Captain's Quarters -

Seems a bit of a straw man post to me. I haven't seen anyone with any kind of legal background try seriously to argue that Bush's commutation of Libby was, literally, the offense known as obstruction of justice. I think the main point (which you cover near the end) was that it was a bad decision, politically and morally.

I wonder if this is yet another Republican principle thrown overboard by the Bush administration for purposes of expediency. For decades Republicans have been chanting "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" and insisting on mandatory sentencing guidelines on the grounds that judges were too lenient. Now we have a sentence imposed pursuant to those guidelines and Bush commuting the sentence on the grounds that it is too harsh. How's the next "tough on crime" campaign going to look when everyone now knows that principle has a footnote that says "unless you have friends in the White House?"

I'd make a distinction though, that the point you are arguing conflates "justice" with legality. Not that I am opposed to the Libby commutation, but any Presidential act using this power, while absolutely legal, may or may not have ANY relation to the abstract concept of "justice".

Bush certainly has the power to do it, but that power has always been under contention, and this very circimstance was foreseen by the founders -

From the 1974 Judiciary Committee after Watergate:

"In the (Constitutional) convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded:

"If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty... ""

Looks suspicious to me.

A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt.

What's wrong with this picture. It ought to frighten people that the government can successfully prosecute in the course of a non-crime; i.e. make up a crime and then prosecute for not "telling the truth" during the investigation.

Once upon a time we used to decry the political "trial" of despots like the Soviet Union. They would trump up some charge and then hold a "trial" after which the perpetrator would be jailed for life or executed. The "fact" that they found someone guilty of a non-existent crime was anathma to us.

Dick Morris, who is basically 50% brilliant and 50% off his nut, is right about this when he says it will not matter one bit by August.

Funny thing is, watch Hillary. She has condemned the commutation, wah wah wah.... now watch that she will be the first to drop the issue off her radar screen like a bad smell.

Do she and Bill REALLY want a prolonged, in-depth discussion of pardons and (potential)Presidential malfeasance? Do other Democrats who are concluding that Hills is at least the likely nominee want to see that?

Uh huh.

Perfunctory bitching and moaning, followed by quietly tip-toeing away from the issue is what to watch for. The rabid droolers of course, will keep up the drumbeat. Let 'em. Bush couldn't care jack, and yet again, such people will serve not even their own interests with their gnashing.

A few weeks ago, I saw an 18 year old kid kid plead guilty to stealing a bike in a Chicago criminal court. His sentence was three months longer than Scooter Libby's used to be. Ask yourself now, is that more or less severe than several counts of perjury and obstructing a federal investigation into a matter, which whether you thought it was legitimate or not, did deal with issues of national security.

There is no "princpled stand" that provides for less than Libby serving his full sentence unless you are prepared to concede that laws simply should not apply to the rich and powerful in Washington as they do to everyone else.

To be sure, an American President has an absolute power to pardon. But that does not relieve him of the obligation to defend any and every decision to intervene in the criminal justice system. Indeed, this President's rare use of the pardoning power makes it all the more important for him to reveal his reasoning.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision.

And if Libby is vindicated in his still on-going appeal (as he should be), how would they have given him his freedom back, after insisting that he serve the time now? The harm that results from imprisonment where a conviction is overturned on appeal is irreparable.

If anyone wants to complain about the commutation, they should complain to the trial court, the court of appeals, and a criminal justice system that forces defendants into prison, thereby imposing punishment, before their appeals are heard, even if they have been out on bond and of good behavior prior to trial.

Bender,

You have a point there, but the way to rectify this injustice is to change the rules, not exempt the powerful from them.

Dick Morris, who is basically 50% brilliant and 50% off his nut, is right about this when he says it will not matter one bit by August.
Posted by: Andrew X

Wow. Keep repeating that as much as you want (with your hands covering your ears), but it ain't going to work.

Any republican candidate who SUPPORTS the Libby commutation will be painted as: Soft On Crime & Weak On National security. It's already happening. Mitt and Rudy quickly took the bait. Fred's been there. The republicans are toast my friend. Get used to obscurity.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision.

And how would the Washington Time's 15 month "suggestion" be supportable when the reduction to 0 months is unsupportable by them? And the original 2+ year sentence for having memory different than several reporters was too much for them? Far better for the President to strike the whole jail sentence in one somewhat-bold stroke so that Scooter can pursue his defense against these political and (fill in description here) charges a free man.

1. Libby served as much time as Sandy Burglar did.

2. Burglar committed a crime, he stole and destroyed classified government documents.

3. There was NO CRIME that led to the "leak" investigation. The prosecutor knew it before Libby committed his "crime".

4. Let's review Clinton's pardons and commutations. Not only Clinton's brother, but also, Mark Rich, and others who made political donations, 16 FALN terrorists, the group that detonated 120 bombs in the US.

The left is in denial again. Come on Hillary, make this Libby outrage a cornerstone of your campaign.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision.

And how would the Washington Time's 15 month "suggestion" be supportable when the reduction to 0 months is unsupportable by them? And the original 2+ year sentence for having memory different than several reporters was too much for them? Far better for the President to strike the whole jail sentence in one somewhat-bold stroke so that Scooter can pursue his defense against these political and (fill in description here) charges a free man.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision.

And how would the Washington Time's 15 month "suggestion" be supportable when the reduction to 0 months is unsupportable by them? And the original 2+ year sentence for having memory different than several reporters was too much for them? Far better for the President to strike the whole jail sentence in one somewhat-bold stroke so that Scooter can pursue his defense against these political and (fill in description here) charges a free man.

Señor La Mano:

1. Apples to Oranges
2. A republican prosecutor and a republican judge think Libby's crime was worthy of jail time, so does the majority of the country.
3. If you don't know what the crime was by now, you are truly lost in the wilderness. No wonder your party is in deep doo doo.
4. But, but, but, Clinton.

IOKIYAR

Can't wait for the 2008 elections.

"Scooter". Simple, easy to remember, but not necessarily a common name.

Conjures up the Republican, Kennebunkport, Wall Street set.

Any Dem will just mention the single word "Scooter" and the public will remember this Republican double standard.

Max punishment for any crime unless your a rich white guy Republican friend of the President.

Answer truthfully now. Is Bush really a covert agent of the DNC?

" Ah, . . .Bush, the gift that keeps on giving."

I think I'm with those who have concluded that this isn't going to matter in the long run. Bush has the power to commute. He exercised that power consistent with his right to do so. And he's not running again.

I don't think very many people voted for Bush in 2004 because they didn't like the Clinton pardons in 2001. If you favor the Republicans, the commutation is pretty much a non-factor, it you prefer the Democrats, it's just another reason to vote that way. By itself, it changes no one's mind.

And I really don't get the "soft on crime" argument. The average citizen isn't menaced in his community by Scooter Libby wannabes, telling lies down at the local 7-11. I think we all know what crimes make our communities unliveable and Scooter Libby's perjury before the grand jury isn't making me afraid to walk the streets at night.

Morris may well be right. As to mentioning "Scooter", don't forget, the other side can come back with "Marc Rich, et al" and "Sandy Berger". Any candidate with brains will stay away.....what does that say about Hillary? As to the TImes article, I think John Steele hit it just right "It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt." The fine still stands, so does the probation period, despite the pundits who are now dancing on the head of a pin; saying there can be no probation without time being served.

Hey, have faith.

According to Bush's game plan, he'll completely pardon the "Scooter" just before election day.

Bush may be the first President to be impeached by his own party just so they can save their skins in November 2008.

Maybe a kid who stole a bike got a harsher sentence, but there are lots of child molesters who get a slap on the wrist and Walton treated and is treating Libby as if he is a child molester or dangerous rapist. First of all, there should have been no jail time at all and "supervised release" for two more years. What is that? Wearing an ankle bracelet? Obviously Walton thinks Libby needs to be tracked and for what reason? For all intents and purposes, this sentence was 4 1/2 years plus a ridiculously high fine. The lesson, don't question the great Tim Russert or you will go down big time? Come on people, Libby's supposed lie was to recount a conversation with Tim Russert that Russert "claims" he does not remember happening. My money is on Libby's memory over Russert's any day. There was no underlying crime and there is no obstruction. How can you obstruct when all facts were already known?

The Pardon/Clemency power is absolute for the President accept in impeachment. Conyers with his upcoming hearing should read his own words first before he makes a fool of himself for no other reason than providing a dem platform as another campaign tool for Obama.

Conyers then and Conyers now:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency…Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency.”

Conyers, speaking against a resolution condeming Clinton for pardoning terrorists.

Conyers yesterday:

"In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," John Conyers said. "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

God, I love how you guys dwell over every bit of minutiae.

President can commute, judge was too harsh, Clinton did it too, the dog ate my pardon . . . .

I'm sure you all make very worthwhile points. Probably some of them are even true.

Come time for the evening news, none of your precise, detailed arguments will make it past 20 seconds.

However, you can easily say "Republican double standard of justice for Scooter" in less than a second.

Easy to say, sticks in the mind. Fits easily on a campaign sign.

Right or wrong, you guys are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin.

J Q Public knows that Scooter did the crime, but scooted the time.

Easy to understand. Doesn't need any elaborate explanations.

Which thought will be in J Q's head when he casts his vote?

1. Apples to oranges. Yup, Burglar actually committed a crime which led to an investigation.

2. Bush is not running in '08.

3. Which is a better sound bite, "Repubs double standard" or "Dems pardon brothers, donors, and terrorists"?

Let's just see if Hillary runs with this.

Continuum: too funny. Your bumper sticker would leave most people scratching their heads by the time Falls 2008 rolls around. Scooter scoots...does that have something to do with a Segway?

It's probably a sad commentary that neither party can take the high road when it comes to hypocrisy and double standards. But if the Democrats want to pin their hopes on Scooter Libby's commutation as winning the election for them, more power to them. They should definitely run with it.

GOP08_DOA said:

". A republican prosecutor and a republican judge think Libby's crime was worthy of jail time, so does the majority of the country."

No argument that the prosecutor and judge think that way, but can you give us credible polling cites that say a majority of the country also feels that way? I could only find ONE poll that said that, and one poll doesn't make it "true"...

George Bush's Secret Plan for a Democratic Victory in 2008

1. Tell Alberto he's doin a heck of a job.
2. Pardon Cheney.
3. Pardon Libby.
4. Announce that his "Korea" model for Iraq is suceeding since no North Koreans have yet invaded the Green Zone in Baghdad.
5. Bring back Rumsfeld.

If you guys think that the Dem Pols are really mad that Bush commuted Libby's sentence, or that the Rep Pols are really happy, then there are some subpar mortgages I'd like to sell you.

(OK - I made up #5, but you guys get the idea.)

Continuum - my, aren't we a busy little bee today!

Tells ya what.... Internet being what it is, this very thread will be accessable in six weeks. What say we meet back here, say August 15, and let's see how many Americans are seething over Scooter.

Many will be.... the ones who were seething about Bush a week ago, a year ago, etc, and have it down to a way of life by now. The battle lines are drawn, and this commutation will barely register a blip in those lines. Maybe your side is at 55% and will do well (a separate argument subject to change over time, we'll see) the question HERE is whether 'ol Scooter will have any long term effect. I repeat no, and, as others have mentioned, Democrats have about as much leverage on this issue as they do today on "Congressional corruption and pork", given the past six months. That is to say... virtually none. Dems wanna talk about Marc Rich, the FALN, Roger Clinton, Sandy Berger, et al? Especially given Mr/Mrs Clinton's connections to ALL? Be my guest!

Betcha they won't.

See ya in August.

Andrew X -- good challenge.

But, the Dems won't have to worry about keeping the issue alive.

The Scooter is doing it for them.

As his further appeals work their way through the court system, Scooter has set a ticking time bomb for the all Republicans running for office.

If our justice system works as slow as it does for everybody else, his final appeal will be exhausted shortly before November 2008.

Just in time to remind everybody, once again, that this rich, white, country club Republican friend of GWB didn't do a second of jail time.

Funny, if GWB had pardoned Scooter, it would become old history. But, by commuting the sentence, he allows Scooter to keep the issue alive for coming election year.

Are you really sure GWB isn't covert for the DNC?

Continuum said:

"this rich, white, country club Republican friend of GWB didn't do a second of jail time".

LOL! So many cliches, where do I start?

1. Being "rich" is bad on your planet? Last time I checked, 8 of the top 10 richest members of the US Senate were Democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/law_wp/wealthtable2.htm

One of the most beloved Democrat Senators, Teddy Kennedy, who has gotten his election rubber-stamped by the clueless fools in Taxachusetts for almosy a half a century, has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family’s fortune from the IRS. One Kennedy family trust wasn’t even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.

More rich white Democrats at work here:

http://www.strausslaw.com/economic_analysis.htm

"The five wealthiest senators all have voted against repeal of the estate tax. Leading the list is former Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, whose wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is heir to a food company fortune. Their estimated wealth is $1 billion. Kerry is followed by Sen. Jon S. Corzine, D-N.J. ($300 million), Sen. Herbert H. Kohl, D-Wis. ($270 million), Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va. ($200 million), and Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, R-R.I. ($51.6 million).

Eight of the 10 wealthiest senators have voted against repeal. Six of the eight are Democrats. Ironically, the wealthiest and the third wealthiest Republicans in the Senate -- Chafee and John McCain of Arizona -- are the only Republicans opposed to estate tax repeal. (See "60-Vote Majority at Hand for Estate Tax Repeal," Tax Notes, Nov. 29, 2004, p. 1174.)

In the House, the wealthiest member is Rep. Jane Harman, D- Calif. ($117.1 million). And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif., is also very wealthy ($16.3 million)."

2, What does Libby's race have to do with anything? I thought you caring leftists were color blind? Instead, you sound like a racist for bringing up the fact that he's white. If Libby was not white, would you bring up his skin color? Of course not.

3. The attempt at insulting Libby by using the tired old phrase "Country club" is weak. Democrats belong to country clubs, too.

Bill Clinton was the very first member of a country club in Ireland (PGA Ireland), and Nancy Pelosi is co-owner of one in California that costs $250,000 a year to belong to.

And DailyKos favorite Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Democrat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut primary but lost to Lieberman-I in the 2006 election, resigned from an exclusive country club just before he started his campaign, because he was afraid that his membership in a nearly-all-white country club would hurt his campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/0719/nyregion/19lamont.html

Barack Obama is a golfer too, regularly playing at one of several courses in Kailua on the Hawaiian island of Oahu whenever he's there for a vacation (he's a "kid of Hawaii"). He usually plays at either Olomana or Luana Hills.

And let's not forget another type of "club" Democrat-Teddy Kennedy had to resign from the social club he joined at Harvard called the Owl Club. Despite the fact that the Owl Club was kicked off-campus by Harvard 20 or so years ago for not allowing female members, Teddy remained a member until 2006 when he was busted by the "new media".

As a caring Leftist (TM) I would assume that you would agree with me that anyone can form a group and only allow certain people in. Democratic Underground does it all the time! But in the case of Ted Kennedy, he got screwed because his membership in the Owls was exposed almost immediately after he criticized Supreme Court nominee Joseph Alito for doing the same thing while Joe was in college. In Joe's case, it was CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Well said Del...but that's Justice Samuel Alito ;-)

I'd make a distinction though, that the point you are arguing conflates "justice" with legality. Not that I am opposed to the Libby commutation, but any Presidential act using this power, while absolutely legal, may or may not have ANY relation to the abstract concept of "justice".

I'd make a distinction though, that the point you are arguing conflates "justice" with legality. Not that I am opposed to the Libby commutation, but any Presidential act using this power, while absolutely legal, may or may not have ANY relation to the abstract concept of "justice".