status quo.
I happen to enjoy very good health, and only participate in the company HMO to avoid getting charged the highest hospital rates should I get in an accident — I’ve been insulated from how severe the dissatisfaction with the current health landscape is. If you want people to see how strong Hillary’s position is, try portraying it from the possibility of reforming the healthcare landscape no one seems happy with.
I believe Hillary can raise money. I believe she can put out a good message.
I don’t believe this country is ready to elect a woman. It’s closer than it used to be, but I just don’t think we’re there yet. I think the people who voted for Bush twice will show up at the polls in droves to keep that from happening.
And now Bush is saying that a perdon isn’t out of the question.
As i said – the commutationwas just to make sure that Libby didn’t go to prison before it was safer to actually pardon him.
And keeping him out of prison was CYA on the part of the Head of the Current Administration (and of his assistant, George Bush, too).
Accepting “[we’re not] ready to elect a woman” as reason seems to be part of the fear you cite obstructing Hillary from winning national support to lead the US. It doesn’t seem to have any inherent meaning, and instead seems to make your point in a circular manner. Most US college graduates are now women and, in spite of disadvantages in securing equal pay for equal work, women are the primary bread-winner in a third of US households. If the US can’t find a woman capable of leading it now, then when?
I think the 2008 democratic candidate can at least look forward to the huge turnout Kerry enjoyed without any kind of message, and that, to win, a good message only needs to dampen the turnout generated by fear — which is what put Bush over the top in 2004 — by what’s considered the margin of error of most polls.
I think that Edwards has the strongest message, and that Hillary can make a better one out of healthcare.
A statement by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald:
>Plus, something tells me that drug dealers don’t say to themselves “This year my goal is going to be to cause the deaths of as many people as I can,” because it’s bad business to, you know, kill your customers.
You’re assuming they care. Have the tobacco manufacturers cared a whit about how many of their cuustomers died from their product? They know full well there’s plenty more where they came from.
I think that Edwards has the strongest message, and that Hillary can make a better one out of healthcare.
Re edwards: the strength of his message is negated by the weakness of the messenger. I would suggest that a party should never nominate someone who is unpopular in their own state.
Re: Dems White House chances in 2008
It’s true that Kerry got a lot of votes in 2004, but it’s not a matter of how many votes one gets as much as a matter of where they come from. I still believe the Electorial College gives the Republicans an advantage. Hëll, they didn’t even need a majority to win in 2000.
Anyway, thinking that the Dems have a lock on the Presidency in 2008 can only lead to trouble. “Pride goeth before a fall” and all that.
While I don’t believe reason can be all things to anyone, negating the message because you simply don’t like the messenger is an indulgence of privilege, and is never reasonable. As Edwards is not running on a message to preserve privilege, he will sink or swim the election season entirely on the integrity and adoption of his message — which seems to be how leadership is always chosen in this country.
As for state unpopularity, losing his state’s senate run didn’t stop Lincoln from becoming president — and abolishing slavery was not even part of his campaign.
I think you’re too easily overlooking how severely craptacular a job Kerry did in 2004. Kerry seemed to have been chosen by his party as an alternative hero-candidate to the flight-suited George Bush — Reporting for Duty™ and all that bee-ess — and, when the swift-boaters stepped in, instead continuing his challenge to Bush’s still-weaker hold on that position, he began managing his campaign as if his vanity was his first concern. I can’t think of a worse possible approach to running a campaign, and still Kerry lost by only a few percentage points.
My reply overlooked your point about the electoral system, but electorally, the last 2 presidential elections were decided by less than 100,000 in Ohio in the last one, and less than 1,000 in Florida in the one before. The relationship between the winning the raw majority and winning the most electoral votes still seems to be very strong.
And, just for kicks, here’s how Bush has acted in previous clemency/pardon cases.
Re edwards: the strength of his message is negated by the weakness of the messenger. I would suggest that a party should never nominate someone who is unpopular in their own state.
While I don’t believe reason can be all things to anyone, negating the message because you simply don’t like the messenger is an indulgence of privilege, and is never reasonable. As Edwards is not running on a message to preserve privilege, he will sink or swim the election season entirely on the integrity and adoption of his message — which seems to be how leadership is always chosen in this country.
I think you’re too easily overlooking how severely craptacular a job Kerry did in 2004.
Edward’s mediocre performance as the VP candidate in Kerry’s crapracular run (losing a debate to Ðìçk “Mr Charisma” Cheney is no easy task) and his solidly unspectacular performance thus far in the 2008 campaign leads me to conclude that, message aside, he is not doing a great job of presenting it. You can say that the messenger does not matter but I would suggest that this has never been the case.
As I don’t support Edward’s on most things I would be delighted to belive that his upcoming rejection is indicative of the public being equally dismissive of his policies but the truth is they just don’t like him much.
A question–has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?
“Most US college graduates are now women and, in spite of disadvantages in securing equal pay for equal work, women are the primary bread-winner in a third of US households. If the US can’t find a woman capable of leading it now, then when?”
Mike, logic and facts aren’t enough. FOX news is a successful network because people care more about what they want to believe than what the facts actually support. Bush won the 2004 election because people *wanted* to believe in him, not because he’d done things right.
This country is still sexist and racist. It’s not as bad as it used to be, and I truly hope and believe it will be better in the future. However, if the Democrats nominate someone who isn’t a white male, then our next President will be a Republican. I hate that as much as anyone, but I don’t think we should pretend we live in a rational country.
“I can’t think of a worse possible approach to running a campaign, and still Kerry lost by only a few percentage points.”
Kerry lost the day that he stated that, if he’d known then what he knew now, he’d still have made the same vote on the war powers resolution. He basically invited Americans to discern no difference between him and Bush on the issue that was of greatest importance. Seeing no difference, they’d just as soon keep Bush in office.
PAD
“I might add that the 30 months assigned to Libby was the minimum under the sentencing guidelines.”
So, once again Bush decided to not only play judiciary, but also legislature as well, in saying that the sentence was too harsh for Libby.
And he’ll get away with it.
Here’s something for everybody. Or at least anybody that truly gives a dámņ about our country. It’s Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment from last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Well, I have to admit, I underestimated the GOP candidates. Thus far, to my knowledge, they’ve lined up behind Bush. In fact, amazingly, they’re even managing to blame Bill Clinton. “Hey, Clinton pardoned people who the public thought shouldn’t have been, so why shouldn’t Bush?” The obvious answer is that because Bush set himself up as being morally superior to Clinton.
Then followed up by pointing out that they then tacitly agree that the Bush Administration is *at least* as corrupt as the Clinton Administration … and may very well be more corrupt as well.
The whole “Look how many people Clinton pardoned” argument stimulates me to point out that a website i saw yesterday (wish i could recall where) listed pardons and commutations for the last several Presidents – may have gone as far back as FDR, i forget. (Here it is! And it lists all Presidents through Clinton.)
Interestingly enough, if you add pardons and commutations together, it turns out that Clinton issued 456 in his two terms.
Reagan issued 406 (he probably forgot a few he meant to issue toward the end there).
In *one* term, Jimmy Carter issued 566. Gerald Ford issued 409 in *less* than one full term, including the most controversial of all.
Nixon issued 926. Eisenhower issued 1157, Truman 2044, and FDR 3687.
Nineteen Presidents issued more pardons/commutations than Clinton.
I never said the messenger doesn’t matter, I said disqualifying the message based on your dislike of the messenger is an indulgence of privilege and is never reasonable. And what’s wrong with a platform addressing the widening gap between rich and poor? Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn’t remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I’m asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?
And where do you get this “losing a debate to Ðìçk Cheney?” I remember Edwards gave Cheney deserved credit for embracing his daughter’s lesbianism, and Cheney taking Edwards’s compliment genuinely and thanking him. Then I remember Gwen Ifill of the PBS Newshour flabbergasting Cheney simply by informing him of the gap in HIV infection rates between white and black women. Maybe you’re giving Cheney credit for some post-debate segment I didn’t stick around to see of him and Margret Warner over tea talking about the latest Amy Tan book.
I can’t think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln’s constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.
Your reply didn’t answer my question. If not now, when?
Before the civil rights act of 1964, before Brown vs the Topeka board of education, there was… Jackie Robinson, who pìššëd øff the kind of white men you cite will give the next election to the republican candidate if she’s black or a woman.
Here’s how all courage works: first you do the scary thing, then you get the courage you wanted in the first place to do it. If you wait for people to be brave, it’ll never get done.
“Put in office someone we like — or we’ll put in someone we like for you.” Give in, register as and vote republican yourself — what’s the difference?
…if the democratic candidate is black or a woman.
I said earlier that I wasn’t able to find too many Fred Thompson quotes that illustrated how he was a prìçk. Well, this might not qualify as showing him to be a prìçk, but it certainly shows you how slimy he is. Thompson released this statement on Tuesday:
“I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.”
I really do feel that while he may not necessarily be the most despicable of the GOP candidates, he is the worst of the ones whom I’d be able to pick out of a lineup.
“Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”–Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. . . . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”–Sen. Hillary Clinton, press release, July 2
In the first quote, Hillary is saying the law is wrong. In the second, she is saying Bush is treating the law as if it doesn’t apply to him. Your quotes do not demonstrate an inconsistency.